News on the Topless Woman in Her Home in Utah Case

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A man walking around without his pants on in front of step children would have his children taken out of the house by Protective Services and he'd likely be arrested.

A person is guilty of lewdness if ...   exposes his or her genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola That Utah law clearly identifies genitals separate from the female breast tends to support to notion the two distinct categories of body parts are not comparable.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

The treating the breast of the step mother as offensive but not the birth mother, is to treat the step mother in a second class way.  Utah law does not distinguish birth mother from non-birth mother breast except for breastfeeding. 

The mother had a problem with it, and the mother has rights regarding her biological children that the step mother doesn't have.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with step parents being second class.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, provoman said:

That a mother is second class because she is not a birth mother adds to the absurdity of case. 

Rather than second class, I would say "different rules are applied based on biology rather than social relationship".  Would it have made a difference if the stepmom was the only mother in the picture and had been for years?  Not from what we can tell by what is reported.  It makes little sense to me that "step" seen as sufficient to define the relationship as a nonimmediate family member when there are several more important mothering factors to be considered imo.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The mother had a problem with it, and the mother has rights regarding her biological children that the step mother doesn't have.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with step parents being second class.

But a biomom is automatically assumed to have rights when they might have an otherwise identical relationship with the children or even a worse one (think biomom being involved in drugs or abusive with stepmom being loving and supportive) as the children have with the stepparent, but the step parent still lacks those rights even if they deserve them by behaviour.

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The mother had a problem with it, and the mother has rights regarding her biological children that the step mother doesn't have.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with step parents being second class.

What rights are you referring to for the situation in question?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If there hadn't been children present, that she wasn't biologically related to, I don't think it would have been an issue.  

I am confused by you posts then.

As for the law in question, the only exception to law is breastfeeding. As the law is written, a biological mother could be charged for exposing her breast to her own children. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by provoman

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, provoman said:

What rights are you referring to for the situation in question?

I am confused by you posts then.

As for the law in question, the only exception to law is breastfeeding. As the law is written, a biological mother could be charged for exposing her breast to her own children. 

Legally, biological parents have more rights than step parents.  Step parents, for example, have no rights to make decisions concerning a child's well being.  In the case in question, the biological mother seemed to believe that seeing the step mom topless was not in the best interests of the child.

Also, in Utah, breastfeeding is protected.  The law specifically states that a breastfeeding woman is not in violation of indecency or lewdness laws.

Edited January 23, 2020 by bluebell

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, provoman said:

As the law is written, a biological mother could be charged for exposing her breast to her own children. 

As the law is written, a man could be charged for using a public urinal or changeroom in Utah as long as minors are present ...

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

But a biomom is automatically assumed to have rights when they might have an otherwise identical relationship with the children or even a worse one (think biomom being involved in drugs or abusive with stepmom being loving and supportive) as the children have with the stepparent, but the step parent still lacks those rights even if they deserve them by behaviour.

That's how the law works.  Only legal guardians have any rights regarding the well being of children.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Also, in Utah, breastfeeding is protected.  The law specifically states that a breastfeeding woman is not in violation of indecency or lewdness laws.

I know you didn't draft this law, but I have to wonder what magically happens to a woman's breasts the moment she stops feeding a child that causes them to go from not lewd to lewd ...

[provoman]

 

Quote

Also, in Utah, breastfeeding is protected.  The law specifically states that a breastfeeding woman is not in violation of indecency or lewdness laws.

Yes I listed breast feeding as the exception.

However say in the case at hand the situation is reversed, the biological mother biological removes her top, the biological children see her exposed, she explains that bodies are not to ashamed of,  this exposing causes "affront or alarm to" the step mother, which means based on how the law is written the biological mother could be charged. 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As the law is written, a man could be charged for using a public urinal or changeroom in Utah as long as minors are present ...

Had not considered that possibility, even in gym locker rooms where too often some people wake around nude.

Edited January 23, 2020 by provoman

[pogi]

I am sure the biological mother is thrilled with the ruling, as she should be.  I would be terribly concerned if I knew that my young kids were being exposed to breasts “to make a point” while the woman was inebriated.  When asked to put her shirt back on, she continues to make some lewd comment about the man’s penis, iirc. Saying that if the act is not performed, she won’t put her shirt back on.  

Yes, she should be very happy with the ruling!

