Marriageable age is the minimum age at which a person is allowed by law to marry, either as a right or subject to parental, judicial or other forms of approval. Age and other prerequisites to marriage vary between jurisdictions, but in the vast majority of jurisdictions, the marriage age as a right is set at the age of majority. Most jurisdictions allow marriage at a younger age with parental or judicial approval, some allow younger people to marry if the female is pregnant; until the marriageable age for women was lower in many jurisdictions than for men, but in many places has now been raised to those of men. The marriage age should not be confused with the age of maturity or the age of consent, though in many places they may be the same. In many developing countries, the official age prescriptions stand as mere guidelines. International organizations, such as UNICEF, regard a marriage by a person below the age of 18 as a child marriage; the 55 parties to the 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, Registration of Marriages have agreed to specify a minimum marriage age by statute law‚ to override customary and tribal laws.
When the marriageable age under a law of a religious community is lower than that under the law of the land, the state law prevails. However, some religious communities do not accept the supremacy of state law in this respect, which may lead to child marriage or forced marriage; the 123 parties to the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery have agreed to adopt a minimum age for marriage. The age of consent for a sexual union was determined by tribal custom, or was a matter for families to decide. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty: such as menstruation for a girl and pubic hair for a boy. In Jewish oral tradition, men cannot consent to marriage until they reach the age of majority of 13 years and one day and have undergone puberty. With no signs of puberty, they are considered minors until the age of twenty. After twenty, they are not considered adults. If they show no signs of puberty or do show impotence, they automatically become adults by age 35 and can marry.
The same rules apply to women, except their age of majority is a day. In Ancient Rome, it was common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. Roman law required brides to be at least 12 years old. In Roman law, first marriages to brides from 12 to 24 required the consent of the bride and her father; the Catholic canon law followed the Roman law. In the 12th century, the Catholic Church drastically changed legal standards for marital consent by allowing daughters over 12 and sons over 14 to marry without their parents' approval if their marriage was made clandestinely. Parish studies have confirmed that late medieval women did sometimes marry without their parents' approval. In western Europe, the rise of Christianity and manorialism had both created incentives to keep families nuclear, thus the age of marriage increased; the Church prohibited consanguineous marriages, a marriage pattern, a means to maintain clans throughout history. The church forbade marriages in which the bride did not agree to the union.
After the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, manorialism helped weaken the ties of kinship and thus the power of clans. The Church and State had become allies in erasing the solidarity and thus the political power of the clans; as the peasants and serfs lived and worked on farms that they rented from the lord of the manor, they needed the permission of the lord to marry. Couples therefore had to comply with the lord of the manor and wait until a small farm became available before they could marry and thus produce children. For example, marriage ages in Medieval England varied depending on economic circumstances, with couples delaying marriage until their early twenties when times were bad, but might marry in their late teens after the Black Death, when there was a severe labour shortage. In medieval Eastern Europe, on the other hand, the Slavic traditions of patrilocality of early and universal marriage lingered; the first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years. In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, the Statute of Westminster 1275, made it a misdemeanour to "ravish" a "maiden within age", whether with or without her consent.
The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years. In the 12th century, th
Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health that vary amongst countries around the world. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows: Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide and responsibly the number and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, they include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination and violence. Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal and safe abortion. Reproductive rights may include the right to receive education about sexually transmitted infections and other aspects of sexuality, protection from practices such as female genital mutilation. Reproductive rights began to develop as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.
The resulting non binding Proclamation of Tehran was the first international document to recognize one of these rights when it stated that: "Parents have a basic human right to determine and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children." States, have been slow in incorporating these rights in internationally binding instruments. Thus, while some of these rights have been recognized in hard law, that is, in binding international human rights instruments, others have been mentioned only in non binding recommendations and, have at best the status of soft law in international law, while a further group is yet to be accepted by the international community and therefore remains at the level of advocacy. Issues related to reproductive rights are some of the most vigorously contested rights' issues worldwide, regardless of the population's socioeconomic level, religion or culture; the issue of reproductive rights is presented as being of vital importance in discussions and articles by population concern organizations such as Population Matters.
