NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
If everyone said, "It's illegal, you got caught, you got arrested! End of story!" then homosexuality would still be a crime.

There is a difference between protesting a law and breaking said law and expecting to not get arrested for breaking it.

For instance, if you think the speed limit on a particular road should be higher, you don't go driving whatever speed you like and expect to not get a ticket or even pulled over. If one does get pulled over, and they say to the cop "you can't give me a ticket because I'm gay", does that make any sense at all? It's not about being gay or straight. It's about driving over a certain rate of speed.  That number may be arbitrary but one can't get away with it based on their sexuality all the time.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
does that make any sense at all?

No. It doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you say it?

You are making me think you are unable to follow this conversation.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
The filed charge is a 314.1 for Indecent Exposure.
https://www.facebook.com/AnnaRGoods/pos … nref=story

314.1 requires willfulness AND lewdness. How the F are they going to get away with calling topless swimming "lewd?"
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/8/s314

...and on a related note, I love how they go out of their way to criminalize anyone who "Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition"

Amazing.

That is interesting, I suppose it'd have to do with the specific events at the scene as they unfolded.. no way to tell otherwise,

And the last part is completely wonky.. looks like a lot of people on here could be a fault under this

Solas wrote:
That is interesting, I suppose it'd have to do with the specific events at the scene as they unfolded.. no way to tell otherwise,

Here's her brief account in the comments on Facebook:

Q: Did anyone come out and ask you to put your top on before the police were called?
June 15 at 5:19pm

A: yes. and we went inside 3 minutes later.
June 15 at 5:32pm

https://www.facebook.com/AnnaRGoods/pos … 7220976487

So she must have been arrested after the fact.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
No. It doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you say it?

You are making me think you are unable to follow this conversation.

No actually he was correct. the girl for some reason said "This is a women's and LGBT rights issue".
no..thats her inserting her personal idiosyncrasies into the matter. the charge was indecent exposure.
she doesnt think that her chest should be viewed as indecent due to her sexual prefernces. she is melting,nudity and sexual orientation together...conveniently to make her seem like she was being punished for being gay.

whenever someone gets a ticket, its race or sex thing to someone who is irritated they got a ticket they dont agree with.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
No actually he was correct. the girl for some reason said "This is a women's and LGBT rights issue".
no..thats her inserting her personal idiosyncrasies into the matter. the charge was indecent exposure.
she doesnt think that her chest should be viewed as indecent due to her sexual prefernces. she is melting,nudity and sexual orientation together...conveniently to make her seem like she was being punished for being gay.

whenever someone gets a ticket, its race or sex thing to someone who is irritated they got a ticket they dont agree with.

She also doesn't think her chest should be viewed as indecent due to her gender, but you kind of glossed over that part because it ruined your argument.

"This is a women's and LGBT rights issue"

Plus I doubt she intended anything while swimming other than to swim.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
No. It doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you say it?

You are making me think you are unable to follow this conversation.

It makes sense to me is why I said it.

I'll put it this way: when I had my starter shop, someone came in pitching a fit because the city put a lien on their house due to unpaid taxes. The crux of their argument was if Jesse Jackson were president, they wouldn't be allowed to treat black people that way. So I ask ... if Jesse Jackson were president and you had a direct phone line to him, what do you think would be the first thing he'd ask? I'm thinking "did you pay your taxes?"

It's not a race, gender or political matter. It is what it is. If you own property, there is a 99% chance you owe property tax every quarter (at least here in the part of NJ where I live). If you don't pay, they put a lien on your property. It's that simple. One can disagree until they're blue in the face. This is still going to happen. If they don't agree with how much they have to pay, there are ways to dispute it (I don't know the exact procedure but my sister did it in another city and the judge agreed with her).

A person being arrested for lewdness or indecent exposure or many other things has nothing to do with being gay. Straight people would be arrested for it, too. If a man is charged with lewdness for holding another man's hand, they probably have a case. Walking down the street with relevant parts uncovered, no matter what their gender, race, sexual preference or hair style is will get them at least hassled by police if not people who live in that area.

There are people who get angry with a woman who is breast feeding even if all a person can see is the top of the woman's breast and the baby is covering the "obscene" part (I say it this way because some women choose to wear skimpy bikinis where the same area is covered but with a small piece of cloth instead of a baby and no one says a word). No one cares if the woman is straight, lesbian or anything else. They don't even know most of the time. They pitch a fit because they don't think she should do that and they don't have brain enough to just not look if they don't want to see it.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
This happened in LA?  That is LA as in a city in California, not Louisiana?  Doesn't California have a high court ruling saying nude is not lewd?  Hasn't this come up in many many threads?

