No shirts, no shoes, no service

This one is for my sister. Recently their have been a lot of topless protests by women. These women are not only protesting because they want to go topless all the time, they are protesting the underlying assumptions that brought about these laws, and which they continue to promote. In 1986, it was still illegal to be a topless female in NY. When a number of women in Rochester were arrested for being topless in a park they brought it to court. These women ultimately won the case in the supreme court, who ruled that it is legal for women to go topless in NY. But, what were the arguments in a case that continues to be so relevant. Judge Herman Walz argued against making female toplessness legal saying:
             "The statute's objective is to protect the public from invasions of its sensibilities, and merely reflects current community standards as to what constitutes nudity. The objective itself is not based on stereotyped notions, therefore it is not illegitimate... community standards do not deem the exposure of males' breasts offensive, therefore the state does not have an interest in preventing exposure of males' breasts"
              He is arguing that most of the public wants to be protected so the government is protecting them and since the law is based on protection not sexism its fine. Don't buy it? Neither did the court. With this logic you could make oranges illegal because they offended peoples sensibilities, and we would end up with a very silly country. They appealed that their was no good government reason to distinguish between the genders in this case and the courts agreed, The case went on to the supreme court.
             These laws are made because of the reaction of the viewer not the action of the perpetrator. Reena Glazer Wrote in The Duke Law Journal  in 1993 that when you realize that these laws are to please the viewer and also look at the exception in the statute that exempts topless entertainment a glaring issue starts to  emerge. Things that might turn men on are only allowed to be show when men want to be turned on. In other words men's views of women's bodies are the ones that matter. This inherently objectifies women. Both sides argue that they are fighting objectification. One side says that breasts will make people objectify women, this is like the argument that wearing revealing clothing means women are "asking for it", my boobs don't talk and they certainly didn't "make" anyone do anything. The other sides argues for reevaluating preconceived norms about breasts automatically being sexual because those that are attracted to them say so.
         In 1995 Phoenix Feeley  tested out the NY law on toplessness and was arrested for walking down the street topless. She won the court case and $29,000 from the state. In 2011 she was arrested again in New Jersey where the laws are ambiguous and she served nine days in jail, hunger striking for eight of them and was let go. Gotopless protests have taken place in France, Iran, The U.S. and Canada, many resulting in arrests.