system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Breasts are legally protected as genitalia and as long as they are, it should be illegal to expose them in public.

I write legal charges all day long and female breasts are legally protected as genitalia. Let me show you what I mean: if I grab a woman by the arm, the crime is Assault, but if I grab a woman's breast, it's Sexual Assault by Contact. The difference is the arm is not legally recognized as a sexual organ, but breasts are. 

Here's the problem: as a man, if I expose my genitalia in public then I've committed a crime. However, there's a growing movement that women can exhibit their breasts (again, legally recognized as genitalia) in public without it being a crime. There could not be a more perfect example of a 14th Amendment violation. 

Either breasts are genitalia and are protected as sexual organs and punished by harsher penalties, or alternatively they aren't genitalia and groping incidents become regular, plain assault. Alternatively, alternatively - make exhibition of all genitalia legal.

I hope you'll read this as you would A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift, that following this logic (breasts are simultaneously genitalia and not genitalia) to it's natural conclusion will produce nonsensical results.

**UPDATE** In my state:

" 	(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: 		(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals"
gpt
I think you might be confused about what sexual assault is. It's not assault that specifically includes genitalia; it's assault of a sexual nature. Non-consensual foot-fondling could easily be sexual assault, even if it goes nowhere near any genitalia. It's all about context – was the assault done with a sexual purpose? One of the leading cases up here in Canada puts it this way:

>The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act, and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct, including threats which may or may not be accompanied by force, will be relevant. (*R v Chase*)

Note that the body part touched (whether or not it's genitalia) is only one thing to consider in the analysis of whether an assault is sexual or not.

So yes, grabbing a woman's arm might very well constitute sexual assault depending on the rest of the circumstances. There's no necessary connection between "things that cannot be exposed" and "things that can be the target of sexual assaults." Forced kissing is sexual assault, for example, but nobody cares that lips are exposed every day, because sexual assault is all about the context.