I don't think the courts can FORCE the owner of a private establishment to allow nudity on their premises if they don't want to. If she had been breastfeeding an infant however, she would in that case be exempt from any sort of indecency prosecution by law in California.

The owners of an apartment may ban lots of otherwise legal activities if they so choose around their pool... booze, smoking, boxing matches, skateboarding,  loud music, etc.

My guess is that this woman was told to stop, probably many times... and she tried to force the issue and become some sort of "freedom fighter" or something... I've only been able to find her side of this story.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I don't think the courts can FORCE the owner of a private establishment to allow nudity on their premises if they don't want to. If she had been breastfeeding an infant however, she would in that case be exempt from any sort of indecency prosecution by law in California

Private owners can force prosecutors to threaten skinnydippers with sex crime charges?

Or did they come up with that idea all on their own?

Lovely Day Media wrote:
It's not a race, gender or political matter. It is what it is.

Of course it's a gender matter.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Private owners can force prosecutors to threaten skinnydippers with sex crime charges?

Or did they come up with that idea all on their own?

I suspect it'll wind up being more along the lines of disorderly conduct or something, I don't know... I searched, but can't find anything to corroborate this person's side of the story. I haven't seen any sort of arrest report or charging document in this case.

I don't think private owners can "force" prosecutors to do anything... they can request, and if the situation seems reasonable then the prosecutors will act on behalf of the owners. That's what we pay them to do for us as citizens.  Prosecutors will use any tool they have, even if it's some arcane law they almost never use otherwise, to deal with a situation. That may be all that's at play in this case... again, I don't know any of the actual facts in this particular incident.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Of course it's a gender matter.

So men would be able to walk around completely nude or at least with parts that "should be" covered exposed and no one would say a word to them about it?

Lovely Day Media wrote:
So men would be able to walk around completely nude or at least with parts that "should be" covered exposed and no one would say a word to them about it?

I hope Jim won't mind quoting him here, because he has already addressed that on this thread:

Jim Ball wrote:
This is really pretty simple:  Exposure of genitals is not the same as exposure of nipples.  Neither male nor female genitals are considered acceptable to show in public in most places.  <-- Fair & equal.

Exposing male nipples is acceptable in most public places.  Exposing female nipples is not. <-- Not fair & equal.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

She also doesn't think her chest should be viewed as indecent due to her gender, but you kind of glossed over that part because it ruined your argument.

"This is a women's and LGBT rights issue"

Plus I doubt she intended anything while swimming other than to swim.

I did gloss over it.....because her feelings on the law which was created is of no consequence.  as it is now...the law says a woman cant show her breasts in public. thats the law. whether she feels being a lesbian somehow enables her to "opt out" of laws she doesnt like is silly.

everyone woman knows they cant show their breasts. she did it anyways. she's not stupid. she was probably trying to push buttons. well...it worked. too bad...so sad...cry me a river.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
...everyone woman knows they cant show their breasts.

this statement is erroneous and simply untrue - California (and or Louisiana) are both topless legal states (for both sexes) so the point is moot.  She can get a defense attorney from the ACLU ~ and is one of the base arguments for Womens Rights ~ just as breast feeding is legal in California.  Its a matter of discrimination that needs to move beyond draconian religion/church influence within federal or state laws.  (ie: it is NOT "illegal" for a woman to go topless in CA, period) as Federal law trumps state law, So State law trumps city or county law - including private property of a Apt rental must abide by constitutional / civil rights that causes harm to personal freedoms.

... I really don't understand how members here are throwing in "my guess this or that" simply has no relevance on the matter, do your homework and acquire the facts (not sprouting rumor) and realize the larger implications here.

if someone is "offended" by seeing breasts (male or female) then they have the f*cking right to shut their eyes or look away.  Whether it be a woman breast feeding her child, or a woman sunbathing, or performing a modeling shoot ~ its not a crime and there is no victim being harmed  ~ and its hypocritical to apply limits on a person based solely on their gender ~ when such ludicrous "laws or infractions" should be enforced universally - or not at all.


When someone says "A man can do this - but a woman cannot" in the United States which is 'supposedly' based on equality and personal freedoms, then there is something seriously wrong and that standing mentality needs to be reformed.

Thus, that rant being over with:  The Woman in this case was in fact a victim of discrimination: it IS NOT ILLEGAL for her to be topless in her State (border to border) any rental/apartment agency that rents to the general public must also abide by state laws that in fact outweighs any personal contract, beliefs or views. (which in this case DID harm another = the tenant who has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their home & facilities)

The girl was topless at a pool = she harmed no one ~ period.  She is being persecuted solely on her GENDER.

