New Hampshire

Misdemeanor Nipple Exposure and Misogyny in New Hampshire Politics

A young female lawmaker speaks out against making toplessness a crime and gets harassed by male colleagues on Facebook.

|

Free the Nipple/Facebook

A proposed law in New Hampshire would charge women with a misdemeanor for exposing their nipples in public, with an exemption for the act of breastfeeding. Toplessness is currently legal for both women and men under New Hamphire state law, although some local ordinances forbid it. 

When state Rep. Amanda Bouldin (D) learned of the proposal, she posted a link to it on her (non-work) Facebook page with the comment: "YES, all the sponsors are men. And Republicans. So much for 'smaller government'… ." She followed up with a comment suggesting her colleagues "should scrap it entirely," but "if you're not willing to do that, the very least you could do is to protect a mother's right to FEED her child."  

Here's how her colleague, bill co-sponsor Rep. Josh Moore, responded: 

Rep. Al Badasaro—who refers to himself as a "Liberty Conservative family values guy"—also joined in: 

Baldasaro followed up by declaring "it will be a cold day in hell that I let you turn our beach's into a nudity perverts land of OZ." Moore subsequently deleted his first comment, but not before Bouldin had a chance to screenshot it. 

"Being a female state rep doesn't always come with these challenges, but when stuff like this happens, I feel compelled to shine a spotlight on it," says Bouldin, who moved to New Hampshire from Texas in 2009 as part of the Free State Project and was elected to the House in 2014. "In 2016, the level of public discourse between elected officials should have a higher standard."

Rep. Moore's bill would update the state's indecent exposure and lewdness statute to include "a woman [who] purposely exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts in a public place and in the presence of another person with reckless disregard for whether a reasonable person would be offended or alarmed by such act." 

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.

170 responses to “Misdemeanor Nipple Exposure and Misogyny in New Hampshire Politics

  1. Baldasaro followed up by declaring “it will be a cold day in hell that I let you turn our beach’s into a nudity perverts land of OZ.”

    Cold day nip slips? YOU’LL PUT AN EYE OUT.

    1. New Hampshire has beaches?

      1. Beaches, Mountains, and small cities.

        1. NH TOURISM BUREAU SPAMBOT ALERT!

        2. “I can go skiing one week and surfing another”
          – University of New Hampshire ad running on Pandora

      2. Yes, and you will enjoy them if you’re a polar bear.

      3. 12 miles, from what I just learned. Don’t mutilate the lobsters.

    2. Hush now and take off your top.

  2. Where can you find men who find seeing nipples, offensive? Why on Derpbook of course, where else? Most of them are not in any danger of seeing a nipple anyway, not a nipple that anyone else would want to see. I imagine their fugly 400 lb wife’s standing over them saying ‘Say you’re against it!’. Lol, fucking pussies.

  3. …with reckless disregard for whether a reasonable person would be offended or alarmed by such act.

    Offended or alarmed? Let’s call this what it is: hooters harm. I demand public funds be made available for the creation of titty safe spaces where I can go to escape the harm of seeing some broad’s funbags.

    1. I’d be interested in seeing legal analysis distinguishing cases where it was with, from those it was done recklessly without, such regard?or between those in which the disregard was reckless & those in which it was not reckless.

    2. Yeah, “safe spaces” are simply the continuation of “non-hostile environments”. While they focus on all the things they don’t want to see, or hear, or have in their spaces, the feminists and progressives in question seem to overlook that others – men – might come up with an equally arbitrary or ridiculous list of their own. Apparently that would automatically be sexist/misogynistic. Yet I haven’t seen their lists described as misandrist.

      1. So, if I’m getting this right, your theory is that men don’t, and have never previously, made up sexist rules.

        The sarcasmometers, guys, we need to ship the lot back to the factory. This batch is not equipped to handle our requirements.

        1. HoD: “So, if I’m getting this right, your theory is that men don’t, and have never previously, made up sexist rules.”

          You’re getting this wrong. But I’m interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. Please elaborate.

          1. I think his point is that you’re acting like this is a reaction to equally-ridiculous feminist/progressive proposals. Which not only doesn’t seem to have any proof or logic behind it, but is pretty absurd when you consider that policies that are ridiculous and sexist towards women have been around a lot longer than feminism or modern progressivism have been.

            1. I haven’t drawn it as a reaction. Nor did I state that things which are not feminist/progressive are necessarily less ridiculous. Further, I have included no comment on the history of sexism, of relative advantages and disadvantages. (Can you measure them?)

