If They Are Bigger Than an A Cup….

|

21st century beach fashion?

Ah, the conundrums that modern times bring us and our hapless elected officials. The Associated Press is reporting:

Rehoboth Beach in Delaware isn't a topless beach — but a few transgender men caused a stir by treating it like one. Police say passers-by complained after the men removed their tops and revealed their surgically enhanced breasts over Memorial Day weekend. A lifeguard asked them to put their tops back on. The men initially refused, but covered up before police arrived.

Even if they hadn't, though, Police Chief Keith Banks notes the men were doing nothing illegal. Since they have male genitalia, they can't be charged with indecent exposure for showing their breasts. Banks says there's no need for a specific law to address the issue.

Rehoboth Beach commissioner Kathy McGuiness isn't so sure. She says the matter will be discussed at a town hall meeting next week.

One way to solve this issue would be for Rehobeth Beach commissioners to vote for the freedom to bare all, regardless of natural or enhanced upper torso status. However, I fear that the stumped politicos—just to be "fair" to everyone—are more likely to adopt the Victorian option and require that all bathers wear t-shirts at the beach.

NEXT: "Fannie and Freddie need to be rethought entirely, if not eliminated outright."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bob. Bob had bitch tits. Fortunately he kept them covered even though the third rule of Fight Club is “no shirt, no shoes.” Or was it the fourth rule?

    1. That was the first thing I thought of when I read this story. If they ban transgender(ing) men from taking off their shirts, what about the regular fat guys who have a good set of man-boobs? Whenever I go to the beach I see plenty of them.

  2. Breasts aren’t even sexual. The fact that they’re still seen as such is just a Victorian carry-over.

    And if you want to argue that they’re an erogenous zone, then I would argue that so are the lips, ears, and thighs.

    1. YOU ARE IN ERROR, MAN WITH NO PENIS. BOSOMS GIVE THE URKOBOLD SERIOUS HORMONAL INCIDENTS.

    2. That’s not a Victorian thing, it’s a Western civilization thing. Greek and Roman women didn’t walk around bare-breasted in public either.

      1. Not even sure its just western. What about Asia, both eastern and western?

        1. I think it is a low-melanin content thing. If you don’t want to get that part of your body burned by the sun you keep it covered up.

        2. Those green women Kirk used to make out with usually kept their funbags under wraps in mixed company, too. And those ladies were coveted for their promiscuousness.

          Learn to think outside the box. (…so to speak.)

        3. I know for a fact that breasts are OK on Japanese broadcast TV. (It was kind of shocking to this Westerner to see anime that was made for TV with bare boobs all over the place)

          1. Breasts are ok to be broadcast on TV in most countries in Europe. The taboo on breasts is more of an anglo-saxon thing than a western one.

      2. I read that in ancient greece, the women wore outfits that exposed their butts.

        True story.

        1. That explains a lot

    3. I agree, I apreciate them very very much (on women) but I also apreciate the legs on ladies. So are they going to force people to cover up their legs? They did in victorian times!

      Breasts are designed by nature to enable women to feed their young children. Perhaps baby bottles should be hidden from view as well?

      1. Breasts are also designed by nature to be attractive to men. There is a reason why humans are the only species with permanently enlarged mamaries.

      2. From what I understand, men in some strict Muslim countries tend to become attracted to strange (to us) parts of women’s bodies, like the back of the neck, or ankles, or many others, since they’re never exposed in burqa-mandatory societies.

        1. The nape of the neck is considered sexual in Japan too. That’s why maiko (essentially new geisha) wore white paint on their face and neck, but left that area exposed.

    4. Which lips?

    5. Are you retarded? Seriously, are you retarded?

    6. So…you’re gay? A robot? A gay robot?

      1. I don’t even understand this language you are speaking. “People called Romanes they go the house?”

        1. Not you, Warty. The America guy.

          1. No, your response seems appropriate.

    7. Lips, ears and thighs are erogenous zones. So are the breasts. Have you ever even touched another human being? Have you ever even touched yourself?!?

    8. And if you want to argue that they’re an erogenous zone, then I would argue that so are the lips, ears, and thighs.

      Yes. Next question?

      1. plus what neoncat said. (read the whole thread before commenting? puh-leeeze!)

    9. I partially agree. If the majority of a society sees an area of the body as a sexual zone, then it is a sexual zone, carry over or not.

