Do public indecency laws violate the equal protection clause for women?

[Perrone]

Another interesting assignment for school today. I had a scenario where a woman removed her blouse to protest that men are allowed to walk around shirtless while women are not. She was arrested and convicted of indecent exposure. Now here are a few definitions to help understand my point of view on this. (Most of the stuff below I copied from my essay on this topic)

Indecent exposure is defined as purposefully displaying one’s genitals in public and causing others to be alarmed or offended.

The genitals are defined as the reproductive organs, especially the external sex organs.

With this in mind breasts are not technically considered sexual or reproductive organs, but rather a milk-secreting glandular organs, which are used as a source of food and nutrition for babies.


Now...

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S Constitution prohibits states from denying any individual equal protection of the laws.

Now that we have covered indecent exposure, we must take into consideration public indecency. Public indecency, as opposed to indecent exposure, does specifically state that it violates the law to expose both the genitals and the female breasts.

Since public indecency specifically mentions the female breasts it could very well be considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because male and females would not be treated the same if in the same situation.


So what do you think?

 

[Traxxis]

Is she hot?

 

[farmerbyron]

I like topless women. This is an agregious violation of civil rights and something must be done.

 

[HMFIC]

I think you have a case.

Fat dudes are allowed but hot chicks are not... doesn't seem fair to me.

[Broken External Image]

 

[brazilianboy]

The moral background about female breast seems to overun the written law; in an Anglo-Saxon system I would stick with the stare decisis principle and look up the Jurisprudence. In Brazil a judge would apply the penal article that approached the most the offense. ( But we are talking about a very detailed Penal Code)

I dont understand American law, but I feel like Aristotle's idea about equality ("equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.") is certainly right and well applied in this case...
women are not equal to man. The wonderful differences shouldn't be ignored. we cant deny that the idea about "breasts" is a social convention, but at the same time, is a common and well accepted idea and society has pretty much established the differences...

Ps: Sorry for any english errors... I tried my best

 

[mhphoto]

I've always thought it odd that man nipples in public are acceptable but boobies are not.

 

[poopgiggle]

Public nudity laws are already BS. It's a 50% chance that you've got whatever they've got. Deal with it.

Since the laws boil down to, "don't expose people to things that offend their ridiculous sensibilities," then no, it doesn't violate equal protection since for some reason woman boobies are just as offensive as penises in our culture.

 

[THE JOKER]

Is she hot?

Probably not!

 

[radarmonkey]

Public nudity laws are already BS. It's a 50% chance that you've got whatever they've got. Deal with it.

Since the laws boil down to, "don't expose people to things that offend their ridiculous sensibilities," then no, it doesn't violate equal protection since for some reason woman boobies are just as offensive as penises in our culture.

Not in my culture!

 

[oneof79]

With this in mind breasts are not technically considered sexual or reproductive organs, but rather a milk-secreting glandular organs, which are used as a source of food and nutrition for babies.

There are not sexual to the kid breast feeding. To every other man on the planet, they are, leaking or not.