Washington Post and Baltimore Sun Offer Their Opinions of Ocean City’s “Emergency” Ordinance

Frick Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Summer 2016
Enjoying the cool of the evening on what had been a very hot and muggy day, we set our blankets about 20 feet from the main road running past the park. In the background, a children’s playground can be seen. We played Frisbee and went for walks. We had no negative interactions.

I think we all kind of knew this was coming…

For the last three years I have been going bare-chested in Ocean City, Maryland.  I estimate about 30 outings across three summers.  I have done my usual thing… doing my research, contacting the police, talking to beach patrol officers, confirming the legality, having conversations, answering questions etc etc, and of course just enjoying the beach bare-chested.

Unlike places like Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, York Beach, and Washington D.C., Ocean City officials never would come out and say it was legal for me to be bare-chested, but they never interacted with me either, no arrests, no orders to cover up.  As the conversation evolved, I even offered to arrange my peaceful arrest so we could just go to court and figure it out.

Eventually I convinced the local state’s attorney (who has been professional and courteous through all this) to ask the Attorney General for an official opinion on the topic.  It was supposed to take three months, but the AG stalled for more than 10 months.  Eventually, the summer season arrived and the head of the beach patrol issued an internal guidance memo telling his crew to leave bare-chested women alone.

A local reporter, Shawn Soper, from the Maryland Coast Dispatch, got a hold of the memo, published it and social media went wild.  Less than a week later, Ocean City passed an “emergency” ordinance in an unannounced meeting banning female, but not male, bare-chestedness.

Then two days later, surprise, the Attorney General’s office issued a “letter of advice” (which they said is not an official opinion) which equivocated and said, basically, nothing.

Followers of topfreedom don’t need the history lesson, but nearly identical ordinances in Fort Collins, Colorado and Springfield, Missouri were held to be unconstitutional in federal courts in 2016.

So I have an attorney now, a national civil rights attorney named Devon M. Jacob.  I feel quite confident that he understands the issues and that I am and the cause is in good hands.  And that’s about all I can say about that for now.

A lot has been going on.  I thank everyone who continues to speak civilly in my comment section, even when we don’t agree.  That has always meant as much to me as anything else.  But please take a few minutes to read these two pieces and just pause and ponder on the distance we have come.  Thank you so much to all the people who have pioneered, continued and supported the topfreedom movement and gender equality, and equality in general.

“OC Officials: The Boobies Are Coming!” Baltimore Sun, June 13, 2017

“Local Perspective In Ocean City, Hooters, thongs and horror over topless women on the beach”, Washington Post, June 12, 2017

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “Washington Post and Baltimore Sun Offer Their Opinions of Ocean City’s “Emergency” Ordinance

  1. The following used to be common almost everywhere, so why now are breasts the target of oppression? You couldn’t get a less rational situation. The fight must go on or we all lose. Freedom always must be fought for. This lesson has to be instilled into our young, lest they become the new oppressors.

    In the 1926 Ironwood Daily Globe:

    “In this press release by the district’s superintendent, it is clear that the policy for boys to swim completely naked in many programs was not optional but mandatory, all the while girls always wore suits. It states:

    “Boys shall not be permitted to use suits while swimming. Girls must wear swimming suits preferably of cotton. All instructors in charge of classes consisting of either boys or girls shall wear swimming suits.”

    Reports from men that once attended such classes tell of stories wherein their normal instructor was unavailable, and the substitute teacher was the female instructor that typically taught the girls’ classes.”

    Like

      1. I lived through this long period of time, although I was in the tail end of it. There was nothing more natural feeling. I do remember a few of the girls feeling resentment at having to be swimsuited and not experiencing the freedom the guys had. It was so normal, in fact, that boys’ swim teams sometimes had their team photos in the school yearbooks minus any swim suits. I know it’s hard for today’s people to believe, but it’s true. I apologize for going off topic, but it’s to show how utterly absurd it is to have such a repressive attitude toward female breasts. The world has gone upside down.

        Like

    1. I like this comment and commend the commenter for doing the research. We tend to think “morality” is an unchanging, universal thing. But whatever is considered “moral” has a lot to do with both the era and the region of the globe in which you happen to live.

      That said, technology influences morality. Hate to repeat myself from my comment on the other thread, but does anyone realize that we can ALL stand on the street and view Chelsea topless on our screens and that’s fine, but if she was standing in front of us it would be illegal?

      Americans can only accept their reality on little screens, not in the real world where it belongs.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Thanks! I forgot to mention something. For the first time in America’s history, we have a First Lady who has posed nude extensively — and few people on either side of the political spectrum have much of a problem with it. I think that also has to do with how normalized nudity has become in the age of the World Wide Web.

          But whatever the case, the fact is that American knew this going in and said “OK!” It’s a bit hard to reconcile that America is fine with a nude First Lady, yet simultaneously thinks a few topless women on a beach will bring about the collapse of society as we know it.

          Finally (sorry, but it’s in my nature to sound off), I’m tired of reading articles about you that keep using the phrase “family-friendly” when speaking of Ocean City. I used to be a reporter and was careful with the words I chose. Claiming America’s beaches are “family-friendly” is inferring the beaches in Germany, Greece, France, and Spain aren’t. Which is ridiculous and demeaning to those countries. If anyone isn’t “family-friendly,” it’s the U.S., which produces a passel of nude “celebrities” who “break the Internet” with nude selfies and sex tapes.

          Who are we kidding, and how long can we keep up the charade? Keep up the good work and I look forward to that future blog post.

          Liked by 4 people

    1. Thank you. The most influential thing a supporter can right now do is to have quiet, reasonable and informed conversations about top freedom and equality with family and friends, no need to argue, that just scares people and they dig in, but listening and sharing. That’s number one

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m sorry you have to deal with this but I commend you for fighting civilly. Speaking only for myself as a semi-normal man I would just like to go on record that I am not offended by ANY woman’s breasts. All human bodies are God’s workmanship and are exquisitely beautiful. My prayers and best wishes for a happy outcome!

