Topfreedom, Exhibitionism and Intent

 

Blog Prospect crop

Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York. Summer 2015.

 

I walk bare-chested because I enjoy the feeling of freedom I experience while doing so.  The term topfreedom was coined in 1986 by Ramona Santorelli, to describe the idea that women and men should be treated equally under the law, and that women should be allowed to go bare-chested where men may do so.

There are many valid, non-sexual reasons for people to go bare-chested.  Evidence of this exists in the neutral attitudes most Americans have toward male bare-chestedness, and the fact that virtually no laws exist to limit men from going bare-chested in public.   It is a freedom men value and we do not protect society from men who wish to exercise this freedom.

Women going bare-chested in public is not actually new, but in some places it feels quite new, and when people see a bare-chested woman they naturally search for her motivations for doing what they perceive to be an unusual thing.  Given that the female body is hyper-sexualized in American culture and many other cultures, it can be difficult for people to look beyond sexuality when trying to guess a woman’s motivation for going bare-chested.

A commenter recently wrote about my M Street video that a female walking bare-chested on the street is exhibitionism.  She was respectful in her tone and I respect her opinion and appreciate the time she took to consider my blog and write a comment.  I love having conversations with people because it spurs ideas and understanding, as this one did.

Exhibitionism has two primary definitions.  The first is simply behavior intended to attract attention to oneself.  The second describes a psychiatric disorder or mental condition characterized by a compulsion to display one’s genitals in public, often deriving sexual pleasure specifically from shocking people who were not expecting to see said genitals.

So in the first regard, of course, posting a video of me walking through Georgetown, Washington D.C., is by its very definition exhibitionist.  Every video on YouTube is exhibitionist in that regard.  If people didn’t want attention, they would not have posted the video in the first place.  My intention in making and posting my video was to bring attention to my walk, and particularly and paradoxically to the fact that the majority of passersby didn’t pay much attention to my walk!

 

The commenter didn’t elaborate on her definition of exhibitionism, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine that she meant my bare-chested walk was sexually exhibitionist.  The easy answer is to simply refer her to the definition and point out that breasts are not genitals.

But beyond that, let’s examine the idea that female bare-chestedness is sexual exhibitionism.  Like disorderly conduct and indecent exposure, sexual exhibitionism requires intent.  For example, a person who gets his clothes ripped off by a tornado would not be guilty of indecent exposure.  He must have the intent to expose his genitals and furthermore, to arouse sexual feelings in his observers or himself.  A woman being stung on the genitals by a bee would not be guilty of indecent exposure for removing her shorts to remove the bee.  Her intent was not sexual.  Likewise, disorderly conduct requires a person to be intentionally disturbing order, by purposefully impeding traffic flow, for example, or playing loud music in the middle of the night in order to upset people.  A person who trips and falls in front of a crowd is not being disorderly, even if traffic backs up as a result.

So declaring a bare-chested woman a sexual exhibitionist (again for the sake of argument ignoring the fact that breasts aren’t genitals) requires 1) breasts to be defined as inherently sexual and 2) a denial of the existence of any non-sexual motivation for a woman to go bare-chested.

Given no real way to prove a person’s intent if that person does not state an intent, I find a real kernel of insight when people immediately assign an exhibitionist motivation to female bare-chestedness.  Just because people react a certain way to a person does not mean inciting that reaction was the person’s motivation for making the behavior.

I primarily walk bare-chested because I enjoy feeling the sun on my skin, and secondarily because I am working to normalize female bare-chestedness so other women can feel the same joy I do.  My primary intent is personal comfort.  My secondary intent is to promote societal and political equality.

My intention is not to incite sexual pleasure or thoughts in myself or others.

Yet sometimes people will deny this explanation and say basically, nope.  I don’t believe you.  You are walking bare-chested to get sexual attention, feel sexual pleasure, elicit sexual reactions in others, etc.  Nothing I can say or do will convince some people that a woman can walk bare-chested for non-sexual reasons.

My blog exists to enable supporters of topfreedom to feel informed and to share ideas that will help normalize female bare-chestedness.  I believe a large and growing number of people have accepted the idea that women can in fact appear bare-chested for many valid reasons.  Some people have not.

I do think we apply more negative energy to women receiving attention than we do to men.  Consider the disparate reactions to male and female soccer players whipping their shirts off in celebrations. or the judgment successful professional women receive (cold bitches or absent mothers), while their male counterparts are seen as focused or driven for the same behavior.

