Utah woman fights criminal charge after kids see her topless at home

LOL.  I guess in Utah babies have to be blindfolded before they can be breast-fed.

You raise a good point.  What if this woman has a baby?  Can she legally breastfeed in front of the other kids?   Or must she sequester herself away from the rest of the family every time the baby is hungry?

What an utterly stupid argument.  It has no relevance to this story unless you think this woman should be letting a 13 year old suck on her titties. 

It's common sense.  If she and her husband want to walk around nude then do it when the kids aren't there.  It's a win:win.

I'm beginning to wonder Buzz. Some people seem to get bent all out of shape over a pair of boobs being exposed. Its like we're still living in Puritan times.

LOL, Gordy.  Looks like not many live in puritan times when my comment earned 13 thumbs up and the "puritan" one calling my comment an insult didn't get any.

I suppose you are right about that, Lol

This is beyond stupid 

I want to know who reported this "incident". Story states "after her stepchildren saw her topless in her own home". Sounds to me like the kids said something to biological mom who is still pissed that her ex left her. And you are correct, beyond stupid. 

It was the biological mother (ex-wife) who reported it.

Hmmmmmm... that changes the tune.

Just shows the likelihood of bad blood between the 2 to start with.

Why not go topless with hubby when they don’t have the kids?  It’s a really simple solution.  They are not her children.  There may be bad feelings with the exwife but the children may also still be upset.  

until all of society is okay with walking around nude in front of others they should be respectful of others especially children.   

We have laws for a reason.  Maybe next time she’ll think of the children before placing her self above them.

What difference does it make? The stepmother is still the legal guardian by marriage. There's no indication that the kids were upset. Only the ex is, who apparently has an axe to grind. There is no apparent problem or harm caused. This whole thing is beyond stupid to be sure. I guess some people are too uptight when it comes to showing skin.

If the wife had an issue and they could not resolve this, it is a family court issue and not a criminal one. This is ridiculous. 

Agreed. Even then, I don't see much of an issue

At the risk of sounding like a conservative, I am going to say the woman is wrong. 

When the children, ages 9 through 13, walked in, she “explained she considers herself a feminist and wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,” her lawyers said in court documents.

The story doesnt say if the kids are boys or girls, and while that does not entirely matter, an adult female should not walk around partly naked in front of a 13 year old boy who is not her son, and most wouldnt do it even then. 

It does matter that she is not the children's mother, because the mother should have a say in what her adolescent children are exposed to. And evidently the mother didnt like it. The topless lady should be a feminist in some other way. 

You and I rarely agree, but I fully agree with your reasonable, rational comment.

The story doesnt say if the kids are boys or girls, and while that does not entirely matter, an adult female should not walk around partly naked in front of a 13 year old boy who is not her son, and most wouldnt do it even then. 

That's more of an opinion that anything else.  Her house, the kids are under her guardianship, if she wants to walk around starkers in her own home, she should have that right. 

She wasn't doing anything sexual, in fact cleaning the garage is the exact opposite of something sexual, although in my garage I would want a couple additional protective layers on.

It does matter that she is not the children's mother, because the mother should have a say in what her adolescent children are exposed to. 

Yes, but as someone else pointed out, it should not make it a criminal matter.  Who has guardianship?  Bio-mom or step-mom?

The topless lady should be a feminist in some other way.

That should be her choice to make and nobody else's. 

Want happens if bio-mom decides step-mom's dresses are too short?  Shirts too tight?  Showing too much cleavage?

Considering what kids have access to on the computer, this seems like nothing burger to me.

At the risk of sounding like a conservative, I am going to say the woman is wrong. 

There are at least two questions:

1. Was this a responsible/proper decision by the woman?
2. Did this woman commit a crime?

Question 1 (per your point) is something that should be decided by the family.    I personally think it is a poor choice, but everyone should have the right to make this call within the privacy of their own homes.   

Question 2, in my opinion, should be answered 'NO!'.    A criminal charge continued then to the point of a criminal trial is ridiculous and is an example of government going way beyond its appropriate purview.

it is.

Compared to what kids see or are exposed to theses days, it is nothing. 

How is the woman wrong? According to whom or whose standards? Was a law broken? This was in a private residence. The husband/father apparently has no issue with it. Did the exposure result in harm to the children? I wold speculate the ex wife is too uptight about such matters, which might explain why she's an ex. But I digress.

Thanks John.  You said it much better than I did. 

These are NOT her children.  They are her step children.

Well then lets just toss out our family values and not even try and be good examples to our children.

So? She is still a legal guardian as a step mother and the children's father doesn't seem to take issue with it.

So a woman who professes to be a feminist is a bad example?  And again, a bad example according to whom? 

Agreed.

Well then lets just toss out our family values

Who's family values?  Guarantee that every family will have different values, some with huge differences, some with teeny tiny differences, but all different.

When the children, ages 9 through 13, walked in,she “explained she considers herself a feminist and wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,”her lawyers said in court documents.

When the children walked in (into the garage?) she explained (to them?) that she wanted to make a point. 

This whole thing sounds pre-planned and somewhat, I don't know, suspicious? 

The children, who are not her kids, don't have to be used to make a political point. 

If they saw her boobs by accident I would say who cares, when it is a plan and the kids are used as props I think it's a different story. 

And who cleans their garage bare chested?  You would want a tee shirt to keep the dust and grime off your skin. 

The circumstances are indeed odd, but the two questions I posed can be discussed without having all the details of this case.

If it were me, I would not be in favor of my wife topless when others could walk in and see this.   My wife, unlike this case, would never consider walking around topless in the garage.

But I hold that the government should have nothing to do with this.

If the biological mother wanted to take it to court, I assume she has that right. 

I do agree it doesnt belong in court. 