              The point is that all this revolves around the creation of a pleasant environment. And that is based on subjective preferences. In all the safe space/friendly environment undertakings, no neutral – objective – principle to determine “friendliness” is adhered to. You have feminists/progressives regulating speech they don’t like, banning images they don’t like with no recognition of the fact that if arbitrariness is to rule alongside equality, then anti-feminists get to act equally arbitrarily. If you get to prohibit a male gaze, he gets to prohibit a female appearance. That’s because you don’t get to determine that a gaze is worse than a sight. It is very amusing to have views regarding friendly environments clash, and then one side of the argument forcing association on the other, essentially turning the people who want to be left alone into mere elements of the environment itself.

  4. Everything about this is embarrassing. These are the people with the coercive power of the state their disposal.

    Does New Hampshire have some epidemic of women whipping out their tits that I’m unaware of? Or is this just some moronic Republican who got it in his head that he needed to preemptively act after he heard some women were complaining about this double standard?

  5. 2015???

    Reps Moore and Badasaro seem to be in some sort of time warp.

    And Rep Badasaro’s idea of liberty seems to be along the line of “for me but not for thee”.

    1. And Rep Badasaro’s idea of liberty seems to be along the line of “for me but not for thee”.

      He probably represents the views of quite a few people.

    2. “In the public space you follow MY rules!”

  6. 1) The laws in question allow woment to feed their children. (Interesting to note that this what Amanda limits herself to in defending her “innocence” against Josh.) — By the way, did she insinuate that these (all) men are against a mother feeding her child? Would you consider that an insult, or “harassing”?

    2) Exposing a a body part that is of particular sexual salience can be found harassing. (See sexual harassment law, and “hostile environments”; at least theoretically, it can work against women) There’s the connection to staring and grabbing. (You may understand these as exaggerations.)

    3) Is it unfair and/or not a matter relevant to law that women’s breasts are generally found exceptionally erotic? Do you include that under “misogyny”? Please outline the things you find misogynist in that story.

    (I’m for handling this based on local standards, not state law.)

    1. 1) She failed to note that originally and, then, apologized for the oversight.

      1. Thanks for the information, Chris. Without knowing more, I say that’s nice style. Though I assume her attack (with that mistake) did set a rather hostile tone. Many men find being accused of preventing women from feeding their babies unpleasant. Given the pervasive “war on women” rhetoric (“YES, they are all men”), some would deem this attack “harassment”, or misandrist. It appears Brown doesn’t notice the possibility. Which, applying feminist analysis, is because of her – the -.female privilege. Women are victims, even when they attack men. The “backlash” becomes the original attack, not a response to a female attack. Her headline plays the same game. I would be more careful to attest “hatred of women”. Perhaps the label is used so carelessly and without differentiation that is has lost its meaning. At face vaule, however, it is a serious – and very insulting – accusation.

    2. (I’m for handling this based on local standards, not state law.)

      I’m for government thugs not being involved at all. If someone finds something offensive, they can build their own bubbles to live in. There is no right to not be offended, what is offensive is subjective, and your offense is your problem.

      What is considered erotic is irrelevant to whether or not the government should be able to punish people for exposing their bodies.

  7. Those family values he espouses apparently includes over-tanning and insulting a woman who has a differing opinion by making fun of her appearance. Good job, Al!

    Al Baldasaro looks like Jim Mora stayed out in the sun for about sixteen years too long.

    What did the nipple do to you, Al?

  8. Ok, so the official New Year thread is not about abortion, but about nipples?

    1. Stupid question. Of course.

    2. Semi on topic, but if you type “free the nipple” into YouTube, you can find a video of that exquisite redheaded chick (and unfortunately others) protesting topless.

    1. 5/10

      1. She looks like 5-10 years, since she looks 13.

        1. You’re thinking of the *Japanese* legislature.

    2. Ooh, guess which recent statute she cosponsored?

      1. If they’re not pain-capable, where’s the fun?

    3. Way too skinny for John.

      1. She could lose 80 llbs right?

        1. Ha ha. She’s got the face of someone who’s going to gain 80lbs immediately after getting married.

          1. Well, she does have the face of someone who eats 3 10 lb bags of M&Ms; every day.

          2. It’s going to happen regardless.

            1. It’s going to happen regardless.

              Not always. 😉

    4. I would not find seeing her nipple offensive.

      No I would not.

  9. In Muslim countries, women are required to cover up because failure to do so causes men to go into a frenzy. If a man rapes a woman, it is her fault for tempting him.

    Dude needs to move to Saudi or Iran.

    1. Oh please. All non-nudists need to move to Saudi or Iran. Hell, all those not advocating freely having sex in public places should move to Saudi or Iran.

      1. Because showing a little skin is the same as having sex in public. Yeah. Sure.

        1. It’s a continuum: Full veil; normal clothing, bikin, topless, naked, having sex. What I have added simply mirrors your approach. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with your own approach.