The fact that society does not judge or criminalize men for going bare-chested to win sexual attention even though many do (cough cough, Jersey Shore) is a whole other conversation…

The only way to abolish the opinion that female bare-chestedness is automatically sexual exhibitionism is to show bare-chested women behaving in otherwise conventional and non-confrontational ways.  Eventually we will think about female bare-chestedness the same way we think of male bare-chestedness; we won’t.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “Topfreedom, Exhibitionism and Intent

  1. Another very well written, and thought provoking article. Out of curiosity, why do you use the term bare-chested rather than topless? Is there a connotation to the words, or is it something else?

    Like

  2. When I was involved in similar public relations and legal litigation in the Boston/Cambridge area, we boiled it down to a simple phrase that helped: Being nude is not lewd. (We had a more inclusive intention than you.) “Lewd” has a legal definition of “provoking or intending to provoke a sexual response.” That covered breasts and genitals, thus avoiding another whole issues of “female vs. male.”
    Keep up the good work. Although you have hardly had any winter, SPRING is coming! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you as always. So many of the laws regarding our bodies have this intent component, which people usually ignore completely when deciding if an act is legal or illegal. It frustrates me when I really think about it. Indecent exposure has two components. Indecency and exposure. Two separate things. There is no crime of exposure. There has to be a certain behavior or intent involved with the exposure to tip it towards indecency. The day I walked around Brattleboro, Vermont I asked a female police officer if full public nudity was really legal in Vermont and she kind of sighed and said yes. And then she explained to me what behaviors a nude person should avoid to stay within the law, for example she said, don’t fondle your genitals, don’t make overtly sexual gestures, don’t appear sexually aroused, etc. But I thought that was cool, because the mere act of being nude was not the crime. It was the indecency part that was a crime. Somewhere along the way mere nudity has become equated with indecency and it’s not how the laws are written. I can’t remember if you’ve told me where you live now? Are you still in Boston?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Two or three years ago, people in Brattleboro and other cities in Vermont started testing the limits because (at that time) Vermont had NO laws regarding exposure. Then people started hanging out around town and, generally, being a nuisance. I’m glad the female police officer gave you the latest scoop. Did she show any annoyance with your own presentation?
        After leaving Boston, I floated around northern and southern California for three decades. Then I retired and we moved to Santa Fe, NM. The law is pretty conservative (of Victorian ideas) here. But they are accepting of genuinely artistic naked photography in many of the beautiful natural settings. There are, also, many natural hot springs where total nudity is fairly common.
        There is a good chance we’ll be in the Washington/Baltimore areas this summer. Perhaps we’ll see you! 🙂

        Like

        1. Yes. Brattleboro passed an ordinance banning genital exposure and female breast exposure in a specified area of the downtown commercial district, but not in the entire town. The residential areas still apparently allow nudity. We stopped and asked a Brattleboro police officer for details as we drove to Keene, NH. It was a traffic jam in Brattleboro that day so we didn’t stop. It’s on my list to walk there though. The Bennington police officer I would say was uncomfortable but she was professional, and I didn’t have any trouble during my two hour walk. I had one negative comment from a car, a female who told me to buy the shirt I was looking at in a shop window, but otherwise I actually had a lot of pleasant little exchanges that day. One woman was super excited about it and gave me a high five. Yeah, let me know if and when you guys come to the DC area. Thank you.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Love the discussions that spring from your walks Gingerbread. As long as we’re talking about open-minded VT, I’d like to invite any like minded persons reading this to join the nearest World Naked Bike Ride this coming summer. We have a small but very well accepted one every June in Montpelier, VT but there are also others all around the world. The WNBR’s motto is “Bare as you dare”. The goal is to de-sexualize the human body and promote the joy of human powered transportation. I encourage the fans of this blog to take a look. Gingerbread, I know you enjoy biking. We’d love to have you join us. Keep up the great work.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. The herd, whether it be zebra or other breed, is a good analogy, if I may draw from comments on your other blog; Nipples, Social Isolation and Facebook.
    If you or anyone putting videos on YouTube would be deemed exhibitionist by definition, my thought runs to the ‘herd’ concept.
    Which is to say that, although I’ve rsearched your blogs sufficiently to affirm to myself that you are not a sexual exhibitionist in intent, you’re certainly getting global attention. I would reach the conclusion, having read your blogs, that you might be calling out to your herd.
    In this big world, we are city streets filled with people of all kinds of cultures walking amongst each other. How you find the displaced members of your herd? You raise a flag for eveyone to see, that’s how. “I’m over here!” is the call, a howling call I hear every night from the foxes as they run through the woodlands and pasturelands surrounding my Northern California home. They call to each other in the dark.
    Gingerbread, I want to thank you for putting out the message to all who are of like minds as you; for calling your tribe to pull in, gather together, find each other. Too many souls are lost and, as a result, isolated. There are some lone, lost zebras out here being eaten alive. Thank you for rescuing them.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you Stephe. Your comments are always kind and touching. My primary goal in walking, as I’ve said a dozen times, is to simply enjoy my walk. But my goal in starting this blog and doing this work for topfreedom and equality and body pride is to work toward building an environment that allows individuals to make the choices that allow them to achieve their own happiness and freedom. Maybe that involves topfreedom, maybe not, but it should at least be an option, a choice. I have been learning along with everyone else here, and I keep peeling back the layers, to find more and more fundamental issues to address. The reality is that people feel most comfortable when they feel socially secure. So your imagery is spot on, raise the flag and see who arrives. Maybe if enough of us contribute we build a group large enough to normalize this form of equality once and for all. It is beautiful to think that someone out there feels less alone to see other kindred spirits. Thank you.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. The woman, who referred to you as an exhibitionist, may have been expressing her opinion based on a conditioned response.
    Women having their photos reported for containing nudity on sites like Facebook, photos which show their chests while breastfeeding or after surgery.
    The people who report these photos, I believe, are not doing it out of a sense of outrage over a bare chested woman. Instead I see them using this feature as a means to intimidate and create a feeling of shame in women for stepping outside an invisible box.
    I think this woman’s opinion was reactionary and a conditioned response.

