S anta Monica — land of the “progressives” — home to the “open minded,” sanctuary for the “spiritually enlightened.” I believe that. I also believe that we have a City Council that is doing everything in its power to destroy the tourism trade, the business climate and to turn back time to 1920.
Why on what basis do I make such an incendiary claim? It’s simple. It keeps the City Council in power to have a business community that is disorganized and disenfranchised, which results in the voting electorate, by default, being the residents. The residents are broken down into two main groups: Apartment dwellers and homeowners.
The apartment dwellers are neatly organized by Santa Monicans for Renters Rights. The homeowners are not organized enough to be a force, which means that the business community is being ruled by the renters. The council does the bidding of the SMRR community, and they want an ostensibly “liberal,” “left leaning,” “humanistic” appearing council, which has no real benefit to the community. But it sounds good.
On what basis do I contend that the City Council wants to destroy tourism? The following factors: ■ Encouragement of the homeless to populate and enjoy the city that they don’t pay for. ■ A smoking ban that directly targets the groups most likely to be affected, tourists at the beach. ■ A sexually discriminating law regarding nudity.
It is true. Santa Monica sexually discriminates in an inherently unfair way. You’ve seen it almost everyday, and you’ll see it everyday this summer at the beach.
Our own police force will likely enforce it with great zeal this summer. It is a law that is stupid in its purpose, inane in the reasoning behind it and should be abolished. I would heartily support a proposition, a referendum, or even a City Council member’s motion to reconsider it.
The law is the Santa Monica municipal code on topless women.
A woman is not allowed to do what a man is. A man can walk around town shirtless. He can wash his car without a shirt on, he can tan at the beach. He can walk his dog or play ball with his kids. He can have flabby, floppy pectorals, and no one says a thing. He can proudly display a hairy and obese chest lawfully. His “areolas,” commonly called nipples, are fair game for all the world to visually enjoy.
But not a woman’s. This is sexist. It is discrimination. And the City Council should do something about it. The law reads: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any female to expose the areolas of her breasts … on public beaches, public streets, public parks, or other public property within the city. The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons 10 years of age or younger. Moreover, this section does not prohibit women from breastfeeding infants on any public property. (b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months or both.”
To be clear, given the wackiness factor of our City Council, I am not advocating that the men of the city be required to wear a shirt at all times. I like the ability to go shirtless and I like the fact that so many others do too.
I want the women of our fair city to be able to comfortably enjoy the same rights, privileges and benefits of our society as I have.
The women of this city should be allowed to go shirtless any where a man can. That means the parks, the beaches, strolling down the street on a sunny Tuesday morning. They should be allowed to enjoy the warmth of the sun on their breasts as much as a man can.
Frankly, and in all seriousness, I think this is a much more important issue in terms of equal rights than the endless lip service to “protecting the rights of the homeless” that goes on at most of the City Council meetings.
These people are all about the headline. Let them make a real headline with something that will not only enhance the quality of life for the residents, but make Santa Monica the No. 1 tourist spot in California within weeks.
Seriously, does anyone doubt that this would be a tremendous boon for our economy? The Europeans would finally have a place in America where they could relax comfortably on the beach topless. The Japanese businessmen (a traditionally voyeuristic group) would swamp the local hotels. And the number of young men we would be attracting is certainly a factor.
I’d be willing to bet a steak dinner that we would have a tremendous increase in our tourism rates if we went topless.
I know some people are going to say, “It’s immoral.” Hogwash. Show me anywhere in the Bible where it says that men, but not women, can go shirtless. “It’ll be the end of society” others will cry. It doesn’t seem to have hurt France, Italy or Spain. Well maybe France, but they have other issues.
The publicity we would garner would be worth millions, perhaps billions of dollars. For once, we could use our “wacky factor” to our advantage.
If I was on the City Council, I’d be pushing for this law to be amended. There is nothing inherently different about a man’s areola versus a woman’s. They should be treated the same under the law. This is not likely to be taken up by City Council members. They have more important things to do, like get re-elected. (David Pisarra is a partner in the law firm of Pisarra & Grist, he (310) 664-9969 or by e-mail at He welcomes your comments and questions).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 4, 2004. Read the original PDF.