    Like

  3. Breasts are for feeding children..what’s more family friendly than that…love that statement…
    Behind you all the …way…still trying to educate and discuss with people here in Patton

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The Holy Bible states that we are created in the” Image of God. ”
    The human body is beautifully sculpted. Artists have copied it in stone and bronze for centuries.
    As a believer in God, using the Holy Bible as a guide on this journey of life, I can not undestand those that are offended, ashamed, or embarrassed at the Image of the God that created them.
    Having meaningful conversations and interacting with bare-chested women changed the way I see women in everyday life. I found that interacting equally allows me to concentrate the person inside, and not dwell on outward appearance. Now I can see the interbeauty much easier. I found a new respect.
    I find it hurtful to hear someone say “look at the boobs on THAT”. SHE is not a “that”. SHE could be my daughter, my grand daughter, or my wife. SHE is someone’s daughter. Respect her!
    “That” is an object, not a person.
    How much more “family friendly” can you get than the “Image of God”
    Keep up the good work Chelsea. Thank you for leading the way. May God Bless you and your works.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m glad to find Bible-believers who treat women’s breasts with the dignity given them by the Creator Who designed their form and function, instead of reinforcing their dysfunctional treatment by our sex-obsessed culture. Teaching breastfeeding as a male nurse deprogrammed the misled training I received in my upbringing. Breasts do not define women, but they anatomically identify their gender with elaborate physiological machinery for potentially nurturing new human life. Their God-made beauty deserves joyous praise from God’s people, not moral disdain from sex-focused religion nor pornographic defilement from sex-focused exploitation.
      I support the efforts of people like Chelsea, because top-freedom tells the simple truth. It would take one generation of complete top freedom for history to look back on the current social and religious status quo in this area as abysmal immaturity, indefensible irrationality, and sexually objectifying perversity. My effort in this cause has been to write “Teaching God’s Design for Breasts” (http://www.pastordavidrn.com/files/Breasts.html), and the webpage has links to PDF brochures of the article to be printed out and distributed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I just read your linked article. It is well-considered and refreshing to read a pastor support the Holy creation of the female breast and to reject the sexual taboo and body shaming and pornification our society has attached to the breast. You clearly support open and shamefree breast feeding. Thank you. What has the response to your position been? People objecting to top freedom and breastfeeding on religious modesty grounds I have found to be pretty open minded and willing to talk it out calmly. I think your article explains that… That it feels mentally and spiritually jarring to argue God’s creation is prurient or shameful and must be covered. I love the idea of instead placing the blanket over the facial expressions of those showing judgment and disdain. That is beautiful. Thank you for writing so boldly.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. About 12 years ago, the website http://www.007b.com (about breastfeeding, breast health, breast acceptance and breast freedom) got me started on researching this area. Since that time, I’ve written a great deal, ready to publish my 2nd book about it.

          I’m not afraid of being challenged on my viewpoint, because I have so much solid historical, Biblical, and cross-cultural ground to stand upon, while proponents of body shame have only their allegiance to a human-unfriendly cultural error to defend their sexual obsession with naked human anatomy.

          You might also enjoy another article I wrote from my spiritual and theological stance on body acceptance, “A Dangerous Male Myth: ‘Men are visual.’” (http://www.pastordavidrn.com/files/DangerousMaleMyth.html).

          Blessings on your spiritual journey, Chelsea!

          Like

      2. This is a really interesting, refreshing, and thought-provoking piece, which challenges my own preconceptions about those who seem to oppose gender equality due to religious beliefs.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. I think this issue will ultimately be won by referring to the Maryland Constitution. Specifically, Article 46 of the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights states:
    “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.”
    This, to me, very explicitly precludes taking away a right based on gender – such as, in this matter, taking away from women, but not from men, the right to be topless.
    It would seem that Maryland’s Attorney General Brian Frosh compromised his integrity for the sake of political expedience. Quite simply, Frosh didn’t want to potentially offend conservative-leaning voters, regardless of what the Maryland Constitution says. Hence, the reason it took Frosh 10 months to issue anything — and what was ultimately issued wasn’t actually an official “opinion,” wasn’t in Frosh’s name, and didn’t actually address the legal question that was posed by the Worcester County State’s Attorney.
    Unfortunately, given Frosh’s having punted the question to the courts, much time, effort and money will have to be wasted in order for the Maryland Constitution to ultimately be followed.
    Thank you for your efforts. If money is needed, please let us know how we can contribute.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yep lots of money and time will wasted but the courts in Maryland are gonna rule in favor of the Ocean City ordinance mark my words

      Like

      1. Jay, I don’t know what joy you get from dangling failure in her face on a string, like a cat toy. It would be easy to dismiss you as merely an annoying commenter, except that you seem to have an inside track to what’s going on at the governmental level. Myself, I have no horse in this race, other than being one of her early and ardent supporters. But I do have a thought worth considering.

        You seem not to understand that all she’s asking for is recognition of the equality promised by the Maryland Constitution. Is equality, true equality for women, all that scary a concept? She herself wrote about it a year and a half ago in this blog post.

        It would be a lot easier on everyone if anyone had a cogent reason to oppose it. There is none. There is fear, there is misogyny, there is the belief that unfairness is right, there is the ingrained power structure that tries to keep women from being equals in this society. A hundred years ago, it was about women voting. The opposition then was nonsense, as is the opposition now. Whatever your objections, they don’t wash.

        Let women be peaceably equal. Ultimately that’s all that’s being asked.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey bus I have no problem with equal rights for men and women but to say that there’s no difference between a man and woman is pretty naïve to say that men’s breasts are equal to women’s breasts is naïve and I do have somewhat of an inside track what’s going on in Washington DC my father was a lawyer he’s retired now and my cousin works for the department of justice in Washington DC and of all the people I’ve talk to lawyers and legal experts they all agree that this is not going to get overturned but they have told me stuff before and the information turned out the be wrong or the Outcome turned out to be different

          Like

          1. You are right, it is naïve to deny there is a difference between men’s and women’s bodies. That’s not the matter at hand though; rather that it seems to matter to some that those differences are meaningful. Why should it matter to anyone that a woman attire herself most comfortably to her while lying on a beach, sewing a button on a shirt while sitting on a park bench, or nailing shingles on a roof? Why is it in the state’s interest to control that? The proper response to seeing a topfree woman in any situation is, “Yeah? So what?”

            Unless you can define a cogent, rational explanation, I ask that you call off the dogs. There is nothing to object to.

            Liked by 3 people

    2. With lawyers and a state constitution involved, I want to pick up on the last line of Charles Smith’s post: “If money is needed, please let us know how we can contribute.” I am sure I am not the only one here who’d like to support the upcoming legal battle with more than enthusiasm.

      Chelsea, have you thought about setting up a crowd-sourced contribution fund for your legal expenses that we all could chip into? There are a number of fund-raising sites for social causes (think Kickstarter for activists) like StartSomeGood, Indiegogo, or Razoo? Let us know!

      Like

  6. Jay, I don’t believe you or anyone else has an inside track on what the courts will decide. In fact, based on rulings in other states and on the Maryland constitution, I think Chelsea and her allies have a very good case.

    You keep pointing out that there are (in general) biological differences between (cis) women and (cis) men. Chelsea has done an excellent job arguing that the difference is not so straightforward as many assert.

