Apparently the cops are not paying attention to the law and arresting topless women in the city.

It’s been legal for a woman to go topless in public since the 1992 case of People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss. In 1986, the defendants were cuffed in a Rochester, N.Y., park for violating a law prohibiting women from showing “that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola.” (For those who need to brush up on their breast terminology, the areola is the colored skin surrounding the nipple, e.g., “Kate Moss has small areolas.”) Santorelli and Schloss argued that the law was “discriminatory on its face since it defines ‘private or intimate parts’ of a woman’s but not a man’s body as including a specific part of the breast.” The New York Court of Appeals ruled in their favor.

  1. dusanmal says:

    NY State … NY City… not the same thing (trivia: what is NY County? 🙂 ).

  2. B. Dog says:

    All righty, then.

  3. Dallas says:

    Ewe. I don’t need to see any female areolas, thank you.

    • LibertyLover says:

      You heterophobe!

      • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

        Ha, ha. Read that. Laughed. Went on to read about manufacturing returning to the USA in a few years ( and had to return to ask Dallas why he might justify being a heterophobe or how he might think it looks any better on a person than being a homophobe. Although, f**k me blind, I think comments to both effects are funny even as I try to avoid saying either myself.

        And it was from YOU liberty lover. Well done. Its rare that we should let hypocrisy stand.

        Dallas? ((…..and please… do keep them coming, they ARE funny. But you might think about it as well unless you have an internet self and a real self. Careful….. you may become as you post!))

        Yea Verily—off on a personal journey.

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          All it does for me is remind me how silly the term is in the first place; especially when you dissect the word and examine the parts individually. Having a fear of identical twins would be a more appropriate use of the word than is having a hatred towards homosexuals.

          I find the whole subject of how words get used, and misused, in common parlance quite interesting. Sort of like the absurdity of calling pro-Palestinian Arabs anti-Semitic when they too are Semitic people.

          • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

            Every lawyer should be a lexiphile, lovingly fondling their dictionary in public and in private time.

            So… you say homophobe is more apt in describing identical twins?

            homo = same
            phobe = fear or adverse

            but homophobe = a person who hates or fears homosexual people

            So…I think you need to read past the first one or two lines of your dictionary if it is like mine giving the history of the root words involved if any then on to modern usage?

            Ha, ha. THAT was funny when I first thought of it….. didn’t turn out that way.

            and thats why there are things called drafts.

      • Dallas says:

        I’m not a heterophobe and in fact, I know many of them kind!

        • LibertyLover says:

          ok. The next time I say Ewe in response to fudge packing, don’t call me a homophobe.

          Technically, I’m a Heterophile.

  4. sam says:

    A woman of my people, my kind. teasing a half subsharan african?

  5. McCullough says:

    I thought Herr Führer Bloomfeld made outdoor smoking illegal. Arrest that man!!!!

  6. ± says:

    What does that writing in the background mean?

    • McCullough says:

      Gang graffiti is a lovely affectation of most cities. It’s one of the reasons I live in the wilderness.

      • mharry says:

        Me too sort of, anyone hanging around in my neighborhood, that doesn’t belong. Is likely to get shot.

  7. bobbo, one true Liberal accusing Obama being too far Right says:

    Unfortunately, in the NYPD and the Politicians that control them, so is being Brainless.

  8. President Amabo (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    We need a federal law requiring women to go topless. That would show them!

    • spsffan says:

      You do realize that would apply at Walmarts in Iowa and Arkansas, don’t you????

      • LibertyLover says:

        ok. Now I’m with Dallas. EWE!

        • There seems to be a fair share of word exploration occurring here, so I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that, ‘ew’ means gross, and ‘ewe’ refers to a mammal producing gyro meat and wool.

          • Dallas says:

            ewe, a blog spelling and grammar troll. Go away!

          • LibertyLover says:

            I knew what it meant. I was just mimicking Dallas 🙂

          • I’m just a dolt with too much time on my hands. As a stab at subtle humour, I used an incorrect spelling of my ‘name’ to comedically undermine my ‘authority’ on the subject. I don’t know much about computers, so I have no knowledge of the context of ‘troll’. If I was the caretaker of a bridge, I would let all the goats across, if that helps any.

  9. Sea Lawyer says:

    Just looking at this as a disinterested outsider… if laws are simply a more formalized manifestation of societal norms, and one of our still present norms is that women shouldn’t ordinarily expose their breasts in public, how can a law prohibiting it be proclaimed to be invalid?

    • bobbo, the ONLY true Libertarian on this blog, all others being dogmatic posers says:

      If >> Then logic.

      Usually used/understood when the If is true, then the THEN is true too.

      But it also works thisaway: if the THEN is not true, then the If isn’t either.

      Rinse, lather, repeat.

  10. noname says:

    mmmmm [drooling sound] boobies.

  11. AdmFubar says:

    NYC being a fashion center, would be horrified at the loss of sales if gals went topless! Think of the lost profits!!!!

  12. sargasso_c says:

    Miss Pudgy Hips needs all the male attention she can get.

  13. denacron says:

    In the immortal words of the Duke “Shake it baby!”

  14. Anonymous says:

    I say we all show our genitals!

    BOOB (the dyslexic chimpanzee who would rather see America spelled with a K) doesn’t have to. It doesn’t have any genitals!

  15. Yahweh says:

    We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for?

    Song of Solomon 8:8

  16. New Yorker says:

    New York State Laws Do Apply to ALL of New York City!
    New York City Laws Do Not Apply to All of New York State!

    New York is a State.
    New York City is a City within New York!

    (How often do you hear “Kansas” in reference to only Kansas City, in either of the 2 states there is a Kansas City??)

    If I remember right there was no new ‘law’ just the current law was Clarified in that anywhere a male can legally expose his breast so can a female. there were 2 exceptions I think: 1. Not for $$$ and 2. Not where Booze is sold (And yet Males still can expose themselves in both of those situations!)

    The woman who were arrested for this were called the ‘Top free 7″. I never understood why it wasn’t the ‘Top Free 14″?
    I did sit in a jacuzzi with 2 (4) of them a fee years ago.

  17. BigBoyBC says:

    The problem is, that most of the women in NYC who want to go topless, have really ugly breasts.

  18. wow says:

    bahahhah that girl is my roommate.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6286 access attempts in the last 7 days.