Thomas Pluck hopes that the recent lifting of the ban on toplessness in New York City will bring about positive change.
—
As a writer, I’ve followed the Topless Co-Ed Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society for some time. They are a group of women who relax, sunbathe, and read together in public in the comfort of their own skin, making use of the recent legal decision that allows women in New York City to exist without covering their breasts in public.
As expected, this small group has generated quite a bit of attention and controversy. Seeing them at the New York Public library steps before the lions, Patience and Fortitude, was quite moving, and I don’t mean stirring in the loin area. When I saw their latest photo shoot, I was reminded of numerous photos that have surfaced recently of suffragettes in London who trained in martial arts (bartitsu, the same art Sherlock Holmes was written to use) to keep their protesters from being hassled and arrested by police. It’s a lost picture of rebels who changed the world, and part of me, the part that wasn’t simply dazzled by brave, beautiful women, wondered if I was seeing a similar act of rebellion that would have some small part in history.
♦◊♦
I imagined these photos getting rediscovered a hundred years from now, like those photos of the suffragist bodyguards in London, forgotten pioneers and heroines fighting the backward and oppressive mores of their age. Or was I just enjoying the view? I won’t deny that the Topless Pulp women are beautiful. It takes bravery and confidence to bare yourself in public for any amount of time. I spent a weekend once in a naturist retreat, and I can still feel the knot in my stomach. I’m not comfortable with my body, I’ve never gone to gyms with showers and locker rooms. When I used a sauna recently, I felt like Tobias Fünke, the never-nude (there are dozens of us!) in my modesty.
My thoughts are mixed. Certainly there is exhibitionism at work. I’ve watched the Topless Pulp crew, on their blog, go from quiet secluded park settings and rooftop pools to rowing in the lake in Central Park, to this most public of places. Working themselves up to it. The first instinct is to chide them for seeking attention. But women attract attention no matter how they’re clothed, and I sat back and thought of the co-ed shower scenes in Starship Troopers, and how back then it was seen as a joke. Because men and women could NEVER be comfortable together naked. Our atavistic urges would crush our fragile brains and we’d be reduced to slavering animals.
We all know we’re better than that. At least when other people are watching. And that’s what’s so brave and powerful about what these women are doing. They are forcing us to confront centuries of Puritan upbringing. When we see a man without a shirt, sometimes we think he’s a show-off, but most of the time, depending on the situation, we just don’t care. Guy working on the lawn on a hot day? Who cares. Driving his car, maybe not. Riding a bike, we probably judge his physique before commenting. But a woman, we immediately think there’s something wrong with her, she must crave attention. Doesn’t she know she’s supposed to hide those away to make men hunger to see them?
I think about breasts a lot, no surprise. But what I think about is how much of masculine desire for that particular part of a woman is caused by culture and secrecy. In tribes where women go topless, breasts are not fetishized. No, we fetishize what is hidden. Does that mean every woman should go topless all the time? No, but if a few brave pioneers and rebels make us think that breasts aren’t secret goodies, they are just another body part, maybe they’ll move us a short way toward viewing women as people and not fetishizing them in their entirety, as strange unknowable creatures we need to attain and protect.
Or maybe I just like all variety of breasts, but for now I’d like to think they’re forcing us slowly toward inexorable change.
I’m all for greater acceptance of our bodies and not living in shame of them. I’d love to live in a society where my worth wasn’t tied in how perky and perfect my breasts where. But, sitting on the New York Public Library topless doesn’t really seem like the best way to go about it. I don’t think other people’s nudity should be forced on others in public. I don’t think other people not wanting to see the naked body of someone else means they are “puritanical”. I can remember as a little girl my mother taking me into New… Read more »
I don’t know, this is just not an issue I can get really excited about. I don’t think that wanting people to wear clothing is puritanical. I don’t want to see naked people (male or female) walking around in daily because frankly, they are exhibitionists and it’s annoying. “Look at me! Look at me! I’m naked!” Blech. Most people look terrible naked — I mean, truly terrible. I’ve been in women’s locker rooms and most women’s breasts (including my own) are saggy and really not much to appreciate. A group of hot young women walking around in public has nothing… Read more »
Thomas, really enjoyed your article. I think topless activism is important. Sad that the men commenting don’t seem to get it, though. Nothing says patriarchy quite like men telling women what we should and shouldn’t do with our bodies.