Reproductive rights are a subset of rights. In 1945, the United Nations Charter included the obligation "to promote... universal respect for, observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without discrimination as to race, language, or religion". However, the Charter did not define these rights. Three years the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first international legal document to delineate human rights. Reproductive rights began to appear as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran, which states: "Parents have a basic human right to determine and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children"; this right was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in the 1969 Declaration on Social Progress and Development which states "The family as a basic unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members children and youth, should be assisted and protected so that it may assume its responsibilities within the community.
Parents have the exclusive right to determine and responsibly the number and spacing of their children." The 1975 UN International Women's Year Conference echoed the Proclamation of Tehran. The twenty-year "Cairo Programme of Action" was adopted in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo; the non-binding Programme of Action asserted that governments have a responsibility to meet individuals' reproductive needs, rather than demographic targets. It recommended that family planning services be provided in the context of other reproductive health services, including services for healthy and safe childbirth, care for sexually transmitted infections, post-abortion care; the ICPD addressed issues such as violence against women, sex trafficking, adolescent health. The Cairo Program is the first international policy document to define reproductive health, stating: Reproductive health is a state of complete physical and social well-being and not the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and its functions and processes.
Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. Unlike previous population conferences, a wide range of interests from grassroots to government level were represented in Cairo. 179 nations attended the ICPD and overall eleven thousand representatives from governments, NGOs, international agencies and citizen activists participated. The ICPD did not address the far-reaching implications of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In 1999, recommendations at the ICPD+5 were expanded to include commitment to AIDS education and prevention of mother-to-child transmission, as well as to the developme
Criminal transmission of HIV
Criminal transmission of HIV is the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus. This is conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not include a realistic means of transmission; some countries or jurisdictions, including some areas of the U. S. have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission or exposure, charging those accused with criminal transmission of HIV. Others, including the United Kingdom, charge the accused under existing laws with such crimes as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Medical research has identified the following situations in which HIV may be transmitted: Sexual transmission where one person with an HIV infection engages in unprotected sexual intercourse with another, thus transferring the virus. France began testing blood products for HIV antibodies in June 1985, Canada in November 1985, Switzerland in May 1986.
Germany inconsistently tested plasma products between 1987 and 1993, as did Japan in 1985 and 1986. There were criminal investigations and prosecutions of those persons found to be responsible for these delays. At least 20 countries now have plans in place to compensate some classes of individuals, e.g. hemophiliacs, infected by the transfusion of HIV-contaminated blood and blood products. In many English-speaking countries and in most of the states who have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, knowingly infecting others with HIV can lead to criminal prosecution. One such case is that of Thomas Guerra, an American landscape architect, who became the first person in the state of California to be convicted for intentionally infecting another individual with HIV. In court, prosecutors presented 11,000 text messages and 36 audio clips to support their case against Guerra. Since Guerra has been accused of intentionally exposing dozens of other men to HIV. In a 2004 survey of the latter group, the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS found that at least one prosecution had occurred in about half of these countries, that in Finland and Slovakia, about 0.5% to 1% of all people reported to be living with HIV/AIDS had been prosecuted for alleged intentional or "negligent" transmission of HIV.
In many developing countries such as Thailand where the HIV/AIDS pandemic has been much more serious, laws regarding criminalisation of intentional transmission have been either weak or non-existent. From a global perspective, the U. S. and Canada account for the vast majority of reported prosecutions. In Australia the regulations concerned with the transmission of HIV are found in two sources, the Public Healths Acts and in the criminal law; the New South Wales Public Health Act from 2010 regulates under section 79 that a person with HIV must disclose their status to all sexual partners. Under section 79 it is a defence, if the court is satisfied, that the defendant took reasonable precautions to prevent the transmission. In other Australian states, there is no specific legislative requirement to disclose. Interventions may range from counseling through to restrictive orders, with detention as a last resort. If talking about the problems of practising safe sex does not help, the doctor may obtain a Public Health Order to manage the behaviour of the HIV positive person.