Yes, one can raise a civil suit on anything.

This, however, is criminal ergo my comments.

I'm a step mom.  James came to me when he was 8 years old after his mother decided she didn't want him anymore and she had a new family with two other sons with her new husband.

He is my son through and through even though I did not give birth to him but I would NEVER walk around with my fucking tits hanging out.  I wouldn't do that with my two biological sons either.  Its fucking gross.

Well, , most men will not think ‘ gross ’ unless the woman herself is very unappealing.  It is in our wiring.   But I agree that it is unnecessary, inappropriate and classless in this situation.

How do you think child molestation starts?  They get the children "comfortable" with nudity.  If the father doesn't have a problem sharing his wife they can go swinging elsewhere. 

Apparently not yours.

I don't care what she professes to be.  Her rights don't trump other people's rights.  The children are minors and are required by law to stay with their guardians.  The children have a right to live in an environment in which they are not subjected to nudity because some chic wants to show everyone her tits.  She can go work at a strip club and make extra money and the husband can watch other adults goggle her. 

She is still a legal guardian as a step mother

Only if the biological parents agree and a judge deems it so. If not, a stepmother is simply the current wife of the biological father, and she doesn't have legal authority with the children.

Others feel differently like this family with their kid growing up in a nudist camp legally. 
abcnews.go

Her rights don't trump other people's rights. 

Whose rights has she trumped?

The children are minors and are required by law to stay with their guardians. 

And the Stepmother is a legal guardian!

The children have a right to live in an environment in which they are not subjected to nudity because some chic wants to show everyone her tits. 

Where is that right enumerated exactly? 

She can go work at a strip club and make extra money and the husband can watch other adults goggle her. 

Whatever floats their boat. But their career choices isn't the issue.

I'm a step mom.  James came to me when he was 8 years old after his mother decided she didn't want him anymore and she had a new family with two other sons with her new husband.

Congratulations.

He is my son through and through even though I did not give birth to him

The stepmother in question might feel the same way about her stepkids too.

but I would NEVER walk around with my fucking tits hanging out.  I wouldn't do that with my two biological sons either.  Its fucking gross.

Good for you and you're entitled to your opinion.

How do you think child molestation starts?  They get the children "comfortable" with nudity.

Now you're making quite the leap and getting borderline accusatory for trying to equate this to child molestation.

 If the father doesn't have a problem sharing his wife they can go swinging elsewhere.

Flashing skin isn't swinging. Neither did the couple have other partners around. So your presumption is quite flawed.

I don't care what she professes to be.  Her rights don't trump other people's rights.  The children are minors and are required by law to stay with their guardians.  The children have a right to live in an environment in which they are not subjected to nudity because some chic wants to show everyone her tits.  She can go work at a strip club and make extra money and the husband can watch other adults goggle her. 

I agree with you that she certainly should not being doing this.  

However I'm not sure about the "rights" you're attempting to define.

The woman is clearly selfish and clearly emotionally disturbed, but I don't see that she's violating any "rights".

Only if the biological parents agree and a judge deems it so. If not, a stepmother is simply the current wife of the biological father, and she doesn't have legal authority with the children.

The biological father seems to agree with the stepmom in this. However, legal authority is determined by child custody. It is not clear as to what level of custody the step mom or the biological mother has.

So you don't believe children have rights........ okay. 

The biological father seems to agree with the stepmom in this. However, legal authority is determined by child custody. It is not clear as to what level of custody the step mom or the biological mother has.

Yes, I know. Since we don't know custodial rights, my comment 4.1.30 is still legitimate.

Where did I say that? You're really grasping at straws now. Especially since you haven't answered my questions.

I don't think her presumption is flawed.  

You want a "freedom" scenario here where the woman, who is NOT the mother, has a right to walk around in front of at least one teenager, in partial nudity. 

We know she "wants to" and may have a legal right to, but is it right or wrong for the teenager? 

There are a lot of things that people have a legal right to do which are inappropriate or even perhaps harmful. 

When the woman gets into the fact that she did it intentionally to "make a point" about feminism , I think she gives away her game. 

I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate comment. It would be helpful if the details of custodial arrangements were clear. Barring that, the father's input on the issue can be pivotal in how things proceed from here. Hopefully, more information will be forthcoming.

Hopefully, more information will be forthcoming

I agree.

I said that the children have a RIGHT to live in an environment where they aren't subjected to nudity.

You said "whose rights are being trumped".

I answered that question already by referring to the children and you dismissed it therefore you don't think children have rights.

I guess my moral principals and personal values are different than yours.  You're okay with adults showing their private parts to children and I'm not.

Yes, these things can lead to molestation so I'm certainly not grasping at straws. 

Legal Rights of Children: The Basics

Although children grow and mature at different rates, there are some rights that every child is born with. For instance, children are entitled to a safe environmen t, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home . Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.

Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection , which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process , which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.

Children with disabilities also have rights under the federal Disabilities Education Act . The Disabilities Education Act provides children in need of special education with special accommodations to ensure they receive the same education as their peers.

So you think there is a clause in the custody paperwork stating the step mother can walk around nude in front of the children?  Seriously..........

"I said that the children have a RIGHT to live in an environment where they aren't subjected to nudity."

Maybe in Utah but as seen in the link I provided you that's not the case in Florida.

When the woman gets into the fact that she did it intentionally to "make a point" about feminism , I think she gives away her game. 

Well she made two "points" and I hope her ass has to register as a sex offender and her husband should be charged with child endangerment.  The new wife is clearly a fucking idiot.

yeah - I didn't look at your link.  You're turning into BF2

In the link I provided kids live in the nudist camp with other adults and they are all legally allowed to walk around naked. 

