I’d like to start by making four points completely clear.
First, I support the right of boobs to air their opinions in public places.
|
|
Second, I have a reflexive dislike for the incessant promulgation of laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. I reckon half the population has something annoying in mind that they would like to see stamped out or restricted. Sure, I myself have sometime considered the advantages of an ordinance forbidding pea-brained bimbos from loitering in Meeting House Park Friday noons with intent to annoy . But if everyone got their favorite nuisance regulated society would be immobilized and half the population employed in policing the other half. In short, a couple of incidents, however objectionable to some people, are not grounds enough for yet another ordinance.
Third, I stopped thinking about sex entirely when I turned sixty-five so it does not personally concern me if some women choose to present themselves in public with bare breasts. For all I cane they can go about bouncing, jouncing, jiggling, flopping, and sagging at will.
Fourth, although it may be my right, I wish to assure my fellow townsmen that I have no plans to bare my aged, pallid, paunchy, hairy, mole-studded naked torso to the public view. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence “a decent respect for opinions of mankind require that” I spare them this gruesome spectacle.
The issue at hand seems simple enough at a superficial glance. Men are free to wear bras and have breast enhancements, so women should be free to expose their torsos to the warming rays of the sun. But unless you are fanatical enough to equate equality with uniformity and ignorant enough to believe that equality and equity are synonymous you will see there are complications.
Consider. The exhibitionist-in-chief has announced that men are “welcome” to the Meeting House Park display, but only if they don’t gawk or leer. Leaving aside the question of where she gets the authority to decide who is welcome to a public place she pays no taxes to maintain, we must wonder about her rationale for welcoming men but excluding boys from the show.. When I was a smutty-minded juvenile of 12 or 13 this would have been a gala event.
More significantly, our heroine shows a baffling ignorance of the male’s biological hard-wiring. I propound no theory, but I submit that gazing, gaping, and gawking at external female physical attributes is intrinsic to the male mental constitution. Can this woman be ignorant of the billions of dollars men spend examining these attributes? Is she unaware of surveys showing that 80% of men admit to viewing pornography while 19% admit to lying on surveys? Does she take no satisfaction from this thriving part of the green jobs sector? It has a lower carbon-footprint even than higher education, e.g., there are no dormitories for the women on display.
It is udderly futile and contradictory to forbid leering while advocating naked nipples. The gaping male is a constant menace to an attractive woman whether she is sitting, standing, walking, running, kneeling, squatting, bending, or laying prone, face up or face down. And if there were none but homely women in the world, the relentless male gaze would study them with equal intensity.
More, there appears to be no part of a woman’s body, hair to toes, that men do not take pleasure in studying and no part which fails to attract some variety of fetishist. I’ve never actually heard of an ear fetishist, but I feel certain that somewhere in our great Republic there are men gloating over their collections of stolen ear-rings.
Strict Moslem clerics, dedicated to keeping the male mind focused on Allah, have a clear sense of male biological imperatives. Cover the female body and the male leers at her hair. Cover her hair and the male fixes his lascivious eyes on her face. Cover her face and her eyes becomes the focus of forbidden desire. Only a total veiling, coupled with the promise of a whole platoon of virgins in the after-life serves to turn the male mind from thoughts of sex to thoughts of Allah.
That’s the way it is, has been, and ever will be. No legal sanction exists which will end it, although women can defend themselves against most overt leerings and droolings by contempt and disdain. Men rarely have the courage to defy them unless they are protected by a herd. But this is only possible because the culture supports women in disdaining unseemly excesses of the male gaze.
A woman who claims the right to a leer-free exhibition of her balcony is deluding herself by imagining that one part of the culture’s restraints can be freely discarded while the rest will remain intact for her convenience. A civilization’s culture is nearly as complex and interdependent as the physical environment.
Well said prof. Frairy, and very thoughtful and funny also. For a man on the wrong side of 60, your wit is sharp as the most well cleaved obsidian……………….Keep writing.
Ty MacDowell, the organizer behind a topless march through downtown Portland earlier this month says she’s upset.
MacDowell and about two dozen women were surrounded by scores of men during the march, snapping pictures. MacDowell was hoping to make a statement about the double standard in our society. And in an interview with our media partners at the Portland Press Herald, she now says the fallout has been difficult. She said she was “enraged” by the number of men who turned out to watch. She also says many of the pictures of the event have shown up on the internet and it’s being treated like porn, which is the exact opposite of the reaction she was hoping for. MacDowell says she’s thinking of organizing a topless game day on the city’s east end. But, she’ll attempt to avoid the circus atmosphere of the march by keeping any mention of the event off social networking sites, where word about the march spread quickly last month.