      That doesn’t invalidate your argument though, because like you said, there are other areas of a woman’s body that are seen as sexually arousing that aren’t required to be covered. Some people get off on looking at women’s feet even.

      So the solution here is that we all start going to the beach wearing baggy scuba suits, or they remove all the rules and let society adapt.

  3. But transgendered men have an inalienable right to show off their store-bought titties! That’s why we fought the Hun.

    1. Hun is more of a Baltimore, MD thing than a Rehoboth Beach, DE thing. Except for when they show up.

  4. The men initially refused, but covered up before police arrived.

    Post-ops!

  5. So, Shumer can still take his shirt off?

    1. No. No, he can’t.

    2. Why would you ever sugest that? Why?

      1. So it can be addressed at this town hall meeting. I don’t want to hear that post-op trannies can’t remove their shirts while Chuckie is swinging his uncovered man tits in our general direction.

        1. Real moobs get an exception, because they’re organic, or something.

        2. *exemption

  6. The men initially refused, but covered up before police arrived.

    I’m sure the police were just rushing to respond to that call.

    1. “There’s boobs being exposed on the beach!”

      “Pedal to the Metal Boys.”

      *10mins later*

      “Ewwwww.”

  7. In light of this news, would you rather live in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware or Gaza?
    Someone has to ask the tough questions.

    1. I used to live in Dover in the Early zeros when I was in the Air Force. I would go there sometimes. It seemed like nothing but a tourist trap to me. Still, compared to Dover it actually had culture. I think I would rather go with Rehoboth than Gaza. Gaza vs Dover? That is a harder choice.

      1. When I was a kid, our family went camping at Cape Henlopen State Park. The real tourist trap to me seemed to be Ocean City MD.

    2. Why do people like sand in their food. I just don’t get the beach.

  8. I’m shocked to hear that this happening in Gayhobeth.

    1. in high school we called it Rehomoboff…

  9. These guys are just adding to the stereotype of transgendered people being flamboyant.

    1. …and noncommittal.

  10. I would love to go to the meeting and listen to people trying to hammer out the details of the law so that men with fake tits can’t go topless, but everyone doesn’t need to wear a t-shirt at the beach.

  11. Not all our boobs are in bras.

    1. No, some of them are apparently on the Rehoboth Beach city council.

  12. just make all the beaches top-optional. URKOBOLD can bate beta test which beaches get top marks

    1. EXCELLENT, VIKING MINION! A NEW REALITY TELEVISION SHOW FROM FOX: BATE-A-TEST. OUR PANEL OF DELIBERBATERS WILL SIT IN JUDGMENT ON BEACHES, BARS, AND OTHER BATE-WORTHY LOCALES.

    2. “bater test”. Nice.

      1. the participants being “bater testas”

  13. If They Are Bigger Than an A Cup…

    Hey, cup sizeism is no joke in Australia.

    1. Well, since Asian women tend to have small breasts …

      RACIST!

  14. I’m confused, were these male to female transgendered people or female to male transgendered people? I’m guessing they mean the first.

    1. They should legalize the right of everyone to be topless if they want to.

      1. WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ (who suckle at one for the first bit of their life.)

  15. I encountered toplessness equality for the first time at a tit-friendly pool in Vegas. Besides their weird no-touching-of-the-tits rule, it was very civilized.

    1. HAWT. Tell me more.

    2. no-touching-of-the-tits rule

      Your own, or someone else’s?

  16. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. Moral standards are challenged, and the immediate response here is “Down with the prudish standards!” Better idea: Let the local community decide the standards of decency in public places, and don’t live there if you don’t like them. Once upon a time, that was the idea behind the structuring of our nation.

    After all, demanding the removal of moral standards is no different than demanding more of them. Both cases are seeking to impose one’s will on others. This, like most issues, is something best handled at the lowest relevant level of government, town or county, as appropriate.

    1. So you’re saying it’s none of our business what any locality does, that we are not allowed to comment? Is nudity immoral, and if so, why?

      Down with the prudish standards!

      1. In order: If you don’t live there, no; Comment away, but demanding they change their laws to suit your views of morality should, rightly, be ignored; that’s an decision I have already stated should be made on a local community level, and my personal opinion is irrelevant.

    2. Moral standards are all well and good Cotillion, but when they get codified into laws that are used to oppress people who don’t adhere to them, we tend to get upset.

