# Legal For Men To Go Shirtless **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 6, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582 "2006-08-06T18:01:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dpimi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Dpimi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dpimi)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/1 "2006-08-06T18:01:52Z")
I was readind an old magazine about how in the 60s the were able to arrest some hippies in NYC’s Central Park for going shirtless. When did it become legal for men to walk around with no shirt on? I’m sure in most places it still is illegal for women, but I assume it was illegal for men, even on beaches in the first part of the 1900s or is this incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Dpimi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Dpimi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dpimi)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/2 "2006-08-06T18:16:02Z")
> [@Dpimi](#): > > I was readind an old magazine about how in the 60s the were able to arrest some hippies in NYC’s Central Park for going shirtless. Sorry typed to fast that should be I was _ **READING** _ an old magazine… ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/3 "2006-08-06T19:14:26Z")
If it’s illegal for women but legal for men, isn’t that sex discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/4 "2006-08-06T20:59:41Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > If it’s illegal for women but legal for men, isn’t that sex discrimination? Well I would call it gender discrimination, but whatever you call it, it does seem to fit. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/5 "2006-08-06T21:13:40Z")
Until the late 1980s, New York State had a law on the books that specifically made it legal for men to go topless in public but illegal for women. The law was challanged by a group of activists known as the Top-Free Seven, and overturned by the State Supreme Court on appeal. The case was People v Santorelli, Schloss, et al (80 N.Y.2d 875, 600 N.E.2d 232, 587 N.Y.S.2d 601). I presume there are/were similar laws on the books in other states. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/6 "2006-08-06T21:51:41Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > Until the late 1980s, New York State had a law on the books that specifically made it legal for men to go topless in public but illegal for women. The law was challanged by a group of activists known as the Top-Free Seven, and overturned by the State Supreme Court on appeal. The case was People v Santorelli, Schloss, et al (80 N.Y.2d 875, 600 N.E.2d 232, 587 N.Y.S.2d 601). Not quite. New York’s top appellate court (the Court of Appeals) gave the statute a narrow reading, thereby avoiding the constitutional challengel. Instead, the Court held that the statute did not apply to “the noncommercial, perhaps accidental, and certainly not lewd, exposure alleged.” [http://home.att.net/~saran/sant\_op.htm](http://home.att.net/~saran/sant_op.htm) One Judge concurred in the result, but would have held the statute unconstitutional. [http://home.att.net/~saran/sant\_con.htm](http://home.att.net/~saran/sant_con.htm) This page has two other cases: [http://www.tera.ca/legal.html](http://www.tera.ca/legal.html) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/7 "2006-08-06T22:40:15Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Well I would call it gender discrimination, but whatever you call it, it does seem to fit. Since in most (all?) cases discrimination statutes use the word “sex” and not “gender,” “sex discrimination” would be the more correct term. “Sex” and “gender” have become somewhat interchangeable of late, which IMHO is the loss of a useful distinction. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/8 "2006-08-07T02:24:32Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > If it’s illegal for women but legal for men, isn’t that sex discrimination? Even weirder, if a man get’s breast implants can he walk around topless? ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/9 "2006-08-07T02:45:56Z")
I know nothing of the law in Central Park (or anywhere else), but here in Austin, it’s perfectly legal for ladies to wander round topless (and for guys to prance around in jockstraps) [http://michaelbluejay.com/nudity/](http://michaelbluejay.com/nudity/) Due prescence of semi-nekkid guys on bicycles, link is disabled. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/10 "2006-08-07T03:48:26Z")
My 9th grade students: That’s discrimination! Me: Discrimination is telling the difference between things and making decisions based on those differences. Yes, it’s discrimination. Here, I’ll say it for you, “I’m discriminating”. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/11 "2006-08-07T15:20:51Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Even weirder, if a man get’s breast implants can he walk around topless? Ok, then, how about a woman who’s had a double mastectomy? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/12 "2006-08-07T15:48:36Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > My 9th grade students: That’s discrimination! > > Me: Discrimination is telling the difference between things and making decisions based on those differences. Yes, it’s discrimination. Here, I’ll say it for you, “I’m discriminating”. Exactly. _Seattle v. Buchanan_, 90 Wn.2d 584, 584 P.2d 918 (Wash. 1978): [http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/090wn2d/090wn2d0584.htm](http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/090wn2d/090wn2d0584.htm) > [@](#): > > We are unable to agree that the legislative body could only have been interested in the size or shape of female breasts when it included them among the parts of the human body which should not be exposed in public. . . . It is manifest from a reading of the section as a whole that the City Council was concerned with those body parts and functions which, according to society’s common sense of decency, should be kept private. These include the eliminative functions and the procreative functions. With respect to the latter, it was found to be in the public interest to order concealed, in addition to the genitals, the female breasts, which, unlike male breasts, constitute an erogenous zone and are commonly associated with sexual