| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| reinhard |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 04:28:48 AM
About a situation with partial nudity in the Western Europe and in USA
Toplessness.
Although exposure of nude women's breasts is considered perfectly acceptable in some western countries (Denmark, France, Germany,Spain etc. etc.) in appropriate settings, such as while suntanning, in the United States of America exposure of female nipples is still considered criminal by many states and not usually allowed in public (see Public Indecency). Public breastfeeding, since the exposure it involves is functional, may be looked upon more mildly, but still it is sometimes considered problematic. Courts in some US jurisdictions where legal challenges have arisen, and other North American jurisdictions like Ontario have legalized the exposure of women's nipples, but not on equal protection grounds (see United States Constitution/Amendment Fourteen). Those grounds are the basis of the movement of "topfree equality," which promotes equal rights for women to have no clothing above the waist; the term "topfree" rather than "topless" is used to avoid the latter term's sexual connotations. However, there are still extreme reactions on the parts of many to exposure of the full breast, as in Janet Jackson's partial breast exposure during the half-time show of the 2004 Super Bowl.
===================================
There are some strange laws about trousers in USA,for example,about situation in Louisiana and Virginia:
In May 2004 in Louisiana, state legislator Derrick Shepherd proposed a bill that would make it a crime to appear in public wearing trousers below the waist and thereby exposing one's skin or "intimate clothing".[3] The Louisiana bill was retracted after negative public reaction.
In February 2005, Virginia legislators tried to pass a similar law that would have made punishable by a $50 fine: "any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner".
It is not clear whether, with the same coverage by the trousers, exposing underwear was considered worse than exposing bare skin, or that the latter was already covered by another law.
It passed in the Virginia House of Delegates. However, various criticisms to it arose. For example, newspaper columnists and radio talk show hosts consistently said that since most people that would be penalized under the law would be young African-American men, the law would thus be a form of discrimination against them. Virginia's state senators voted against passing the law.[4][5]
A US mayor plans to pass a law banning the wearing of saggy trousers in his Louisiana town. Carol Broussard, mayor of Delcambre, said that he will sign the proposal unanimously passed by town councillors. Wearing trousers that reveal your underwear will lead to a $500 penalty and the risk of six months in jail. "If you expose your private parts, you'll get a fine," said Mr Broussard. He told the Associated Press that people wearing low-slung trousers are "better off taking the pants off and wearing a dress." Ted Ayo, town attorney, said that the new legislation would expand on existing indecent exposure laws in Louisiana: "This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants. It's about showing off your underwear in public".
Mr Broussard has received local criticism for the ordinance, with some Delcambre residents claiming that the proposal is racially motivated, due to the popularity of "sagging pants" among black hip-hop fans. However, he responded: "White people wear sagging pants, too."
===============
P.S.(The information I did find in the Internet sources. (c))
What is your opinion about the situation in USA? |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| reinhard |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 2:03:15 PM
===============================
Palmer wrote: "Some of them wear sweatpants underneath their sagging jeans. Are they indecent? And so what if you can see their boxers? What's the difference between a pair of boxers and a pair of shorts?"
Different US states have different local laws with different determinations of a term what is an indecency according to local laws.
Read the local legislations of different US states. The US population is 300 million persons. But the most part of the US citizens are not nudists.
In the USA the most part of population has an opinion the indecent things are:
1) nude genitals in public
2) having a sex in public
3) urinating in public
4) defecating in public,
5)nude buttocks in public
6) breastfeeding in public
7) nude female breasts in public
etc etc..
The most part of the US citizens are not nudists . Because the US ladies and gentlemen think it is indecently for respectable persons to be with nude genitals in public.
About legalisation of a nudity of female breasts it is more discussional question in a world, and there are different opinions.
In the Western Europe the most part of women prefer to rest on beaches with nude breasts. But in America there is another situation with another customs , and the most part of the US women prefer to be on beaches in swim-suit with clothed breasts.
===========================. |
| Ranger191 |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 06:48:14 AM
I tend to get a little intense about some political matters and this subject is one of them, so I'll do my best to keep a little calm 
Laws like this one, where the fines are significant and combine possible jail time for an offense that is more of a personal preference are confusing (at best) to me.
I don't like the style, I think it makes the young men look like idiots, especially because they have to consistently pull their pants up so they don't fall all the way down regardless of how tight they crank on that belt. If memory serves, I've rarely seen one of these young men accompanied by a young woman, most usually they're by themselves or with their guy friends, some of whom will invariably be showing the world their underwear.
It doesn't bother me that their underware is showing, nor does it bother me that they look like idiots. What bothers me is that people have so much time on their hands that they would want a LAW with amazing consequences (MONTHS in jail?) for an offense that amounts to bad taste.
I don't like the style, I can't understand why a young man would want to dress in a fashion that makes me wonder if he drools when he talks. But by the same token, he probably can't understand why I don't like to wear any clothing at all. The fact that his pants aren't around his waste isn't harmful to anyone, mentally or physically. Leave the young man alone and don't pass a law that infringes on his right to be a "fashion don't".
Folks who are kept up nights by his low hanging pants should realize that there are more important things in the world to pass laws about. Fashion shouldn't be one of them.
Nobility is not a birthright, it is defined by one's actions. |
| palmer |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 11:19:27 PM
Women in these states where the baring of a breast is considered a criminal offense need to speak up. Allowing a man to remove his shirt in public and saying that a woman can't do the same is blatant discrimination, point blank.
As far as the saggy pants law...
While I think this style is sloppy, ugly and funny looking, the youths that wear their pants in this manner should be allowed to do so. Some of them wear sweatpants underneath their sagging jeans. Are they indecent? And so what if you can see their boxers? What's the difference between a pair of boxers and a pair of shorts?
I have to agree that this law is aimed at minorities. It doesn't matter that some white youth wear their pants low... they will be overlooked by the policemen who decide who they will arrest. |
|
|