          1. What about fucking while fully-veiled? I need to know.

            1. That’d probably ruin the continuum. But we should ask feminists. Otherwise it’d be a) mansplaining, and b) they should be rather competent at assigning sex-points, given their focus on finding and measuring sex-based injustice (and comparable worth etc.). Alas, I still haven’t been told how unfair exactly it is, that men want more sex than women, which gives women the advantage of the principle of least interest (nor is there a comparable worth plan here).

            2. You never know what could be under the veil. It could even be me, but by then, you’re already halfway there.

          2. Showing skin naturally leads to sex? Seriously? Is that why every night at a strip club ends in an orgy? Oh, it doesn’t. But you wouldn’t know that, being too fragile to enter such an establishment.

            1. Look up “continuum”. I didn’t say process, nor continuation.

              1. I didn’t say process, nor continuation.

                Nor did you say anything logical.

                1. con?tin?u?um
                  k?n?tinyo?o?m/
                  noun
                  noun: continuum; plural noun: continua

                  a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct.

                  Nope. Not seeing how sex is not perceptibly different from showing skin. Sorry.

                  1. Seriously, Sarc, you had free reign to pick a definition. Now take “showing skin” and “having sex in public”. (…”in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct”) Mark “showing skin” and “having sex in publix” as “quite distinct extremes”.

                    1. So you start by showing skin, then more skin, then more skin, then sex? Still doesn’t follow.

                    2. “So you start by showing skin, then more skin, then more skin, then sex? Still doesn’t follow.” You’re apparently still construing this as some kind of slippery slope problem (hence “process”, and “continuation”). That’s not the point. It’s a continuum of sexual salience. All of these things have some sexual valence (you may try the word “intimacy”, additionally). It increases from female curves, to “(showing) some skin”, to “(showing) breasts”, to “having sex”. We are regulating sexuality in all these cases. For some the theshold to the inacceptable is first crossed at partial nudity, for some at full nudity, for some at sex (all in public). Taken more broadly, we’re regulating things that bother (some) in public.

                    3. Just because people who plan on having sex show skin doesn’t mean showing skin means someone plans to have sex. Maybe it does for you, but for normal people it’s not a tautology.

                    4. “Just because people who plan on having sex show skin doesn’t mean showing skin means someone plans to have sex. Maybe it does for you, but for normal people it’s not a tautology.” See my reply above this very post of yours.

              2. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                  Thought I smelled something.

                  1. Something is smeared on the walls, that’s for sure

                2. “Fuck off, Tulpa.” Whatever bad qualities Tulpa apparently has, you’re paranoid here, Warty.

                  1. Spoken like a true Tulpa.

          3. One of these is not like the other (hint: sex), but it’s still not harming anyone.

      2. There is a difference between saying that people should have the freedom to do something and saying that everyone *must* do something.

  10. a man’s inclanation[sic] to stare at it and grab it

    WTF? If nips are on display I’m all for looking at ’em. Doesn’t mean I’m gonna go and muckle onto ’em. lol.

    1. Get a load of Mr. Restraint over here. Well, we can’t all be bastions of self control like you, can we? YOU SHOW ME YOUR TA-TAS AND I GOTTA MOTORBOAT EM.

      1. Well, he’s somewhere on the asexual-heterosexual gender indentity thing. I think it’s gender (identity) # 702.

      2. Well, I can’t say I’d mind if I was at the beach and some random chick came up and twiddled my jeans rivets.

        So, Gander/goose, etc.

        1. WHY ARE YOU WEARING JEANS AT THE BEACH? Goddamn hipsters.

  11. A Republican family-values type that objects to women exposing their nipples in public? Why do I immediately assume he’s the sort of manly man that finds a lot of things icky about women in general?

    1. That’s unfair. He could just be a perfectly straight guy who’s still angry that all of the cute girls in high school and college were never interested in him.

      1. No then he’d be a libertarian.

    2. Now, Hugh Hefner, *there’s* someone who truly respects women!

      1. You can’t very well blame men for the fact that most American women aren’t good for ne thing but fucktoys. I suppose a guy could act oblivious to this fact (many do), but that just compounds the problem and propagates a lot of misery for everyone. I don’t know much what could be done about all this, but two things would be necessary. One would be that women get their fucking acts together and dry to develop into useful human beings that conceivably be of some value other than soulless diversions. The other, probably more important, would be to trash all this societal degeneration that has led to the current state o affairs in which children are of very nearly no real value to anyone. As it is, even a woman develops herself differently so that she would be an efficient incubator and educator of children, it’s sort of a big waste since the null value of children makes it ultimately irrelevant whether they are produced efficiently or educated properly. Alternatively, women could actually learn a useful skill, but it seems like for whatever reason the majority sees this as beneath them and further far overrates the value of their provision of valuable sexual services. Fuck, it’s only an extension of the same problem in all human relations these days: nobody is prepared to relate to another human being as such, but instead every interaction must play out a fictional power gradient.