    Like

    1. Hi Cherokee: I agree completely about people flagging social media as a weapon against gender equality, and not out of any offense regarding the actual content. Case in point, YouTube emailed me this morning to say they had removed my Brighton Beach video after it was “flagged by the community.” My account is on probation now with a “strike” on it, and they laid out my future punishments if I should continue to violate community guidelines. Yet there remain countless videos of bare-chested women elsewhere on YouTube, including explicitly sexual or exploitative, voyeuristic, non-consensual settings. I believe someone who disagrees with my call for gender equality regarding bare-chestedness is flagging my videos to abuse the community guidelines process. YouTube limits a user’s “appeal” of a video removal to 320 characters (laughable) and does not accept emails unless your videos have 75,000 hours of view time in a 90 day period. It’s pretty frustrating. I preemptively marked all my own videos as mature content (which is a shame tactic in itself) to keep them from being removed as long as possible, but I suspect whoever has flagged my two other videos will or has already targeted all of my videos and it will just be a matter of time before my account is suspended. I guess I should grab the comments and save them before that happens… If anyone has suggestions, I’m open to hearing them. Thank you.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I haven’t used that site, either for uploading or viewing, but there is another option, Daily Motion (Dailymotion.com), on which non-sexual nudity is also permitted. However, it may be that you have to mark the videos as containing nudity because there is an ‘age gate’ which the user has to turn off to watch ‘adult’ content, which may be the same as YouTube.

          Like

          1. Thank you. Yes, I am hearing a consensus building around Vimeo and Daily Motion. I will start working on that in time. It’s amazing to see the disparity between what YouTube and Facebook allow insofar as violence, vitriol, sexual exploitation and so on, but what they disallow when it comes to women voicing empowerment. Google and Facebook have incredible power right now over social movements.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I recently stumbled on a growing Facebook alternative known as Friendica. It is a social network platform you host yourself. There is no provider to decide your content is not worthy or appropriate. The down-side is you have to have the capacity and knowhow to get started. I have yet to make the time investment to set up my own but they tell me it is no harder to set up than a WordPress blog. This could be the way out from under FB’s thumb. I hope this might be helpful as your group of supporters grow. Another tool in the arsenal against censorship.

              Liked by 1 person

      1. It sounds like you do not know who has been flagging/targeting your videos. That leads me to assume the person(s) responsible for these complaints to YouTube has not taken advantage of opportunities to voice complaints to you personally first. Thoughts? Am I right on that assumption?
        You don’t seem like a scary woman. I don’t know why a person wouldn’t talk with you directly.
        The Internet provides a lot of room for anonymity. People feeling a need to remain anonymous usually have deep reasons for needing that cloak though. I suspect this person who is taking his/her complaint to YouTube is a person of deep convictions but socially incapable of garnering group support. You, on the other hand, have acquired quite a following. The complainer seems to lack the ability to win a following and thus chose to simply tattle to someone who could thump you for them.
        I dont know. Just guessing here. I don’t have a solution to your frustration here, my friend. But whoever did this to you is probably, somewhere somehow, a victim of some form of violence at some point in life. And in The Stockholm Syndrome of mental circuitry, he/she is trying to appease their captor; win respect in the eyes of their abuser by slapping someone else around.
        I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist by any means. Just intrigued.