    However, you are missing an important point – this really is a feminist issue. It’s not about how the law conceives of their biology, but how it considers their agency.

    This was covered in an excellent 2013 article in the Atlantic Monthly: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-social-and-legal-arguments-for-allowing-women-to-go-topless-in-public/279755/

    The problem, as Reena Glazer wrote in the Duke Law Journal in 1993, is that laws like that in the 1986 case are “written solely to take into account potential viewers. The focus is on the male response to viewing topless women; there is no focus on the female actor herself.” The implication, she argued, particularly when laid next to the statute’s “exemption for topless entertainment” is that “what might arouse men can only be displayed when men want to be aroused.” By contrast, “men are free to expose their chests … with no consideration of the impact on possible viewers.”

    That’s where the real damage of these laws comes in: Though it’s unlikely that many men, if suddenly forced to don a shirt while, say, out for a jog, would find their worlds or senses of self greatly affected, the disparity in treatment of the genders appears to offer legal validation that a man’s view of a woman’s body is the only one that matters. The underlying message to the public is that women’s bodies are inherently sexual, and thus inappropriate to be seen in public.

    The question then becomes much more basic than whether or not being topless in public is permissible. The issue becomes a matter of women being able to exist and be seen as something other than sexual creatures. The thinking which fuels laws against female toplessness supports the attitude that women are in a perpetual state of sexual engagement, whereas men are allowed to exist in a whole range of bodily states, some of them benign enough to permit the exposure of their chests without it being considered automatically indecent. Proponents of topless equality assert that laws that single out women are effectively perpetuating a degrading cultural norm towards sexualizing women’s bodies without their consent. The concern is that the laws incidentally support a larger mentality of objectifying women.

    Insidious forms of inequality have a chilling effect throughout our culture. We have come too far, and have too much to do, to continue to treat the majority of our population as objects of law rather than full citizens.

    This is part of the reason that intelligent and thoughtful people like Chelsea feel it’s worth facing harassment and potential criminal prosecution. It’s not just a matter of comfort (though that should be enough.) It’s a matter of agency.

    As far as I can tell, the only rationale for the ordinances they are fighting is the condescending claim that we are either saving women from themselves or saving our children from them. Do you or your father have a better argument?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I wrote “quote” tags, but WordPress stripped them. The Atlantic Monthly passage begins with “The problem, as Reena Glazer wrote…” and ends with “The concern is that the laws incidentally support a larger mentality of objectifying women.”

      Like

    2. There was a case long ago in NJ where a women was arrested on the beach for being topless she was find taken to the police station and given a shirt and was released she took off the shirt in front of the The police station and was arrested and spent I think 10 days in jail took it to court to fight it saying her rights were violated because if a man can’t doesn’t have to wear shirt s women should and guess what she lost so it could go either way and just because a few people feel that something is unlawful doesn’t make it so that I don’t need to come of the better argument because I thought the one arguing I’m just stating what I feel it’s gonna be the outcome if I’m wrong I’ll be the first person here saying I was wrong but if I’m right I’m gonna scream it from the rooftops told you so

      Like

  7. here was a case not long ago in NJ where a women was arrested on the beach for being topless she was fined and taken to the police station and given a shirt and was released she took off the shirt in front of the The police station and was arrested and spent I think 10 days in jail took it to court to fight it saying her rights were violated because if a man can’t doesn’t have to wear shirt a women shouldn’t and guess what she lost so it could go either way and just because a few people feel that something is unlawful doesn’t make it so. I don’t need to come of the better argument because I’m not the one arguing I’m just stating what I feel it’s gonna be the outcome if I’m wrong I’ll be the first person here saying I was wrong but if I’m right I’m gonna scream it from the rooftops told you so

    Like

  8. Decency is generally judged by the standards of the local community, which are seldom codified in specifics in law. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Which is exactly what we have here the local government in Ocean City passed an ordinance that says being topless is illegal and my father says that’s the argument .Take the case that was in New Jersey it was a little local community with a beach that was pretty much off the beaten path she took that local government to court in the state ruled the favor of the local government and I think that a lot of people feel pretty strongly that the Courts are going to rule in the favor of Ocean City.Just because Fort Collins Colorado block the local ordinance in that state doesn’t mean that’s going to happen here

    Like

    1. Thanks, Jay. The case in NJ involved Phoenix Feeley, a NY artist and activist.

      Here’s the ruling:
      http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a0115-10-opn.html

      Here’s the crux of the opinion:
      ————quote————–
      In Vogt, supra, 341 N.J. Super. at 416-17, we concluded that “there [wa]s no constitutional right for a woman to appear topless on a public beach,” and “[r]estrictions on the exposure of the female breast are supported by the important governmental interest in safeguarding the public’s moral sensibilities, and th[e] ordinance [wa]s substantially related to that interest.” Id. at 417. We further noted that distinctions based upon gender must satisfy an “‘intermediate’ level of scrutiny,” i.e., “the distinction must be justified by an important governmental interest that is substantially accomplished by the challenged discriminatory means.” Id. at 417-18 (citations omitted). “The burden of justifying the classification is on the state, which must show that the claimed justification is ‘exceedingly persuasive.'” Id. at 418 (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 2275, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735, 751 (1996)). We determined that “the ordinance satisfie[d] both the federal and state tests for equal protection.” Id. at 417.

      Defendant has presented no principled reason for us to depart from our holding in Vogt. We therefore affirm.
      ————quote————–

      An appeal to “moral sensibilities” has been used to defend all manner of things that now seem backward to most people, from forbidding marriage between races or genders to censorship. It’s anyone’s guess whether a MD court will rule as they did in NY and CO, or as they did in NJ. But I hope Chelsea’s lawyers argue as Reena Glazer did, that there is, in fact, a principled argument – the right of a women to control her own body no less than a man can trumps the government’s interest in “safeguarding the public’s moral sensibilities,” particularly when those sensibilities are in flux.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. And I was reading online some quotes you had given to a newspaper about being topless on the beach and how it’s normal for young children and young boys to see it it’s a part life I really don’t like how you think you get to decide what my children will see & when they will see it and I think it’s pretty fucking patronizing for you to go on there and tell people how they should feel you don’t get to decide nothing my son is eight years old I’m not ready for him to be on the beach with women & young girls with the breast exposed I have teenage daughter 14 years old I have another daughter ten years old they should not be topless on the beach and I get to decide if they are going to be not you