"According to Florida's Department of Children and Families, there are no specific rules or policies on children at nudist camps or resorts, so children taking part in the lifestyle at nudist camps is not illegal. The state agency did say, however, that it "has received calls regarding families living at Sunsport Gardens over the years." The details of those complaints and outcomes are not public record. Morley Schloss, the camp's owner, said DCF investigators have never found any wrongdoing at Sunsport."

I answered that question already by referring to the children and you dismissed it therefore you don't think children have rights.

You can't make up a right that isn't enumerated anywhere and then claim anybody who disagrees with you doesn't think children have rights.  That's just stupid.

You're okay with adults showing their private parts to children and I'm not.

Also stupid.  Do you always go full ridiculous whenever anybody has a different view?  

Yes, these things can lead to molestation so I'm certainly not grasping at straws. 

All sorts of stuff leads to molestation.  Cleaning the garage topless in front of your dad is not high on the list.  If she walks in your room topless while your dad is at work...different story.

A 27-year-old woman running around topless in front of a 13 yr old boy is self-centered, insensitive, an unfit parent (IMO) and 10,000 kinds of weird.  This lady is nuts.  She doesn't need company.

I said that the children have a RIGHT to live in an environment where they aren't subjected to nudity.

And I asked you to enumerate where such a right is specified. Do people have a right to be nude in the privacy of their own home?

You said "whose rights are being trumped".

In response to your statement above: "Her rights don't trump other people's rights."

I answered that question already by referring to the children and you dismissed it therefore you don't think children have rights.

You didn't specify where such rights are stated and then made an erroneous presumption about my statement.

I guess my moral principals and personal values are different than yours.  You're okay with adults showing their private parts to children and I'm not.

Or maybe I don't make a big deal about nothing.

For instance, children are entitled to a safe environmen t, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home . Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.

And how exactly is going topless causing harm, an unsafe environment, or not meeting basic needs?

Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection , which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process , which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.

Which has no bearing on the current issue. It also doesn't state children have the right to not see boobs, nor prohibit people from being topless in their own home.

So you think there is a clause in the custody paperwork stating the step mother can walk around nude in front of the children?  Seriously..........

Once again, you make erroneous presumptions about what I think.

Well she made two "points" and I hope her ass has to register as a sex offender and her husband should be charged with child endangerment. 

Wow, so children are harmed, sexually molested, and endangered, all because the step mom went topless? As you said, seriously...….

I wonder if you would feel the same way if the father was (hypothetically) overweight and walked around topless sporting man-boobs (moobs)?

Wouldn't your theory be considered a conspiracy?  LOL, and Trump isn't even involved.

I would feel The same way if a man had his junk out.  It's clear we hold very different moral principals and will never see common ground on this issue.  

Not all nudity is sexual.  Should parents who show their children the statue "David" be charged with child endangerment?

Why are people so fervent in demanding "rights"? This sort of story shouldnt be about "rights" it should be about the kids. The lady is not the 13 year olds mother, period, (or the 9 year olds) It is highly questionable on her part that she chose to deliberately expose her breasts to the teenager.  PJ, or me, don't have to defend our opinions to anyone. 

Something about a statue borders on irrelevancy. 

Not all nudity is sexual.

Your view on "what is sexual" is going to vary VASTLY from that of a 13 yr old boy.

  Should parents who show their children the statue "David" be charged with child endangerment?

I cannot imagine we need to explain the difference between 600-year-old stone and 27-year-old skin.

PJ is the one who brought up child endangerment.

The children were not endangered.  They saw some breasts.

Children are not endangered by seeing breasts or penises.  Putting aside the fact that porn is pretty easy for a teenager to find online, there is much classical art that features nudes, and most of it is not intended to be sexual at all.  A reasonably well-educated teenager would have seen pictures of such works.

An accusation of child endangerment over kids seeing breasts is, IMO, ridiculous.  Nobody was harmed or threatened.  Nudity is not necessarily sexual or threatening, but prudish attitudes will make one assume that it is.

So you're in favor of charging the dad and stepmom with child endangerment because the kids saw some breasts?

Because that's where we're at, here.  Some folks think that kids seeing breasts or penises in a nonsexual situation is child endangerment.

I still wouldn't think of that as child endangerment.

The situation is not analogous.  Note that the stepmom is being charged for going topless, but the dad isn't.  The mom is protesting sexist laws that require women to cover their chests, but not men.

Decency laws require BOTH men and women to cover their genitals.  Fair enough, I say.  But uncovered genitals are not, in and of themselves, dangerous.  Unless you're frying bacon

I dont think the lady should go to jail over it, or necessarily be registered as a sex offender, but I do think she was in the wrong. 

As some of the guys on this thread have been saying, a woman's breasts are a sexual attraction to a teenage boy.  You can say you wish it wasnt so, or it shouldnt be so , but it is so. 

It's not her place to try and educate the kid otherwise. 

So you're in favor of charging the dad and stepmom with child endangerment because the kids saw some breasts?

No.  But I do think it raises custody into question. 

Because that's where we're at, here.  Some folks think that kids seeing breasts or penises in a nonsexual situation is child endangerment.

"Endangerment" is a wild-eyed term coming from a couple of people who have a history of hyperbole anyway.

I agree there are situations where nudity is non-sexual.  You mentioned the statue of David, which is a good example.

However we're not talking about anything remotely like that.  We're talking about the very live breasts of a young woman being flopped around in the face of an adolescent boy.

Most boys that age are thinking about sex most of the time.  They are consumed by it.  They can't help themselves.  They walk around school with their books in front of their crotch to hide the erection they can't control and almost anything can cause.  Old men can't make it through the night without a pee.  Young boys can't make it through the night without an "emission" of a different sort.

The idea that a 27 year old can go topless in front of a 13 year old boy without being sexual is utterly ridiculous. 