        Like

        1. Correct, I do not know who flagged the video. I think you’re right to ponder the motivating factors for someone to object to this type of message. I don’t have a problem with flagging or community standards as a general concept. It’s where a company draws a line and how it draws it that I find troubling. Facebook allows overt messages of misogyny and rape to stand but takes down every image of a female nipple, including the ones being used to counter the rapists. YouTube shows endless fight videos, violence, war, graphic injury, but removes a video of a woman walking peacefully, without confrontation, legally, all because one person out of 75,000 flagged it. It’s remarkable. And there’s no way to contact them to argue a point. It’s just this big machine that doesn’t care what we think, it feels like. I read that YouTube is the second most used search engine next to Google, and YouTube is owned by Google. And who is Google? No one knows. But it mediates an awful lot of our political speech and it is not subject to the Constitution. I’m not shocked or anything that YouTube took a video down, it’s just heavy to ponder the strength these corporations have over our opinions and voices. I have other options for posting videos and we have a network of supporters and the conversation is strong, so I’m good. Slow, patient, forward. Thank you, as always.

          Liked by 2 people

            1. I’ve been kicking it around in my head all day, in the background, about whether it is worth the effort or not to try to take on YouTube and Facebook in some meaningful way. I’ve always said no, not worth the effort, but now that I think about how much power they have, I’m beginning to think that it would be a huge push toward normalization if FB and YouTube saw female bare-chestedness as benign and healthy. Still pondering… I don’t even know how we would do it. All these critical posts and tweets and such don’t seem to be moving them. Anybody know Zuckerberg? lol.

              Liked by 2 people

                  1. Thank you. I would love to hear FB’s rationale for their censorship policy from FB itself. They basically refuse to address the topic. I would love to know what the internal conversations sound like, or if they just don’t talk about it at all. Maybe it’s best I don’t know, lol. Thank you though. I will research this Chris Cox character….

                    Liked by 1 person

  5. So true that nudity isn’t necessarily sexual, but on top of that there is nothing wrong or bad about sex either. When someone says “Don’t expose your breasts because that’s sexual,” the implication is that sex is bad. Teaching and maintaining the belief that sex is bad is the whole point of shaming. Prohibiting nudity is a way to censor the alternative belief that sex isn’t bad. Communities should focus on discouraging insensitivity and exploitation, whether it involves sex or not, rather than supporting the traditional belief that sex is bad, and body shame is good.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I agree and that’s what I began alluding to in my last article. I think so much dysfunction stems from irrational prohibitions and fear-based decision making. Put something, anything, in a box and tell people they can’t look in that box and they will spend the rest of their lives trying to get in that box.

      Like

    2. Absolutely right, Sexhysteria. Gingerbread’s campaign to normalise bare female breast exposure is a great start, but I see it as the first of several steps towards normalising attitudes to nudity and sex, which do not affect anyone but the participants and should therefore be of no interest to anyone else, anywhere, at any time. That needs to be taught to children in place of the view that both nudity and sex are deplorable, dirty and totally undesirable.

      Like

  6. Sounds like you need to put up duplicate posts of your videos on one of the other sites and prepare to switch the links in your posts. I hope you still have the originals. If you don’t already own your own 4 TB backup drive, I’d get one soon.

    Like

    1. Hey, yeah, sounds like Vimeo and Daily Motion are the people’s choice. It’s frustrating on one level, scary on another, how much power Google has over us. Facebook too. They can control our voices now. That’s pretty heavy. But, undeterred, forward…

      Like

      1. Such control isn’t healthy, especially with Facebook seemingly growing in power, and prevalence, with every passing day. It’s basically stifling free speech, something we are complacently allowing due to our tacit approval. Because there is no way of talking to Mark Zuckerberg, it’s almost like existing with an Internet benign dictator.