          Like

          1. Please excuse my less than perfect English; English is not my native language.
            Parents are protective of their children, and that is an almost 100% emotional state (as opposed to rational/logical state).
            The parents’ right to decide over their offspring is not being questioned in this particular comment.
            The basis for the desicions are being questioned.
            Question: What harm will come to an eight year old boy from seeing barechested girls and women?
            Given physically safe surroundings:
            — Question: What harm will come to a 10 year old girl from being barechested, if she wants to be?
            — Question: What harm will come to a 14 year old girl from being barechested, if she wants to be?
            Cheers, Johnny :o)

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Really comparing smoking on the beach to being topless on the beach Ocean City passed a ordinance that said you couldn’t smoke on the beach you have smoke in the designated smoking area some people don’t want to cigarette smoke blown in her fucking face some people don’t want somebody else’s breasts in their face when they are on the beach I would be perfectly Open To their being a section on the beach that’s for topless women if they feel that’s what they want to do and that’s their legal right but it’s also my legal right to say I don’t want to see it stop trying to shove your beliefs and your ideas down other peoples fucking throats some people don’t care some people don’t like it that’s why this is America it’s a free country

        Like

        1. And there’s a lot of the things you can’t do on the beach like you cant have your dog on the beach in the summertime and you can’t throw the ball in the water because it distracts lifeguards you can’t smoke all these things are regulated by Ocean City so I don’t see nothing wrong with them saying you can’t be topless on the beach maybe go to Assateague Island and do it you can have your dog on the beach in Assateague While you can’t in Ocean City you can throw the ball in the water in Assateague while you can’t in Ocean City maybe they’ll say it’s OK for you to be topless I didn’t see nobody running out and hiring A civil rights attorney because they couldn’t have their doggy on the beach

          Like

          1. The prohibitions against dogs, throwing balls in the water, and smoking, apply exactly equal to all genders.
            The prohibition against barechestedness does not.
            Cheers, Johnny :o)

            Liked by 1 person

              1. Well enough to still enjoy life, thank you :o)
                One of the things I enjoy is learning, which this blog is helpful with in certain contexts.
                It is quite enlightening to observe different commenters’ behavioural patterns in contexts such as anthropology and biology :o)
                Your, and other commenters’, way of constructively navigating both emotionally controlled frightened people and malicious trolls, is inspiring, and a skill I would like to become better at myself :o)
                Keep up the good work :o)
                Cheers, Johnny :o)

                Liked by 1 person

        2. …blows dust off personal copy of the Surgeon General’s 1986 report on involuntary smoking…

          The health consequences of second-hand smoke, whether in a confined space or merely close proximity, such as a beach, were settled science three decades ago. From the preface, that conclusion derived from over 50,000 medical studies over the prior decades. The report itself is 350 pages long. Not wanting to get an asthma attack in the short term or lung cancer in the long term, is a very real, measurable thing. Fighting to enact those rules 30 years ago faced a similar backlash, and plenty of court cases. (I was part of that movement, too.)

          On the other hand, I am not aware of a single, properly designed study that measures harm to anyone, regardless of age, related to seeing females’ upper chest area. There is no danger to need to protect anyone from.

          In short, this is all in one’s head. Not wanting to see the occasional breast is identical to not wanting to see two-piece bathing suits, or earlier, exposed women’s legs, while bathing. Or on another realm, interracial or same-sex couples, while in public spaces.

          Again, it’s not up to us to dress differently. It’s up to you to change your mind.

          Oh, and P.S., you win the incivility prize. Congrats.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Unlike second-hand smoke from people legally smoking in public places, no female chest is going to give anyone cancer or lead to respiratory disease. If we respect the idea that “all men are created equal” (with men meaning humans, rather than only those with testicles) and the law protects equality among the sexes, then there should be no difference between a barechested man and a barechested woman. As such, where a man is allowed to sunbathe, swim, walk, cycle, throw a frisbee or football, read or whatever else takes his fancy without wearing a shirt, the same legal courtesy and protection should be extended to a woman, no matter her age or the amount of breast tissue she has.

    Back to the smoking analogy. Not everyone will like what they are seeing. Some will ‘tut’ and talk, whether to the person or someone else, about how it is somehow harming children, but the problem is with the observer, not the person exercising their legal rights. Perhaps the best thing they could do is have a look in the mirror and think about why they are concerned, what harm they think will come to them or the young people they know, and why. Maybe some research about other countries and cultures, from Ibiza to Toronto,, New York City to Copenhagen and Munich to Kunene in Namibia, which consider a chest to be a chest, no matter the gender of the body would be enlightening.

    If we live in a world where people are happy with people smoking cigarettes on the beach but not females of all ages being comfortable by not wearing a swimsuit top, it is inarguable that priorities are very wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Great way to explain the situation ! It is all about gender equality and the right to be treated the same. The right to make a choice on wearing a shirt or not belongs to everyone equally. I admire Chelsea for the way she is going about the fight to get a judge to rule on this issue.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What about the right not to have something done in your face because you don’t like it you can’t smoke on the beach because people complained about it now they have a designated area didn’t see nobody running out and hiring a civil rights attorney what happened to morals and integrity

        Like

        1. Hi Jay, thanks for your reply. I searched for scientific studies on the harmful effects of both cigarette smoking and seeing bare female breasts on a beach. There are many references to the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, even in second hand smoke breathed by people who do not activly smoke. A good example for this information is at: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/tobacco
          I could not find a single reference of any scientific study on harmful effects of seeing a barechested woman on a beach.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Not liking something harmless is different to not liking something harmful. As I said, there is evidence that smoking causes diseases such as cancer among those who are exposed to it. As such, there is a huge difference between smoking and exposing a bare chest.

          It’s interesting you mention morals and integrity. I wonder how you think those two words apply to equality under the law and whether it is okay to treat people differently according to their (perceived) gender. For example, if someone was born male but has undergone gender transformation and now, to all intents and purposes, looks female but has a birth certificate saying they are male, do you think it is okay for them to be barechested in a public place such as a beach? In the opposite scenario, someone appearing to be male may have to cover up because their birth certificate says they are female – does that situation sounds like a moral one with integrity?

          Liked by 1 person

    2. You wanna see 14 year old girls topless on the beach your a sick little fuck and if I across you somewhere on the street I slap the taste out of your mouth

      Like

      1. That’s quite a reaction. The phrase ‘eye of the beholder’ comes to mind, with topless 14-year-old girls meaning different things to different people. You sound as if you would see them as sexual; I wouldn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. And I saw these little videos on YouTube real cute I’m gonna go topless have somebody film me just so I can gauge what people’s reactions will be most people are going to Ignore it even if they see it but that doesn’t mean they like it I see lots of things that I don’t like but I don’t say nothing I just try to mind my own business I can’t wait to this goes to court

    Like

    1. I think minding your own business is an excellent approach. I’m glad you are beginning to see the light.

      Keep working on it, though – you’re not entirely there yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. She made it everyone’s business when she decided to go public and I will see it through the end and I bet you one thing if we were face-to-face you wouldn’t be making them smog smart comments you were making like you don’t want here

        Like

          1. Yeah you better I’m 6’0 197 and raised on the east side of Baltimore so I know all about defending myself and you sir are a sick fuck if you wanna look at underage girls on a beach

            Like

            1. I have no interest in looking at naked underage girls.

              Your comments about Chelsea’s videos crossed the line. You assume that she chooses to exercise the same rights as a man out of a desire to be leered at, when it’s just the opposite – she wants to free the form God has given her from the hypersexuality our culture has imposed on it.

