Been saying this since 3rd grade.

joe-winter wrote:

Can the MN Supreme Court define what a woman is?

NO, they do not teach that in MN any longer.

But daddy, it no longer illegal, what’s the problem?

Good point Joe – unfortunately, with our legislature anything is possible and I mentally ran with it. I think I had just read the lane passing thing for motorcycles. I need to be more diligent in what I retain and what I comment on.

Topless women lane splitting in rush hour traffic… I think you are onto something Umy

Talk about an increase in accidents big G!

Accidents in your pants.

THAT is funny!!1

JEREMY wrote:

Accidents in your pants.

yea i dont know about you but its gonna take a bit more then just some bare mammary glands to get me to that point!!!!!!!!

Gee Glenn, I thought you were going to say, “been there, done that”.

Jimmy Jones wrote:

Gee Glenn, I thought you were going to say, “been there, done that”.

nope!

A lifetime of being taught this is taboo is not going away with the swipe of a pen. Right or wrong I will always think its wrong. Ill take a look of course….

big_g wrote:

Topless women lane splitting in rush hour traffic… I think you are onto something Umy

But will she need a Real ID?

public shaming needs to be normalized again

Just wait till the pride parade. All kinds of stuff nobody wants to see.

This post is going down hill about as fast as our society is.

Millions of people didn’t start smoking marijuana when became legal, just as millions of people didn’t marry someone of the same sex when that became legal. So I really don’t think we’re in store for an abundance of blouse bunnies on the loose. Work places still still have dress codes, businesses will still have shirt/shoes requirements for service, weather will still limit the comfort level of going topless, etc.

This whole case is just a big cluster – a woman exposing her breasts isn’t necessarily a sexual act, but it IS indecent. That’s all that the charge should have been classified as – indecent exposure. The world’s gone mad and it just seems to keep getting madder.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Other states have sought to end this sexualization of women and girls by deciding that female breasts are not private parts.

This is absurd. Simply declaring that breasts are no longer a private part will not change how people feel about them and whether or not they’re appropriate to be seen in public. And who says the sexualization of women needs to end anyway? We are one of the few species in the animal kingdom that engages in sexual acts for reasons beyond procreation. So I think we are all (both men and women) inherently sexual beings, and that’s totally okay. BUT it needs to stay private is the key.

Sharon, good points. They are still private as far as I;m concerned
I for one don’t expect it to explode into our lives but it will be there. WE’ll all take a gander but I suspect much of what we’ll see ( like ANY REAL person would appear to be – not a hollywood fake or overly CGI’d image) will not be able to be “unseen”.,
The newness will wear off and sanity will prevail. Fortunately or unfortunately

We want to try and be like Europe where women going topless is no big deal. You go to the Swimbau ( Not sure of spelling ) and there is one locker room for everyone. All things are coed and no clothes are worn. It is a swimming pool, hot tubs indoor and out and saunas. Not sure if clothes are even an option but no one wears a suit. Our standards are not the same as Europe.

This doesn’t actually “make it legal”.

They charged her under subdivision 1 of the law that states “willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body, or the private parts thereof;” and they determined that it is not inherently lewd and the evidence didn’t support their definition of lewd.

Next time someone will be charged under subdivision 3 which says “or any public indecency other than behavior specified in this subdivision”. The behavior specified as an exception is breastfeeding so it’s possible that it would be ruled any exposure that isn’t breastfeeding meets the requirements of sub 3.

Reef W wrote:

This doesn’t actually “make it legal”.

I think it does…

Attachments:

1. 

   it-is-legal-now.jpg
   

Sharon wrote:

I think it does…

She was only charged under sub 1 and appealing that charge is the only thing answered by the court. It does not answer whether she would have been guilty under sub 3 or not. So, until it is tested, it is still unknown.

Here’s an actual lawyer questioning the same thing btw: https://ambroselaw247.com/woman-topless-in-public-not-indecent-exposure-says-mn-supreme-court/

Says this about subdivision 3:
“But, what about the catchall of “any public indecency other than behavior specified in this subdivision”? Would a woman walking around a gas station parking lot topless be considered a “public indecency”? One can imagine a set of facts coming to the high court at some point, if the legislature does not amend the statute in the meantime. “

Eelpoutguy wrote:
Other states have sought to end this sexualization of women and girls by deciding that female breasts are not private parts.

Sharon wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
Other states have sought to end this sexualization of women and girls by deciding that female breasts are not private parts.

This is absurd. Simply declaring that breasts are no longer a private part will not change how people feel about them and whether or not they’re appropriate to be seen in public. And who says the sexualization of women needs to end anyway? We are one of the few species in the animal kingdom that engages in sexual acts for reasons beyond procreation. So I think we are all (both men and women) inherently sexual beings, and that’s totally okay. BUT it needs to stay private is the key.

Not my quote

Nope, not your quote, but it’s from your original post so the IDO quote feature shows it that way. I believe it was Hennesy who said that.

So if they are not private parts can we just grab them like a hand shake?

JEREMY wrote:

So if they are not private parts can we just grab them like a hand shake?

you can try…….of course at your own risk of bodily harm!!!