        1. You can’t blame “objectification”. When folks act this way, they refused to be treated as another but objects.

        2. “Fuck, it’s only an extension of the same problem in all human relations these days: nobody is prepared to relate to another human being as such (…)”

          Don’t despair. Your talk of “efficient incubator and educator” will fix that in no time.

  12. I just want to say that the only thing Democrats in N.H. do is bitch about Republicans. They will freak out about something like this, and then vote to raise taxes, implement “Common Sense” gun control, or try to keep businesses like Uber from operating. I am not a fan of Republicans myself, but the Democrats are hypocritical, and disgusting.

    1. Well, yeah. If you disagree with a Democrat (or a leftist in general) then you have bad intentions. After all, leftists are busy paving the road to hell with their good intentions. If you have a problem with the result of their well-intentioned policies, then you must have bad intentions. It is the only explanation. Because when policies backed by good intentions have undesirable results, it certainly wasn’t their fault. It wasn’t intended. So anyone who points this out must have bad intentions. Basically, anyone who disagrees with Democrats is evil. Period. If you care to argue the point then you are evil as well.

      1. Except they actually have no good intentions. Rather, it’s all process. It’s all a matter of exercising authority. If everyone woke up tomorrow and started to live the progressive’s ideal, he’d suddenly discover some other thing that they needed to be forced to do. The intentions are ex post facto rationalisations. Even a child could see this.

    2. NH Dems have always been hysterical assholes, but the hysteria about the nipples is completely absurd.

  13. I always thought that most objections to public nudity were from women. You know, they don’t want their man to see the grass on the other side of the fence. Guess I was wrong.

    1. Based on a handful of lawmakers, apparently. By the way, as long as men implement laws that women want anyway, women may as well complain about these laws. They get the laws, and they get to complain (which implicitly means entitlement to some sort of compensation).

      1. Just so you know, I object to the term “lawmaker.” Law is not legislation, and legislation is not law.

        (I don’t expect you to watch the video, but I post it in hopes that others will. I really liked it.)

        1. You are a fan of Bastiat. So I will watch it. =)

          1. It’s really thought provoking. If you like it, check out the speaker’s blog. I read it daily.

              1. Yes I love cafe Hayek. =)

                1. Kinda sucks since Don kicked out muirgeo (aka George Ballela Jr). I always looked forward to him being slapped down in the comments.

                  1. This why I do not support Reason kicking out our own trolls. If anyone is going to fuck with them it should be the communtariat.

        2. “Just so you know, I object to the term “lawmaker.” Law is not legislation, and legislation is not law.”

          Indeed, I’m not going to go through a 1h video with no description. Try to come up with one. You haven’t made any point here. Do you object to the term “legislator” as well, and – behold – *why*?

          1. I’m not going to go through a 1h video with no description.

            Your loss. Try a few minutes of it. It might get your attention.

          2. From the speaker’s blog.

            Not all legislation is law ? consider the fact that highway drivers routinely exceed posted speed limits by five or ten miles per hour. And not all law is created by legislation (or even by court proceedings) ? consider the “first come, first served” rule that nearly all drivers obey for determining which of the many drivers in search of parking places in a crowded parking lot gets a particular space that is about to be vacated.

            1. Oh, I recognize the idea. Thanks. Law depends on observance. Law is a matter predictiveness, law is prediction. (The last book I read on that is Claus’s Law’s Evolution and Human Understanding. Great design, lack of content. Extending further, Llewellyn/Schauer, Theory of Rules.) Pretty standard stuff, formal law, informal law, law made by parliament, law made by the executive — versus natural law, and norms that vest no right to governmental enforcement. The basic ideas are fairly clear, the rest a matter of nominal definition.

              1. You obviously didn’t watch the video. I’m actually watching it right now. The introductions end at 3:45. Check it out.

      2. Sevens. New England has a long history of it’s various communities “making” their own “laws” regardless of what the state, or federal government thinks they should do.

        1. Possibly interesting, JP. Are you responding to my criticism of his sample size, or adding information apart from that`?

          1. Adding information. When you dig into New England history you will find that it used to be a very strange place, with rules, and ineffective rulers.

            1. Lets just say that in a Port Town with a high population of “sailors” , “Boarding Houses” , trappers, fishermen, merchantmen, native businessmen, and working women the breast feeding in public was not a major concern. =)

            2. Used to be? Have you seen Red Sox fans?

              (Full disclosure: I was partly raised, and went to college in NY and am a life-long Yankees fan)

    2. The other side of the fence no longer wears grass.

      They keep their grass mowed real short..