If that kid has a cell phone you know he has pics enough beat off material for a lifetime.

I'm sure you understand the difference between a video and live action.  I also know you're not saying this woman is behaving appropriately.

So it becomes a question of the appropriate response.  I think jail and sex offender is ridiculous.  But I think a very strong "put your clothes on or the boy is going to live somewhere else" is not out of line.

a step dad was cleaning the garage with his junk hanging out with his 13 year old step daughter watching well we know what would happen.

Exactly.  And it would happen immediately and without objection.

The situation is not analogous. 

It's VERY close.

If she walked down the street like that, she'd be arrested.  

The father in this case was topless too. Where's the outrage over that? I also noticed you avoided all my other questions or points.

What's clear here is that you have never seen or been exposed to child molestation.  You have not see the damage it can do to children.  You do not know how it begins as an innocent gesture or a "feminist" position that could lead to something far more sinister.   I'm sorry you can dismiss behavior that most of society finds disturbing.  I'm sure you thought it was a boy's wet dream when their teachers were molesting and having sex with them too.  

Yes, maybe I was a little over the top yesterday in my responses but I have seen what child molestation can do to children.  I have seen a position of trust be misused.

What's clear here is that you have never seen or been exposed to child molestation. 

You haven't a clue in hell what people have been or have not been exposed to.  

Yes, maybe I was a little over the top yesterday

You still are.

You're not wrong that this behavior is incredibly inappropriate.  But other people will see it different ways, and attacking them because their way doesn't match yours is bullshit.

The perception of the audience can't always be our guide regarding what is sexual and what isn't.  If it were, schoolgirl uniforms could be categorized as porn.

What happens if stepmom has a baby and decides to breastfeed?  Must she hide from the family?

And that's what she's protesting.  If he walked down the street that way, nobody would raise an eyebrow.

The perception of the audience can't always be our guide regarding what is sexual and what isn't.

I'm not suggesting "always".  

  If it were, schoolgirl uniforms could be categorized as porn. What happens if stepmom has a baby and decides to breastfeed?  Myst she hide from the family?

We're not talking about breastfeeding. 

I see women breastfeed in public all the time.  They don't strip naked to the waist, and they don't flop both tits out in front of teenage boys.  

This has nothing to do with breastfeeding or a "wardrobe malfunction" or even accidentally walking in on sexual activity.  There really isn't any way to rationalize this as appropriate behavior. 

And that's what she's protesting.  If he walked down the street that way, nobody would raise an eyebrow.

I don't believe the story that she's "protesting" anything.  I think that's an easy excuse to distract from the inappropriateness of her activity.

If she wants to "protest" topless...fine.  She can take her topless ass down Main Street and burn some bras.  But tyring to pretend you're "protesting" while cleaning up your garage?  Sorry...not buying it.

If she was protesting, why does her stepson need to be part of it?  What kind of bullshit is that?

What's clear is you continue to make presumptions about me, including making things personal. You also seem to assume this will lead to molestation, when there is no indication that is the case. Rather than discussing the topic rationally, you get emotional and dodge any questions or points made.

I didn't see any value in your questions.  They were posed to support your position and not look at the situation wholly.  My position was that the children may not have been comfortable with the situation and they had rights also.  But you wanted me to accept that the step mom was their guardian and therefor had the right to do whatever she wanted and they would have to accept it.   Then the conversation escalated from there. 

Whatever.....you and I don't agree on the rights of children. 

Believe what you like, Jack.

Would she be invisible to her stepson on Main Street?  Or visible to even more children?

Or maybe we need to reassess modesty laws that require a lot more modesty from women than from men.

Where did I say that all nudity was sexual?  It's situational and anyone who is reasonable understands that. 

This is a situation in which a woman was caught topless in front of her step children.  It apparently had an impact on the children because they told their biological mother.  Maybe there have been other situations that have caused the bio mom concern......or maybe she overreacted and filed a complaint.  Whatever the reason, the step mom is in the wrong, imo. 

The human body is beautiful and performs miracles.

Thanks BF.  I'm always anxious to hear what your opinion is because I have such a high opinion of you. 

You and I clearly have a different definition of what "member" means.

I’ve yet to see his member but his breasts and abs are phenomenal. 

That's um......okay? 

I didn't see any value in your questions.  They were posed to support your position and not look at the situation wholly. 

My questions were in response to YOUR statements. If you think they lack value, then perhaps that's a reflection on your own statements.

My position was that the children may not have been comfortable with the situation and they had rights also.

Conjecture and you failed to explain which rights are relevant, enumerated, or violated with respect to the issue.  

But you wanted me to accept that the step mom was their guardian and therefor had the right to do whatever she wanted and they would have to accept it. 

I don't really care what you accept or not. I simply stated a fact.

  Then the conversation escalated from there. 

Because you decided to become emotional, accusatory, and personal. So you only have yourself to blame.

Whatever.....you and I don't agree on the rights of children. 

When you explain what rights are defined or violated in regards to this issue, then we'll see if we agree or not.

Where did I say that all nudity was sexual?  It's situational and anyone who is reasonable understands that. 

And yet, you make this situation out to be a sexual one. Involving possible molestation even. So tell me who's being "reasonable" again?

This is a situation in which a woman was caught topless in front of her step children.  It apparently had an impact on the children because they told their biological mother.

What "impact" would that be? Harmful or benign? The kids may have told the mother simply as something they observed and nothing more.

 Maybe there have been other situations that have caused the bio mom concern......

That's pure conjecture at this point.

or maybe she overreacted and filed a complaint.  

I'd say that's quite probable.

The human body is beautiful

So why are some people up in arms about a pair of exposed boobs? I'd say that's probably one of the most beautiful parts of the body.

and performs miracles.