              You’re the one being ugly, and you are projecting your ugliness on her and on the rest of us, and picking a fight while you are at it.

              Do you want to save children from art galleries? The Venus de Milo is clearly a slut.

              Liked by 2 people

            1. When children are involved including mine all bets are off keyboard hero if someone on here said if children are around then she would be more then happy to put her top back on them fine I personally would be fine with that proposition

              Like

    2. Even though if some people who didn’t say anything don’t like the fact she’s shirtless, at least they are accepting the fact that it’s her right to go shirtless if she wants

      Liked by 3 people

      1. If we are talking about a beach that’s all adults I’m fine with that but young boys I’m sorry that makes you pervert pedophile

        Like

        1. If you see children as objects for sexual desire, you are the one with the problem, not the person who sees nothing unnatural in that situation.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That’s one thing I really don’t like is when someone puts words in my mouth I have children and work pretty hard to take of them and if you like looking at underage girls you sir are the one with the problem maybe you need therapy or counseling I’m the least person who needs counseling In the whole state

            Like

            1. No one has put words into your mouth. You appear to have lept to the assumption that if someone thinks all women, including your daughters, should have the legal right to be barechested in public, that makes them a pedophile.

              Liked by 1 person

                1. Gender equality doesn’t matter? Do your daughters know they are less likely than their brother to make it to senior managerial or legislative positions, earn the same money if they play sports professionally, be more likely to be victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, have their bodies sexualised and be ‘cat called’ in the street or be victims of unwanted attention on public transport? If they want to, at any age, sunbathe in a public place or swim in the sea without covering their chests, why should the law prevent that?

                  Liked by 1 person

  11. I am not sure what to think of this newer development with the OC council making it illegal for the gals to go topfree. Both state and federal courts at times practice deference to legislative bodies. It is not always right; it is sometimes wrong. It seems frequently to be wrong. The courts tolerated segregated schools and train seating for many years before turning around. At least some courts in some situations go along with whatever the state legislature or the city council want, just because they want it and not all judges have a sense of outraged justice that leads them to strike down a bad law or practice. Sometimes you or we win and sometimes you or we lose. I live near Seattle where the police and public have given up trying to make a case out of a gal being topfree. I also don’t know if I should think of this as a justice issue. If “you” lose in Ocean city do you end up feeling badly or do you then simply enjoy those other places which tolerate the topfree gals? I can barely believe the city council of OC has done that, but I also realize that it was by a strange quirk of the Washington state IE law that caused the public to rethink what was worth fighting about or not–and in Seattle, 90% of the public is now agreed that 1 or a handful of women being topfree is not a cause worth police activity or the justice system, either practically or morally.

    Like

    1. If we’re talking about all adults sitting on a beach then I could care less but we’re talking about a beach with 300,000 visitors a week half of which are children 12 to 16 year old boys I feel it should be up to parents when their children learn about these things not some twat on the beach in Oc who wants to be topless because she feels it’s ok

      Like

      1. Jay, it seems in your post that you have referred to a person as a twat. In some parts of the south there were people who use bad names to refer to African Americans and I think that in Germany and America there are some people who use derogatory names for Jews or for the Chinese. Using derogatory names for people is often a part of or a prelude to mistreating them or perhaps not caring about them. It is like a verbal wish for or expression of mistreatment. If we suppose that there is a God and that God likes us to treat others with love and respect, then, it is not a good idea to use derogatory names for a person, either those who have chosen to go topfree or those who abstained, on that basis.

        If and when you die, there is the possibility that God will wish to chat with you about using insults.

        Is the use of twat or other insults a practice you believe is good and reasonable for your kids to learn from you?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes dickface they are called racial slander a twat is a person who does dumb shit to get 15 minutes of fame parading around with their breasts out so people will look don’t try to fool me I know exactly what she trying to do but she’ll gonna lose this fight and I can’t fucking wait come back on this blog one last time and blow this fucker up with told you so hahahhhahhhahaah

          Like

      2. I think the most interesting point about this comment is, and I’m guessing by “these things”, you mean female breasts, that you think 12 to 16-year-old boys may learn about them for the first time on a public beach. If that is the case, then those boys will have had no access to the Internet.

        As has been mentioned many times, it is eminently more healthy to know what ‘real’ human bodies look like compared to the surgically enhanced and photoshopped counterparts in pornographic films and images.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Have you ever heard of filters for the internet that block suck content I have it on every device my kids use when I’m think and feel they are ready I’ll have a talk with them it’s not up to chelsea Covington O wait that’s a fake name fighting for a cause using a fake name real courageous

          Like

          1. I have, yes. I also know children, especially teenagers, are very resourceful and not every parental control device is 100% foolproof.

            As far as I’m aware, Chelsea Covington is the blog owner’s real name (I’ve never seen an interview saying it is not), such as this article:
            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-female-blogger-going-bare-chested-to-normalise-breasts-and-push-for-gender-equality-a7028166.html

            The campaign for equality is one which takes a great deal of courage because she, like others in this campaign, regularly has to deal with aggressive people like you.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Chelsea Covington is a partial pseudonym. My name is Chelsea. I started blogging under the name Gingerbread but decided to use my name so people could address me. I decided to use a pseudonym/online name to keep my family from being dragged into situations like this. Given the tone of some people, I don’t regret that decision. But I am obviously not hiding from the public discussion. Feel free to share your full name, Jay. You are no more courageous than me right now.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Actually, I stand corrected about Chelsea’s real name as an article in USA Today says:
              “Asking police whether it was OK to appear topless generated press coverage, which was followed by hate mail, she said, so she assumed the pseudonym Covington for fear of harassment.”

              Your comments, and the way you have expressed them, Jay, make it seem like an eminently sensible decision.

