You know: Minnesota.
Leaping down a particularly slippery slope, the The Minnesota Supreme Court last week overturned the conviction of Eloisa R. Plancarte for indecent exposure after she bared her breasts in a parking lot in 2021. Olmsted County prosecutors charged her with a misdemeanor after police responded to a complaint about a woman walking around topless. Judge Joseph Chase found Plancarte, 28, guilty of indecent exposure and the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Plancarte’s conviction in 2024. Now the woke Supreme Court in the Land of Lakes has reversed the conviction.
Writing for the majority, Justice Karl Procaccini wrote that Plancarte had not engaged “in any type of overt public sexual activity….the State has not met its burden of proving that Plancarte’s exposure was lewd, because none of the evidence in the record suggests that her conduct was of a sexual nature.” In her concurring opinion, Justice Sarah Hennesy wrote that criminalizing the exposure of female, but not male breasts “fails to recognize the more nuanced physical realities of human bodies.”
Whatever that means…
“Would a transgender man be prohibited from exposing his chest?” Hennesy continued. “What about a transgender woman who has had top surgery? Where do the chests of intersex and nonbinary persons fit within this dichotomy? And how do we treat the exposed chest of a breast cancer survivor who has had a mastectomy? Interpreting this statutory scheme as differentiating between male and female breasts is not sufficiently clear and definite to warn Minnesotans of what conduct is punishable.”
Great. Clearly, in Minnesota the conduct of a man walking around with his naughty bits hanging out would also be deemed non-sexual. There is nothing improper about reasonable laws upholding and enforcing societal standards of decency, decorum, respect, civility and modesty. Would the result have been different if a male motorist had been distracted by the bare-breasted pedestrian and run down a child in a crosswalk? That this didn’t occur is only moral luck.
Using the Ethics Incompleteness Principle examples of transgender conduct to eviscerate the law involved is intellectually dishonest: those cases would be difficult, but would also be recognized as narrowly applicable. If Sydney Sweeney’s conduct in walking bare-breasted in a parking lot would be legitimately seen as sexual—and it would—then a law prohibiting such conduct by women generally is reasonable. The pursuit of happiness is not without borders in a civilized society that wants to stay that way.
_______________
Pointer: Jutgory
Ethics Alarms 
This has happened before in other cities. I used to live in Rochester, NY and there was a movement to allow women to go topless in public. They were know as the Rochester Topfree Seven. It happened in 1988 and they were arrested for removing their shirts and exposing their breasts. The charges were dismissed in 1992.
The Democrat & Chronicle had a story about it from February 23, 2017.
The Bible indicates that God judges nations based on their actions and adherence to His laws. For example, Psalm 47:8 states, “God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne,” emphasizing His authority, while Romans 1:18-32 discusses how God allows nations to face consequences for their unrighteousness.
There is an example of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 -19.
Not only were they committing offenses against God, but they were hurting the cities and people around them. The Bible often refers to the sensuality of Sodom and Gomorrah, meaning its citizens were obsessed with indulging in sins of the flesh. Their sexual sins are what most people know about, but it can be inferred they indulged in many other carnal sins. The citizens of Sodom wanted to assault the two angels who came to Sodom. In fact, their drive to commit violent sexual assault was so great the Bible records, “Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down” (Genesis 19:9b). They wanted to beat Lot and break down his door to assault his guests.
Genesis19:24-25 – When the time came, the sun rose, “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground … behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace”.
“Where do the chests of intersex and nonbinary persons fit within this dichotomy?”
Nowhere? Why is everything instantly about transgender people?
“Why is everything instantly about transgender people?”
Judging by the preponderance of Gosh I’m Nice lapel ribbons, Look At Me bumper stickers, and I’m Dialed In wrist bands, they (?) are Lefty’s current, de facto, GO-TO Victim du Jour.
PWS
I could not agree more. Women should also be prohibited from riding bicycles, which are known to damage the delicate lady-parts and tend to expose the ankles, normally concealed under a lady’s long skirt.
