124. Garments is both freely expressive and privately emblematic, connoting identity in a specific cultural
group. Limiting the state of apparel of nudists is no less restrictive than prohibiting any other cultural group from
wearing the clothing specific to their group. Preventing nudists from going bare is comparable to preventing a
person of Scottish descent from wearing the family colors, or preventing a priest from wearing his robes.
125. With the development of national organizations promoting nudism as a doctrine, bare diversion may
eventually come to be viewed as a safe medium of language expressing that doctrine, and as an example of
Shielded free association.190
126. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that no liberties shall be denied that are not specifically
prohibited.191 Therefore, mere nudity is not illegal except where there are specific laws that prohibit it.
Most laws prohibit just lewd conduct, not nudity per se; and there's in fact no universal legal prohibition
against nudity on public property.
127. Many prohibitions against nudity stalk, historically, from the political climate of the early Christian
church.192 Even today, a lot of the objection to nudism is based on religious principles. The constitutional
separation of church and state should make this an invalid argument.
128. Extensive legal precedent suggests that laws requiring girls, but not men, to hide their breasts
are sexist, nubile nudist
, and unconstitutional.193
For instance, in 1992, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, unanimously overturned
the conviction of two women found guilty of showing their breasts in public. The ruling held that the state's antinudity
law was meant to apply just to lewd and lascivious behavior, not to "noncommercial, perhaps casual,
and surely not lewd, exposure." Herald Price Fahringer, the women's attorney, stated the ruling meant that
Girls in New York State could sunbathe topfree or even walk down the street with no top, as long as this was not
done in a lewd manner, or for such purposes as prostitution. Judge Vito Titone pointed out that girls sunbathe
topfree in many European nations, adding: "To the extent that many in our society may view teen fkk
female breast with a prurient interest that's not similarly aroused by the male equivalent, that understanding cannot
serve as a reason for different treatment as it is itself a funny cultural artifact rooted in centuries of
prejudice and bias toward women." 194 This ruling, however, is only one of several statutes and legal precedents
nationwide that maintain the position that breast exposure isn't fundamentally indecent behavior.195
Additional legal support for Naturism.196
129. Case history attests that laws requiring women to cover their breasts aren't warranted by https://liaplugoutas1980.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/and-you-call-your-page-evolvefest-what-a-farse-gender-identity-look-it-up-isnt-a-mental-illness-individualss-gender-identity-which-theyre-born-with-does-not-consistently-fit-their-bi/
130. Laws requiring girls, but not men, to cover their breasts are written completely from a male
perspective, assuming that men's bodies are natural and ordinary, and that women's bodies must be covered because
Reena Glazer detects that "under sameness theory, women can get equivalent treatment only to the extent that
They're the same as guys." 198 Physical differences among the races do not warrant discrimination, and neither
should physical differences between the genders.
131. Laws requiring girls to cover their breasts aren't warranted by claims that women's bodies are
significantly distinct from men's; nor by incorrect claims that breasts are sex organs; nor by the reality that breasts
may play a part in sex or sex play; nor by the very fact that breasts are notable