...if she was "a Man" then no action would have been taken against her.  THAT is the problem.

The Grey Forest wrote:
this statement is erroneous and simply untrue - California (and or Louisiana) are both topless legal states (for both sexes) so the point is moot.  She can get a defense attorney from the ACLU ~ and is one of the base arguments for Womens Rights ~ just as breast feeding is legal in California.  Its a matter of discrimination that needs to move beyond draconian religion/church influence within federal or state laws.  (ie: it is NOT "illegal" for a woman to go topless in CA, period) as Federal law trumps state law, So State law trumps city or county law - including private property of a Apt rental must abide by constitutional / civil rights that causes harm to personal freedoms.

... I really don't understand how members here are throwing in "my guess this or that" simply has no relevance on the matter, do your homework and acquire the facts (not sprouting rumor) and realize the larger implications here.

if someone is "offended" by seeing breasts (male or female) then they have the f*cking right to shut their eyes or look away.  Whether it be a woman breast feeding her child, or a woman sunbathing, or performing a modeling shoot ~ its not a crime and there is no victim being harmed  ~ and its hypocritical to apply limits on a person based solely on their gender ~ when such ludicrous "laws or infractions" should be enforced universally - or not at all.


When someone says "A man can do this - but a woman cannot" in the United States which is 'supposedly' based on equality and personal freedoms, then there is something seriously wrong and that standing mentality needs to be reformed.

Thus, that rant being over with:  The Woman in this case was in fact a victim of discrimination: it IS NOT ILLEGAL for her to be topless in her State (border to border) any rental/apartment agency that rents to the general public must also abide by state laws that in fact outweighs any personal contract, beliefs or views. (which in this case DID harm another = the tenant who has the right to peaceful enjoyment of their home & facilities)

The girl was topless at a pool = she harmed no one ~ period.  She is being persecuted solely on her GENDER.

...if she was "a Man" then no action would have been taken against her.  THAT is the problem.

if she has the right to go topless...fine! then she was wronged...still doesnt explain why she made it about her sexual orientation. seems to me she would think the cops werent clear on the laws of the land and there was no malice...they dont have a sexual orientation checker.

instead she turned a ticket into being all about her sexual preference.
she was just a wind up artist who was trying to push buttons. and she got a ticket for indecent exposure. sounds fine to me.
I wouldnt want my daughter to see a womans breasts in public. us draconian religious people want to protect our children from seeing genitalia out in public. what I have to explain to my daughter why she has to cover up when she clearly can see women about with their breasts exposed?

Lovely Day Media wrote:

There is a difference between protesting a law and breaking said law and expecting to not get arrested for breaking it.

For instance, if you think the speed limit on a particular road should be higher, you don't go driving whatever speed you like and expect to not get a ticket or even pulled over. If one does get pulled over, and they say to the cop "you can't give me a ticket because I'm gay", does that make any sense at all? It's not about being gay or straight. It's about driving over a certain rate of speed.  That number may be arbitrary but one can't get away with it based on their sexuality all the time.

This is a terrible analogy. Speed limits are meant for safety; otherwise, we would be allowed to drive 55 in a school zone. Yes, maybe your car and your reaction time would be better than that. But there are 16 year olds driving uninspected '83 Civics out there, and I don't trust them to drive safely. Someone that is exceeding the speed limit can cause damage or harm all by themselves, without anyone else helping them.

Topless women do not cause damage by themselves. Any accident is the result of somebody looking at tits instead of the road.

And since we were discussing nursing earlier ... Have you SEEN somebody nurse? Not sexy.if anything, you'll be avoiding eye contact.

The argument against female toplessness sounds a lot like the military argument against female recruits:  men will be distracted. That doesn't sound like a female problem to me. That sounds like a male problem, that men are putting on somebody else.

Look, I understand both sides of the argument - trust me, I do. But if you're going to gawk at girls in Williamsburg with their ass cheeks hanging out under their shorts, you've got to let older ladies take off their tops. And if you're going to pass legislation that says you can't ban a tentent because you think they're a heathen, you can't allow them to ban a tentent because you think they're a whore either.

It's all or nothing. Either you legislate morality, or you don't. Women have equal rights, or they don't.  You can't pick which bits apply, and still claim to be in the moral right.