              Liked by 1 person

  12. For every person on this blog that supports this bullshit that are not even from Maryland there’s tens of thousands of people that are against it I tell you this the people of maryland are gonna rise up we’re going to storm the courthouse and we’re going to protest not in Maryland take your ass to Washington DC maybe New York City Fort Collins Colorado but not in our state Mark my words

    Like

  13. This is my last post to this blog until this whole thing goes to court and if it’s over turned I’ll be the first person on here saying I was wrong but if it’s not I’ll be on here Rubbing it in we have the right to have our opinion and my opinion is this is something for adults and children should be left out the equation if that’s to much for Chelsea and her flock to handle than so be it but it’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it if things change and it become acceptable by the majority then I’m open to being more receptive Bye see a year or two

    Like

    1. Take care Jay. I don’t have a problem with your opinion. It’s the violent language you use to express that opinion that makes me uncomfortable. At any rate, be well. I appreciate all the effort you put into your comments. Talk to you again whenever this resolves. I’ve never felt anger at you, for the record. If you ever want to talk quietly and calmly outside the comment section feel free to email me at breastsarehealthy@gmail.com. Good luck. Be well.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Hi Chelsea, wanted to share this article. It’s not about a bare chested woman…..it’s about a woman’s bathing suit possibly riding up too high and showing more of her than some want. Again this targeted a woman because “teenaged boys” might get excited:

    I do not recall men being told to cover up because it might excite women too much. While not specifically on topic, I think it does illustrate the underlying attitudes.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. There is no information about this that I have found, but I would imagine the same pool would allow men to wear Speedo swimming trunks which are not quite ‘budgie smugglers’, but similar to those worn by a male swimmer. Unless they are insisting that men wear shorts with a specific length relative to the knee (and men wear something to cover the chest which is not translucent even when wet), that sounds like a perfect example of how inequality is societal and ingrained into the psyche. It will take generations to remove this from all legislation and private regulations to treat genders as equals, but what Chelsea and others are doing is a (much-needed) start.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. A day later, I clicked on the Yahoo story and clicked through to the original Facebook post. Amazing to see there are fresh comments, barely an hour or two old, shaming the woman, the suit, and anyone defending her. Prideful, without apology. And similar to some of the last comments from one particular person on this post.

      Rape culture is very much alive and well.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Amen.

        I found Chelsea’s blog after I read an article about Ocean City. I was curious about her motivation. She is a thoughtful and principled person.

        Frankly, I never really took her cause seriously, beyond seeing this as yet another way in which European culture was more adult than our own. But after reading the comments here, the bullying and ugly language from people projecting their perversity on Chelsea and on the rest of us, it’s clear that Chelsea is on to something.

        People like Jay resort to shame and the threat of force when they can’t justify their position in any other way; in this case, out of a desire to control a woman who is minding her own business, enjoying the same freedom a man takes for granted. There is a sexual edge to Jay’s comments that, while not exactly threatening rape, implies its justification; that Cheslea is “asking for it,” that she is desperate for a man.

        Even so, Chelsea repeatedly attempted to call Jay to civility, to reassure him that she was rational, and that he didn’t need to be afraid. Who knows how many times someone like Jay has confronted her, or called the police on her. Nevertheless, she persists.

        This calm pacifism in the face of threatened violence makes Chelsea’s fight seem much more important. Not, perhaps, on par with the great civil rights battles of the last century, but more like them than I realized.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. The following topic is very different from whether or not the Ocean city council decision is good or bad. However . . . since you have brought it up . . . you state, “rape culture is very much alive and well.”

        I could be wrong, but it appears that “rape culture” or “rape-supportive culture” 1) means different things to different people; and 2) it is a hodge-podge of ideas or statements about “the culture,” “American culture,” or rape, some of which are doubtful.

        Does “rape supportive culture” consist in 4 out of 4 things being true about a culture or about rape? Or, is it 5 out of 5 or 6 out of 6 that must be true, if any? Which 4 (or 5 or 6 or 10) things must be true about a culture or about rape for there to be “rape supportive culture?”

        Now, we can agree that some societies have or seem to have substantially more of the crime of rape than other societies. Pakistan and South Africa, allegedly, reportedly, have a lot of rape and there are probably social factors which contribute to the prevalence of the rape.

        Now, let me give you an example of a doubtful part of so-called rape culture. One or more advocates of the idea allegedly says or implies that all consent to sex needs to be verbal, and that sex which is done without explicit verbal consent constitutes rape or something else reprehensible.

        The theory is that verbal and only verbal consent justifies sex between two persons, but that actions are insufficient . . .

        Well . . . that is a theory . . . but it is not one you can justify with facts and evidence. You can merely assert it . . . and everyone can give plenty of examples from history, literature, drama and movies in which gestures and actions mean something . . . and communicate.

        So, when you say that rape culture is alive and well, just what exactly do you mean by “rape culture” and do you mean the same thing as 3 or 4 other advocates of the idea? Is America less of a rape culture than Pakistan or South Africa? Are there different degrees of “rape culture?”

        Now, I agree that it is dumb and perhaps abusive to abuse the woman for wearing a bathing suit of her choice at the pool . . . and I agree that some people are dumb and abusive and there are some people who rape . . . and there is conceivably an overlap of those who are abusive and those who rape. However, jumping from several persons having made rude comments in a forum to “rape culture” is alive and well . . .

        Well, first, what exactly do you mean by “rape culture?”

        Like

        1. I can’t speak for everyone, but the Wikipedia definition makes sense to me
          “a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse”.

          It is something which means women and girls are blamed for being sexually assaulted, raped, catcalled, objectified, assuming it’s okay to make jokes about rape, assuming women are lying when they report being raped or assaulted, and having a situation where the president of the United States can creepily flirt with a female journalist as if that is perfectly okay, with her (perhaps conditioned) response to laugh it off and treat it as banter and not objectification and belittling.

          This is why someone like Brock Turner, a star swimmer at Stanford University, who digitally raped an unconscious woman, was sentenced to 6 months in prison and released after serving half that time when the minimum for that crime is two years and the maximum is 14 years. The judge, Aaron Persky, basically said Turner had been punished enough by the publicity around his crime and how it would follow him for the rest of his life, but gave no thought – at least in many written statements – about the impact on his victim. This stems from the culture in which over 40% of female college students have experienced some degree of sexual assault but fewer than 3% reported to the college or university – if the perpetrator is going to be treated so leniently compared to the victim, can you blame them?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. OK, well, there is wonder woman and she is from Themyscira and since there are no men or boys, there probably is no difference in the laws and culture of Themyscira in terms of how people treat different genders.

            In the real world, all the cultures have two or several genders. There are “cultures” with more rape per capita and others with less rape per capita. Within America, there are different subcultures . . . and within a given city, there are different neighborhoods with different personalities. Some of the ones with less rape per capita are also repression in other ways and some of us don’t wish to live in a “police state,” even if, a police state might mean a lower rate of rape and a dozen other crimes.