These straw man comments are a little irritating. Unless you wish to elevate the discussion to nude activism. That will be coming mainstream in the future. One more step to the @#$%@# society. I can’t use the word or my post gets obliterated.
I think we’re all missing a point here. Which is these women have yet to comment on any books they’ve worn, er, read. Also, the vast majority are Hard Case Crime books. Who are a great publisher, but are they paying them? Great marketing, but not really a movement then. Also, can they pay me to wear their books for pants? Because I already do.
We sexualize things with our brain. Many cultures do not sexualize the breast. What becomes sexualized is what gets covered. In some tribes the back of a woman’s leg just under the knee is covered, and becomes sexualized. Are all human vaginas and penises sexual to you? Parents, in most cases, manage to not sexualize their children. Does the Naked Cowboy in Times Square offend us this way? He’s sort of a local hero. Almost got his own TV show. Women didn’t call him a tighty whitey patriarch. There was no controversy when he appeared on news segments. There’s a… Read more »
There are multiple erogeonous zones, I know women who loveee their neck touched.
The Mons, back of knees, the abs, lips, scalp, feet, and the neck.
Inner thigh also
I think many people are reaching their tolerance of being told that their behaviour is unacceptable when it is not illegal. Perhaps what is unacceptable is the continual judging of others behaviour while refusing to take any accountability for one’s own behaviour.
Like I’ve said before, if you don’t learn how to ignore all of this you’ll become a bad man very quickly. None of this is sexual. Get it? Feminism will continue to decide what is OK and not OK in the public square.
Testicles are sexual parts of anatomy for sure — but a knee to the testicles in response to a grope is not a sexual act. It’s an act of self defense. Breasts are not sexual parts of anatomy in the sense that they’re not an inherent part of sexual intercourse. Obviously some people find them sexually arousing, and that’s fine — but that’s also true of lips and eyes and necks and earlobes and feet, not to mention men’s chests. I think we can all understand the difference between genitals and other body parts. Speaking of which, if you really… Read more »
I’m not sure who ultimately has the right to define what is and is not a part of sexual anatomy. But if we are to use the criteria that only the anatomy required for sexual intercourse is sexual, then I suppose only a penis and a vagina are sexual. What is not sexual: testical, breast, buttocks, clitoris. I think the definition is a bit wanting and inconsistent.
By the way, the sarcasm does not help in a free and respectful exchange of ideas. Rather it is aggressive and adversarial.
Your definition of what is and is not a part of sexual anatomy is just that, yours. You don’t get to decide that for everyone else. So far, the law does consider breasts a part of sexual anatomy.
I’m having trouble with the polar opposites you’re taking in this argument since, I’m sorry OCTPFAS, but breasts are sexual – for two reasons, firstly they are erogenous, it is arousing to have them touched in a certain way (more so than hands for example) and they are also part of sexual signaling – that is they indicate gender and are therefore attractive to the opposite sex. Bu the testicles is a good point; a knee to the groin is not sexual, but not because it’s in self-defence, it is not sexual because it is violent. It’s not the kind… Read more »
A knee to the groin is a sexual assault. The genitals are extremely delicate! They have an extreme proportion of nerves, even if it’s self-defense it’s still a sexual assault but usually overlooked as it’s an act of self-defense.