    3. Vonnegut wrote a great story about this chick who inflames his outrage and offendedness by walking down to the mailbox every day barefoot with bells on. It’s a lot of the same themes.

  14. I have absolutely no objection if women want to walk around in public topless (or completely naked for that matter).

    But if public boob exposure becomes legal and somewhat customary, I don’t want to hear a bunch of pissing and moaning from women about how men look at their breasts.

    Women should be allowed to show their tits if they want, but men also have the right to direct their field of vision wherever they want when they’re in public places.

    1. Your male privilege is showing.

    2. “But if public boob exposure becomes legal and somewhat customary, I don’t want to hear a bunch of pissing and moaning from women about how men look at their breasts.”

      You can see that addressed in one of the attacks (Josh?), referring to natural staring. That being said, I guess current doctrine is that women own these spaces and get to regulate male “gazes”, because otherwise the space would be “hostile” (to women). I’d like an analysis of why confrontation with nudity is not harassment, while confrontation with “looking/gazing” is. Want to make this a formal thing that ignores sex differences? Fine, then toplessness is to be allowed as well as gazing. (Implicit: male chests are the same as female breasts; male gazes are the same as female gazes.) You may bet that feminists have a much greater problem with male gazing than men have with female gazing, and that men are more interested in gazing than women.

      1. These motherbitches need to spend some time in the barrio till they get over this I don’t even know what the dickens to call it stupidity.

    3. If everyone’s tits were out all the time, you’d stop staring at tits after about 5 minutes.

      1. And that right there is what progressive feminists want.
        I don’t want to live in a world where seeing boobs is no longer fun!!

        1. Just tell me how long you want to stare at this:

          ( . Y . )

        2. Eh, I still get excited when I see a French chick’s titties.

  15. Does it bother anyone else that these men seem to be nearly illiterate?

    1. I don’t understand why some people never learned how to pluralize words. (“You want to turn our family beach’s…..”)

    2. Nah. They probably just were drunk.

    3. Yes. Holy cow. I had no idea that Liberterians were really were such a threat to the beleifs of family values types, it kind of makes me sad that were are terning their beech’s into pervert shows, this sounds like a very pressing concern and I’m sure the good repersentative could provide duzzens of exmaples of where people have been scandalzied all over New Hapshire.

  16. God, can we just get over nudity already?

    The reason people where clothes in part is because you almost always imagine a person looks about 10 times as good as they really do when they’re naked.

    It’s like makeup for your belly, ass, legs, and pretty much everything below the neck.

    If someone wants to go around naked, let them. You don’t have to.

    1. So law aside. Why should we get over nudity? Understand I am not coming at it from some Abrahamic view that sex while necessary for procreation but is somehow dirty (except in only one specific circumstance, and even then don’t enjoy it too much). Rather, sex is probably the most amazing and awesome thing that humans can regularly experience. (Of course individual achievements stand out more, but how many times can you climb Everest, or get your PhD, etc.)
      And frankly, nudity is a large part of sexuality. There is something to be said about not wanting nudity to become so commonplace that it is boring. Why would anyone want that?

      1. I’m strictly talking about getting over the “Ahhhhh! Nudity! Make it go away! Ban it!” hysteria.

        Forcing people to wear clothes is only a few steps removed from forcing women to completely cover up always.

        1. Sarc, think of a continuum.

      2. “Rather, sex is probably the most amazing and awesome thing that humans can regularly experience.”

        Fuck, if that’s true for you your life must suck.

        It takes, what?, a year, maybe two to develop the skill to maximal efficiency. Therafter, what’s the fucking point? I mean, you still exercise the skill and take pride in a job well done, but there’s no way it should end up as the most amazing an awsome thing in your life. It’s like a guy I knew who painted this same painting over and over and over. He was near perfect efficiency, did it very well, very quickly. He varied colours a bit each time. He certainly seemed to like the job, but no way it could have been the most amazing and awsome thing in his life. Holy fuck.

  17. I have a question about this “Free the Nipple” ideology.

    Imagine a straight male college student living in a co-ed dorm had this Kate Upton poster (NSFW) on his door, so that everybody who walked past could see it. Now imagine a group of female students complained that the poster made them uncomfortable and should be taken down.

    Would the Free the Nipple people and Democrats like Amanda Bouldin side with the student who put up the poster? It seems like they should, but I admit to being skeptical.

    1. No. That’s the “harassment”, and “hostile environment” inconsistency I’ve also remarked upon here.

      1. I am with you. Although I am not saying I support this law. I am still not sure that a woman exposing her breasts in public is doing any individual any harm. But th feminists want breasts (and the female body in general) to become desexualized. Which is why the feminists are becoming more against porn, but want “equality” regarding nudity. Nudity is great and natural EXCEPT when it involves men becoming aroused looking at naked women.