            Seattle is more liberal in many ways than most US cities and that can mean some good things and it can also mean that crime is tolerated more or at least there MAY be some relationship between something about Seattle and higher crime rates. Seattle has higher rates of rape and of sexual assault than surrounding cities, but Seattle also is a leader in progressive values, education and policies. So, do we say that Seattle has a rape culture because of the high incidence of rape or higher incidence of rape, or that Seattle does not have a rape culture, because of anti-rape education and policies?

            Do we think of Italy as a rape culture because, up until recently, it was somewhat normal to pat a woman on her butt or Japan as a rape culture, because, until recently, you could fairly easily buy or produce nudes of minors?

            I don’t follow Trump enough to know who he has or has not been flirting with, or alleged to be flirting with, and flirting with a woman, per se, or even a reporter is not a meaningful thing in terms of meaning the culture is good or bad. If you wish to bring in flirting as a form of sexual assault–oh boy. Now, I don’t believe it is good for Trump to insult people based on gender or disability or a dozen other things and I think Trump is at times stupid, dumb and abusive and at other times, he is a genius. But I don’t even remember which event or which series of events constituted flirting with a reporter.

            I don’t know what the alleged flirting was, but it is normal and reasonable for a guy to notice and appreciate and even compliment or thank a woman for looking nice or being cute.

            Trump insulted Megan Kelly with remarks about blood coming out of everywhere or whereever and that was a foolish, unnecessary and hurtful insult, with what seems to be no good cause or justification. Ok, no problem. That was not flirting and so whatever flirting there was, I don’t know of it.

            You have stated wrongly a few things about the Brock Turner case. You stated that the minimum for the crime was 2 years and in fact, there is (or there was) no mandatory min sentence, in Cal law, for a sexual assault on a person who is unconscious, incapacitated and unable to resist or take action.

            About sexual assault and reporting rates . . . sexual assault as defined in the law and in the studies done by social scientists includes groping, grabbing, attempting to kiss or attempting to hug without a person’s desire. At a party or club, a guy who grabs a girl’s hand or arm to pull her over to dance has in some instances committed sexual assault by the definitions that are used.

            A lot of girls and a lot of women have their butt patted at some point. Legally speaking, some of these patts of the butt are sexual assault. Now, I am a guy and one year, I had my butt groped by a guy but no, I did not report it either. What exactly would I have expected police to be doing? Register the guy as an idiot for the rest of his life?

            Now, as for sentences for rape, sure, I believe in harsher sentences and I also believe in harsher sentences for drunk driving, assault with a deadly weapon and a dozen other crimes. If it were me, there would be the death penalty for murder and for a lot of rapes. I believe that Oregon saw a dramatic reduction in violent crime starting in about 1995, because of the Measure 11 system of mandatory minimums, including sentences for many juveniles.

            If you would like to ensure that we have some harsher penalties for some egregious crimes, then, sure, I am with you, but talking about butt patting and being concerned about the rate at which it is reported–oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. What about drunk driving, violent assault, assault with a weapon and car theft? Sure, increase the penalties for all of them and I’d put to death and cane a lot of the idiots.

            Like

            1. This is the incident to which I was referring:

              It provides a good segue onto the other points you raise, in which the unwanted attention is on an individual, case-by-case, basis. Some women will be flattered by the attention, some will find it unwelcome, creepy, or “bizarre” as Catriona Perry did, with this depending on their personalities, history, and who is giving the verbal or physical attention, and how.

              In terms of how the levels of rape fluctuate in different countries and states, it is likely (though by no means certain) that those with higher rates are more likely to prosecute and juries are more likely to conflict. Others may have a very high threshold for when they decide to bring a prosecution, and the jury pool which is less likely to conflict based on exactly the same evidence.

              As an extreme example of this, does the strong likelihood that few, if any, people in Iran will publicly admit to being homosexual mean that there are fewer LGBT people in that country than most others or simply that they would lie to avoid being publicly hanged? If you know that there is absolutely no possibility of legal action being brought against the person who raped you, would you go to the authorities? However, if you knew there was a strong likelihood of a prosecution being brought, the investigation and trial was not likely to be too traumatic and was likely to lead a conviction, would you be more willing to tell the police of the assault?

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I live in the greater Seattle area. It has happened to me at least twice that someone has broken a car window when my car was parked and the dumb-dumb grabbed items and stole them at least once. One time one of the items stolen was as simple as a pair of pants or 2 pair of pants from Macys. How dumb can it be? Chances are that they would not fit the thief. I did not report the car prowl and theft.

                If there is little or no chance of successful follow-up, then, yeah, there is less motivation to report a crime.

                Like

              2. Sorry that the previous post is not complete . . .

                We have a situation in modern American social studies in which a dozen other items are thrown together, by certain “anti-rape-culture” theorists, with rape or a rape supportive culture. Presidential flirting and rude and abusive comments made to a woman in a normal bathing suit are given as evidence, by some people, that “America” is a rape supportive culture!

                In France or other parts o Europe there are ads which include nude or topless women, or so I have been told. There is also rape which takes place in Europe. Does the use of a topless woman in an advertisement mean that there is a connection between that ad and rapes that take place in France? If so, what is the connection?

                Suppose we were to ban in France the use of the image of a topless woman in advertisements–would that reduce or increase the rate of rape?

                Yeah, there is a President who flirts with some women and there was also JFK who had one or more mistresses and there was Bill Clinton and we also had Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant and George Washington who did not, we believe, commit adultery while as President. Does the fact of Washington or Lincoln being president mean that we did not have a rape culture in America in those years, from 1789 to 1865 and the fact that JFK, Clinton and Trump were or are president mean that we have had “rape culture” since 1961?

                Some cities have a Hooters and some cities have a Twin Peaks or other similar restaurant. Does the existence of these restaurants mean that America is or has a rape culture?

                There is “you” and there are a half a dozen or a dozen other rape culture theory advocates who lump together a set of loosely related items . . . and claim that these items constitute “rape culture.” A lot of these items are not present in Pakistan and some of them are not present in South Africa, nations which are reported in discussions to have high rates of rape, rates of rape that appear to be far higher than what there is in the USA.

                Would you be happier with a society that can ban the use of nudity or topless images in ads as sometimes is done in UK or Australia or whereever, or in a society that bans a restaurant such as Hooters and Twin Peaks . . . or do you also assume that Hooters and nude women in advertising is not a part of rape culture, but that Trump’s flirting with an Irish woman is?

                Things you disapprove of personally you believe, perhaps, should be condemned as a part of rape culture, but things that are sexual or enticing but you regard as normal and reasonable should be permitted? Or, maybe they are bad but should not be shut down?