Indeed. A white bonnet and hair pulled back in a bun would be a nice look, too.
jvb
Tongue meet cheek….
Apparently, clownishly-cloaked/ridiculosly-overdressed Supremes nationwide have yet to dig into the fact that Sexuality & Sex — the reason most Life on Earth exists — is no more “lewd” ( ie: “wicked” or “denigrating” or “harmful” ) than Human Anatomy / Nudism ( or the public display/Di(ck)Play thereof ); nonetheless, neither Nudism nor “sex” ( aka the crude/lewd commercialized diminutive term for “LoveMaking” & “ProCreation” — for everybody from Humans to Bees & Flowers to Frogs — or the simple Gay Happiness & Joy that come from the Exercise & Practice thereof ) have yet to be fully prosecuted in US History in my Experience or study. Something cannot fundamentally be Life-Giving & evil at the same time; evil is as peripheral to what is good as clothes are to the Innocent Body & #ThePureSuitOfHappiness or Dirtiness to the Mind.
I hope the Lady gets some proper restitution & financial compensation for the harm done to her body & reputation by nanny govt/court hacks who do more harm than good according to historical stats; justiced delay ( 4/for years ) is justice denied — espcially for an act which caused no fatalities or great bodily injury ( GBI ) or any at all. Eloisa R. Plancarte proved that having the right attorney astute & competent enough to file repeated appeals ( & not take superficial rulers’ rulings for granted ) is key for those who haven’t ever bothered to read or do not fully understand the fundamentals of US Constitution themselves.
I doubt that boys and men will get to see what they really want to see.
The next time this Court meets will those black robes be set aside for the sake of justice?
Every pre and post pubescent boy will be satisfied withthis decision and its aftermath!
Never mind the cheese heads at the next Packers game, just look at all those frozen titties!
I would support a law that enable Ms. Sweeney to go topless, or women who look like her. I mean, if we are writing and interpreting laws in a way that throws ethics into the trash might as well get some nice views out of them.
Minnesota is way behind Oregon.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/07/portlands_airport_stripper_joh.html
-snip-
The question not posed by the court:
“What about a woman who was a transgender man who had been on copious amounts of testosterone therapy but who has now switched back to being a woman and now has a forrest of curly chest hair hiding voluptuous bits?”
The divide between liberal and conservative states is getting deeper.
The far left has this weird obsession with making everything sexual, with the only standard being consenting adults.
They advocate for policies that increase human temptations and call it empowerment. It’s a denial of basic biology. The next step is basically public nudity would be be acceptable. I mean, it’s obviously everyone else’s fault for looking, right? Like you said, why can’t a man walk around?
I used to think the rickety conservatives were a bit too prudish, but when I see the trajectory of society, sometimes I think they saw something others didn’t. It seems like people will always take whatever the current standard is and push it, so if standards continue to lower, the “push” always gets lower in a sort of race to the bottom.
“Would the result have been different if a male motorist had been distracted by the bare-breasted pedestrian and run down a child in a crosswalk? That this didn’t occur is only moral luck.”
I will repeat what I said in this blog in November 2017; “When I was learning to drive my driving instructor had me drive past a beach occasionally so he could look out for topless ladies. I think the whole point of the exercise was to see if I would keep my attention on the road and not let it wander. If I, as a young male could keep myself from being distracted by looking at anything not traffic related then there is no reason why anyone else should not be able to as well. So I think that any crash that happens because the driver lets himself be distracted by what a lady is or is not wearing is entirely the driver’s fault and no blame at all should go to the lady. Anyone who can’t keep themselves from being distracted from any off road sights should turn in their licences now.”
Honestly, I think we’re too far gone to have clear rules on the “above the waist” exposure. This one will have to be enforced by morals rather than government. For all the below the waist, we can have a distinct rule, and we should more heavily enforce that rule.