Topless March Organizer “Enraged” At Men’s Reaction
Posted: Monday, April 12 2010, 12:39 PM EDT
I pasted this off from News Channel 13’s website. It says it all don’t you think. I was greatly disturbed by comments made on the Sun Journal website in which a person said that all things like this come with some shock value but that will go away with time. They also like to say that it is fine for the children to see this behaviour because they were breastfed. Baloney. I was breastfed and I have no memory of the event. My three children don’t even remember having a bottle after they were done breastfeeding. Folks are also saying that it is the religious “nuts” who are saying that nudity is wrong and sinful and breastfeeding is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Breastfeeding is the best thing for a baby and women have been doing it for hundreds of years, Christian or not, and doing it discreetly without complaint. A woman’s breast are also a significant part of a man’s sexual desire for a woman. If this were not the case then we would not have a major porn industry or a multi-billion dollar industry of women having silicon stuffed into their bosoms. I bet they don’t do that to be more natural. Women know that their breast are desirable and they enjoy having that power over a man which is why they try do draw attention to them in the way they dress or otherwise. The Bible has plenty to say on the subject.
Song of Solomon 4:5,11 ” Thy two breast are like the two young roes that are the twins, which feed among the lilies. ” ” Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.” Read the rest for yourself and you will find what kind of sexual pleasure God has in mind for a married couple. Shakespeare, eat your heart out. Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” I Timothy 2:9 ” In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” Genesis 3:7,21 Verse 7 occures after Eve eats the forbidden fruit and Adam also. “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” Verse 21 occurs after a lengthy conversation with God about their sin and is just before He drives them out of the Garden of Eden. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” So you can see, there is a time for nudity. With your wife or husband in a relationship that God does want for you and hopes that you will pleasure in. Aside from that, you can see why we clothe ourselves. Getting dressed is nothing new or oppressive. We have many laws in place to keep children away from sex and sexual things. I think that sexual harrassment charges will be in order if any of my children have to confront this in any situation around town. Don’t worry though for the time being, we are staying well away from town and all of its businesses, including Hannafords and Wal-mart. Wake-up Farmington. Rome was once the greatest place on Earth, but it fell from within due to its overwhelming immoral filth. There are obviously those that would take right to that same place without a care for you or our innocent children. For all of the men posting all over the place claiming that they are helping Andrea celebrate gender equality and that breast are nothing sexual, “just mammary glands,” is that why you have the topless girl car freshener hanging from your rearview mirror?
Astute, well reasoned and HILLARIOUS! Well Said Mr Frary!
Well, done, Mr. Frary.
While we all recognize that there is no law or ordinance stopping these women from walking around Farmington barebreasted, they must recognize the negative ramifications of doing so. I don’t believe they do, they seem to think their opinions and rights are more important than any others and they demand that they be respected for something many think is very disrespectful. One supporter has written “Freedom of speech, no matter the venue, is valued in America,” which was encouraging to read until she went on to say, “this march is a huge step towards getting rid of negative body image and I think everyone should respect it. If you disagree, fine, but do not claim that these women are seeking attention for being shameful or foolish. They are doing what every women has ever wanted – walking outside without feeling the need to look perfect or hide their body and they have more courage to do what they are doing than anyone who sits back and insults them.” Apparently the writer does not see her own double standard – some of us do think they are being shameful and foolish, and anyone who truly believes in free speech should not be telling us that we can’t express that opinion. These marchers can feel and say whatever they wish in support of being topless, as is their right, but those who disagree have just as much right to feel and say what they wish about it. People watching on the day of the boobs parade have the right to make comments that the marchers might feel are inappropriate as well. The true meaning of free speech for EVERYONE should be the lesson learned out of this entire very unfortunate thing, not that some women walked topless in little Farmington Maine. In my personal opinion, these women might like to think they are making a feminist statement of some sort, but really they are just making fools of themselves while looking immature and self-centered. And it is definitely my right to say so!
And for those avoiding Farmington, I don’t blame you a bit. So am I.
One more thing – can anyone tell me if UMF allows its female students to be topless on campus?
John, thank you for the insights and wit.
