No Victim, No Crime. Right!?

Okay, voluntarist and anarchist, it's time to represent.  

My home state of Tennessee remains one of those states where women are absolutely prohibited from publicly exposing parts of their breasts (save for a few exceptions like when breast feeding).  Here's the text of the Tennessee law in question, though some other states have very similar laws:

39-13-511. Public indecency Indecent exposure. 

(a)  (1)  (A)  A person commits the offense of public indecency who, in a public place, as defined in subdivision (a)(2)(B), knowingly or intentionally:

***

                (ii)  Appears in a state of nudity; 

***

          (B)  A person does not violate subdivision (a)(1)(A) if the person makes intentional and reasonable attempts to conceal the person from public view while performing an excretory function, and the person performs the function in an unincorporated area of the state.

     (2)  As used in subdivision (a)(1):

          (A)  "Nudity" or "state of nudity" means the showing of the bare human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of the areola, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. "Nudity" or "state of nudity" does not include a mother in the act of nursing the mother's baby...

These laws are almost certainly unconstitutional, yet they are still on the books and are still enforced.  

Notice how completely arbitrary the Tennessee law is (as are most laws that criminalize acts with no victim):  First, it's only WOMEN, and not men, who are obligated under threat of criminal punishment to prevent their areola from being observed.  

Second, it's not the female breast in general that's considered "indecent" but apparently only certain aspects of it--namely, the color of the areola.  After all, given that any sufficiently "opaque" covering will avoid criminal prosecution, it's apparently not the SHAPE of the areola that's offensive, just its color.  So, walking about in a shirt like this, where the areola and nipple are clearly discernable, is apparently NOT "indecent":

Nor is "side boob" indecent:

Nor "under boob":

Nor even this "nip slip" (since it's not the nipple itself that offends the law but rather only the surrounding areola):

However, wearing THIS would be enough to get you arrested for "indecent" exposure:

Why?  Because the color of the areola is visible (the fabric is not sufficiently "opaque").  

I defy anyone to articulate any principled, non-arbitrary reason for criminalizing the clothing in the last picture above but not the clothing (or lack thereof) in any of the prior ones.  

Criminalizing body parts should be offensive to most everyone but especially the anarchists and voluntarist who are so present here on Steemit.  No victim, no crime.  Right?!

I invite everyone, whether male or female, to resist these immoral laws as unprincipled, arbitrary and repressive.  You can show solidarity by posting a picture here on Steemit displaying your own areola.  And, what better day to do that than tomorrow 8/28--National Go Topless Day? 

If you decide to participate, please tag your picture #freetheareola.  And, if you're a woman, be sure to tag it #nsfw:  Displaying your female areola on Steemit won't get you arrested, but it may get you down voted if you don't tag it properly.   

Here's my (early) contribution to the cause: 

All photos, save the last, are by me.  The subject in all photos, save the last, is @steemed-open.