Tough Country

Tough Country

Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye

January 23rd, 2003, 6:40 am #1

Whitney,

In a Jan 19 post you said "...the indecent exposure laws in Alabama require a "fully opaque covering of the human female breast". My first reaction was "you sure live in tough country." But such a restrictive law may be a blessing in disguise. I'll explain in a minute.

In your response to Berilee on the 19th you asked her "Do you consider topfreedom to be a form of exhibitionism?" That is when I realized that the big stumbling block to getting others to join you is the "freedom vs. exhibitionism" notion.

It makes sense to me that many women may actually feel that there is discrinination against them when it comes to choosing to be even brafree let alone topfree. But to do anything about it would require them to be, in their eyes, an exhibitionist. (I suspect being brafree is akin to being an exhibitionist to many women because of what others may say. For example, last night on "Meet My Folks" one of the girls that came to meet the folks was brafree. The mother made a snide remark about that. That kind of remark may be very intimidating to the average woman.) Therefore, women may be with you in spirit but not in action.

Now for the silver lining. The "opaque" covering law may help women on your team to feel that they don't actually have to visably exhibit themselves to make a statement about topfreedom. Simply be brafree. They are complying with the law but still protesting. Once people accept that then start making the tops less opaque. (Note: the time line for this will be several months not weeks. A plus is that there will be more time to gather a large team without having to worry about getting busted and paying fines.)

The whole idea is to "sneak" up on the general population so when they eventually see a real topfree woman it will be less of a shock.

I am of the opinion that the medias' take on all of this will set the tone of the protest. The goal is to get the legislature to amend the law. Having a hostle media stirring up the populace will diminish their desire to vote for a change.

At any rate hang in there and good luck.

PS I'm sorry if I offended you with the "red neck" remark. I intended it to be a compliment about your tenacity.
Quote
Share

Nat
Nat

January 24th, 2003, 1:58 am #2

Well as far as I know there are no laws prohibiting brafreedom, although some employment dress codes certainly do. But opaque clothing is not always enough- I understand there are some places where a man can be charged with 'lewd exhibition' or something like that for having a 'visible protuberance' (erection) in public even if it is totally covered by clothing. This seem a bit unfair because as every guy knows- sometimes erections just happen.
Quote
Share

Pat
Pat

January 24th, 2003, 6:18 am #3

"Well as far as I know there are no laws prohibiting brafreedom, although some employment dress codes certainly do."

Sydney Singer and Soma Grismaijer (co-authors of the landmark study on bras and breast cancer) discuss some things that put into perspective the difference between dressing conservatively and requiring bra-wearing.
At their website, they state:

"Stop wearing a bra. You can wear a T-shirt or camisole, but nothing that leaves red marks or dents on the skin.
Do not alter the shape of your breasts, since this requires pressure that can inhibit the circulation.
If you must wear a bra at work but don’t want to, realize that may be sexual harassment."

http://www.selfstudycenter.org/change_tight.htm
Quote
Share

Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye

January 24th, 2003, 6:24 am #4

Well as far as I know there are no laws prohibiting brafreedom, although some employment dress codes certainly do. But opaque clothing is not always enough- I understand there are some places where a man can be charged with 'lewd exhibition' or something like that for having a 'visible protuberance' (erection) in public even if it is totally covered by clothing. This seem a bit unfair because as every guy knows- sometimes erections just happen.
Nat, you said " Well as far as I know there are no laws prohibiting brafreedom ... "

Yes, that is part of my point. The women that join Whitney can start out by going every where brafree to help them get over their uneasyness of being an "exhibitionist". And do so knowing the long arm of the law will not be tapping them on the shoulder.

Recall that I now hold to the position that many women eschew going braless, let alone topless, simply because they may be seen as exhibitionists. That fear will probably be a tough rock to crack.

As Whitney's team gets bigger and they all spend their public lives braless (unless something like work rules restricts them) they will be setting the example for others.

No doubt they will be told by some "do gooder" that they should be wearing a bra. This gives the team member a chance to hand out a business card (with URLs to all the information that has been cited on this site) and to discuss the benifits of brafreedom and the changes needed in the law to bring equality to women.

I'm all for going slow. No "in your face" stuff yet. Getting the media all riled up against Whitney and her team will make change that much more difficult. In fact, I believe that Whitney should have three immediate goals: 1) get a starting team, 2) get a sympathetic lawyer on board, 3) work on getting the media on her side before the nay-sayers do.
Quote
Share