I understand what you are trying to convey, Mr. Frary. I have read many of your satires in the past and enjoyed them. However, I found your use of slang and descriptions of this area of a woman’s anatomy to be insensitive and degrading to women in general. And, contrary to what you say, an ordinance is most definitely needed in this case. This is no laughing matter. This is immorality and indecency being paraded in our streets. The town leaders are more concerned about a possible lawsuit than in protecting the minds of our children. If a child sees this woman downtown (and, as you know, we are NOT forewarned about all of her appearances) it should be considered child abuse. For the rest of us, it is sexual harrassment.
I also want to thank Wilton Man and Nancy for their comments.
By the way, we CAN get an ordinance passed. Rumford did; so can we.
Sandi – the human body isn’t immoral or indecent. We were born naked. (even you)
The minds of our children won’t be injured by seeing a topless woman. In fact, I plan on bringing my 10 year old there to witness the narrow-mindedness of people like you that will be protesting such an innocent event.
UMF said students can be topless on campus, but I believe that shirts are required for everyone in class.
Sandi, your probably right about an ordinance. While most people don’t want anymore laws , sometimes they have to be made. Its too bad 99.5 percent of the people have to spend the time and money to pass laws to protect themselves from the .5 percent . You know, like the person who has to drive 100mph thru town, let their dogs run loose, wrecking other peoples stuff,stumbling drunk on the street, or, running around in a public place exposing themselves to something nobody wants to see in the name of some noble cause. Oh well, pass the ordinance and then these guys will get fined.Once they have to pay a price with money they probably dont have for acting like fools,then their “noble cause” will fold like a cheap lawn chair.
And has any looked into the sexual harrassment issue? Seems to me there is some merit in pursuing this angle since that is what it is to those of us who find this offensive.
Dave,
I won’t be there protesting. I won’t subject myself or my family to this indecency. People like you just don’t get the point. The point is not the right to go topless, but that those who choose to practice that right are shoving their beliefs down our throats in a way we can’t ignore. If they want to go topless, do it someplace where it won’t offend others. We are just asking for common courtesy. Period. But because they consider no one but themselves, they will force the rest of us to work to get this right overturned. And they’ll end up losing the right in the end. Go ahead and take your 10 year old- I’m sure s/he’ll appreciate a free peep show and enjoy the exhibitionists and the leering photographers. Sounds like quality family time.
let it be…
all these people want is attention. If it is ignored, it will stop. Can you imagine if that was the biggest concern in your life? These ladies ( and I use that term loosely) have a LOT to learn. They look like idiots.
No Dave, the human body is not immoral or indecent; however, likening a newborn baby to what this woman is doing is idiotic. Adults with any kind of morality know that it is wrong to display themselves to anyone but their husband or wife. Shame on you for bringing your son to such an event!
Dave,
There is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains have fallen out. Sandi did not say that the naked body is immoral but that exposing it where it does not belong is. It is also a good thing that you have not posted your last name because I would report you for exposing sexual material to a minor and sexual abuse.
Don’t we already have a problem with teen pregnancy and the like, let’s just make it worse. And by the way, where do you stop at this. The woman who posted on the Sun Journal said that the shock value will go away. Will you all say the same thing when they fight for total nudity? When they accomplish that, will they then move on to sex in the streets? What will stop them? If we have no moral absolutes as a base things get pretty nasty. This is what happens when you don’t have any personal morality. Taking a 10 year old to purposely see this is sick. One of my co-workers just got back from a trip to Las Vegas and he told me that if you are not 21, there is nothing you can do or go there. Wow, and that from Sin City. I wonder why?
Anyone who would bring a 10 year old to watch some woman run around topless is lacking plenty of parenting skills. I think Dave is joking here, nobody is dumb enough to do something like that to their own child………….
Hey Dave,
Can you say, “Aiding to the delinquency of a minor”? or “Endangering the welfare of a child”?
I hope it is a memorable family outing.
Jojo,
Thanks for your input. It would be nice to be able to just “let it go,” so I understand where you’re coming from. However, you may not be aware of the fact that this is an international movement, not just a couple of local women who don’t understand the differences between men and women. It won’t just “go away.” Who would have thought that the public schools would be pressured into letting transgenders use the opposite sex’s bathroom – but it’s happening. There will be a public hearing about it soon in Augusta. I’m not trying to change the subject, just endeavoring to help us all realize that when those who stand for what is moral do nothing, immorality will rule. It is our children’s and grandchildren’s futures at stake.