Maybe someday when society is as “enlightened” as this woman things would have turned out different for her, but we are not there yet in Utah.  You can argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with exposing breasts, and maybe you are right, but that ignores our cultural values and perspectives.  You can disagree with those values, but I think it is wrong to disrespect them the way she did.  We simply are not there yet, especially when young boys are involved.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Yes I listed breast feeding as the exception.

However say in the case at hand the situation is reversed, the biological mother biological removes her top, the biological children see her exposed, she explains that bodies are not to ashamed of,  this exposing causes "affront or alarm to" the step mother, which means based on how the law is written the biological mother could be charged. 

Had not considered that possibility, even in gym locker rooms were too often some people wake around nude.

No she can’t be charged because no one can be charged for breastfeeding. The law protects mothers who are breastfeeding from being charged. 

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No she can’t be charged because no one can be charged for breastfeeding. The law protects mothers who are breastfeeding from being charged. 

The scenario I provided does not involve breastfeeding. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by provoman

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am sure the biological mother is thrilled with the ruling, as she should be.  I would be terribly concerned if I knew that my young kids were being exposed to breasts “to make a point” while the woman was inebriated.  When asked to put her shirt back on, she continues to make some lewd comment about the man’s penis, iirc. Saying that if the act is not performed, she won’t put her shirt back on.

Does any article use the word "inebriated"? 

Edited January 23, 2020 by provoman

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

 You can argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with exposing breasts, and maybe you are right, but that ignores our cultural values and perspectives

It is the inebriation and lewd comments that are the problem, that has to be added to raise the level to offensive imo. 
 

Context matters. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, provoman said:

Does any article use the word "inebriated"? 

“Under the influence” was used.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/30/this-utah-woman-was/

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is the inebriation and lewd comments that are the problem, that has to be added to raise the level to offensive imo. 

I agree that is offensive.  But it is disrespecting cultural norms/law by exposing her breasts to 3 young boys to make a point that the judge found the most offensive.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that is offensive.  But it is disrespecting cultural norms/law by exposing her breasts to 3 young boys to make a point that the judge found the most offensive.

So if it was just a comfort thing, it would have been okay or not criminal or at least not as bad. But talking about why she had a right to be as comfortable as their dad was a problematic context. 
 

I believe there is a time and place for activism, but the government saying it is offensive in one’s own home and use that context as the deciding factor...that I would have a problem with. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Calm

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the inebriation and lewd comments that are the problem, that has to be added to raise the level to offensive imo. 

 

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

“Under the influence” was used.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/30/this-utah-woman-was/

Under the influence means what?  

Had she had a sip of alcohol that day? Had she had a single glass of wine or a single beer?  To claim she was inebriated is interject owns opinion as fact. The investigation was weeks or month(s) after the event. 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if it was just a comfort thing, it would have been okay or not criminal or at least not as bad. But talking about why she had a right to be as comfortable as their dad was a problematic context. 

If she put her shirt back on when the boys got home, no problem.  

You can argue it is not fair that she can’t be as comfortable as the dad, but what about the comfort of the children given cultural norms/standards/laws?  What about the comfort of the biological mother knowing what her kids are being exposed to against her will?  In a different culture, no problem!  But we are not there.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe there is a time and place for activism, but the government saying it is offensive in one’s own home and use that context as the deciding factor...that I would have a problem with. 

I don’t think the activism was the deciding factor.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

don’t think the activism was the deciding factor.

Then “to make a point” should not be included in the judgment. 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Then “to make a point” should not be included in the judgment. 

I don’t think it was for the judge, but it is for me.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think it was for the judge, but it is for me.

Isn’t that what you wrote bugged the judge though? “Found most offensive”?

Edited January 23, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Under the influence means what?  

Had she had a sip of alcohol that day? Had she had a single glass of wine or a single beer?  To claim she was inebriated is interject owns opinion as fact. The investigation was weeks or month(s) after the event. 

I agree it would be a hard sell if included in the charges unless there is significantly more evidence than given in the one article I remember it being in.  Seems like that was one of the earliest versions and the difficulty might explain why the claim doesn't appear in other articles that I recall. They couldn’t even pinpoint the year iirc, proving she was under the influence would surely have to be from either the kids or her husband and I doubt if the kids would be seen as untainted. And the husband might not back it for all we know. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t that what you wrote bugged the judge though? “Found most offensive”?

Sorry for the confusion.  That was my own embellishment.  Maybe he did find it offensive as I do, I don’t know for sure, but I think he was more concerned about the law, as he should be.