Only a small number of sex workers and clients have received a Public Health Order or ‘management’ intervention for breaking the law. Under the criminal law, a person with HIV is criminally liable for prosecution if they have intentionally transmitted the virus to their partner without informing them of their status. In NSW the relevant offences are separated into those done intentionally, those done recklessly; the definition of grievous bodily harm now explicitly includes ‘any grievous bodily disease'. This means that the infliction of grievous bodily harm refers to causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease. Under section 33 a person who intends to inflect grievous bodily harm on another person can be imprisoned for up to 25 years while under section 35 a person who recklessly causes another person grievous bodily harm can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and 14 years if in company; this can include causing someone to be infected with HIV. A person is deemed as reckless when they are aware that there is a risk that another person may be caused GBH as a result of their actions, but they proceed to act anyway.
Though Canadian federal law does not contain any HIV-specific statutes, HIV transmission and exposure are otherwise prosecuted under general offense laws. R. v. Mabior, SCC 47 reflects the Supreme Court of Canada's most recent decision outlining criminal liability for serostatus nondisclosure. After being diagnosed with HIV in 2004, Clato Mabior underwent aggressive antiretroviral therapy and was adhering to treatment at the time of pursuing sexual relation
Toleration is the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with. Random House Dictionary defines tolerance as "a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc. differ from one's own". Toleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful."Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. In the 20th century and after, analysis of the doctrine of toleration has been expanded to include political and ethnic groups, LGBT individuals and other minorities, human rights embodies the principle of enforced toleration. From the Latin tolerans, the word tolerance was first used in Middle French in the 14th century and in Early Modern English in the early 15th century.
The word toleration was first used in English in the 1510s to mean "permission granted by authority, licence" from the French tolération, moving towards the meaning of "forbearance, sufferance" in the 1580s. The notion of religious toleration stems from 1609. Religious toleration has been described as a "remarkable feature" of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia; as reported in the Old Testament, king Cyrus the Great was believed to have released the Jews from captivity in 539–530 BCE, permitted their return to their homeland. Cyrus the Great assisted in the restoration of the sacred places of various cities; the Hellenistic city of Alexandria, founded 331 BCE, contained a large Jewish community which lived in peace with equivalently sized Greek and Egyptian populations. According to Michael Walzer, the city provided "a useful example of what we might think of as the imperial version of multiculturalism."The Roman Empire encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."
Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god. In 311 CE, Roman Emperor Galerius issued a general edict of toleration of Christianity, in his own name and in those of Licinius and Constantine I. In the Old Testament, the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy make similar statements about the treatment of strangers. For example, Exodus 22:21 says: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"; these texts are used in sermons to plead for compassion and tolerance of those who are different from us and less powerful. Julia Kristeva elucidated a philosophy of political and religious toleration based on all of our mutual identities as strangers; the New Testament Parable of the Tares, which speaks of the difficulty of distinguishing wheat from weeds before harvest time, has been invoked in support of religious toleration. In his "Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons", Bishop Wazo of Liege relied on the parable to argue that "the church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge them".
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, used this parable to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" in the world, because civil persecution inadvertently hurts the "wheat" too. Instead, Williams believed; this parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution. In the Middle Ages, there were instances of toleration of particular groups; the Latin concept tolerantia was a "highly-developed political and judicial concept in mediaeval scholastic theology and canon law." Tolerantia was used to "denote the self-restraint of a civil power in the face of" outsiders, like infidels, Muslims or Jews, but in the face of social groups like prostitutes and lepers. Heretics such as the Cathari, Jan Hus, his followers, the Hussites, were persecuted. Theologians belonging or reacting to the Protestant Reformation began discussion of the circumstances under which dissenting religious thought should be permitted.