And Wilton Man, thank you again for your comments. You are absolutely right; it will be child abuse for this man to take his son to this event. I cannot help but feel that all those who are condoning this, even our town leaders who, at this time, have refused to put this item on their next meeting’s agenda (for phone numbers to call-look at Chris’s letter to the editor, “Regarding Toplessness”) are contributing to the sexual abuse of any minor who sees this woman (or women) downtown. It would be illegal to show them pictures of this nature, yet they can go downtown and see it exhibited in the flesh? How backwards is that?! Yet, it comes as no surprise to me – for in our “modern” society (It actually seems like this is something that would take place in a more “primitive” culture); it seems that more and more there are those who, to their own shame and detriment, call “good evil and evil good.” (Isaiah 5:20a)
Public displays of nudity will only generate disrespect toward women. This has nothing to do with equal rights. Sadly, the woman/women going topless in public have no selfrespect nor respect for womanhood.
Disrobing in public is, and has always been, considered indecent, even criminal or insane, by the majority of people.
A law or ordinance should be passed immediately to criminalize toplessness in public..
Another thing to consider when regarding the motives of the people who claim to be parading for equality: most of the mediums they are using to advertise the event have a ban against showing bare breasts. Neither Facebook nor the newspapers that have run the story will show them. If these people are truly against that kind of inequality they should be refusing to have anything to do with those mediums.
Sandi,
Glad you brought up the transgender bathroom situation. The bathroom is a place that one expects privacy. Much like your home or telephone. It takes a court order to wire tap your phone or place hidden mics. in your home. So how does the Maine Commission on Human Rights get the authority to remove your expectations of privacy in a restroom? What will stop the perverts from acting transgender, just to get at adults or children?
A Vet
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1973 which is the standard used today, “Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable “national standards” when attempting to determine whether certain materials are obscene as a matter of fact. … It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City.” In a nutshell, what this international group find ok, we Farmington citizens don’t have to.
What can be done? The town won’t work on a ordinance. They want to wait for it to be handled at the state level. What can citizens do to stop this foolishness? Has anyone contacted a lawyer to see if any of our rights have been violated by having to see this indecency in public? I would think that the downtown businesses would want to pursue this.
Dear Embarrassed,
I have a friend who is checking on some options; I’ll let you know what I find out.
Where is SAVES on this issue? If they don’t come out against the march then we should withhold funding of SAVES!
This is really a non-issue, by mid-summer this will all die down and go away. Hopefully by then another useless law won’t have been brought into play, tightening the chain on our lives.
I should point out that I used the expression “boob” only in its original sense—“dimwit” According to Prof. Partridge the anatomical usage only appeared in the 1920’s. As for “balcony”, a simple translation of the French usage “balcon”, I don’t see why that should offend. As for my descriptoin of the motions of unholstered breasts, it seems accurate enough.
I remain opposed to any ordinance unless this becomes a repeated annoyance. My preference is to let it die out from its inherent silliness. Apart from ancient Minoa I’ve never heard of a civilization that did not inhibit such displays. And those inhibitions were cultural, laws would been seen as redundant. It is a bad sign when cultural norms have crown so feeble that laws are required to enforce them.
For a little perspective, young Moslem and Hindu girls in Kashmir risk having acid splashed on their faces if the bare them to the public.
I found out today that the town selectmen, etc. are researching present ordinances to see if anything can legally be applied to what is happening downtown.
Mr. Frary,
I appreciate your clarification; however, I still feel you went too far in trying to be witty. Although you may have used the slang term in its original usage of “dimwit,” you must also admit, it was a play on words.
Also, an ordinance is needed. When researching the laws concerning this, I discovered that this is an international movement, not just a couple of misled college students. (www.gotopless.org) Lots of people thought the homosexual issue would just “go away;” now it’s considered the norm by almost half the state (according to the people’s vote concerning gay marriage). People get immune to what they see and hear. The more they’re told it’s “okay” the more they start believing it. Besides, by the time it happens again, it’s too late. Unfortunately, laws are needed in this country to protect what “used to be” the cultural norm. If you haven’t noticed, our culture is sinking deeper and deeper into immoralityI Immorality is starting to become the cultural norm. I am surprised and dismayed by your seeming lack of concern for the families in this community who are trying to rear their children to know the difference between right and wrong. If someone were to show children pictures of nude people it would be considered outrageous, and, I should hope, sexual abuse or child abuse – yet it can happen in the flesh in their hometown and parents are powerless to protect their children. No wonder so many people are refusing to shop in Farmington! This issue may not affect you, but it does affect others. And it has been repeated; she has already done this several times downtown. The march is announced so at least people can avoid going downtown on the 30th if they so choose, but the other times are not/have not been announced. An ordinance is definitely needed.