“I’m sorry OCTPFAS, but breasts are sexual – for two reasons, firstly they are erogenous, it is arousing to have them touched in a certain way (more so than hands for example) and they are also part of sexual signaling – that is they indicate gender and are therefore attractive to the opposite sex.”” Breasts *can* be sexual. But they don’t *always* have to be sexual. Just as we, as human beings, can be sexual but we are not always sexual. There are many different sides to us. There are many different roles we take on. Daughter, sister, mother, caretaker,… Read more »
Scott, men DO wear thongs in public in NYC, and no one says anything. There’s a man who does ballet poses in the middle of the plaza by Delacorte Fountain in Central Park wearing nothing but a white thong, and hundreds of people see him doing it, and no one seems too put out. He’s not the most attractive guy in the world, nor the most graceful, so the sight could be more pleasant, but so what? If you don’t like it, look somewhere else. Certainly no one accuses him of forcing his sexuality into a public space, even if… Read more »
OCTPFAS, Unfortunately you’ve missed my point. I was simply saying that there is a conversation to be had about the balance of the right of an individual to dress as they please and the definition of “public decency”. Where does one draw the line? Toplessness was acceptable in many places in Europe well before it was legal here in North America. I am not opposed to toplessness in public, but there’s a discussion to be had about what constitutes “public decency”. Sex is a normal physiological behaviour, is it permissible in public? What about a man having a visible errection… Read more »
Certainly there is a conversation to be had. We’re having it. What I meant when I wrote that “no one accuses him of forcing his sexuality into a public space” is that I’ve been there when he’s been doing it and I didn’t hear anyone accusing him of this. People tolerate things. This is a tolerant city. It’s one of the reasons I love living here. And yes, the first men to wear thongs in public were pioneers. Anyone who does something for the first time is a pioneer. Some pioneering is more significant than others, and some is better… Read more »
John – breasts aren’t sexual objects (or objects of any other sort, except insofar as you’d call a hand or foot an “object”), but that doesn’t mean touching them is okay without the other person’s consent. If you saw a bare-chested man and reached over and squeezed his pecs, he’d probably respond negatively. You can expect the same from a woman. No need for you to be put on a sex offender list, but you might get a black eye or a knee in the groin. (The latter shouldn’t put me on a sex offender list either, incidentally. There’s nothing… Read more »
If breasts and testicals are not sexual parts of anatomy, I’m at a loss to find a body part that is sexual.
Maybe ALL of your body is sexual?
To comment that breasts are no more “sexual objects” than a hand or a foot strikes me as a little off. Do some research on the erogenous zones of the breasts and nipples. The neural area in the female brain to which nipple/breast touch sensations are connected is right next to those for the clitoris, cervix, and vagina. Breasts are erogenous zones to a much higher extent than a hand or a foot. Laws and opinions aside, that’s just a fact of nature. Even in primitive cultures where breasts, penises and vaginas are constantly on full display, the sexual/nonsexual distinction… Read more »
I liked very much what OCTFPAS said. As a woman, it’s not too fun to hear your breasts referred to as “sexual objects”. There certainly can be a sexuality in breasts. And that’s fine. But to me, saying something *can* be sexual and saying that something is *always* sexual is different. Breasts aren’t “sexual objects” even if sometimes they can be viewed sexy. From this discussion, I can’t tell if we are making headway or if women are still being regulated into the “sexual object’ status. James, there are a lot of erogenous zones on the body. I can actually… Read more »
OCTPFAS: Actually the breasts of a woman are considered sexual objects by the law , which was my point and if you fondle them , you can and probably will end up on a sex offenders list whereas if a woman fondles a mans pecs, she won’t.
The law changes. It used to be against the law for women to go topless in New York, and now it isn’t. Similarly, the law describing assault as sexual if a woman’s breasts are involved but not if a man’s are will change. You’re right that the two should be consistent. But let’s make them consistent in the better way, not the worse one. Consistent equality for all, not consistent inequality.