      1. So you oppose laws against rape, murder, and theft, right? Those are codified moral standards, too.

        If you want to claim that laws are supposed to be about punishing people for hurting others, who are we to decide for everyone else what constitutes punishable injury? Everyone will have different opinions.

        Again, leave it to the lowest relevant level of government. Let each community decide what it feels is acceptable, and citizen mobility can handle the rest.

        1. Topless Freedom -> Rape and Murder.

          What, no sex-with-dogs?

          1. Bottomless freedom?

          2. It is an extreme example but a consistent one. It would be rather hypocritical to amend “We don’t like moral standards being codified into law…” with “but not when we like the moral standards”.

            1. I think the word moral has achieved two different meanings.

              You should have a universal right to not be raped. To not be offended by body parts is not a right.

        2. You can’t be hurt by seeing breasts any more than you would be hurt be hearing me call you a stupid little cunt.

          1. Then why would you say it?

            1. The warm feelings it produces in the speaker. Duh.

              1. At the expense of warm feelings it’s intended to deprive the listener of.

        3. If you want to claim that laws are supposed to be about punishing people for hurting others, who are we to decide for everyone else what constitutes punishable injury? Everyone will have different opinions.

          We are rational people who can tell the difference between physical or financial harm on the one hand and being put off one’s appetite on the other. Tits never hurt anyone, even the fake ones.

          If a community wants to uphold a moral standard, they can ask trannies politely to conceal their shame. They can post signs asking nicely to cover the splendor of the human form. They can shame and ostracize people who allow their what-have-yous to flap nobly in the breeze.

          But when communities start to harm people who are harming no one, that is oppression.

        4. Moral standards are all well and good Cotillion, but when they acts that don’t involve initiation of force get codified into laws that are used to oppress people who don’t adhere to them, we tend to get upset.

          Fixed.

          Not all morality should be subject to enforcement via a vote.

          1. Invoking semantics in defense of a fatally flawed position doesn’t make it any less flawed. I could rattle off crimes that don’t involve “initiation of force”, watch the position be amended, wash, rinse, and repeat. Instead, I’ll just note that injuries fall into a spectrum, and that everyone’s opinion of how injurious a given act is will be different. Further, everyone’s opinion of how injurious an act must be to merit legal punishment will also be different.

            In short, find me “the right to be nude in public” in the Constitution of the United States or a specific state. If it’s not there, local laws against public nudity, in any degree, are acceptable. You could try to get an amendment in your favor, but I suspect the public at large would laugh that effort into obscurity.

            Not all morality should be subject to enforcement via a vote.
            You are welcome to your opinion, but do quit pretending that your desire to force it on everyone else is somehow different than other people trying to do the same.

            At everyone in general: The “Libertarian Standard Position on Nudity” is not some cast-in-stone natural truth. It is an opinion and one that not everyone shares. Demanding big government impose your opinion on everyone else should be something libertarians abhor, but a pathological hatred of morality ever being more than a personal feeling can distort normal though processes. It also makes arguing a moot point, so I’ll leave it at this. Hopefully some people have had cause to consider the issue a bit further.

  17. What about fat guy tits?
    Talk about offensive.
    Oh noes!!! flashback!

  18. Public beaches need “No Manboobs” signs.

  19. However, I fear that the stumped politicos — just to be “fair” to everyone — are more likely to adopt the Victorian option and require that all bathers wear t-shirts at the beach.

    Back in early sixties Australia some women decided they wanted to go topless on one of the Sydney beaches.

    They were instantly arrested and charged under whatever the local indecency law was.

    One of the women took the time to actually read said indecency law and discovered that it not only required women to have the chests covered, but men as well. If you’ve seen pictures of the famed surf lifesaving teams, that’s the look that was required (although, as you can see in the link shirts are pretty much optional now.

    The charges were dropped, but AFAIK it was still some years before OZ became famous for its topless beaches (which I didn’t hear about til the mid-eighties*).

    When I went there in the mud nineties, there was no evidence of any topless beaches, since even men wear shirts nowadays due to the incidence of melanoma down under. And all the Sydney beaches** were regularly closed due to excessive bacteria counts and/or other pollution.

    *And something that came as a total shock to me, since the Australia I lived in in the fifties and early sixties was possible one of the prudish places on the face of the planet (publicly, at any rate).

    **which I suspect, without a shred of actual evidence, were the only places where toplessness was tolerated.

    1. Link fail, apparently, sorry.

  20. When I went there in the mud nineties

    Geriatric wrestling attire is another subject.

