Any good law student knows that the Constitution protects our right to bear arms. But does it protect our right to bare breasts? Or rather, does it protect a woman's right to stroll about the streets as she pleases, shirt off? If you ask the women of GoTopless.org (no surfing the 'tubes in class, guys) they say it does.

In fact, on August 23rd, women in Miami, Hawaii, New York City, Chicago, Portland, Venice Beach, and Columbus, Ohio gathered together, shirts off, to prove this point: that the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a woman's right to do what men have been doing for years on end - enjoying a hot summer's day with as few clothes on as possible. Some jurisdictions have recognized the hypocrisy of a law that allows men to do one thing, but criminalizes the exact same behavior in women; our very own Washington, D.C., for example, has been topless-friendly since a court ruling in 1986.

The 14th Amendment ensures that every person within the United States' jurisdiction will be subject to the equal protection of its laws, which, in theory means that a law cannot be applied to one demographic group where it is not applied to another. Application of a law based on race, for instance, is subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny there is: strict scrutiny. In this instance, because laws prohibiting women from going topless are based on sex, a determination of the constitutionality of these laws would be analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the government prove that the law in question furthers an important governmental interest that is furthered by substantially related means. In 1982, Justice O'Connor explained that requiring such a close relationship between the interest and the means by which it is achieved is to assure that the validity of the classification does not rest on the use of traditional assumptions about the proper role of men and women.

As I write this, I look out my apartment window to see rows upon rows of shirtless men at the pool. I imagine what would happen if the women at the pool were topless (minds out of the gutter - this is a legal issue), and I fail to see what legitimate government interest can only be served in this way. An expected argument, I would assume, is one of safety: if women's breasts were exposed, the rate of sexual violence would increase. I call shenanigans. Seeing as sexual assault is a crime of power, not of passion, it's not as if men, blinded by the boobies suddenly exposed all over town, would become rapists. Women wearing swimsuits, jeans, and more traditional garb are all potential victims of violence. You want a way to further the legitimate government interest of keeping women safe from sexually-based violence? Make it easier to report sexual assaults, increase penalties for both sexual assault and domestic violence (Probation and community service, Chris Brown? Really?), and create programs designed to teach lawyers and judges that gender-motivated violence is never a woman's fault.

Another potential rationale prohibiting women from choosing to go topless in public would rely on obscenity. Laws mandating women cover their breasts in public are just like laws that require people to wear pants in public to cover their sexual organs, some would argue. This argument fails in one important respect: while no one can deny that penises and vaginas play an important role in sex, breasts do not. Breasts are used to feed one's young; technically, they are not sexual organs, and court opinions that have upheld a woman's right to be shirtless in public have admitted as much. Admittedly, breasts do carry a sexual connotation -a socially created one. Mainstream society's declaration that breasts are sexual is based in large part on a hierarchy that is structured around men's desires, and has systematically subjugated women in order to fulfill those desires (sorry, guys - it's true - but we can work past it, I promise). As O'Connor said in her 1982 opinion, sex-based classifications in the law should not be based on assumptions about male and female roles, and to that end, United States jurisdictions should allow all of their citizens equal protection under the law by no longer prohibiting one sex's behavior while condoning the same behavior in the other.