Toleration "as a government-sanctioned practice" in Christian countries, "the sense on which most discussion of the phenomenon relies—is not attested before the sixteenth century". In Poland in 1264, the Statute of Kalisz was issued, guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jews in the country. In 1348, Pope Clement VI issued a bull pleading with Catholics not to murder Jews, whom they blamed for the Black Death, he noted that Jews died of the plague like anyone else, that the disease flourished in areas where there were no Jews. Christians who blamed and killed Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil", he took Jews under his personal protection at Avignon, but his calls for other clergy to do so failed to be heeded. Johann Reuchlin was a German humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew who opposed efforts by Johannes Pfefferkorn, backed by the Dominicans of Cologne, to confiscate all religious texts from the Jews as a first step towards their forcible conversion to the Catholic religion.
Despite occasional spontaneous episodes of pogroms and killings, as during the Black Death, Polish–Lithuanian
Fornication is consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. When one of the partners to consensual sexual intercourse is a married person, it may be described as adultery. For many people, the term carries an overtone of moral or religious disapproval, but the significance of sexual acts to which the term is applied varies between religions and cultures. In modern usage, the term is replaced with a more judgment-neutral term like extramarital sex. In the original Greek version of the New Testament, the term porneia is used 25 times. In the late 4th century, the Latin Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Greek texts, translated the term as fornicati, fornicatus and fornicatae; the 1611 King James Version used the term fornication. Other translations have used terms such as whoredom, sexual immorality or immorality. In Latin, the term fornix means vault. In Ancient Rome, prostitutes waited for their customers out of the rain under vaulted ceilings, fornix became a euphemism for brothels, the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel.
The first recorded use in English is in the Cursor Mundi, c. 1300. Fornicated as an adjective is still used in botany, meaning "arched" or "bending over". John Milton plays on the double meaning of the word in The Reason of Church-Government Urged against Prelaty: " gives up her body to a mercenary whordome under those fornicated ches which she cals Gods house." The Pauline epistles contain multiple condemnations of various forms of extramarital sex. The First Epistle to the Corinthians states "Flee from sexual immorality" and lists adulterers and "those who are sexually immoral"/practicing-fornicators in a list of "wrongdoers who... will not inherit the kingdom of God". First Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians address fornication; the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem includes a prohibition of fornication. Throughout history, most theologians have argued that any and all forms of premarital sex are immoral. A historical example is John Baconthorpe. A more contemporary example is the modern-day theologian Lee Gatiss who argues that premarital sex is immoral based on scripture.
He states that, from a Biblical perspective, "physical union should not take place outside a "one flesh" union... In chapter 7 Paul addresses the situation of two unmarried Christians who are burning with passion who should either exercise self-control or be permitted to marry; the underlying assumptions are the same as those in Deuteronomy 22."However, a minority of theologians have argued in more recent times that premarital sex may not be immoral in some limited circumstances. An example is John Witte, who argues that the Bible itself is silent on the issue of consensual, premarital sex between an engaged couple. In other words, Witte claims that the Bible excludes premarital sex from its list of unlawful sexual relations though Leviticus 18 is not the only such list, nor does Leviticus 18 claim to be exhaustive being devoted to forms of incest; some of the debate arises from the question. A deontological view of sex interprets porneia and akatharsia in terms of whether the couple are married or non-married.
What makes sex moral or immoral is the context of marriage. By contrast, a teleological view interprets porneia and akatharsia in terms of the quality of the relationship The debate turns on the definition of the two Greek words moicheia and porneia; the first word is restricted to contexts involving sexual betrayal of a spouse. Elsewhere in First Corinthians, homosexual intercourse and prostitution are all explicitly forbidden by name. Paul is preaching about activities based on sexual prohibitions laid out in Leviticus in the context of achieving holiness. One theory therefore suggests that it is these behaviours, only these, that are intended by Paul's prohibition in chapter seven. However, most mainstream Christian sources believe that porneia encompasses all forms of premarital sex. For instance, in defining porneia/fornication and Friedrich's 1977 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states that "The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse".