What "miracles" would those be?

Believe what you like, Jack.

I believe in Occam's Razor.  The simplest answer to this is that she's a terrible, self centered stepmom who made up some nonsense about how unfair life is to keep herself out of jail.

Would she be invisible to her stepson on Main Street?  Or visible to even more children?

Well if she were really "protesting", she would want to be more visible, wouldn't she?  But of course she's not really protesting.

Public is where you protest.  Nobody protests in their garage.  That's ridiculous.  

Imagine the progress of the Civil Rights Act if instead of doing a sit-in at the Woolworth's counter, they organized it for "Marvin's garage".  

Now.....most protesters are morons and all "counter-protesters" are crazed morons, so if you can figure out a way to entice them to start protesting in their own garages, America will be forever in your debt. 

Or maybe we need to reassess modesty laws that require a lot more modesty from women than from men.

And the best way to do that is for this woman to get her baps out in her garage.  Riiiight.

If only we had some way to make our own laws.  You know, like if we had people who came together from all over the country representing the common folk of every state, then we could tell them we want this law changed.  

Naaahh.  Much better to just get her baps out.

You're trying to pretend this woman is some sort of Thoreau on Walden Pond or Gandhi leading a peaceful resistance against injustice.  Her behavior does not begin to support that notion.

I have a feeling this case will be dropped. There is now a Colorado lawyer stepping up to protect this woman's constitutional rights which he believes are being violated here. He has been successful in defending other women on similar charges.

sltrib

Here is a link to the letter he sent to the prosecutors. 

scribd

more links.......

My questions were in response to YOUR statements. If you think they lack value, then perhaps that's a reflection on your own statements.

So what.  That doesn't mean they are worthy questions. 

Conjecture and you failed to explain which rights are relevant, enumerated, or violated with respect to the issue.  

What?  hahahahahaha - part of discussions is conjecture.  It's looking at the situation from different angles. 

I don't really care what you accept or not. I simply stated a fact.

Nope, you made your own conjectures.  You claim the step mother is the children's legal guardian.  I saw nothing in the article to suggest that. 

Because you decided to become emotional, accusatory, and personal. So you only have yourself to blame.

Yes, I'm a passionate person about certain issues. 

When you explain what rights are defined or violated in regards to this issue, then we'll see if we agree or not.

Dude - I gave you the basic rights of children. 

And yet, you make this situation out to be a sexual one. Involving possible molestation even. So tell me who's being "reasonable" again?

Nope, I raised the issue of child molestation because it actually does happen.  Are we not supposed to offer up different scenarios when having a discussion?

What "impact" would that be? Harmful or benign? The kids may have told the mother simply as something they observed and nothing more.

True, and I have said as much.  What's your point?

That's pure conjecture at this point.

Duh.....that's called having a discussion

So why are some people up in arms about a pair of exposed boobs? I'd say that's probably one of the most beautiful parts of the body.

Because of freewill.  We're allowed to have our own opinions. 

What "miracles" would those be?

Really?

• Creating a human being together
• Childbirth

I believe in Occam's Razor.  The simplest answer to this is that she's a terrible, self centered stepmom who made up some nonsense about how unfair life is to keep herself out of jail.

Yes, I'm sure she offered that explanation at the moment the children walked in, because she already knew right then and there she was going to jail for being topless in her own home. 

Well if she were really "protesting", she would want to be more visible, wouldn't she?

We're talking about your suggestion, Jack.  You were the one who wanted her to protest topless in public, because boobs visible in private are somehow much more immoral.

Now.....most protesters are morons and all "counter-protesters" are crazed morons

Yes, those folks protesting for the right to vote, for the end of Jim Crow - mostly morons.  Nice, Jack.

You know, like if we had people who came together from all over the country representing the common folk of every state, then we could tell them we want this law changed.

Or we could let the courts do what they do, and decide whether some of those laws might be in violation of our constitutional rights.  States and the country have legislatures, and they also have Supreme Courts for when the legislatures overstep their bounds.

You're trying to pretend this woman is some sort of Thoreau on Walden Pond or Gandhi leading a peaceful resistance against injustice.

I think you just don't like when someone disagrees with you, Jack.

I gave you the basic rights of children.

And none of them include the right to not witness nudity.

We're allowed to have our own opinions.

Of course we are.  And some of us are of the opinion that this is a witch hunt fueled by prudishness and an angry ex-wife, and that charges of child endangerment over children who were never in danger would be gross prosecutorial overreach.

Considering his win in the US 10th circuit of appeals court for the Fort Collins case and the $50,000 settlement he won for the Loveland woman playing frisbee topless in her front yard it sure doesn’t look good for the prosecution.

Yes, it could absolutely be the ex wife trying to cause trouble.  I already acknowledged that it could be the ex wife being vindictive.  I brought that up in my second post days ago. 

Yes, the US is not as open minded as other countries.  Why is it a negative that some are not comfortable with nudity?  Why not allow both.  We can do that by permitting some the ability to be nude in front of like minded others but there should be considerations where children are involved.  Especially those children that are not our own,  Why is that bad?  I'm confused about this campaign to admonish people who would ask that children not be pawns to a lifestyle that isn't mainstream in the US. 

I think the issue is not with my position but rather who is posing the position. 

Yes, I'm sure she offered that explanation at the moment the children walked in, because she already knew right then and there she was going to jail for being topless in her own home. 

Now you're being just as dramatic as I was being.

Maybe not.  I'm sure we'll all be waiting with bated breath

I believe in Occam's Razor.  The simplest answer to this is that she's a terrible, self centered stepmom who made up some nonsense about how unfair life is to keep herself out of jail.

I don't know that she is a terrible person.  I think she got caught being playful with her husband and her attorney's are using the feminist argument which has been successful in other cases.

