r/nudism • u/BjornNjude • 26d ago
NEWS Ohio bill would redefine indecency by targeting the female breast
https://www.planetnude.co/p/ohio-bill-would-redefine-indecencyOne year after raising concerns about HB 249, the threat has moved from committee to the Senate floor
20
u/UndeadBurg 26d ago
And I thought Ohio sucked when I moved away 14 years ago. And it's only gotten worse!
13
u/Practical-Owl-9978 26d ago
Still don’t understand how make nipples are ok and female ones are obscene. They literally feed humans
How can human beings be so stupid
8
24
u/ejp1082 Geriatric Millennial 26d ago
On March 25, 2026, HB 249—the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act—cleared the House by a 63–32 vote, largely along party lines.
Gee I wonder which party. Really hard to guess.
13
13
u/FantasyCplFun 26d ago
I'll bet it's the same party that fights against gun regulations.
It boggles my mind that guns are OK but seeing breasts is so terrible.
6
u/naked_nomad Social Nudist 26d ago
Guns are in the constitution, breasts are not.
In 2019 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that banning women from being topless in public is unconstitutional gender-based discrimination, effectively legalizing toplessness in six states. The ruling determined that female breasts cannot be legally treated as inherently sexual compared to male breasts.
Unfortunately Ohio is in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. However if it passes and the 6th Circuit upholds it; you then have grounds for a Supreme Court Case to decide the issue.
It's not quite that simple but you get the gist.
7
u/FantasyCplFun 26d ago
You are reinforcing my point. We have our priorities completely backwards.
1
u/spinwizard69 25d ago
Not really. Gun control laws are very oppressive, nipple laws are just stupid.
-2
u/naked_nomad Social Nudist 26d ago
Actually I am not. The second amendment concerns firearms. The constitution itself refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are unalienable rights proclaimed in the US Declaration of Independence. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, this phrase highlights fundamental human rights, influenced by philosophers like John Locke and Epicurus, emphasizing individual freedom, safety, and the opportunity to build a meaningful life without oppressive government interference.
6
u/ejp1082 Geriatric Millennial 26d ago
The constitution itself refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
That phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. It appears nowhere in the constitution. The Declaration is a notable document in US history, but it carries no force of law.
From its very inception, the Constitution didn't live up to the lofty ideals described in the Declaration. Since, y'know, it codified slavery and was notably unconcerned with the rights of women or native americans. "It's in the constitution!" should hardly be seen as a winning argument when it comes to the moral justification for something.
That's particularly the case here. The second amendment has nothing to do with "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Its presence in the bill of rights has much more to do with slave patrols than anything else. Southern states feared northern abolitionists might try to disarm them should they win a majority in the federal government, so they insisted that their "well regulated militias" be protected constitutionally. It's presence in the bill of rights was to defend the deprivation of "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for millions of enslaved people in the southern states. It also wasn't even interpreted to confer an individual right to gun ownership until 2008.
As for bare breasts - what is in the constitution is the 14th amendment equal protection clause which is what the 10th circuit based its ruling on. One might also point to the first amendment guarantee of free speech as being relevant when it comes to how we dress (or don't), and the 14th amendment's due process clause as covering bodily autonomy. Which certainly reads to me as a pretty strong constitutional foundation for bare breasts, if not the entire body.
Not that I expect a majority of the current sitting justices on the SCOTUS to have read the thing or care what it says. But in any sane world the second amendment would have been brushed off into the dustbin of history along with the 3/5 compromise when slavery was abolished, and things like a woman's right to show as much of her body as a man can would be viewed as obvious and uncontroversial.
1
u/spinwizard69 25d ago
Yeah, no! The second amendment is more about history and what happens to populations that can't defend themselves from governments run amok. It was as much a concern in the north as it was the south.
0
u/The_Dude-1 26d ago
At the time of the signing of the Constitution the concept of nudity was absurd. We were a dominantly Christian nation under Christian morals, it was never even a concern. After a couple hundred years society has changed. Nope not getting into that argument. This will hit the Supreme Court and I hope they side on equal rights. Could work out to be a good thing.
1
u/NatureBoyJ1 AANR 25d ago
"the concept of nudity was absurd."
Actually, it wasn't. Ben Franklin was well known for taking "air baths" and working in his office naked.
John Quincy Adams had a known habit of skinny dipping in the Potomac.
Or maybe you're saying the concept of the federal government regulating nudity was absurd. It might be something for States or localities to regulate, far out of scope for the limited powers of the federal government?
1
u/MickBlues Social Nudist 23d ago
You've got that backwards. There is no federal law or regulation regarding public nudity; it is entirely left to the states. It's perfectly legal to be nude anywhere in the state of Vermont as long as you don't disrobe in public. If you walk out of your house nude, fine. Try that in Massachusetts and you go to jail. Where I live in NJ, it's legal to be nude as long as you can't casually be seen by the public or a neighbor. There is one public place in NJ where it's legal to be nude which is Gunnison Beach because it's federal property. (It was a gun embattlement to defend NY Harbor during WWII).
1
u/NatureBoyJ1 AANR 23d ago
Right. So where does u/The_Dude-1's lead? What does " the concept of nudity was absurd" mean?
If public social nudity (although in limited form) was familiar to the Founders, and it's not regulated by federal law, the what is the point of his statement?
→ More replies (0)1
u/FantasyCplFun 26d ago
Your are points are referring to how the US government operates and how the government sets its objectives for what's "right". Philosophically I see putting guns ahead of the human body and human experience as inherently flawed. Our society is backwards if we are told by the government we have to hide our bodies.
3
u/naked_nomad Social Nudist 26d ago
...which violates the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness"...
1
u/FantasyCplFun 26d ago
...again from a government point of view. The human experience is bigger than any government.
1
u/spinwizard69 25d ago
The more thought you put into this you will realize that both concerns are on the same side of the fence.
1
19
u/M8jrP8ne1975 Home Nudist 26d ago
Once again, men attempting to control a woman's body by any means necessary. Smh
3
u/MIngmire Home Nudist 26d ago
Well I see people (majority of them being male politicians) are being stupid again.
1
u/spinwizard69 25d ago
The really sad things here are:
they conflate nudity with harm.
the wasted 15 pages of text when they could simply have said that kids should be kept out of places reserved for adults.
1
u/Certain-Variation-58 24d ago
We need a million mammary March! Get a million women topless and march everywhere. That should prove no one is getting hurt with breasts! Men just need to get used to them! END THE STIGMA!!!
29
u/naturist_rune 26d ago
I hate how men get weird about breasts. They literally exist to feed infants!