        Like

  7. It is funny that you mentioned Jersey Shore. It was living at the Jersey Shore that introduced me to naturism and got me thinking about the human body and the shaming by society. I intensely disliked the scene that I witnessed at the beaches at the shore. Guys hitting on girls. The attention to appearance to attract, and the passive shaming of people with less than perfect bodies. Frankly it was a meat market. I wanted a beach where I could relax, unwind, and be me. I stumbled on to Gunnison Beach just for that reason. People there were non-judgemental and the sight of a topless woman or nude person was not a sign of exhibitionism; it was normal.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s one of those things you can’t unfeel, isn’t it? The absence of shame. I think it’s like chronic pain. You don’t really know what it was or how long you lived with it or how much it affected your life until it’s gone. And that’s not to say it’s gone forever, but just to be able to breathe freely once, it changes a person.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. With each outing, you provide indisputable evidence, as Mark Twain might say, that worries about “disorder” when a female is bare-chested in public have been greatly exaggerated.

    I noticed in one of your videos that I was one of the male passersby in Georgetown. Like so many others along your way, I seem to have survived the experience without trauma.

    And I hasten to add that there is no need to congratulate me on my progressive attitudes. Whether someone is wearing a shirt on warm day just isn’t on my list of major preoccupations.

    Now that women can actually see through you that they can take off their shirts without fuss, I suspect others will give it a try, find that it is just pleasant and undramatic, and very quickly not think twice about it. (…well, at least perhaps after the current winter blizzards fade into summer.)

    Anyway, it is clear that exhibitionists who want being bare-chested to continue to be a big deal are going to have to up their game to get noticed. And that will make “intent” all the more identifiable.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Super cool, Pete. That’s fun to ponder, crossing paths. Thank you for taking the time to make this comment. I won’t congratulate you on your progressive attitude, per your request, but I will celebrate it and hold it up as a model for others. High five.

      Like

    1. Hi Matthew, we watched this last night, several times actually, and were just mesmerized by the sheer beauty of the human body. We watched it on 1/4 speed too, and the slow motion accentuates the control and precision of the dancers’ movements. I’m also struck by the comments below the piece, both on this particular video but on other versions of the same performance. Universally, people comment on the brilliance of the performance without any reference to the dancers’ attire. Your comment brought this to mind. Human beings are beautiful, artistic, strong, magical phenomena. Why do we prohibit the sharing of this beauty? It truly is strange. (Interesting side note… this video has been viewed 86,000 times and has not been flagged as adult content. The artistry I believe speaks for itself. But a video of a woman (me) just walking down the sidewalk gets flagged. Fascinating.)

      La Danza de las Horas, Angel Corella, Latizia Giuliani 2013

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What a remarkable video, and a brilliant piece of dance. I was mesmerised by the dancers’ grace, power, and precision; the costumes (or lack thereof) were secondary in the overall aesthetic.

        On a separate, but related note, I was talking with someone yesterday and she was talking about a recent meal she had with her family and boyfriend, a shy man, who was visibly distressed. When she asked why, it was because several large chested women were sitting close by – in his line of sight – with very low-cut tops. This illustrates how context is huge when it comes to attire (or, again, lack thereof), and how people can be conditioned to avoid eye contact with particular parts of people’s bodies. Certainly, staring would have been inappropriate, but to become physically and mentally uncomfortable by the mere presence of ‘female skin’ shows how pervasive the female form has been marketed and presented throughout his life. I doubt he would be the only one who would find that situation uncomfortable – others may have found it stimulating.

        Like

        1. There is another video of a different performance of the same ballet with the same two dancers (Letizia Giuliani and Angel Corella) in which he is wearing Lycra leggings rather than briefs. The aspect ratio is a little screwed up, but it again shows the incredible strength and precision from the two leads, plus the other dancers. Rather than looking at her breasts, I was more astounded by the muscles on her legs and back!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. We’ve been watching other performances with nude and minimally clothed dancers of both genders, high art, professional dancers in large productions, and it’s starting to change how we see traditionally clothed dancers. After watching Latizia Giuliani and Angel Corella, after seeing their bodies working, their muscles engaging, their fingers gripping and clawing each other’s skin, to see the body shape change with centrifugal force during spins and jumps, we feel like watching clothed dancers is robbing us of vital information about the performance. Giuliani has other bare-chested performances on YouTube as well, including an interesting rehearsal as such. She also has traditionally costumed performances, including a couple of this same dance you and I reference, and they just are not the same artistically. To us, anyway. Isn’t that something to ponder?