But, in using this argument it has opened her up to other arguments and criticisms. 

Now you're being just as dramatic as I was being.

No, I'm looking at the timeline of events and engaging in a bit of sarcasm.  According to the article, she explained her toplessness to her stepchildren when they walked into the garage.  She wasn't arrested until after the mother complained during a separate investigation that did not involve Buchanan. 

Why was she making up an excuse to keep herself out of jail, when she hadn't yet even been charged and likely didn't have any reason to expect that she would be?  Precognition?

I could say that it's likely the mother was the subject of that investigation, and she was looking to deflect court attention away from herself, but I would be engaging in speculation, and certainly wouldn't be angry when somebody didn't accept my explanation at face value.

I don't know that she is a terrible person.

I don't think she's a terrible person.  I think she's a terrible "stepmom".  If she didn't have kids in the house, none of this would matter.   

But she does.  And if exposing herself in front of her stepson wasn't enough, now she has a boy in junior high school who is having to live down these news reports.  She is making this kid's life hell, either through her own obstinance or simply failure to reign in her lawyers. 

Other parents aren't going to let their kids go to his house ever again.  Some won't allow these kids in their homes, either.  That's doubly true in Utah.  The boys in his class are asking if they can come over, is there a pole in the garage, and how many dollar bills they should bring.  The kid undoubtedly wants to crawl into whatever hole he can find to hide from all this, but there isn't one.

As a good parent or step-parent, you have to put the welfare of your kids first.  While I don't go so far as "endangerment", she's definitely showing complete disregard for these children.

  I think she got caught being playful with her husband and her attorney's are using the feminist argument which has been successful in other cases.

That's a good point and it's certainly plausible.  But she does have the ability to stop this.

But, in using this argument it has opened her up to other arguments and criticisms. 

Oh absolutely. 

Yes, I'm sure she offered that explanation at the moment the children walked in, because she already knew right then and there she was going to jail for being topless in her own home. 

That's seems a bizarre conclusion.  I'm going with "she and here legal team concocted this when she learned she might be in criminal trouble.

We're talking about your suggestion, Jack.  You were the one who wanted her to protest topless in public, because boobs visible in private are somehow much more immoral.

We're talking about how she's not actually protesting anything and her behavior is a clear indicator of that.

Yes, those folks protesting for the right to vote, for the end of Jim Crow - mostly morons.  Nice, Jack.

Struggling with present tense vs past tense, are we?  Are you going to pretend OWS or BLM are not ridiculous?

Or we could let the courts do what they do, and decide whether some of those laws might be in violation of our constitutional rights.  States and the country have legislatures, and they also have Supreme Courts for when the legislatures overstep their bounds.

Oddly enough, we have a process for that, too.  And you can do it fully clothed.

I think you just don't like when someone disagrees with you, Jack.

Right.  Which is why I come here.  Do you actually think these things through before you post them?

It makes no difference if she has kids in the home or not as the higher courts have been ruling anywhere a man can go topless a woman can too even outdoors. 

That's seems a bizarre conclusion.

It's sarcasm, Jack.  She wouldn't have used this explanation when the children saw her to keep out of jail, because she didn't know she was going to jail at that time.  The charges were brought later.

We're talking about how she's not actually protesting anything and her behavior is a clear indicator of that.

Whether or not she was before, she is now, by way of the courts.

Struggling with present tense vs past tense, are we?  Are you going to pretend OWS or BLM are not ridiculous?

Some of those past protesters are still around.  Are they still morons?  Or were they morons then?  Or are they only morons when they protest laws and conditions that you don't mind?

Oddly enough, we have a process for that, too.

And that process generally comes about as a result of somebody being charged with a crime that's only a crime because a law in unconstitutional.

Do you actually think these things through before you post them?

Yes, and I read your comments, too.  They drip with condescension toward those with whom you disagree.

Decency laws require BOTH men and women to cover their genitals.  Fair enough, I say.  But uncovered genitals are not, in and of themselves, dangerous.  Unless you're frying bacon

Has always been my understanding that in public, reproductive organs must be covered no matter what public place you are in. Since breasts are not required for reproduction, I think if a woman wants to go topless, go for it. I know in NY it's legal for a woman to go topless. Denver too, but don't quote me on that... 

#freethenipple

Some of those past protesters are still around.  Are they still morons?

Are they still protesting?

  Or were they morons then?

They actually had something to protest back then.

  Or are they only morons when they protest laws and conditions that you don't mind?

The morons are the ones who choose protests when they have more potent and efficient ways to achieve their ends.  Like most protesters today.

It makes no difference if she has kids in the home or not as the higher courts have been ruling anywhere a man can go topless a woman can too even outdoors.

As I said, I don't think there is a criminal case to stand on.

Custody is a different matter.

So what.  That doesn't mean they are worthy questions. 

They are rational, relevant, follow-up questions to statements you made. Like I said, if you find their worth lacking, then that's probably a reflection of your own comments.

What?  hahahahahaha - part of discussions is conjecture.  It's looking at the situation from different angles. 

You talk about children's rights but fail to elaborate when asked. That's not looking at the situation from a different angle. That's just simple avoidance.

Nope, you made your own conjectures.  You claim the step mother is the children's legal guardian.  I saw nothing in the article to suggest that. 

Step parents usually have some form of parental responsibility or support for their step children (not to be confused with custody). Utah is one state which has statutes requiring a step-parent to support a step-child during the marriage. However, I also said the terms of custody may play a factor in the degree of responsibility. But that aspect is not currently known.

Yes, I'm a passionate person about certain issues.  

That doesn't help your argument or credibility. It only makes you look emotional and irrational.

Dude - I gave you the basic rights of children.  