        1. “I am still not sure that a woman exposing her breasts in public is doing any individual any harm.”

          In essence, we’re dealing with public property. Ideally, it would be turned into private property. Failing that, there are two options. 1) Removing any stuff that offends someone. As an approximation: removing any stuff that offends a relatively large segment of society. In that, it doesn’t matter whether people are offended by hats, by female nudity, or male nudity. Women could vote to bar men from wearing suits. Men could vote to bar women from being topless. The principles are blind to “sexism”. Why should they be against sexism? (How – in principle – is ordering men to not wear suits different to ordering people to not play classical music?) We’re dealing with property here. This is simply about preferences (not so much about harm), implementing a lesser shadow of freedom of association. 2) A better option would be to split public property in a pluralist fashion. That’s what local ordinances get close to.

          1. Failing that, there are two options.

            False.

            Another option: Realize that offense is taken, not given. Tell the people who are offended to fuck off and live in their own little bubbles if they don’t like it. That you are offended does not mean you get to dictate what other people can do, and you certainly can’t use government thugs to do so.

            I know I don’t want tyranny of the majority, which is essentially what you’re suggesting with option 1. People–even a majority of people–have no right to use government thugs to try to eliminate things they find offensive.

            So here is my proposal: Do nothing. Your offense is your problem and you can deal with it yourself. That’s a far better way to handle it than coddling oversensitive freedom-hating losers.

            1. You’re wrong. Note the assumption of public property.

    2. But she’s pretty! Except she shouldn’t wear eye makeup to go swimming.

    3. Only the faties and ugly chicks would complain.

      The others would hope to one day be Kate, or Kim K.

  18. Roll it over dude, roll it over man.

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

    1. Wisdom from Annonbot.

  19. For the love of Christ!

    You can walk around butt fuckin naked here. Fucking puritans!

    MONT CODE ANN ? 45-5-504 : Montana Code – Section 45-5-504: Indecent exposure
    Search MONT CODE ANN ? 45-5-504 : Montana Code – Section 45-5-504: Indecent exposure

    (1) A person commits the offense of indecent exposure if the person knowingly or purposely exposes the person’s genitals under circumstances in which the person knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm in order to:
    (a) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade another; or
    (b) arouse or gratify the person’s own sexual response or desire or the sexual response or desire of any person.

    1. So the guy in the trench coat flashing women is still illegal under this law. However, a woman walking around naked because she is an exhibitionist, wouldn’t get in trouble because she would deny that she was trying to arouse herself, or arouse anyone else. How do you prove that? After all, it isn’t her fault if men get aroused. She didn’t do it “knowing” it would arouse them.

      1. Exactly the point. Nudity is completely legal in MT so long as it isn’t antagonistic or sexual.

        And the NH Republicans are getting their panties in a bunch over a nipple.

        BTW, I’ve never seen anyone walking around here nude in public.

        1. The funniest/saddest part is:

          Most people in MT probably think that people don’t go around naked because it’s illegal.

          When, instead, most people don’t go around naked be caused they’ve reached total consensus to always wear clothes in public in a purely decentralized manner.

          Or, in proggie speak, something impossible happened.

        2. It’s like the naked bike ride in Missoula…who gives a fuck. If fat fucks (there were many involved) want to show their rolls in public I don’t give a shit, they just look like idiots. No one wen’t there to ogle hot chicks because anyone with a brain knows hot chicks won’t be there. They (hot chicks) have standards unlike the fat fucks who participated here and in places like Portland.

          They are idiots looking for attention, by making a stink about you are feeding their trolling. If you ignore trolls they lose interest. Ignore these retards and they will eventually give it up. Their whole existence is getting a rise out of people.

          Some fat fuck dangling his nuts off his bicycle makes him look like an idiot. More public displays of idiots is a good thing, IMHO.

      2. Se can legally do it, even knowing that it will arouse, as long as she doesn’t do it in order to arouse.

        1. Under this, urinating in plain sight isn’t necessarily illegal either (not in order to “a)”).

            1. Let’s say “would”. Because a considerable number of people dislike being confronted with a penis, under most public circumstances. They consider it indecent exposure, while urinating may be found to increase the obscenity.

              1. Then don’t look.

                Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

              2. Oh, and btw, Tulpa, despite there being no law against it, it’s never seen.

                The statist need to make laws against something that isn’t a fucking issue does nothing more than give the government more power to harass you for peeing behind a bush.

