|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
NYC: Bold and bare breasted in public
Yes, it is legal for women to be topless in public in NYC. Yes, some private business owners may have different opinions. Yes, this is me, Cheyenne Lutek. Photographer: Allen Henson http://evgrieve.com/2013/07/nsfw-about- … 233163&m=1 http://worldnewsviews.com/2013/07/10/topless-women/ http://doninmass.com/2013/07/09/female- … -at-verso/ http://thebull.cbslocal.com/2013/07/10/topless-women/ Other languages: http://mobile.corriere.it/m/cds/notizie … 3481733985 Support women's rights! Jul 10 13 11:49 am Link I love: A. That very first b&w shot of you in the first link. B. Your chutzpah Jul 10 13 11:54 am Link Well Verso has just lost a few customers! hahahaa good for you! I love to push the envelope. paul Jul 10 13 12:16 pm Link Keywords "public" and "private business". You don't have a right to be topless in a business that wouldn't allow a man to also be topless. Which is nearly any buisness, regardless of if they post a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign on their door, they'll tell a topless man he needs to put his shirt back on or leave. You can be topless anywhere a man can be....outdoors. And maybe the gym/indoor pools. Jul 10 13 12:38 pm Link What happened to "No Shoes. No Shirt. No Service" ? Jul 10 13 12:38 pm Link Has to be posted or no such policy! Jul 10 13 12:43 pm Link Well if you read in the articles and look at the pictures, one of those "privately owned businesses" gave us permission to do the shoot, and even engaged and got involved with us! That would be the sushi restaurant. Needless to say we didn't have much luck at the second location of Verso. It was a fun experience! I'm definitely excited to try more similar shoots! Jul 10 13 12:51 pm Link de0rbit wrote: Different businesses, different rules. The Japanese eat sushi OFF of women to prove a point. Jul 10 13 12:53 pm Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Send me your dining schedule and locations please. Jul 10 13 12:54 pm Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Asking for and gaining permission is a lot different than claiming its a womens rights issue when someone doesn't give you such permission. Jul 10 13 12:57 pm Link Someone should read the NY statute [NY Penal Law 245] on indecent exposure / displays. Yes, after Santorelli a woman can be topless in many situations, but when they do it for, and it involves, a commercial purpose or context it may still be a violation. People v. Santorelli restricts the applicability of § 245.01 Exposure of a person. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled in 1992 that exposure of a bare female breast violates this law only when it takes place in a commercial context. As a practical matter, proper enforcement of this section can be a problem, since local enforcement agents are often unfamiliar with the case law that interprets the statutory language. Studio36 Jul 10 13 02:36 pm Link Awwww, I think it was gutsy. I thought the OP didn't do topless or nudes. Jul 10 13 02:46 pm Link I like the images. I support the right for women to be treated equally in regards to what's allowed to be shown in public. I do not think getting kicked out of a private business is a women's rights violation, though. They probably would have kicked you out if you were a dude, as well. Jul 10 13 02:50 pm Link Laura UnBound wrote: +1 Jul 10 13 04:09 pm Link There is a song that goes..."no shirt, no shoes, no problem" Nice work. You would always be welcome, clothed or not in my establishment. Jul 10 13 04:57 pm Link love Jul 11 13 12:18 am Link Jul 11 13 12:22 am Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: I must be missing something... please explain why it's important we fight for women's rights to be topless in Sushi joints. Jul 11 13 06:26 am Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Nothing to do with women's rights. Jul 11 13 06:48 am Link Ahah ! good for you ! Jul 11 13 06:55 am Link Laura UnBound wrote: I was thinkin' the same thing. Jul 11 13 07:02 am Link AWESOME! Jul 11 13 07:09 am Link glad you had fun, looks like something I would do, after my location scout gets permission in advance to have some fun with this thread: this is not a women's rights issue, many establishments in new york city and all across the country ask/enforce that patrons wear shirts, pants and shoes. this isn't something they have to say, nor does prohibiting it make it a [gender] rights issue. Sure you can go in with a spreadsheet and count all the topless men at a fine dining restaurant, and then come back with a civil discrimination lawsuit to strong-arm a settlement, I just find the likelihood of finding those topless men to be unlikely. Jul 11 13 07:14 am Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: What point would that be? Jul 11 13 07:54 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: That they get horny just like everyone else. Jul 11 13 08:26 am Link Hugh Alison wrote: Okay I'm sorry for bringing up the topic of women's rights in this circumstance???? but my platform is spreading awareness of this law, because most New Yorkers don't even know its legal. I don't want them to think I'm breaking a law or committing a crime and I want other women to feel comfortable and confident with their self images. The point is to educate the people through photography and media. I just got interviewed by Insider Edition about it and have been contacted by many publications and groups about my strong opinions. Jul 11 13 01:09 pm Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: if you don't want people to think you're breaking the law and the point is to educate people about a woman's right to go topless in public, go topless in public, not on someone's private property without their permission and in violation of the health code. respect the rights of others if you want your own rights respected. Jul 11 13 02:10 pm Link Michael Broughton wrote: I wasn't aware of restaurants being an exception beforehand and neither was the photographer which is why we did it. That same restaurant that kicked us out is now hosting a topless event to support the cause and I'm the host. Catch it on the news tomorrow at 1. Jul 11 13 02:26 pm Link ElisAbEtH wrote: I think so, too. Jul 11 13 02:28 pm Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Looks like someone is looking for their 15 minutes. Jul 11 13 02:30 pm Link Andialu wrote: Well, yes, it'd make more NY patrons aware. Jul 11 13 02:57 pm Link This is awesome, you can be topless in Maine too!  Jul 11 13 06:04 pm Link Andialu wrote: Dude......what exactly would be wrong with that? Jul 11 13 10:16 pm Link GPS Studio Services wrote: Thank you. I didn't do so when I first began modeling so that I progressed to a portfolio not just focused on being nude. Plus, if my mom found out I would've been kicked out. Jul 12 13 08:45 pm Link Allowing a shirtless patron puts the restaurant in violation of health codes. Men can't go without a shit in a restaurant either. Jul 12 13 10:07 pm Link LET'S PUT THIS URBAN MYTH TO BED "no shirt, no shoes, no service, by order of the health code / health department" claims are 100% bunkum! see: http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/ Barefooters surveyed almost all of the US states' health departments, more than once, on the question of shoes [foot coverings] and NONE claimed that there were any health regulations, codes, ect, that were violated by a CUSTOMER entering a place of business including a restaurant without shoes. Some, but not all, in response to the barefooters question remarked that if any requirement exists in their particular state that it applies ONLY to EMPLOYEES and food service operators themselves... but NOT customers Here is the response to barefooters from NY state. Responses from other states are linked from their page above.  I fully expect that if you asked the [additional] question about shirts the answers would be the same. --- Those of us who are old enough know that those signs started appearing in the ca mid-1960s and were directed at keeping out hippies. It may be a matter of a particular place's policy but it is certainly not now and never was a health code issue. Studio36 Jul 13 13 04:31 am Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Wow. That's a lot of coverage for a photoshoot! Are you certain this is about woman's rights, and not a publicity stunt? My last photoshoot was pretty epic, and wasnt even carried on page 3 of my local paper. Jul 13 13 04:55 am Link One of the fun things about being old is remembering back when people were fighting for the rights we now enjoy. (But having them, often don't make use of.) Braless was a big deal in the '60s. It was relatively common, particularly in the Village and East Village for women to go about with transparent scarves over their breasts so that they would be visible yet technically within the law. Super-short micro-miniskirts were also popular often without panties. The purpose and fun of it was to shock the "squares". Sadly, the squares became blase and a few laws were changed, so the shock value wore off and the fad died out. I do see some hope for my old age though in this year's offerings of super-short shorts and translucent dresses. They make my tired old heart beat a little bit faster and the added exercise is good for it. So, shock away ladies! The life you save may be mine! Jul 13 13 05:36 am Link Cheyenne Lutek wrote: Wow! Good for you. Jul 13 13 06:55 am Link Jul 13 13 09:55 am Link |