Where? All you said was: "children have a RIGHT to live in an environment where they aren't subjected to nudity." I asked you back that claim up, which you have failed and/or refused to do!

Nope, I raised the issue of child molestation because it actually does happen.  Are we not supposed to offer up different scenarios when having a discussion?

No one is saying molestation doesn't happen. But that is not actually happening here, per what is currently known in this story, nor is it relevant. How about you stick with the facts and what is known before you delve into mere  "what-if" scenarios! Going off on a molestation arc is just a Red Herring at this point.

True, and I have said as much.  What's your point?

You have yet to explain or demonstrate what impact, harm, ect. has been incurred or to what extent as a result of step mom going topless. The most that can be reasonably be demonstrated is that the kids simply told her. That seems quite benign.

Duh.....that's called having a discussion 

No, that's just more "what-ifs."

Because of freewill.  We're allowed to have our own opinions.  

No one said you couldn't have opinions. But to get all worked up over something as innocuous as boobs seems rather silly, especially when there is a statement made about the human body being beautiful.

Really?
Creating a human being together
Childbirth

How is that a miracle exactly? That's simple biology and a process which is well understood. And one which many species, including all mammals are capable of too.

Okay, you win - in other words, I'm not interested in hashing this out with you.  You're incapable of giving an inch to find common ground.

So much for "having a discussion" as you put it. I've addressed all your points thus far. Even the one that were way out there. And how can I give to "common ground" when you refuse to answer my basic questions? It seems you're the one not capable giving anything, even when asked to do so. Repeatedly too. 

For cripes sake!  I copied and pasted the legal definition of child's rights but that wasn't good enough for you.  I concede that in my initial response I overreacted and you counter my concession with another insult.  You offer up your own "what if's" while criticizing me for inserting what if's into the conversation.  I say having a baby is a miracle and you casually dismiss it by claiming it's only biologics.  

That tells me you're not interested in having a conversation.  You're only interested in knocking down anything I offer.  So in my final effort to close out our interaction I conceded again by telling you want you wanted to hear all along....you win.

What you pasted has nothing to do with the current issue, as you have not demonstrated how the children are harmed or in an unsafe environment, as I previously challenged you to do so. That's why it's not good enough! And yes, you are inserting what ifs, especially since those veer away from the crux of this issue too. 

Neither have you explained how childbirth is a "miracle." I factually stated it's a function of biology and one which is shared by all mammals. Are you suggesting otherwise? I'm not knocking you down. But I am addressing your points, including refuting or challenging them where appropriate, which is part of what a conversation entails. But if you feel I'm "knocking you down," then perhaps that is indicative of the inherent weakness of your own argument, especially since you seem to get emotional and defensive about it.

Why am I not surprised you're back with your cheerleaders because you just can't let it go.  You need to speak to someone about that.  Now, go back and read my posts.  Focus on the comment where I say that I admit I overreacted because I'm passionate about certain issues.  STOP.  

Many people believe that childbirth is a miracle.  I'm really not sure why this is so controversial with you.  I could care less if you want to call it simple biologics.  That's your choice and it's my choice to call it a miracle.

Why am I not surprised you're back with your cheerleaders because you just can't let it go.

To whom are you referring? 

  You need to speak to someone about that. 

I'm replying to your post which was in reply to me. That's called a conversation.

Now, go back and read my posts. 

I have, several times. 

Focus on the comment where I say that I admit I overreacted because I'm passionate about certain issues.  STOP.  

Yes. And I also focused on your other comments, many of which I addressed. What's the problem?

Many people believe that childbirth is a miracle. 

People can believe whatever they want. But belief does not equal fact.

I'm really not sure why this is so controversial with you.

Not controversial. Just plain silly.

  I could care less if you want to call it simple biologics.  That's your choice and it's my choice to call it a miracle.

Biology is exactly what it is. Every species on the planet reproduces in some manner. Mammals give live birth. Embryology is well understood. That's just simple fact. What's so "miraculous" about that? You have yet to explain how giving birth is a "miracle." Simply calling it one doesn't make it so and is just an emotional reaction.

When I was in France I saw outdoor billboard advertisements featuring exposed female breasts. They weren't conditioned by big brother to be shameful of their bodies. These laws are sexist a male would not be seen as a criminal by government if he did the same as this woman. 

Then move to France or better yet....Russia

Maybe you should move to Iran or Iraq.

Some of these people sure get all excited over this.  I do not think it is proper for a woman to go bare chested in front of her 13 year old stepson. It sounds a little strange actually. 

Same thing if the 13 year old is a girl, although it is not AS alarming. 

This sounds like a 13 year old dream come true. Lol

Most likely.

[DELETED] 

Hell hath surely frozen over, John. I'm agreeing with you again.

 I do not think it is proper for a woman to go bare chested in front of her 13 year old stepson. It sounds a little strange actually. 

It would be equally strange for a birth mother to do this in front of her own pre-pubescent/teen son, and I don't care how much of a "feminist" she thinks she is. The same would apply to a birth father baring his genitals to his pre-pubescent/teen daughter. 

Some of these people sure get all excited over this.  I do not think it is proper for a woman to go bare chested in front of her 13 year old stepson. It sounds a little strange actually.  Same thing if the 13 year old is a girl, although it is not AS alarming. 

Nail => Head

Prosecutors counter that nudity is commonly understood to include women’s breasts in American society and that courts have upheld laws based on morality.

Judge Kara Pettit heard the case Tuesday but said it was “too important of an issue” to decide immediately. She plans to rule in the coming months

If convicted, Buchanan could be required to register as a sex offender for 10 years.

The DA's office actually pressed charges on what took place in a private residence.   The judge then did not throw it out and is deciding what to do with potential consequences of this woman being tagged as a registered sex offender.