            Liked by 2 people

            1. There is something incredible about the mostly naked performances, which are different from the ‘socially acceptable’ form of dance because, as you say, there is a different element to the performance, which could be interpreted as intimate, animal, primal, emotional, intense. All of these combine to something more fascinating than when they are in leotards, dresses, tutus etc. which, although they could provide the dancer with a character (even though that could be achieved through a mask or headdress), robs the person watching on a computer or television of the close-ups you describe so eloquently.

              It is interesting how YouTube seems to allow those videos of a barechested woman to pass without comment, whereas others (such as The Female Body as Art) is marked as ‘age restricted (based on community guidelines)’. Admittedly, the latter shows full frontal nudity, but its intention, like others is art (others are educational) and not titillation. This goes back to the crux of your argument, and the objectification, sexualisation, and commodification of the female body.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. It really is amazing. I never even fully thought about the beauty and artisticness added when you can see the body in contrast to the traditional clothing. It just, for me, verifies so much that God made our bodies with such a level of beauty that man cannot reproduce. I’ve always found it almost funny yet wonderful to know that even the things that most of our society treats as indecent, God took the time and effort to beautifully craft ever single nook and cranny and part of our body. It’s wonderful to think about. There is so much beauty within the most natural parts of ourselves. It pains me how much we (as in society) treat it like some shame that should be hidden.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. And still others would find it unremarkable altogether. It will be fascinating to watch this type of arc when bare-chestedness is established as legal in enough places, and enough women use the freedom, to change the way people view say, cleavage, or bralessness. I know people who are uncomfortable with male bare-chestedness, too. The difference is that those people do not feel empowered legally or socially to mount significant opposition to a man going bare-chested, even when they personally find it objectionable. It says something about power and hierarchy I think. Thank you for your comment.

          Liked by 2 people

  9. I am a member of British naturism and I agree that the current clothes regulations are unnecessary and old-fashioned. It’s not what you wear. It’s what you are. And if that’s nice and kind, nothing else matters at all!

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Re-reading this post from a few months ago, I thought of a close analogy in my personal life. I ride a unicycle, and ever since high school days have used it as a means of transportation. I lived at the far end of my school bus route and discovered I could get the four miles directly to school faster on one wheel than it took the school bus to traverse the 15 mile route.

    That said, while on the wheel, I routinely caught people’s attention while on my way from Point A to Point B. But showing off was not the intent, not even a desire. I just needed to go from here to there, and the unicycle was the mode of transportation available at that time. Some would want me to stop and talk, and I did. On rare occasions, I’d get a derisive catcall of some sort but I ignored it and continued on, undeterred.

    At college, I rode it to and from class all the time. Sure, in the first few days of a school year, it was a novelty, a strange and unusual sight to the freshman, transfers, and occasional visitors. But over days and weeks, the students who lived on the same side of campus as me got used to the sight of Stu rolling past on the wheel. In short, they became normalized to my appearance. Eventually a couple others also joined in, and at one point we had three or four unicyclists on campus.

    So what Gingerbread is doing is pretty much the same thing. It’s unusual, but the intent is not sensational; she’s just going about her business, dressing herself in a slightly unusual fashion. Done often enough, people get used to the sight, and it no longer registers as being that unusual, just like my unicycle became.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. I ave often wondered why bare-chestedness (and even nudity) are not considered basic human rights as defined by the Constitution (under the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Couldn’t a case be made for nudity (full or partial) to be acceptable and permissible for all except in certain circumstances where health and safety might be compromised?

    I wish the hundreds of groups advocating free beaches would come together under a single banner to legally petition this issue. Any thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In the United States, wouldn’t full or partial nudity come under the First Amendment, particularly freedom of speech and to ‘peaceably’ assemble?

      Like

  12. However the interpretation, the fact is that nudity (or bare-chestedness in females) is banned. Why is it banned? What is wrong with it? Shouldn’t it easily and convincingly be argued that it is a basic right, and should NOT be banned? My question is, has this issued been raised before, and if so, what was the result. If not, why not?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. GINGERBREAD you get it girl wife has been a topfree girl most of her life she goes bra-less most of the time but she cannot go topless because of her job . She enjoys being topless at home or on the deck she to likes the fresh air on her breasts. She only wishes she could do it all the time wish she could meet up with you some time to discuss the future and spend time with you and your topless friends. reply if you can

    Like

    1. That’s great. Thank you. As always, people wishing to reach me private can email me at breastsarehealthy@gmail. I would be happy to correspond with your wife about her experiences and learn from her as well. Thank you 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s