It used to be that misunderstanding of top freedom was rampant. Maybe
it still is. Maybe there is still an attitude in America that women,
especially pretty women that you don't know, are objects. They are not
people. You don't get to know and respect and enjoy them for who they
are. Instead maybe they are to be envied and desired. And perhaps as an
off shoot of this the nude woman is perceived as not only desirable but
sexually desirable. Isn't this the role of the beautiful model in print
ads; to be desired?
Of course this can't be literally true. At least I hope it isn't.
America survived the introduction of the mini skirt and the midriff top
without the men in society utterly losing control of themselves with
desiring. The bikini didn't corrupt the morals of a generation of
adolescent women. What I think did happen is we came to realize that
clothing changed and people adapted. Where once upon a time a single
bra was burnt to decry inequality, now it is merely removed.
But what does top freedom have to do with equality? Aren't laws
requiring women to cover their breasts there for their own protection?
Why allow women to place themselves at risk?
If women are more vulnerable than men and we would treat them unequally
for their own safety than curfews would be in order. Restrict them from
entering unsafe areas in cities or from traveling alone. Ban any
provocative clothing. In a free society we don't believe in bans or
curfews. Equality under the law means that as much as possible we treat
all people equally. We accept that some forms of dress are not
appropriate everywhere. But then, "No shirt, No Shoes, No Service"
should apply equally, shouldn't it?
The Topfree Equal Rights Association
(TERA) helps women who encounter legal difficulty going without tops in
public places in Canada and informs the public on this issue. It also
helps women in the USA.
Frequently Asked questions about the Topfreedom
Women and Bare Breasts
TERA Purpose and Principles
Photos of Topfreedom
Kayla wins on appeal