This couple should seriously consider moving from a state whose laws are so heavily influenced by Mormon religious views (62% of Utah is Mormon).

That is beyond insane. But that's what happens when you support or base laws on religious "morality."

... and when 62% of the population holds to the religion.   Would be interesting to see if the prosecutor who decided to bring this to trial is Mormon.   

Indeed

Judge Kara Pettit heard the case Tuesday but said it was “too important of an issue” to decide immediately. She plans to rule in the coming months

she'll wait for the official decision to come down from the temple.

If one wants to run around naked in their own home, they should be able to.

My husband's dad used to sit around his house in his whitey tighties no matter who was in the home.  If you didn't like it, then you need not be there.

If one wants to run around naked in their own home, they should be able to. My husband's dad used to sit around his house in his whitey tighties no matter who was in the home.  If you didn't like it, then you need not be there.

Just pointing out that "in your underwear" and "naked" are not actually the same thing. 

If he had sat around the house "tackle out" while raising a teenage girl, it would have been a different story.

Just pointing out that "in your underwear" and "naked" are not actually the same thing.

To be fair, I think it depends on how tight, those "whitey tighties" get, Lol

If he had sat around the house "tackle out" while raising a teenage girl, it would have been a different story.

Does a guy scratching himself qualify?

I guess you are supposed to wear that "magic underware" in Utah 

jesus jammies.

fuck it, free the nipple, for anyone inclined. free societies evolve.... that'll be me over there in the dark shades....

This is the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, note visible exposed breast 

,  

Poor Cuccinelli couldn't get it changed.

yeah, that jackass did try to change it.  

This is why liberals and democrats are hated so much.  They always want to shove their correctness down everyone's throat. 

Wah......wah.......wah........ the man gets to walk around without his shirt so us women should to. 

What did feminism get us? 

Woman work outside of the home for less money then they have to go home cook, clean, raise the kids AND take care of the husbands.  Feminism worked out really well for us.  So feminism basically put more work and responsibility on women.  Yeah, let's keep following the feminist....... NOT

They always want to shove their correctness down everyone's throat.

I'd say that modesty laws are what shoves one group's idea of correctness down everybody's throat.  This woman was topless in her own home.  She has no intention of making it illegal for other women to wear tops.

I'm pretty sure that feminists didn't advocate for men to continue not contributing their fair share to domestic chores and childrearing.  If you can find a feminist group that advocates for women making less money than men or for doing more than their fair share of the housework, please do share.

She is not the 13 year olds mother, and that makes it wrong. 

And I am a liberal. 

You are hung up on her rights. How about right and wrong? 

A grown woman should not intentionally show her breasts to a 13 year old.  Its not appropriate in this culture. 

You're leaving out key information.  When you lay it out without all the information then it does sound harmless and ridiculous.  But there is more to the story than she was in her own home.  There were children also in the home.  Children that she is not the mother to.   We see it differently. 

I wouldn't think so. 

A grown woman should not intentionally show her breasts to a 13 year old.

From what I can tell, it was not intentional. She was simply working topless in the garage with her equally topless husband and the kids "walked in" on them. Kind of like if kids open the bedroom door and walk in on their parents having sex. Possibly embarrassing, but not intentional. It's not like she took her top off in front of the kids and started parading around the house or flashing them.

Given that the kids told the mom, which led to the current issue, it's reasonable to assume this is a "first time" event of the step mom going topless at home and/or the kids actually seeing her topless. However, there is no word as to whether such occurrences have occurred before or if this was just a case of "bad timing" with the kids walking in on them, as opposed to regular skin exposure in the home.

Why is it inappropriate?

Because prudish people shove their idea of correctness down others' throats.  In many cultures, including European ones from which many US citizens have their origins, toplessness is not the big deal it is here.  Are those cultures wrong?  Why?

I didn't retell the whole story as it is easy to read the article above. I think we all know there were kids present, and they weren't hers.

Some of us don't think any children were harmed in the making of this brouhaha. 

You said it yourself, its their culture, it's natural to them.  Those children have been brought up in that environment.  To respect the body and not look at it in a sexual way.  I've been to Europe many times and have seen nudity displayed in public and it was natural and common and I wasn't uncomfortable with it.  That's not the US.   US culture is prudish.  You can read many of the comments on this thread and see the immaturity of our culture.  Men are giddy over boobies.  Overall we do not know how to handle public displays of nudity.  It's a novelty and until our culture learns to deal with it there will always be opposition.  

The US is still a very young country.  We are learning what the Europeans have already mastered.

Sorry not everyone sees things the way you do.  Maybe we haven't had the same experiences you have.

Right.  And as I've said numerous times now, we see it differently.

It's a novelty and until our culture learns to deal with it there will always be opposition.  

And how is that to be accomplished, if the laws enforce prudishness (but more for women, of course)?

A true story.  Our senior high school trip was to Toronto and the drinking age was 18 at the time. The first thing my friends and I did upon arriving was to head out to the titty bar. We walked into a shabby looking topless bar and to our surprise we were entertained by the world famous stripper Chesty Morgan with her famous 73" chest. She was a bit old and weathered by then and a drunk guy started to heckle her. She looked down at him and said your dick isn't two inches measured from your a__hole. The whole bar busted out laughing. That was end of senior trips for that school because we caused so much trouble they discontinued the tradition. 

LOL. Those of us who lived in Toronto used to drive to Buffalo to go to the Palace Burlesque.

wnyheritage

Further developments in the story. The ACLU is now stepping up to challenge the law. They see it as a violation of the constitution. 

"Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah argued this week that the statute under which Tilli Buchanan, 27, was charged is unconstitutional, and they have asked a judge to drop the charges against her and change the state law."

lawprofessors.typepad