Friberg's Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament defines porneia as being "generally, every kind of extramarital, unlawful or unnatural sexual intercourse". Lee Gatiss argues that porneia encompasses all forms of premarital sex, he states that "the word'fornication' has gone out of fashion and is not in common use to describe non-marital sex. However, it is an excellent translation for porneia, which referred to any kind of sex outside of marriage... This has been contested... but the overwhelming weight of scholarship and all the available evidence from the ancient world points in this direction. "Flee sexual immorality and pursue self-control" was the s
A public space is a place, open and accessible to people. Roads, public squares and beaches are considered public space. To a limited extent, government buildings which are open to the public, such as public libraries are public spaces, although they tend to have restricted areas and greater limits upon use. Although not considered public space owned buildings or property visible from sidewalks and public thoroughfares may affect the public visual landscape, for example, by outdoor advertising; the concept of Shared space has been advanced to enhance the experience of pedestrians in public space jointly used by automobiles and other vehicles. Public space has become something of a touchstone for critical theory in relation to philosophy, visual art, cultural studies, social studies and urban design; the term'public space' is often misconstrued to mean other things such as'gathering place', an element of the larger concept of social space. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons.
For example, no fees or paid tickets are required for entry. Non-government-owned malls are examples of'private space' with the appearance of being'public space'. In Nordic countries like Norway, Sweden and Estonia, all nature areas are considered public space, due to a law, the allemansrätten. In the United States the right of the people to engage in speech and assembly in public places may not be unreasonably restricted by the federal or state government; the government cannot limit one's speech beyond what is reasonable in a public space, considered to be a public forum. In a private—that is, non-public—forum, the government can control one's speech to a much greater degree; this is not to say that the government can control what one says to others. The concept of a public forum is not limited to physical space or public property, for example, a newspaper might be considered a public forum, but see forum in the legal sense as the term has a specific meaning in United States law. Parks, beaches, waiting rooms, etc. may be closed at night.
As this does not exclude any specific group, it is not considered a restriction on public use. Entry to public parks cannot be restricted based upon a user's residence. In some cultures, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, however civil inattention is a process whereby individuals are able to maintain their privacy within a crowd. Public space is shared and created for open usage throughout the community, whereas private space is individually or corporately owned; the area is built for a range of various types of entertainment. The physical setting is constructed, which creates a behavior influence. Limitations are imposed in the space to prevent certain actions from occurring--public behavior, considered obnoxious or out of character --and are supported by law or ordinance. Through the landscape and spatial organization of public space, the social construction is considered to be ruled by the implicit and explicit rules and expectations of the space that are enforced. Whilst it is considered that everyone has a right to access and use public space, as opposed to private space which may have restrictions, there has been some academic interest in how public spaces are managed to exclude certain groups - homeless people and young people.
Measures are taken to make the public space less attractive to them, including the removal or design of benches to restrict their use for sleeping and resting, restricting access to certain times, locking indoor/enclosed areas. Police forces are sometimes involved in moving'unwanted' members of the public from public spaces. In fact, by not being provided suitable access, disabled people are implicitly excluded from some spaces. Human geographers have argued that in spite of the exclusions that are part of public space, it can nonetheless be conceived of as a site where democracy becomes possible. Geographer Don Mitchell has written extensively on the topic of public space and its relation to democracy, employing Henri Lefebvre's notion of the right to the city in articulating his argument. While democracy and public space don't coincide, it is the potential of their intersection that becomes politically important. Other geographers like Gill Valentine have focused on performativity and visibility in public spaces, which brings a theatrical component or'space of appearance', central to the functioning of a democratic space.
