the same protection to the natural expression of body independence through casual, non-exploitative nudity on the beach.

124. Clothes is both freely expressive and privately symbolic, connoting in a unique cultural
group. Confining the state of apparel of nudists is no less restrictive than forbidding any other cultural group from
wearing the clothing particular to their group. Preventing nudists from going naked is equal to preventing a
Individual of Scottish descent from wearing the family colours, or preventing a priest from wearing his robes.
125. With the development of national organizations promoting nudism as a doctrine, nude recreation may

eventually come to be considered a secure medium of speech expressing that doctrine, and as an example of
protected free association.190
126. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that no liberties shall be denied which are not expressly
prohibited.191 Consequently, mere nudity is not illegal except where there are specific laws that forbid it.
Most laws prohibit merely lewd conduct, not nudity per se; and there is in fact no universal legal prohibition
against nudity on public land.
127. Many prohibitions against nudity stalk, historically, from the political climate of the early Christian
church.192 Even today, much of the objection to nudism is based on religious principles. The constitutional
separation of church and state should make this an invalid argument.
128. Extensive legal precedent implies that laws requiring women, but not men, to hide their breasts
are sexist, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.193
For example, in 1992, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, unanimously overturned
the conviction of two women found guilty of exposing their breasts in public. The opinion held the state’s antinudity
law was meant to apply only to lewd and lascivious behaviour, not to “non-commercial, maybe accidental,
and definitely not lewd, exposure.” Herald Price Fahringer, the women’s attorney, stated the ruling meant that
Girls in New York State could sunbathe topfree or even walk down the road without a top, as long as this was not
done in a lewd manner, or for such purposes as prostitution. Judge Vito Titone pointed out that girls sunbathe
topfree in many European nations, adding: “To the extent that many in our society may view the uncovered
female breast with a prurient interest that’s not similarly aroused by the male equivalent, that perception cannot
serve as a justification for different treatment because it is itself a suspect cultural artifact rooted in centuries of
prejudice and bias toward women.” 194 This opinion, nevertheless, is just one of many statutes and legal precedents
nationwide that uphold the position that breast exposure is not fundamentally indecent conduct.195
Added legal support for Naturism.196
129. Case history attests that laws requiring women to cover their breasts aren’t warranted by cultural
prejudices and preconceptions.197
130. Laws requiring girls, but not men, to cover their breasts are composed entirely from a man
Outlook, assuming that men’s bodies are natural and normal, and that women’s bodies have to be covered because
They’re different.
Reena Glazer observes that “under sameness theory, women can get equivalent treatment just to the extent that
they are the same as guys.” 198 Physical differences among the races do not warrant discrimination, and neither
should physical differences between the genders.
131. Laws requiring girls to cover their breasts aren’t justified by claims that women’s bodies are
significantly different from men’s; nor by incorrect claims that breasts are sex organs; nor by the fact that breasts
may play a part in gender or sex play; nor by the reality that breasts are notable secondary sex characteristics.
It can not be argued that girls have breasts and men do not, because both do; nor can it be argued that
Girls have bigger, often protruding breasts, because many women are flat-chested while many men have big
breasts. Breasts are not sex organs, for they are not vital to reproduction, and in fact have nothing to do with it.
A girl with no breasts can get a baby. Breasts serve the bodily function of nourishing a baby–but this is
a maternal function, not a sexual one. Breasts may play a role in sex play, but other body parts do too, and are not
censured–especially the hands, and also the mouth (which, by the way, is veiled by Shi’ite Moslems, partly for that
Quite reason, though only on women). And while breasts are secondary sex characteristics, so are beards, which are
not restricted on men.
132. Only nudity is not in itself lewd or “indecent exposure,” a differentiation upheld by extensive legal
precedent nationwide.199
133. Only nudity cannot be offensive or unethical “conduct”–for it is not run in any respect, but simply the
natural state of a human being.
It should be famili nudism to be in this natural human state than to be clothed. One’s ethnicity is also a