New ‘topless” law

Press, 29 January 1982, Page 12

New ‘topless” law

Sir,—Why all this carry-on about topless bathing suits? When I lived in Scotland and went for long walks in the hills I often plunged into a stream (what we called a burn there) in a suit that was both topless and bottomless, in other words, non-existent. But when bathing in the sea and in public one naturally covered oneself decently, which, for a woman, meant having one’s breasts covered. What is wrong with that? The only occasional discomfort I can remember is that when going in for especially long swims, with boat escort, the shoulder straps of one’s suit sometimes rubbed under the arms. But I cannot believe that all.the people who fuss about wanting to be topless are intending to make swims of a mile or two miles, or whatever that is in kilometres. I am no good at arithmetic.—Yours, etc., HELEN CAMERON. Geraldine, January 26, 1982. Sir,—To swim naked in the sea, or a public or private pool, is sheer ecstasy, and to me, epitomises freedom, and the luxury of water, air, and sun on my body, which in turn exhilarates the mind. If, however, an onlooker is offended, I could not foist my back-to-nature on them, or the world at large, for then my freedom becomes a restrictive act on their enjoyment. The problems of society, and much more urgent needs, to provide material economic sustenance for the unemployed community, override any question.; of toplessness, for these people are exposed to the harsh reality, and bitter winds of adversity, with only the most meagre covering for. their naked humility.—Yours, etc., R. W. H. WADE. January 27, 1982.