I’ve had people grab my manboobies, the POLICE said it was SEXUAL ASSAULT and I could press charges if I want. This is Australia however. I didn’t press charges, I just wanted the bullies to fuckoff. Whenever someone touches me there without my permission, I want to put them in hospital. I do NOT like it, I can’t stand it, I flinch just as much as I do when someone touches my penis. But maybe it’d be different to some degree if my chest was flat n sexy, but the humiliation and sexual degradation bothers me extremely.
Are you by chance responded to John Schtoll above?
If so he didn’t say that such things wouldn’t still be classified as rude/illegal. He seems to be questioning “If breasts aren’t sexual, then why is it a sex crime to touch them against consent?”
If a group of men started wearing thong swimsuits in public I wonder if you would view them as brave pioneers or as individuals forcing their sexuality into a public space? I think there is a reasonable analogy there. If I talk in a sexually suggestive manner with someone who would rather not participate that is sexual harassment. However, if a woman chooses to expose, what is universally accepted as a sexually enticing part of her anatomy, be it breast or button, and someone is offended – it is there fault for being “puritanical”. Sure, one could tell those offended… Read more »
Go to France, board-shots are banned in swimming pools, and the largest pair of trunks that are allowed are tiny speedos, which barely cover your bum.
They wouldn’t describe it as men forcing their sexuality into a space where it is not wanted.
Sigh, my comment was not about what they do in France, or even what people wear. The issue is questioning the motives of the individuals exposing more of themselves than their peers. There seems to be a presumption that if males expose their bodies it’s because they are being sexual, while when women do the same it’s about their freedom. No one would suggest they might be doing it because it gives them a sexual thrill.
So, if breasts aren’t sexual objects, how long will it be before the law against touching them will be downgraded to a non sexual act not requiring being put on a sex offender list.
That’s an interesting point.
On one hand we are supposed to get it through out heads that breasts are not sexual however when they are ogled, touched, and rudely commented its called sexual harassment/assault/etc….
Either such things are sexual assault/harassment or plain physical assault/harassment.
Can’t have it both ways.
But touching anyone’s breasts is a sexual act male or female. I had this at work, some of the guys found it funny that I’d react defensively to attempts to grab my nipples; it wasn’t abusive, it was like friendly teasing, like trying to tickle someone under their armpits or similar, but you wouldn’t want a stranger to do it, or someone you didn’t trust or feel comfortable with. A female colleague, who actually (and probably, fortunately, given what I’m about to recount) is a dear friend, probably decided by this it was reasonable behaviour and during a lull in… Read more »
Part of the effort in this is to desexualize breasts. Nothing wrong with that. But at the point you’re talking about you’re talking about criminalizing intent. Yes if you grab breasts in a sexual way, and the other person doesn’t want you to, it is harassment; but touching someones face in a sexual way would also be harassment; touching legs in a sexual way when you know it’s unwanted would be sexual harassment and it wouldn’t even have to be the thighs either; touching hair in a sexual way, were it unwanted would be sexual harassment. In any given scenario… Read more »
I don’t think we are talking about a desexualisation of the breast; which would not be desirable; we’re talking about a defetishization of exposed breasts. But if a woman runs her hand over your chest and you don’t want her to I do think that does count as unwanted sexual attention. If she knows it’s unwanted and persists anyway then that would count as sexual harassment; I don’t see why it doesn’t. Doesn’t it? I think in normal courtship the breasts aren’t the first port of call anyway; I think ordinarily one would already be kissing before you start touching… Read more »
Thanks for this article, Thomas! Just two things: In your headline, you probably don’t mean “the recent ban on toplessness in New York,” since toplessness is not banned in New York, and regarding “recent” in the headline and the first paragraph of the article, the legal decision allowing female toplessness in New York is actually 21 years old, dating back to 1992. It’s true that few women took advantage of this right for the first 19 years or so, but it’s been legal all that time. We’re just trying to spread the word that it’s legal and get more people… Read more »
You’re right- I remember when the ban was lifted now. The general consensus was that it was unthinkable, then.