Also, I don’t think the perspective fits: #1. We are not living in Kashmir. #2. There’s quite a difference between revealing your face and what this young woman is doing.
Wow – guess all the flooding this spring must of left a craft filled with puritans on the shores of the Sandy River.
No, I’m not going. I don’t want my daughter subjected to the narrow mindedness of people that have responded on this thread. Now THAT would be child abuse.
To be fair for all those seeking ordinances, you might as well include the baring of the male torso as well. And why not require all dresses to fall below the knee. Heck, let’s move even further and require women to require burquas in public. Yeah, let’s become like Iran. Good luck to the morality police of Farmington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFg_W-vNB88&feature=related
Getting back to the purpose of the event – which is as I understand it, attempting to change the double-standard of public torso nudity.
So let me ask those oppose this display so much — why is it ok for men to walk around topless, and not women?
SANDI, In an age when Hollywood wit relies so heavily on urinals, defection, upchucking, little old ladies and small children uttering cute obscenities, and punch-lines are so often bellowed obscenities, I think I may be permitted a little word-play. Ridicule needs more lee-way than a position paper.
I’ve said the matter does not personally concern me. It does not. No reason it should. The majority of the American public will get the culture its deserves and the police force is powerless to enforce norms if a majority or even a significant minority of the population has abandoned them.. I sympathize with parents who wish first to protect their young children from such vulgarities. Teach them to despise such shows. Teach them that adult behavior is a mark of self-respect. Teach them to hold themselves apart from the infantilization of American culture. Laws are little help.
Dave, many of us would like to see an ordiance passed that bans ALL toplessness, male and female. They want equality for both sexes, I say let’s give it to them. It may not the be the equality they want, but they are the ones who have opened this can of worms. They’ll have to live with whatever consequences their actions bring.
Yeah – that’ll do it. Be sure to have police at the local swimming hole, to arrest all the guys not wearing tops!
Dear Mr. Frary,
Hollywood has much to do with the mess our society is in today. That doesn’t mean we have to bring their vulgarity (which includes their very warped sense of humor) into our homes or our streets. (By the way, I added what I did about the “play on words” only because you stated you had ONLY used the word in its original sense, which, was not the case.)
And Dave, I would agree with Embarrassed. If they want equality-so be it. I think it would be a great idea for both genders to cover up.
And to both of you, I would say – what we are talking about is a far cry from what Moslem women wear, so please stop making the comparisons because they are a world apart. You have taken a very reasonable sense of what is decent and tried to make it seem radical.
I,m with A Vet, where is SAVES? They have the double standards too! If it were men marching Saves would be there.
Hi Pete. I’m with both you and A Vet. Let’s all give SAVES a call. If anyone should see the dangers in this, it should be them. (And some in our society wonder why there are so many teen pregnancies, rapes, and violent crimes against women.)
Really, when all is said and done this leaves me feeling sad. My husband and I have always tried to buy locally. I have 12 grandchildren for whom I enjoyed shopping in downtown Farmington on birthdays, Christmases, and for “just because” gifts. It felt really good knowing I was supporting the businesses there, and it was always a very pleasant experience interacting with store employees. I loved Reny’s and Devaney, Doak, and Garrett and will miss them terribly. However, I certainly do NOT want to see topless women while shopping, like many others I find it embarrassing, uncomfortable, and therefore something I wish to avoid. Sadly, it seems Farmington considers bare breasted women walking the streets more important than customers like me, since the town refuses to address the issue. And I don’t for one minute trust that the nudists are going to just go away, I think they will continue as long as it’s legal for them to do so. Oh well, maybe this will help the economy in downtown Rumford, which is where I’ll be shopping now.
CHAPTER 34-C
Public Nudity Ordinance
ADOPTED JUNE 11, 1996
AMENDED JUNE 10, 1997
The purpose of this Ordinance is to: define what constitutes public nudity; regulate where it may occur; establish
enforcement procedures for violating where it may occur; and provide civil penalties for said violations.
(1) As used in this ordinance:
(a) “Entity” means any proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, business trust,
joint venture, joint-stock company, or other for profit or not for profit organization.