Give it a couple of generations, and women's nipples will be no more sexy than men's. Which is to say still sexy, but not 'cause a fuss' sexy. It's only a big deal now because most men don't get to see bare breasts of women that they weren't inside of, in one way or another. We'll get over it.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
So men would be able to walk around completely nude or at least with parts that "should be" covered exposed and no one would say a word to them about it?

I know I shouldn't pretend you made any kind of sense here because it will just encourage more gibberish, but did you know that...

Before San Francisco banned public nudity last year, one could see, on any given day, the naked guys who hung out at the corner of Market Street and Castro, one or two or ten of them sitting at café tables, basking, sunscreen presumably on their dicks. Once as I was walking through the same neighborhood, I saw an old fat guy hop out of his car ass-nude but for a pair of hiking boots to get gas. As it pumped, he took advantage of the squeegee provided to wash his windshield.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … y-ban.html

---

and, honestly, who gives a shit? Would you be damaged by the sight of some guy's junk? Would you be offended? Have you really never been in a locker room? And since when do we all of a sudden guarantee people the right not to be offended?

Zack Zoll wrote:
This is a terrible analogy. Speed limits are meant for safety; otherwise, we would be allowed to drive 55 in a school zone. Yes, maybe your car and your reaction time would be better than that. But there are 16 year olds driving uninspected '83 Civics out there, and I don't trust them to drive safely. Someone that is exceeding the speed limit can cause damage or harm all by themselves, without anyone else helping them.

Talk about a terrible analogy. Yes, there are some 16 year old drivers (usually not in NJ as one has to be 17 to have a license) driving really old cars that aren't safe (uninspected will get them a ticket eventually). Just because they're 16, though, doesn't make them necessarily more unsafe than someone who is 40. Just because their 83 Civic isn't inspected doesn't mean it's more unsafe than a 2015 Camaro or Windstar. The most dangerous part of any car is the nut that holds the steering wheel.

Speed limits, unsafe, inspections and the like weren't the point. The point is that if a 16 year old gets pulled over for having a bad inspection sticker (or none at all), they can't tell the cop they can't get a ticket because they don't like that law and the cop only pulled them over because they're gay or lesbian. If a person is driving 55 mph in a school zone, getting pulled over is a fairly standard thing. It doesn't matter if it's man or woman, gay or straight. They can plead about not liking the law until they, too, are blue in the face but it's going to fall on deaf ears (likely) with the cop and the judge.

There are ways to protest speed limits and the need for inspection stickers. Declaring oneself exempt because of one's sexuality isn't one of them (that I know about, anyway).

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Declaring oneself exempt because of one's sexuality isn't one of them (that I know about, anyway).

When did this happen?

Zack Zoll wrote:
Give it a couple of generations, and women's nipples will be no more sexy than men's.

That doesn't sound very fun.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
That doesn't sound very fun.

If I'm aroused by feet should you be charged with a sex crime for going barefoot?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

If I'm aroused by feet should you be charged with a sex crime for going barefoot?

If you're aroused by feet I'd probably keep my shoes on when I'm around you, so it wouldn't be an issue

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
If you're aroused by feet I'd probably keep my shoes on when I'm around you, so it wouldn't be an issue

You'll have to keep them on, because now everywhere you go in the world there will be many people who feel as I do, and so It will be a sex crime for you to expose your feet.

Enjoy.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
and, honestly, who gives a shit? Would you be damaged by the sight of some guy's junk? Would you be offended? Have you really never been in a locker room? And since when do we all of a sudden guarantee people the right not to be offended?

Obviously you give a shit, otherwise you wouldn't be carrying this on like this. Personally, I have no qualms if a woman wants to walk around completely naked as long as they don't get mad when people look. Some women get angry when a man stares at them but they also won't admit they are well endowed, are wearing a top that has a plunging neckline and they are wearing a push up bra. No one is giving anyone permission to touch, but since when is looking offensive?

I'm not offended by anyone's junk, man or woman. I know many people who are but I say that's their problem, not mine. What offends them is none of my business.  If I personally saw this woman walking around topless, I wouldn't have said a word. I probably wouldn't have looked for more than about 10 seconds, either.  That's just me, though. Some people are highly offended (check out some breast feeding discussions on any forum) by seeing certain parts of other people's bodies. That's up to them to decide.

I don't think anyone is guaranteeing anyone the right to not be offended. I do think it's deemed "normal" for a woman to keep these parts of herself covered when not in her own home or in a place where it can be expected (a nude beach, for instance). I do think it's fairly normal for a woman to be cited (or asked to put a top on) if she is topless in a place where it isn't to be expected. It's up to the individual to decide if they think this is fair or not. Even if it is unfair, it's still not a straight or lesbian issue.  No matter who she chooses to have sex with, she'll get the same treatment in public (likely) if she's topless.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
When did this happen?

