Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > NYC: Bold and bare breasted in public

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

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

Photographer

Toto Photo

Posts: 2791

Belmont, California, US

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

Photographer

The F-Stop

Posts: 1510

New York, New York, US

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

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27372

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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

Artist/Painter

The3LivingAndThe3Dead

Posts: 963

Los Angeles, California, US

What happened to "No Shoes. No Shirt. No Service"

?

Jul 10 13 12:38 pm Link

Photographer

The F-Stop

Posts: 1510

New York, New York, US

Has to be posted or no such policy!

Jul 10 13 12:43 pm Link

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

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

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

de0rbit wrote:
What happened to "No Shoes. No Shirt. No Service"

?

Different businesses, different rules. The Japanese eat sushi OFF of women to prove a point.

Jul 10 13 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36704

Columbus, Ohio, US

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:
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!

Send me your dining schedule and locations please. smile

Btw, topless is also legal in Columbus, Ohio.

Jul 10 13 12:54 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27372

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:
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!

Asking for and gaining permission is a lot different than claiming its a womens rights issue when someone doesn't give you such permission.

I'm all about womens rights. Women HAVE that right in NYC already. It's a matter of exercising it properly.

Jul 10 13 12:57 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21895

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

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.
- - - Naturist Action Committee  L I N K

Studio36

Jul 10 13 02:36 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36272

San Francisco, California, US

Awwww, I think it was gutsy.  I thought the OP didn't do topless or nudes.

Jul 10 13 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

Jason Haven

Posts: 38336

Washington, District of Columbia, US

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

Photographer

Bob Helm Photography

Posts: 18210

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US

Laura UnBound wrote:
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.

+1

I am sure a man without a shirt would have also been asked to leave. In fact had he not been wearing a tie he might not get in many in the first place.

Jul 10 13 04:09 pm Link

Artist/Painter

ernst tischler

Posts: 15186

Cut and Shoot, Texas, US

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

Photographer

Allen Henson

Posts: 34

New York, New York, US

love

Jul 11 13 12:18 am Link

Photographer

Allen Henson

Posts: 34

New York, New York, US

Jul 11 13 12:22 am Link

Photographer

K E E L I N G

Posts: 39820

Peoria, Illinois, US

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:
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!

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

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:
Support women's rights!

Nothing to do with women's rights.
Do it in a diner where old fat men have their moobs on display, and I'll believe you.

Cute, though.

Jul 11 13 06:48 am Link

Model

no-one

Posts: 95

London, England, United Kingdom

Ahah ! good for you !

Jul 11 13 06:55 am Link

Photographer

SayCheeZ!

Posts: 18019

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Laura UnBound wrote:
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.

I was thinkin' the same thing.
Now I want the same right to not wear my shirt at the restaurant in question.
Believe me, it won't be a pretty sight.

Jul 11 13 07:02 am Link

Model

ElisAbEtH

Posts: 2142

Charleston, West Virginia, US

AWESOME!

Jul 11 13 07:09 am Link

Photographer

C.C. Holdings

Posts: 594

New York, New York, US

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

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:

Different businesses, different rules. The Japanese eat sushi OFF of women to prove a point.

What point would that be?

Jul 11 13 07:54 am Link

Photographer

K E E L I N G

Posts: 39820

Peoria, Illinois, US

Christopher Hartman wrote:

What point would that be?

That they get horny just like everyone else.

Jul 11 13 08:26 am Link

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

Hugh Alison wrote:

Nothing to do with women's rights.
Do it in a diner where old fat men have their moobs on display, and I'll believe you.

Cute, though.

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

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Cheyenne Lutek 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.

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

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

Michael Broughton 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.

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

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

ElisAbEtH wrote:
AWESOME!

I think so, too. smile Many restaurants now want me to host events for this movement.

Jul 11 13 02:28 pm Link

Photographer

Andialu

Posts: 14029

San Pedro, California, US

Cheyenne Lutek 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.

Looks like someone is looking for their 15 minutes. roll

Jul 11 13 02:30 pm Link

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

Andialu wrote:

Looks like someone is looking for their 15 minutes. roll

Well, yes, it'd make more NY patrons aware.

Jul 11 13 02:57 pm Link

Model

Katie Gradie

Posts: 95

Portland, Maine, US

This is awesome, you can be topless in Maine too! smile

Jul 11 13 06:04 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36704

Columbus, Ohio, US

Andialu wrote:

Looks like someone is looking for their 15 minutes. roll

Dude......what exactly would be wrong with that?

Jul 11 13 10:16 pm Link

Model

Cheyenne Lutek

Posts: 74

New York, New York, US

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Awwww, I think it was gutsy.  I thought the OP didn't do topless or nudes.

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.

Now I've accomplished both of those things; a better portfolio and a place of my own so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

smile

Jul 12 13 08:45 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23404

Atlanta, Georgia, US

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

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21895

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

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.

http://studio36.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NY2009.jpg

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

guide forum

Photographer

Robb Mann

Posts: 10651

Baltimore, Maryland, US

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:
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!

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

guide forum

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 6308

New York, New York, US

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

Photographer

BlueMoonPics

Posts: 4429

New York, New York, US

Cheyenne Lutek wrote:

I think so, too. smile Many restaurants now want me to host events for this movement.

Wow!  Good for you.

Jul 13 13 06:55 am Link

Photographer

SPRINGHEEL

Posts: 38195

Gibraltar, Michigan, US

Jul 13 13 09:55 am Link