  21. What do you all have against Terrence Cody?

  22. A few years ago, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that it was discriminatory towards women to make them wear tops while men are allowed to go shirtless. So, now woman may legally go topless in public in New York State. In the several years since that ruling, I’ve only seen women excerise that right once. They were the models during Fashion Week preparing outside for their turn on the runway.

    1. And the problem is?…

      1. Oh wait, “models”, so you’re not really breaking the statute if your chest is flatter than a boys.

  23. I’ve always found it curious that boobs are only bad (according to government) between the ages of two and 18. Before and after that they are fucking awesome, but for that 16 years you must not see them.

  24. So you’re arguing for the right to be naked in public? You really going there, Reason? You haven’t been ludicrous enough with the whole civil rights act thing? Gotsta one-up the crazy? We’re not even going to wait for someone to ask the reductio ad absurdem question, we’re going to pre-emptively defend it?

    1. Naked Ribs

      Total time: 2 hours, plus marinating time

      Servings:6 to 8

      1/3 cup mild finely ground dried chile

      1/2 cup kosher salt

      1 tablespoon dark brown sugar

      2 tablespoons garlic powder

      1 tablespoon onion powder

      1 tablespoon ground black pepper

      1 teaspoon ground cumin

      1 teaspoon ground coriander

      2 (4-pound) racks pork spareribs

      1. In a jar, combine the chile, salt, sugar, garlic powder, onion powder, pepper, cumin and coriander, crushing any chunks of brown sugar. Cover tightly and shake well to combine thoroughly.

      2. Trim the ribs, cutting away any excess fat pieces and loose ends without bones. Lay the ribs flat with the bony underside facing up. If you prefer, remove the flap of meat that covers part of one side. Use a small knife or skewer to poke through the thin, tough membrane that covers the rib bones, lifting a corner of it. Use a clean kitchen cloth to get a good grip and gently but firmly pull the membrane away from the ribs. It will come up in sheets; you may have to repeat the process a couple of times to get it all.

      3. Sprinkle both sides of the ribs with the dry rub mixture, using about 1 to 1 1/2 tablespoons per side. Rub to distribute evenly, and then seal tightly in plastic wrap. Refrigerate 1 hour to overnight.

      4. Soak 3 cups of hickory chips in enough water to cover generously. Start the coals in a chimney and when they are lightly coated with gray ash, about 20 minutes, empty them into the grill, arranging them in a gentle slope against one side.

      5. When those coals have cooled slightly, about 20 minutes, add two-thirds of the wood chips, replace the grill rack and brush it with oil. Arrange the rib rack well away from the heat and cover tightly so that the lid’s vent holes are over the ribs, opposite the flame. Smoke, turning every 30 minutes or so, until the meat begins to pull away from the rib tips and is so tender that a center bone can almost be pulled loose, 1 1/2 to 2 hours. After about an hour, you’ll need to replenish the smoke, adding the remaining wood chips on top of the coals.

      6. Remove the racks from the fire and wrap them tightly in aluminum foil. Set aside for 30 minutes to 1 hour to rest. Serve at room temperature, or reheat briefly on the grill, off the fire, before serving.

  25. Nobody understands the burden I bare with my amazing breasts. Everyday I have to live with thousands of Catholics flocking to see them. They kneel in front of me lighting candles, praying the rosary all hoping to witness the great and gloriousness of my breasts, swearing they can see Jesus’ ascension in my tits. It doesn’t help that my breasts have healing powers as well. A man touched my breasts and it cured his limp dick. His story traveled far and wide and many have flocked to me in hopes of being healed as well.

    My breasts are so glorious that many times I catch myself hypnotized by them. And like Narcissus staring into a lake, I will sit hypnotized staring at them, starving. It is not until one of the Catholics grabs my tits in hopes of getting healed that I am awakened to see that I am surrounded by candles and thousands of people praying underneath my breasts.

  26. The distinguishing features of the sexes is what makes them attractive to each other. In that sense everything that makes a woman a woman and a man a man is sexual. This idea of sexual parts, unless you are talking specifically about the procreate aspect of our biology, is silly. It could be masculine or feminine hands or bellies or knees – they are all sexual. With respect to breasts, well, no they aren’t sex organs, but they certainly are sexual in as much as they are, typically, a distinguishing feature of a woman. For most of us, masculine features on a woman and feminine features on a man are sexually unattractive, which certainly stands to reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.