                1. If I saw any value in your babbling, I would have asked for it. You asked for an answer, and you got it. Of course you weren’t able to properly read it. Presumably because you’re fascinated by your own lectures and ideological dance, jester. Here’s some actual education. “Would” is no normative endorsement. You should reduce your moronic usage of “fuck off, slaver”. Mostly because it’s moronic, and the idiocy is heightened when you don’t even understand what you respond to.

                  You don’t grasp the principles either. As long as there is public property, it is the public who gets to determine its use. You may find the public’s preferences “fucking stupid”, but that’s irrelevant. Lastly, bush man, this was about urinating “in plain sight”. You may never have experienced plain sight (or mental clarity), but a bush in the way rules out plain sight. To round this off with some remarks on metaphorical usage, your idiocy is in plain sight here. Not even a forest could get in the way of that. Go off, look for a bush, jester.

                  1. *slow clap*

                    Spoken like a true statist.

                    Funny, how us “bush men” don’t need a law or government regulation to tell us where to piss or what to wear on public property, and we all get along just fine without it. No one needs to mandate how we behave, we choose to abide by the social norm, and if someone doesn’t, we laugh and shake our heads, rather than demand some government official take our liberty in the name of someone else’s definition of decency.

                    Fuck off Tulpa.

                  2. As long as there is public property, it is the public who gets to determine its use.

                    Something being public property does not mean that tyranny of the majority is suddenly okay or constitutional. Using this logic, you should be fine with any possible restriction on anything if it’s on public property. Expressing your views about religion? Criticizing a certain religion? Banning certain words that people find offensive? All fine, using your logic. But none of them constitutional.

                    However, I am in favor of less government, so I cannot agree with this. As long as public property exists, people will just have to deal with the possibility that something someone does will offend them somehow while they’re on public property. If they don’t like that, then maybe they should try to get the government out of the picture; they can enforce whatever rules they like on their own property. What people don’t get to do is arbitrarily restrict what others are able to wear or say while on public property based on completely subjective notions of offensiveness, decency, or obscenity.

                    1. “What people don’t get to do is arbitrarily restrict what others are able to wear or say while on public property based on completely subjective notions of offensiveness, decency, or obscenity.”

                      By definition, that is what they get to do. Otherwise there is no (public) property. By the way, note that you have abandoned your restriction to the constitution. Subjective notions of obscenity do indeed limit the First Amendment. Well, we could argue about the correct interpretation. I grant you that being clear about the basis might have been better. So, when I spoke of “public property”, I spoke of the concept independent of any constitution.

                      Be aware that I’m not saying that there should be public property. There’s no such normative claim. Jester up there still doesn’t grasp that, and now additionally doesn’t get the bush man thing.

                    2. By definition, that is what they get to do.

                      The government is restricted by the constitution, and it cannot and shouldn’t do certain things even if the people demand it.

                      Even disregarding the constitution, public property could be handled in so many other ways than tyranny of the majority. We could handle it by doing as I suggest: If people are offended by something someone did on public property, tell them that that’s their own problem. Don’t get the government involved in these matters. Public property would then just be property anyone could use or travel on, and people wouldn’t be able to have the government punish others for doing things they consider offensive.

                      Of course, this is all only as long as public property exists.

                      Subjective notions of obscenity do indeed limit the First Amendment.

                      No, they don’t. Only according to authoritarian courts is that true. The actual constitution lists no such exceptions.

                    3. Jick: As I said: interpretation. Note that freedom of speech is under limitations of time, place, and manner. Freedom of speech is limited by property. Property is dedicated to purposes, dedicated to preferences. That’s why you’re not that free to speak in libraries, in graveyards (while alive), or to demonstrate in streets, and opera houses. That’s also why opera houses are not simultaneously football stadiums. Freedom of speech is under limitations of public as well as of private property.

                      It’s also your why take on public property makes no sense. Property has a positive and a negative aspect. Positive is the right to use, negative is the right to exclude others. (Cf. negative liberty.) What you’re suggesting is some mythical kind of “property” that is only marked by a positive aspect. That’s entirely incoherent. It defies the very reason of property.

                    4. Libertarianism at its finest. Tyranny of the majority bad but tyranny of the socially obtuse minority good. Wow it’s almost like a politically ideology espoused by virgin nerds with borderline autism ends up only benefiting virgin nerds with borderline autism. Principals not principles. Fuck off slaver nerds.

                    5. Sam: Be more precise on that tyranny of the minority.

                    6. [Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. ***Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.***

                      New Hampshire Constitution, Part I, Article 2.