For most of history, the idea of modesty had nothing to do with the idea that the human body or sex was evil. The idea was that the penis and vagina, as well as the female breasts (the focus of which is the feeding of babies) were indeed focused on reproduction, life giving, holy, and thus reserved from public consumption. Avoiding public showmanship of the reserved and holy has been a common theme throughout most cultures, religions, and peoples throughout history. We have a time, place, and occasion for every action in our lives. Why do we not urinate/defecate in public? I don’t want to see you do so, and frankly, nor do I want to see your sexual characteristics.
Though this is not a phrase thought well of on this site, we do need to think of children. There is measurable harm that occurs to children who are exposed to the sexual before puberty. Modesty, such as not going around bare breasted, is a protection for the children. We don’t expose sexual characteristics to protect children’s innocence. Sure, kids know they have these parts, but for the most part, what is not in sight is not emphasized. We focus on teaching kids about their private parts and how to avoid excess attention focused on them for their safety. We don’t want more teen pregnancies, child sexual abuse (which includes inappropriate exposure), or normalizing sexual attraction to minors, especially in the form of pederasty, which focuses on the fully developed sexual characteristics, like breasts, that you seem to be suggesting we should allow to be in full display.
There are things we cannot change. The vast majority of men are wired to be visually attracted, and women’s sexual characteristics are things they are visually attracted to. There have been studies about the visual nature of men’s attraction. Men’s brains are wired so that the sight of a woman, especially a less clad one, causes certain reactions in their brain at a speed that is faster than conscious thought. This means that a secondary sexual characteristic, like breasts, is going to cause men to be visually distracted and possibly attracted. Men have to overcome their mental state or accept it, just from a woman walking by in that partially unclad state. Women can show respect for the men around us by not displaying these characteristics publicly.
Something the women who demand that nudity be allowed seem to forget is that if we go around topless, we will attract plenty of attention. Sure, it is nice to get attention from men who think you are attractive, but getting attention from the wrong men is very uncomfortable. A study I was reading shows that women are getting less attractive to men, in part, because of the hormonal birth control methods we are able to use. They suppress the pheromones, which mean that women are not getting men’s attention in a normal and desired way, which often leads to crazy actions like going around topless. However, instead of attracting a good man, women tend to forget that if you act outrageously for a culture, you tend to have good odds of getting attention but the goods you get will be odd. No sane woman wants to attract a creeper.
That leads to another facet of society that we need to consider. If nudity becomes common place, what does that say for sexual harassment and assault laws? Unwanted sexual attention can quickly turn to sexual harassment, but if we are displaying our sexual characteristics, how can we claim that we do not want certain people being attracted. We are practically demanding that all men should be attracted to us. One sign of agreeing to sexual interaction is to decrease the clothing worn, which has been a common sign for a long time. How can we hold sexual harassment and assault are important to fight if we send mixed signals in our dress or lack thereof?
Men are not women and women are not men. There are physical and mental differences between us. Accepting these differences and respecting them should be the goal of our interactions with each other, rather than trying to eradicate them. In this instance, just wearing appropriate clothing should not be difficult. If we really want to focus on the issues that a few women are visually attracted to men without shirts, maybe we can turn the tables and ask men to, like in the time of my grandfather, wear shirts in public too. Instead of seeing what sex is allowed to be the least modest, make it a race to the top, with respect shown for everyone rather than just demanding people allow anything and everything.
Of course, while I am encouraging modesty, I want you to note that I am not saying that we all have to wear burkas. There can be middle ground between having our sexual characteristics hanging out for all to see and showing nothing but our eyes. As children, we learned that no one should see or touch the area covered by our swimsuits in safety classes. Why not keep that as a basic rule for modesty, to wear enough clothing to cover those areas?
Comment of the Day.
Second!
PWS
Thanks for keeping us abrest of the situation.
Sorry, had to get that pun off my chest.
It sounds like you fell right into a very specific kind of trap.
–Dwayne