Posted on 03/01/2016 1:41:02 AM PST by billorites
CONCORD — A bill that would ban topless sunbathing by women at state beaches is needed to preserve New Hampshire values and the viability of tourism, or is a sexist affront to equal rights.
Both points of view were aired with great passion on Monday, as the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard testimony on HB 1525, a bill that adds bare female breasts to the definition of public indecency, indecent exposure and lewdness in state statutes, with an exception for breast feeding.
The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Brian Gallagher, R-Sanbornton, was approached by constituents last year after the “Free the Nipple” movement promoted topless sunbathing at state beaches, including Hampton Beach and Weirs Beach.
Two women cited for going topless at the Gilford town beach last September took their case to court and won. The judge observed that state law does not prohibit toplessness, and dismissed the charges.
Gallagher testified that the issue goes beyond topless sunbathing at state-run beaches.
“It’s a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society,” he said.
He raised the specter of bare breasts in public schools, Little League games, county fairs and the UNH alumni football game, and warned about economic consequences for the state.
“We want to be very careful not to create unintended consequences that will cause the decrease in tourism revenue to the general fund,” he said.
Republican state Rep. Peter Spanos of Winnisquam said it was time to draw a line. “A stand should be made,” he said. “We should address this issue now before we see further erosion of behavior ... Once the genie is out of the bottle, we can’t put it back in.”
That argument was repeated throughout the hearing by supporters of Gallager’s legislation.
“It seems to me the moral fiber of our state and entire country is losing ground,” Chelsea Davis of Tilton said. “You all have an opportunity before you to stop that decline.”
Fears called unfounded
Opponents of the legislation argued that it was unnecessary and discriminatory, because it penalizes women for something men are free to do.
“Public lewdness (for men or women) is already illegal,” said Democratic Rep. Timothy Horrigan of Durham. “Male toplessness is commonplace. Female toplessness is much less commonplace, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.”
Horrigan said fears of widespread female nudity are unfounded.
“I have a season ticket to UNH hockey, and I have never seen any toplessness there, nor at New Hampshire Motor Speedway, even though there are dumb men there constantly calling on their female companions to expose themselves,” he said.
Opponents of the legislation pointed out that until the 1930s, it was illegal in most states for men to go topless at the beach, and until the 1940s, two-piece bathing suits or bikinis were outlawed.
Democratic Rep. Amanda Bouldin of Manchester warned that lawmakers could unintentionally promote more topless protests by passing the legislation. “If you give them a reason to fight, you are going to encourage more toplessness in the form of civil disobedience,” she said.
Ambiguous laws
Gilles Bissonnette, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, said courts have ruled that citizens must tolerate offensive, insulting even outrageous speech and behavior “to allow breathing space for the free speech protections of the First Amendment.”
“This bill is intended to perpetuate traditional gender roles, and tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies,” he said.
The majority of states do not prosecute women under the criminal code for being topless in settings where it’s OK for men. Only Tennessee, Indiana and Utah have outright, clearly written bans like the one proposed in New Hampshire. Laws are ambiguous in 11 states, including Massachusetts.
“We’re not lunatics. We’re not radicals looking to go topless where it would not be public decorum,” said Kari Stephens of Hampton. “But where there is a man in a public space who is comfortable being topless, why should I not be?”
If one were really disposed to be against it, I suppose there are effective countermeasures that could be deployed.
Something like “hey, one of them is lower than the other!”
I was on a beach last summer that had one section for nudes and one for dogs. Right next to each other.
“I was on a beach last summer that had one section for nudes and one for dogs. Right next to each other.”
Could you tell them apart?
One of the problems, speaking from observational not participatory experience, is that the people you’d not mind seeing nude on the beach are not the one who are nude on the beach.
I have not desire to see 225lb middle aged lesbian women nude.
I would resemble the first but I always swim in a shirt to avoid the spectacle
A hundred years ago, it was all about the leg.
A hundred years before that, ladies gowns were designed to show the nipple. But never anything below that.
So much of this really is a social construct.
When I was very young, women in my farm family nursed their babies out in the open and nobody cared. They did it in church just like all of the other women.
Women all over the planet run around topless for their entire lives. You should’ve seen the ‘normal’ ads that they had in Europe back in the 90’s.
We decide if something is ‘too low’ or ‘too high’ or “too much”. Right now, the group is working on a new standard.
Personally, with all the broo-ha-ha over breastfeeding, I’m leaning towards the liberals on this one issue. Values? I value the mother/child bond over everything.
It’s OK for men to show their “titties” but not for women. Why? Tits are not a sexual organ and there is nothing wrong with going topless like men do.
On the other hand, showing sexual organs should be prevented in public.
On this issue, there are two major points to keep in mind, and I would like to see them fully developed.
How little you know.
I know many women who can go orgasmic with just a little tittlation
Reading this made me titter.
Tits are not a sexual organ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Speak for yourself only!
Good morning my young friend. I am so happy to share this fine day with you and comment about such a mysterious wondrous event in our daily lives.
I will be working a full day and meeting, passing and experiencing many distractions and several of the type under discussion.
When I see a puppy or a new small little baby I cannot take my eyes away and am exhilarated by the sight and exhale with a positive sigh. I’m not sure that I could withstand the rush of pleasure of a new mother, breast feeding her new little miracle with a puppy sitting by her side. /s
“Both points of view were aired with great passion ... “
I see what the author did there.
How many is many??
If only. Try speaking out about LGBQT. You will likely be fired from your job.
Eye Bleach Please:
http://www.unionleader.com/storyimage/UL/20160228/NEWS06/160229263/AR/0/AR-160229263.jpg?q=100
From related link:
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20160228/NEWS06/160229263/0/news
see link at my post #19.
Not pretty sight. (nor revealing)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
