the same protection to the natural expression of body

freedom through informal, non-exploitative nudity on the

shore.

124. Clothes is both freely expressive and privately representational, connoting identity in a
specific ethnic
group. Limiting the state of attire of nudists is no less restrictive than prohibiting any other
cultural group from
wearing the clothing unique to their group. Preventing nudists from going nude is equal to
preventing a
person of Scottish ancestry from wearing the family colors, or preventing a priest from
wearing his robes.
125. With https:/s3.amazonaws.com/viva-naturist/beach-milf.html of national organizations
promoting nudism as a doctrine, nude diversion may
eventually come to be considered a secure medium of speech 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
especially
prohibited.191 Hence, mere nudity isn't illegal except where there are special laws that
prohibit it.
Most laws forbid merely lewd actions, not nudity per se; and there 's actually no universal
legal prohibition
against nudity on public land.
127. Many prohibitions against nudity stem, historically, from the political climate of the early
Christian
church.192 Even now, much of the objection to nudism is dependant on spiritual principles.
The constitutional
128. Extensive legal precedent implies that laws requiring girls, but not men, to hide their
breasts
the conviction of two women found guilty of showing their breasts in public. The ruling held
the state's antinudity
law was intended to apply only to lewd and lascivious behaviour, not to "noncommercial,
possibly random,
and definitely not lewd, exposure." fkk nude , the women's attorney, said the ruling meant
that
Judge Vito Titone pointed out that women sunbathe
topfree in many European countries, adding:
Function as a justification for different treatment as it is itself a questionable cultural artifact
rooted in centuries of
prejudice and bias toward women." 194 This ruling, however, is only one of many statutes
and legal precedents
nationwide that carry on the position that breast exposure isn't inherently indecent
behaviour.195
Additional legal support for Naturism.196
129. Case history illustrates that laws requiring women to cover their breasts aren't justified
by ethnic
Biases and preconceptions.197
130. Laws requiring women, but not men, to cover their breasts are written entirely from a
male
Outlook, assuming that men's bodies are natural and ordinary, and that women's bodies
must be covered because
they are distinct.
Reena Glazer finds that "under sameness theory, girls can get equal treatment only to the
extent that
they are the same as men." 198 Physical differences among the races usually do not justify
discrimination, and neither
should physical differences between the sexes.
131. Laws requiring girls to cover their breasts are not warranted by claims that women's
bodies are
significantly distinct from men's; nor by erroneous claims that breasts are sex organs; nor by
the very fact that breasts
may play a part in gender or sex play; nor by the fact that breasts are prominent secondary
sex characteristics.
It can't be argued that women have breasts and men don't, because both do; nor can it be
asserted that
Girls have bigger, often protruding breasts, because many girls are flat-chested while many
men have large
breasts. Breasts aren't sex organs, for they're not vital to reproduction, and in fact have
nothing to do with it.
A woman with no breasts can have a baby. Breasts serve the physical function of nourishing
a baby--but this is
Breasts may play a part in sex play, but other body parts do also, and are not
censured--especially the hands, along with the mouth (which, by the way, is veiled by Shi'ite
Moslems, partly for that
Quite reason, though only on girls). And while breasts are secondary sex characteristics, so
are beards, which are
not limited on men.
132. Just nudity isn't in itself lewd or "indecent exposure," a distinction upheld by extensive
legal
precedent nationally.199
133. Only nudity cannot be offensive or unethical "conduct"--for it isn't conduct whatsoever,
but only the
natural state of a human being.
It should be no less legitimate to be in this natural human state than to be clothed. One's
ethnicity is also a