                    7. Fuck off, Tulpa.

  20. There are no good “guys” here. The two guys mentioned sound like real prudes. There is nothing perverted about wanting to be naked, or for men wanting to see the women (or for gay men, other men) naked. It may indicate a lack of self-control, but it is a natural desire.
    The woman however is complaining about her treatment by the men. FFS grow a thicker skin. Guys say shit to each other all the time. And, based on the story, it was the woman who brought up HER nipple first.
    I personally struggle with laws like this. I absolutely don’t want to see someone have to go to jail, or cough up money to the state if they aren’t hurting anyone else. But, i really do believe that the root of the desire for “equalizing” topless laws or allowing public nudity is the desire to desexualize people. And dammit I don’t naked tits to become so boring that it is no longer a turn on.

    1. And while we are at it, it isn’t “misogynistic” to not want women to be publicly nude. You may not agree. These particular guys sound rather prudish. But it doesn’t mean they hate women. And I really don’t think that wanting to not have public nudity equals burkas.
      And fundamentally why can’t we state that, in general men and women are different.
      Again I am not advocating this law at all. Especially since the current status quo is to allow topless men and women and it sure doesn’t seem like a big problem.

      1. The conceptual distinctions between heterosexual preference, sexism, and misogyny are not handled in anything resembling rigor.

      2. I think that was based off the “I wouldn’t want to look at your nipples” comment and the part about “innocence and decency” which is at best a reference to an antiquated view of female sexuality and worth.

        1. She brought up HER nipples first.

          And I don’t share their notions of innocence and decency. Hell I think a porn star or a prostitute can be every bit as decent as any prudish church lady, and considering they make their livings on the ability to make men (and sometimes women) feel good, they probably are more decent. And innocence is a real thing, but as applied to pre-pubescent kids, not to grown adults. But, I don’t think those notions necessarily imply misogyny.

          1. “But, I don’t think those notions necessarily imply misogyny.” Neither do I. These men may love what they consider innocent and decent women. That means they don’t hate women as such. They may even prefer women over men, under whatever (other) criteria. The term “hatred of women” is thrown around in a hysterical fashion. I guess it’s safe to say that some of their preferences regarding women are “sexist”, meaning they discriminate on the basis of sex (this would capture heterosexuality as well). That doesn’t necessarily mean that their preferences or acts of discrimination are wrongful. And it leaves the broader connections of benevolent (advantageous) and malevolent (disadvantageous) sexism in the dark. It’s necessary to set apart discrimination, disadvantage, malevolence, and hatred. (Also consider trade-offs.) None of that is done in this field of inflation.

  21. Tits have never hurt anybody.

      1. Oh. I thought it’d be a clip from one of the Pink Panther movies.

      2. See this is why the Muslims hate us.

        And after watching thic clip I kinda do also.

        At least there are Greeks . That explains alot.

  22. The spat proves again that idiots come in both sexes and both party affiliations.

    Doesn’t New Hampshire have bigger problems than to worry about whether women show their tits?

    1. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

  23. Nothing says “real man” like offended by titties.

    1. I love me some naked women. And I do absolutely get sick of the socon notions of being “offended” by naked women (or naked men). It is a similar thing as progs being offended by (fill in the blank).
      However, I also get sick of progs constantly yelling “misogyny”. I may not agree with these prudes, and I certainly don’t support a new law banning topless women.
      There are legit concerns about public nudity such as can a man get in trouble for harassment if he stares at a broad with her tits flopping the breeze. The answer isn’t necessarily ticket the women. But the left has created a lot of these issues.

  24. OK I have problems on both sides of this argument. Breastfeeding, in NO WAY requires a woman to expose her nipple. My sister has had five kids and my sister-in-law has had three. Every one of the was breast-fed and they both frequently were around other people when the child needed feeding. They typically had small blankets that they could drape over their shoulder and the baby during feeding. That said, there isn’t really a reason why a woman should HAVE to be modest with her nipples. The exact same body part on a male is somehow completely acceptable, but that part on a female is so horrifyingly offensive that people completely lose their minds when they see one? This couldn’t possibly be more illogical, and the idea of calling a beach a “nude beach” just because a woman is topless, when men remain so without issue, is almost juvenile in it’s complete lack of a fully formed thought.

    1. You are missing the point, Josh. Most here would have no problemo with women breastfeeding. It’s the politization of the subject.

      Retards abound on both sides.

    2. “The exact same body part on a male is somehow completely acceptable, but that part on a female is so horrifyingly offensive that people completely lose their minds when they see one? This couldn’t possibly be more illogical (…).”

      It’s not the exact same body part. It has a different function, is part of a different body part, and part of a different body. You haven’t show any lack of logic.

      As for the term “nude beach”, your mistake continues. And you should be aware that “nude” simply has a more specific meaning there. It can make sense to complain about the relatively poor choice of the word (though by now, convention alone may be reason enough to keep it; what it signifies is easily understood), but you haven’t shown that the thoughts that it “refers” to are insufficiently formed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.