                Trump flirting, JFK having a mistress, Twin Peaks, Hooters and French topless ads are so insignificantly related to rape that you are trivializing actual crime of rape to bring any of them up in the context of rape–as if any of them constitute rape culture, or as if any one of them, one that perhaps you find more offensive than others means there is a rape culture. That is like saying, “Nazis were bad . . . In addition to mass murder, Nazis had prisoner of war camps for Allied prisoners! Or, Nazis were bad, in addition to mass murder, Nazis stole art from Museums!”

                Here is a fun clip for you from Remy the satirist, about news and news . . .

                Like

                1. In short, according to the definition I posted, there is definitely a rape culture in Pakistan and South Africa, where the crime is horribly prevalent and widespread. This is without going into other areas of the world where polygamy and inter-marital rape are culturally acceptable (the latter was legal in Britain until 1992!).

                  The fact such horrendous abuses are not newsworthy should be newsworthy (something the YouTube video alluded to), but you could probably only do so later at night when children would not be watching. One of the downsides of 24/7 rolling news is that it has to be sanitised for family viewing; I can’t think of any network which would like to be responsible for traumatising children by reporting and analysing the serious issues of the day which will be more distressing than celebrity gossip and superficial political analysis. Could you imagine if “Fox and Friends” or “Cup of Joe” presenters were talking about rape statistics in South Africa and interviewing the South African ambassador, Foreign Minister, or someone similar while their viewers were eating breakfast and preparing for work/school? There would be outrage from viewers and hundreds or thousands of complaints to the FCC.

                  Like

          2. I guess, by the way, I should ask of you if you go along with the idea that no sex is consensual unless both parties explicitly verbally said, “Yes, I want to have sex,” before the sex and that such a declaration be made, before each and every act of sex?

            If we go by that idea, then, a lot of the sex between married partners is “rape.”

            Or, since you won’t defend the idea . . . are you tacitly admitting that at least one tenet advocated by one or more rape culture theorists is not a great idea?

            I mean, you would agree with me, that in the normal course of life, married couples have sex from time to time, without each time explicitly saying “I want to have sex with you today or now,” and that, in the normal course of events, these sexual episodes are consensual and do not constitute rape?

            Like

            1. It entirely depends on where you live and the law in that area. I live in England, where rape is covered by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which defines it as an act where a man:
              (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;
              (B) does not consent to the penetration, and
              (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents

              Other forms of penetration, including that of a man, are covered by other sections of the Sexual Offences Act.

              The body responsible for prosecutions in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service, will take into account such things as the ability of B to give consent. This will include such things as her age (the age of consent is 16 in England and Wales), both biological and mental, whether her ability to give consent is impaired by such things as alcohol and/or drugs, and was given freely and not under duress.

              In terms of a “reasonable belief in consent”, this is from the CPS guidelines:
              “The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:

              1. Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
              2. If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).”

              It is my understanding that this would mean that couples in a close and loving relationship would mean, in a ‘normal’ situation where sexual intercourse occurs, the man can reasonably believe his partner has consented to sex unless they have said otherwise.

              If you want to know about the law where you live, Google is a wonderful tool!

              Like

      3. if it matters and if it helps, there is one program which has been proven by the psychologists and social scientists to reduce rape and that is a 12-hour program that includes basic training and practice in combat forms of “self-defense,” as well as practice and training in assessing and recognizing threats. The psychologists guys or whatever their degree is in did the study with students in 3 universities in Canada and compared the results of training with a control group that got the usual rape education by means of brochures and other things from the university.

        After one year, the group with training had been raped at just over 5% and the control group had been raped at about 10%.

        The training of this type is proven to work and it would probably work even better with more opportunities for training and practice . . .

        So, for those who wish to reduce the incidence of rape, why point to rude comments about bathing suits, when you can advocate in favor of training in schools that would actually reduce the rate of rape among the women who take the class?

        Here is the link to the article on the study . . .
        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=article

        SPECIAL ARTICLE
        Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

        Like

        1. Wouldn’t it be in the interests of everyone to significantly change societal gender expectations so instances of attempted sexual assault and rape are significantly reduced rather than teach women how to fend off attackers?

          If I may make an analogy, it is like designing a partially self driving car which knows how to be safe when the driver is intoxicated rather than, through education and law enforcement, reduce the rates at which people think about driving while intoxicated. Surely the latter is preferable?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. This rape program may not reduce rates of rape for so long. It’s much safer k if everyone has better beliefs. Kicking the rapist’s ass wouldn’t reduce the amount of other rapists so much. However, beliefs would keep at least some rapists, (more than a self defense program could) from raping other people. Beliefs are very powerful in changing the world compared to some self defense program which may keep you safe for a while but won’t reduce the number of rapists so much.

          Liked by 2 people

            1. First of all thank you for looking at my comment (also thank you to TheManFromTheBlackLodge). A driver was ‘distracted’ by a shirtless woman. He reported it to the police. The police could’ve arrested her but they decided her to give her a ride to her address instead.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, I support Chelsea and all the other women who have chosen to go topfree at times as a matter of either personal freedom or gender equality. I support and commend them and it is sad to see that some people would abuse someone else for these kinds of choices (or a swimsuit choice), either by legal means or by verbal or written means.

            The other and different question is what things, if any, are an appropriate response to rapes taking place in society AND whether or not women taking martial arts and/or self-defense courses and/or carrying weapons is a good thing.

            If this were more of a forum and if there were a thread on the topic, I would tend to argue my point of view . . . but the question I have is whether the post on Ocean city banning women from going topfree at the beach is the best place for the argument.

            You may say you hope to reeducate that portion of men and boys who have bad attitudes and I may say that I hope that 2 to 35% of women and girls take classes or carry weapons.

            Are you claiming that your proposed solution is so good and works so well that my proposed solution is a bad and harmful idea?

            There is Laci Green and there are a dozen other sex and consent educators and advocates speaking on a variety of campuses. Maybe they reduce the incidence of rape and maybe they do not. Within a mile of college campus there are also pastors who preach against rape and there are police who arrest and help bring charges.

            At this point in time, there are people who fall through the cracks and who did not hear the message of the pastors, the police and of the Laci Greens. If you don’t think it will help “you” or your daughters to have some training and danger awareness, then, statistically, are you and your daughters going to have greater risks than those from families and schools that included martial arts or weapons training?

            It is not hard to find out the answer; the answer is proven and published all over the internet. The answer is as clear as the light of the sun at noon on a clear day.

            But if you do not believe the answer already revealed . . . does it help for me to tell you again the idea that you seem reluctant to adopt?

            Liked by 1 person

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