A owned public space known as a owned public open space, is a public space, open to the public, but owned by a private entity a commercial property developer. Conversion of publicly owned public spaces to owned public spaces is referred to as the privatization of public space, is a common result of urban redevelopment. Beginning in the 1960s, the privatization of public space has faced criticism from citizen groups such as the Open Spaces Society. Private-public partnerships have taken significant control of public parks and playgrounds through conservancy groups set up to manage what is considered unmanageable by public agencies. Corporate sponsorship of public leisure areas is ubiquitous, giving open space to the public in excha
Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of their body in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. The term indecent exposure is a legal expression. Social and community attitudes to the exposing of various body parts and laws covering what is referred to as indecent exposure vary in different countries, it ranges from outright prohibition to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts. Decency is judged by the standards of the local community, which are codified in specifics in law; such standards may be based on religion, morality or tradition, or justified on the basis of "necessary to public order". Non-sexual exhibitionism or public nudity is sometimes considered indecent exposure. If sexual acts are performed, with or without an element of nudity, this can be considered gross indecency, a more serious criminal offence.
In some countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is considered to be public indecency. The legal and community standards of what states of undress constitute indecent exposure vary and depend on the context in which the exposure takes place; these standards have varied over time, making the definition of indecent exposure itself a complex topic. It is accepted, at least in western countries, that a naked human body is not in itself indecent; that principle is reflected, in depiction of the human form in art of various forms. As a general rule, it is commonly expected that people when they appear in a public place will be appropriately attired. Inappropriateness is viewed in context, so that, for example, what may be appropriate on a beach may be inappropriate in a street, school or workplace. Depending on the context, some degree of inappropriateness may be tolerated, described as eccentric, but in extreme cases of inappropriateness it may be regarded as "crossing the line".
Besides the social disapproval of such a state of dress, most jurisdictions have laws to "maintain social order", variously described as public nudity, indecent exposure, as an affront to public morality, public nuisance, besides others. What is an inappropriate state of dress in a particular context depends on the standards of decency of the community where an exposure takes place; these standards vary from time to time and can vary from the strict standards of modesty in places such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which require most of the body to be covered, to tribal societies such as the Pirahã or Mursi where full nakedness is the norm. There is no implication that the state of dress objected to is of a sexual nature; the standards of decency have varied over time. During the Victorian era, for example, exposure of a woman's legs and some extent the arms, was considered indecent in much of the Western world. Hair was sometimes required to be covered in formal occasions as in a form a bonnet.
As late as the 1930s and to some extent, the 1950s, both women and men were expected to bathe or swim in public places wearing bathing suits that covered above the waist. An adult woman exposing her navel was considered indecent in the West into the 1960s and 1970s, as late as the 1980s. Moral values changed drastically during the 1990s and 2000s, which in turn changed the criteria for indecent exposure. Public exposure of the navel has been accepted during the 1990s, such as in beaches, while in the 2000s, the buttocks can be exposed while wearing a thong. Today, however, it is quite common for women to go topless at public beaches throughout Europe and South America and some parts of the United States. Although the phenomenon known as flashing, involving a woman exposing bare nipples by pulling up her shirt and bra, may be free from sexual motive or intent, it nonetheless is public exposure and is therefore defined by statute in many states of the United States as prohibited criminal behavior.
The motivation of the exposure is sometimes based on it being unusual, attention-getting, sexually arousing, or separately, as in a public policy protest, inappropriate and to show disrespect to the enemy side. The effects may be enhanced by intended or unintended publication of a photograph or film of the act, which would include mooning. Breastfeeding in public does not constitute indecent exposure under the laws of the United States, Australia, or Scotland. In the United States, the federal government and all 50 states have enacted laws protecting nursing mothers from harassment by others. Legislation ranges from exempting breastfeeding from laws regarding indecent exposure, to outright full protection of the right to nurse. Public clothing may be regulated by law. What parts of the body must be covered varies by region. Although genitals are expected to be covered in public in all societies, when it comes to other parts of the body such as female breasts, legs or shoulders, norms vary. For example, in some African cultures, it is the thighs, not the breasts.
In some societies, the head hair female, must be covered with a scarf. The vast majority of cultures accept that the face can and must be seen, but some cultures, require that it be covered under a burqa. In conservative societies, appearing in a public place in clothing, deemed'indecent' is illegal. In many countries there are exceptions to the genera