arousal. The lawmakers no doubt took account of the fact that the breasts can be kept covered in public without inconvenience, since they perform no function which necessitates their being exposed to public view. > When the legislative intent is viewed in light of the obvious purpose of the ordinance - to protect the public morals and its concern for the privacy of intimate functions - common knowledge tells us, as it undoubtedly told the trial judge, that there is a real difference between the sexes with respect to breasts, which is reasonably related to the preservation of public decorum and morals. Governmental bodies have a right to enact laws to maintain a decent society. PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49, 37 L. Ed. 2d 446, 93 S. Ct. 2628 (1973); SEATTLE v. MARSHALL, 83 Wn.2d 665, 670, 521 P.2d 693 (1974). While the factual predicate is dubious, at best (breasts are only an errogenous zone in women?), the Court explains the reason for its decision in the next paragraph: > [@](#): > > We are told that concepts of morality and propriety are changing, and that public exposure of the female breasts is becoming increasingly less offensive. This may be the case, even though we are given no evidence to support the assertion, and it is obvious that in this instance, some persons were offended. If it is true, then it can reasonably be expected that public demand will soon make it imperative that this portion of the ordinance be repealed. Suffice it to say that the argument attacks the wisdom and necessity of the ordinance, matters which the courts lack the constitutional authority to decide. > > The Supreme Court of the United States in GOESAERT v. CLEARY, 335 U.S. 464, 466, 93 L. Ed. 163, 69 S. Ct. 198 (1948), said: > > "The Constitution does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or shifting social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/13 "2006-08-07T15:50:11Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Ok, then, how about a woman who’s had a double mastectomy? Or a young girl who’s breasts haven’t devloped yet (actually I think this is legal, my sister used to let my nieces run around topless when they were young). ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/14 "2006-08-07T15:53:27Z")
I’ve seen men with bigger breasts than mine going topless! It’s weird to think that they could always do so, but at one time a mother nursing her child in public could be arrested. One person defending this actually told me “Well, if you let people nurse in public, next thing you know they’ll be having sex in public!” ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/15 "2006-08-07T16:51:32Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > It’s weird to think that they could always do so, but at one time a mother nursing her child in public could be arrested. One person defending this actually told me “Well, if you let people nurse in public, next thing you know they’ll be having sex in public!” It’s weird to imagine that a court actually said, “The lawmakers no doubt took account of the fact that the breasts can be kept covered in public without inconvenience, since they perform no function which necessitates their being exposed to public view.” While obviously most women nursing in public try to be discreet about it, there’s certainly some risk of incidental exposure of the breast. It seems like this is a rather important function of the female breast. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/16 "2006-08-07T17:44:39Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > It’s weird to think that they could always do so, I don’t think we’ve established this yet. My searched didn’t turn anything up. Anyone? BTW, here is a link to a good article on indecent exposure law: [http://home.att.net/~saran/narvidx.htm](http://home.att.net/~saran/narvidx.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Praetor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@Praetor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Praetor)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/17 "2006-08-07T18:32:52Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > While obviously most women nursing in public try to be discreet about it, there’s certainly some risk of incidental exposure of the breast. It seems like this is a rather important function of the female breast. It is not, however, a function that must be done in public. A woman can (usually) easily retire to a non-public place to breast-feed. Similarly, I could urinate in public, and urination is a rather important function, but I can also easily go someplace non-public to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/18 "2006-08-07T18:44:39Z")
> [@Praetor](#): > > It is not, however, a function that must be done in public. A woman can (usually) easily retire to a non-public place to breast-feed. Similarly, I could urinate in public, and urination is a rather important function, but I can also easily go someplace non-public to do so. Well, without hijacking into a discussion of breastfeeding in public, there’s often not any appropriate place to go breastfeed your brat, and you can’t put it off for all that long. Unless, of course, you want to feed Jurior in the lavatory, which seems rather unpleasant and uncomfortable to me. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/19 "2006-08-08T16:27:06Z")
I think it’s only legal for men who don’t make $25 million a year playing baseball. At least, from the reactions A-Rod got, you’d THINK that was the law… ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582/20 "2006-08-08T17:55:46Z")
Just to be specific about New York toplessness law, there are some places where it is illegal by local ordinance for either men or women to go without a shirt. One example is the Village of Southampton on the East End of Long Island (one of the tonier Hamptons), which prohibits men and women from going shirtless in public unless within a certain distance of the beach. This law is enforcable and regularly enforced within the Village. A little tightassed, for sure, but shirtless is an image the village trustees want to avoid in the public areas of the villiage. Since it applies equally to men and women, it does not run afoul of the _Santorelli_ decision mentioned above. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-for-men-to-go-shirtless/367582.md?page=2)