Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

The double standard around nipples always baffled me, for this exact reason.

Where I live (New York), women have the right to be topless anywhere that men do. So that makes all beaches effectively "topless beaches" - the same goes for parks, or even just walking down the street.

Edit: Autocorrect!

View on HN

> The double standard around hippies always baffled me

Whether autocorrect or a Freudian slip, I think we're on to something here.

You can argue that it's impractical or misogynist, but does it really baffle you? The double standard exists because (in American society) female nipples are sexualized in a way that that male nipples are not.

That's circular. They're treated differently because they're treated differently. But why do we put so much effort into maintaining it when it seems pointless?

They're treated differently because western culture treats women and their bodies as objects to be consumed and nothing more.

"Western"? So in the middle east, they are all relaxed about female nudity?

Arguably, almost all cultures and religions have rules related to nudity, sex and in particular, females bodies and their sexual behavior.

That's pretty irrelevant though, because we're talking about NY.

Since men and their bodies aren't treated as "objects to be consumed and nothing more", how does that explain why its illegal for men to be nude in public?

Or are we just saying that women's breast are disconnected objects from the woman, and its those that we treat as objects to be consume? And in contrast, mens breasts are not disconnected objects from the man and thus are not to be consumed.

It's not circular. Culture does not operate in a logical vacuum, you need to include the time component: culture evolves over time. When you consider this, you realize it's just a feedback loop, not a circular argument.

That's a pretty recent thing. IIRC going topless is still technically illegal in NYC. A court case from the late 80s or early 90s carved out a narrow exception (nakedness is not automatically lewdness) without voiding the entire law.

A lot of this back n forth has to do with how patchworks of private or local arrangements get vaulted into the global arena by the internet. Instagram is forced to define and enforce (via programming!) a clear social norm for everyone everywhere, where previously there was not and could never be one without making someone upset.

Ditto the previous hyperventilation about what is and is not a "real" name.

> That's a pretty recent thing. IIRC going topless is still technically illegal in NYC. A court case from the late 80s or early 90s carved out a narrow exception (nakedness is not automatically lewdness) without voiding the entire law.

No, being topless in NYC is definitely legal (specifically: women can be topless anywhere men can be topless), and that's been the case for a couple of decades, if not longer. It's generally not practiced except at certain events like the Pride March. Public nudity, though, is not permitted.

For example, note that the issue in this case is not whether they have the right to be topless in Times Square, but whether they have the right to solicit money in Times Square while being topless: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/nyregion/topless-in-times...

The issue is that Times Square requires performers to be licensed, but performance art is also protected by the First Amendment, and there are laws around working while topless (e.g. strip clubs, which are very strictly regulated in New York - they can't serve alcohol, for example, though there's a loophole some use).

We're saying the same thing. 80s/90s == "couple of decades, if not longer". Granted, 20 years is "recent" to me but is most of a lifetime for others.

Here's the seminal case from '86 protesting the law against female toplessness, which in '92 secured the exception to (but not voiding of) the law in a ruling by the state court:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/16/nyregion/judge-dismisses-c...

Yes, so it's not "technically illegal". That's how courts work when deciding law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com