Effie Krokos was just trying to have herself a lovely day with her fiancé. All she wanted to do was mind her own business and play a little frisbee in his front yard. Innocent fun. But soon things got a little too hot, so she decided to cool herself off a bit.
“I was like, ‘Oh it’s hot, he’s shirtless, why not just go for it?’” said Krokos. “I just kind of took off my shirt, without thinking, ‘cause I knew about the code in the back of my mind but I was kind of afraid.”
The code she’s referring to is the legislation that was passed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in February of this year. It states that women are legally allowed to be publicly topless anywhere a man can be publicly topless and any prohibition of this, is discrimination that will ultimately hurt both men and women.
Legislatively reinforced stereotypes tend to “create a self- fulfilling cycle of discrimination.” Thus, the sex-object stereotype, according to Dr. Roberts, “serves the function of keeping women in their place.” And as the district court found, perpetuating the sex-object stereotype “leads to negative cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes for both women and men.”
Yup, they even thought of the children.
The court noted, for instance, that Dr. Roberts had testified about research linking the sexual objectification of women to the view that, at younger and younger ages, women are “appropriate targets of [sexual] assault.”
Accordingly, we reject the City’s claim that protecting children from public nudity qualifies as an important governmental objective substantially served by the City’s female-only toplessness ban.
But what about the dangers it creates to our already-distracted drivers? We can’t just have people out here rear ending other cars because they’re busy looking at some boobies!
Notions of morality may well underlie its assertions that conflicts will break out, and distracted drivers will crash, if it allows women to be topless in public. But such notions, like the fear that topless women will endanger children, originate from the sex-object stereotype of women’s breasts.
So, knowing all of this, Krokos put aside her fear and let loose.
Three hours later (I sincerely hope she put some sunscreen on her gals because, speaking from experience, those little ladies BURN), a cop arrived baring gifts for the gifts she bared to the world.
Krokos was issued a summons despite telling the police officer that the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that a similar law in nearby Fort Collins was unconstitutional.
Krokos began recording with her cell phone. In the recording, you can hear her tell Loveland Police Officer Greg Harris about the change in the law.
Harris: “I’ve heard rumor of it in Fort Collins but that was it. But not throughout the state.”
Krokos: “Well, this is a topless state.”
Harris:”We had training just recently on legal updates, none of this was brought up. So none of this in my eyes is valid. Okay?”
Look, I get not knowing about a recently updated law. How was the officer supposed to know the law extended to to the state if it wasn’t brought to his attention? If you don’t know, then you don’t know. HOWEVER, for the police department to stand behind the citation and refuse to admit any fault, is absolute lunacy.
In a statement, Loveland police said, “The Loveland Police Department acted within the protocols that exist. We had an existing city ordinance. The officer that responded had probable cause to issue the citation.”
Guess what trumps city ordinance? State-wide ordinance! A simple, “We weren’t aware the legislation was at a state-wide level” would have done the trick. Krokos would have her citation lifted, and everyone would be on their merry way towards putting this unfortunate mixup in the past.
Instead they forced Krokos to lawyer up and THEN tried to patch things up.
“The City of Loveland called me and was like, ‘Oh, let’s talk about this complaint, let’s figure things out.’ It’s a little too late and they did admit fault in some sense, like ‘Yeah we guess that the constitution casts doubt on this municipal code so I guess we’ll just let it go’ but that wasn’t enough for me.”
$50,000 later thanks to a federal appeals court ruling, it’s enough.
“I didn’t care about the money, whether we got it or not. I just wanted to make a statement that it’s not okay to treat women this way,” she said.
After mass coverage of her frisbee fiasco and a lump sum of money she claims it wasn’t about (just because it wasn’t about it, doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it), thanks to Krokos standing her ground, women are no longer forced to fear toplessness…
… instead we can all let em hang and enjoy the breeze.