Apparently it happened when a whole bunch of people got upset because this woman was charged as a sex offender.  She decided it was okay for her to go topless at this pool knowing (or should have known better) that being charged with indecent exposure would likely land her on the sex offender registry. 

  If she thinks this is all because she's a lesbian, well, lesbians make it to the sex offender registry, too, if they commit "sex" crimes (I say it that way because the list of things that will land a person on that list doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with sex at all).

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Even if it is unfair, it's still not a straight or lesbian issue.  No matter who she chooses to have sex with, she'll get the same treatment in public (likely) if she's topless.

You can say it's about striped lawn chairs but the pepperoni spins.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
If she thinks this is all because she's a lesbian, well, lesbians make it to the sex offender registry, too,

Under huh? It is still a very green pail.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
As A Gay...please explain why as a Gay...would give me a special right to flop out my penis in a swimming pool that is for everyone to use. Or a Lesbian the right, she could pull out her breast to show the world. Now careful explain this to me?

It will under 9 September wellnessly!

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Please tell the world..why a Gay person that lives in an Apartment Complex..where others live...can expose themselves..without the law coming down on them...You brought it up..explain that one away.

Nobody enters MY dragon!

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Please explain one more time...why a Gay or Lesbian has the right to pull out their penis or breast..and not receive any type of arrest.

Aw, because aw, because yay. Or nay.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Any time someone blurts out some bizarre non-sequitur about her thinking she should get to be topless because she's a lesbian I'm going to quote it and respond with some equally random gibberish.

That's nice ... but to quote the twitter post linked to in the OP ... "In serious need of a criminal lawyer. A qualified, preferably LGBT/ Women's Rights advocate to rep my case. "

Why would anyone need an LGBT advocate for a criminal case if being a lesbian had nothing to do with it?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Homosexuality was illegal, and it was not that long ago that it was criminal.

How would it be legal now if not for people who openly challenged the law?

Quoted for posterity.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

That's nice ... but to quote the twitter post linked to in the OP ... "In serious need of a criminal lawyer. A qualified, preferably LGBT/ Women's Rights advocate to rep my case. "

Why would anyone need an LGBT advocate for a criminal case if being a lesbian had nothing to do with it?

Maybe because she thinks the lawyer would give her case more thought?

If you got arrested in another country, you can't tell me you wouldn't want an American, or at least Anglosphere lawyer.

Same difference.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
IF dumb cluck girl wants to expose her breast while swimming...an arrest would be cool also. If said dumb cluck girl or boy wants to swim nude, may I suggest...buy your own home with pool....and do your thang.

As far as I know it's legal in 33 US states to be barebreasted in public - for men and women...

Zack Zoll wrote:
Maybe because she thinks the lawyer would give her case more thought?

If you got arrested in another country, you can't tell me you wouldn't want an American, or at least Anglosphere lawyer.

Same difference.

If I got arrested in another country, I'd want a competent attorney and preferably one who specialized in what I was facing. In other words, I wouldn't want a divorce, tax or patent attorney to represent me in a criminal case.

Was this woman in some other country?  I'm no attorney, but it seems logical to me that anyone, anywhere can convince anyone else that while this is a "sex" crime, there are no real victims and no one got hurt so there is no need for jail time or to mortgage this woman's future over this incident. Plead it down to disorderly person or something of the sort, she pays the fine, does the community service and it all goes away ... especially since this is more about money than public safety.

If she wants to make this into a pissing contest, though, dragging lesbian/women's rights into this ... I'm sure they're more than willing to have the pissing contest because there is a good chance the prosecution can win. If/when she loses, she'll likely spend the next 10-15 years in prison and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life along with all the child molesters and rapists that are on the list. It will keep her from being able to get a decent job in all likelihood AND will leave her subject to all sorts of other issues just for being on the list.

So what if all she did is take her top off at a pool. There are people on the list because they took a leak in the woods, some kid shot video of them changing clothes in their own bedroom, someone saw them walking around their own home in underwear or even because someone (especially a child) said this person touched them in a sexual way. I won't talk about the actual child molesters or rapists that are on and should be on the list. These other people aren't violent or generally a risk to society (maybe undesirable on some level but not a real risk) but they'll get treated as such for being on that list.

I would imagine the choice is by and large hers. How big a fight does she want to put up? Is it worth going to jail for 15 years in an effort to get things so women can go topless wherever men can? That's up to the individual (in this case her) to decide. I'm not saying it's right or fair but this is currently how it is.