(b) “Nude” means the showing of:
1. Human or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering;
or
2. Any portion of the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female buttocks. Attire
that is insufficient to comply with this requirement includes, but is not limited to,
G-strings, T-backs, thongs, and other clothing or covering that does not
completely and opaquely cover the anal cleft or cleavage of the male or female
buttocks; or
3. The portion of the human female breast directly or laterally below a point
immediately above the top of the areola with less than a fully opaque covering;
this definition shall include the entire lower portion of the human female breast;
but shall not include any portion of the human female breast exhibited by a
dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bathing suit, or other clothing, provided the areola
is not exposed; or
4. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and
opaquely covered.
(c) “Person” means any live human being ten years of age or older.
(d) “Place Provided for Set Apart for Nudity” means enclosed single sex public
restrooms, enclosed single sex functional shower, locker and/or dressing room facilities,
enclosed motel rooms and hotel rooms designed and intended for sleeping
accommodations, doctor’s officers, portions of hospital, and similar places in which
-179-
nudity or exposure is necessarily customarily expected outside of the home and sphere
of privacy constitutionally protected therein. This term shall not be deemed to include
places where’s a person’s conduct of being nude is used for his or her profit or where
being nude is used for the promotion of business or is otherwise commercially
exploited.
(e) “Public Place” means any location frequented by the public, or where the public is
present or likely to be present, or where a person may reasonably be expected to be
observed by members of the public. Public Places include, but or not limited to, streets,
sidewalks, parks, beaches, business and commercial establishments (whether for profit
or not for profit, whether open to the public at large, or whether entrance is limited by a
cover charge or membership requirement), hotels, motels, restaurant, night clubs,
country clubs, cabarets, and meeting facilities utilized by any religious, social, fraternal
or similar organization. Premises, or portions thereof, such as hotel rooms, used solely
as a private residence, whether permanent or temporary in nature, shall not be deemed
to be a public place.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally appear nude in a public place or
in any other place that is readily visible to the public, except a place provided or set apart for
nudity. It shall also be unlawful for any person or entity maintaining, owning, or operating any
public place to operate and knowingly, or with reason to know, permit or allow any person to
appear nude in such public place, except a place provided or set apart for nudity.
(3) A person violating section (2) of this ordinance has committed a civil violation for which a fine
not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) may be charged to the person(s) and/or entity(ies)
violating section (2).
(4) This ordinance shall not be deemed to address photographys, movies, video presentations, or
any other non-live performances.
(5) This ordinance may be prosecuted by the Town Solicitor or by private action brought by an
aggrieved party in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(6) Interpretation – Interpretation of what may not be clear in this Ordinance shall be according to
the intent of the Ordinance.
(7) Conflict within this Ordinance or with other Ordinances – Whenever a provision of this Ordinance
conflicts with or is inconsistent with another provision of this Ordinance or of any other
ordinance, regulation or statute, the more restrictive provision shall control.
(8) Separability – Should any section or provision of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be
invalid, such decision shall not invalidate any other section or provision of this ordinance.
Ron,
Where did you find this; does it apply to Farmington?
Where is this ordinance from? If this is Rumford’s, when I called the town office, they said they had a problem with Rumford’s “human or female ” phrasing. So how about “human” instead?
Asking men not to stare at a woman who is bare chested is like asking me not to stare at Nic Cage. Come on girls make a valid point…….exploit your brain not your chest.
I’m glad I’m going to be in New York on the 30th of April; hell I might even move there.
And Dave….have you been to Iran?
Mr. Frary,
While I enjoyed reading your comments, I have a college education. Those not educated to the same level may have difficulty comprehending the full content due to your choice of words. It is my experience that you try to gain credibility as a “professor” though utilization of an advanced vocabulary. This ploy, while effective with some, does not validate your opinion as being correct.
Mr Casey,
Please stop with your superior attitude, because of a college degree. My son and I did not have a privilaged(sorry) a spoiled education, yet we are both successful. I am sure that you will find it hard to believe, but we can read and comprehend all written words.
No need to be name calling. You paid for an education. The rest of us earned an education.
A Vet
And to think I left my old hometown where you all are staring down the barrel of the boobs! I thought I was having it tough down here in the borderlands of southern Arizona staring down the barrels of every make and model of firearms while being invaded by drug smugglers (and yes, they do shoot to kill!), illegal invaders, killer bees, mountain lions, and several species of deadly rattle snakes. Thank God I don’t have to beware the seditious public invasion of bare boobies!!