Thursday, September 16, 2010

Judge Bradford: Male Breasts Not An Erogenous Zone Like Female Breasts

Let's face it, when a court decision is based on sex, it's a far more interesting read than your run-of-the-mill decision. Indiana Appellate Court Judge Cale Bradford doesn't disappoint readers in his opinion this week holding the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not permit women to bear their breasts in public under Indiana's public nudity statute like men are permitted to do. Explaining the difference between male and female breasts, Judge Bradford writes:


We do not believe that it can be seriously disputed (and C.T. does not) that Hoosier society, in general, considers the female breast to be an erogenous zone but does not consider the male breast to be one: public display of the former is almost certain to cause offense and unease while public display of the latter is not. Just as “[t]he Constitution surely does not require a State to pretend that demonstrable differences between men and women do not really exist[,]” we will not pretend that female and male breasts are thought of in exactly the same way in contemporary Indiana society . . .

We conclude that Indiana‟s public nudity statute furthers the goal of protecting the moral sensibilities of that substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public.
To the clueless, the word "erogenous" means "sensitive to sexual stimulation." C'mon, Judge Bradford, tell me you've never played with your nipples during a private moment of self-pleasure or allowed your spouse to arouse you by playing with them.

Hat tip to Indiana Law Blog.

5 comments:

John said...

"tell me you've never played with your nipples during a private moment of self-pleasure or allowed your spouse to arouse you by playing with them."

Ummm... let me be the first to say that I don't really want to know the answer to that question.

Marycatherine Barton said...

Nobody can call Judge Bradford a coward. I do object, though.

Cato said...

He's a moron and a half-wit who's writing is shallow and unscientific.

This is nothing more than another case where the court wanted a certain outcome and reverse-engineered gibberish to support it.

Advance Indiana said...

Tell us how you really feel, Cato. I don't think he got the decision wrong; I just couldn't resist the temptation to comment on the rationale.

Cato said...

You don't, Gary?

I can't discuss this too deeply without getting into steamy sex talk, but trust me, he got it very wrong.