My name is Chris Phillips. I am a concerned resident of a neighboring town or yours. I am writing this letter because my heart is grieved for this community. You may or may not be aware of what has been and continues to be happening in your town in regards to the Topless female(s) that are walking around publicly.
I just could not believe it at first. I thought surely the local law will arrest her (them), but Farmington has no ordinance against such behavior and the state has no “Public Indecency (or Nudity)” law to enforce such an arrest. It is my understanding that the selectmen and town manager could act since the state has given them the power to do so; however, they haven’t acted but have rather deferred this matter to the state. Other towns in our state have realized their right of “home rule” and the independence that each town has to make such laws.
I write because I cannot be silent. I am a local contractor who has a lot at stake by writing to you for my livelihood comes from you. I work, live, and worship in Farmington. I am a local boy through and through. Born at the Old Farmington Hospital in 1973, graduated from Mt. Blue in 1991, I have lived in Franklin county all my life, studied for my degree at Central Maine Community college, served in the Maine National Guard, and serve my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (and consequently you folks thru Him) at the New Hope Baptist Church on Perham Street. I LOVE THIS COMMUNITY!
I ask that you hear me out and do what you will with what I have to say. I just stated that I am putting myself at risk here. The safe thing to do is to be quiet and let others stand up for what is right. However, we do not live in a world that stands up for what is right for fear that someone may consider us as not politically correct, narrow, bigoted , etc. That IS a real fear, but one that cannot and will no longer be one that keeps this local concerned citizen of the Greater Farmington community silent!
I ask you townspeople of Farmington – do you want your children, husbands, boyfriends, mentally handicapped, or anyone to be exposed to topless females? By exposed, I do not mean that they will have an opportunity to view if they so choose, but rather they will not have a choice. We ARE being exposed to this. Yesterday my wife, who is expecting our first child, was working with a gentleman with disabilities at a downtown Farmington business when a topless female stopped my wife to try to give her a flier for an upcoming topless parade that will happen April 30th on Main St. Farmington. Can you imagine the confusion that encounter created in this gentleman’s mind? He, in his own way, knew that something was very wrong there. Who is going to protect him, my wife, my unborn child, your kids, and your families? A quote that I heard long ago, and I’m not sure who it is that originated it, but it goes something like this, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” I know that taking a public stand on a moral issue is not a popular thing to do, but we must! If we do not, then the Farmington that I know and grew up in and around will be gone!
As I was growing up in the late 1970’s and through the 1980’s, the greater Farmington Community had a sense of right and wrong (not what was Politically Correct). Public nudity was definitely. . . Wrong. Is that different today? I say it was and is still wrong. I do have my reasons and they stem from my relationship with The Moral Law Giver Jesus Christ. Growing up, however, I didn’t have any “religious” connection nor did I want any, yet I still knew that certain things were right (love, joy, peace, goodness, gentleness, long-suffering, faith, meekness, temperance) and certain things were wrong. Public nudity was one of them!
You may be thinking, “Don’t shove your morality down my throat.” I can understand that, but I must respond to the immorality that is being shoved down all of ours.
In closing, I just want to say again that I love the town of Farmington and the sense of community it has or had. I am greatly concerned by the direction in which it is headed. This direction is very different than the one in which I grew up. I am enclosing the contact information for the Town Officials. If you are concerned about Farmington’s direction please contact them and voice your concerns.
Selectmen – Jon Bubier 778-2249; Ryan Morgan 778-2452; Steven Bunker 778-2558; Nancy Porter 778-3779; Drew Hufnagel 491-7299; State Rep. – Lance Harvell 778-2981; Tom Saveiello 645-3420State Senator – Walter Gooley 778-2368; Town Manager 778-3464; Town Office 778-6538; AWAP State 800-559-2927; Children’s Task Force (Farmington) 778-6960; County Commissioners 778-6614; County Sheriff 778-2680; Franklin County Chamber of Commerce 778-4215; SAD 9 Superintendent 778-5332
Chris Phillips
New Sharon
Is this person real, or is this a finessfully-prepared letter designed to parody the nonsense behind … what should one call it…such grossly exaggerated, surrealistic, and self-righteous judgmentalism? It seems more likely to be a spoof. If not, and this person is correct, then Horrors!. I admit, I had no idea that bare ta tas were akin to IEDs in their power to bring down a whole community. How weak must be our culture if that is the case. This must be an Al Qaeda plot! Or perhaps it’s the witches of East Wilson! Be scared! Did John Frary put this person up to this?
What does this topic have to do with your God? According to your Bible, was man ( and consequently, wo-man), created in his image? So basically what you are saying is that a man’s image is OK to look at, but for a woman to ask for that same right is somehow morally wrong? Do you hear yourself and how ridiclous that sounds? Guess what? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, don’t look at it, and certainly don’t push your self-rightous, holie-than-thou point of view on anyone else. Save it for your church, because I’m sure that your God loves that kind of attitude.
oh noes!
Somebody should setup an online petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/
You will see that most residents do not support the topless parade
Chris,
Fabuous letter. There are many of us out here who agree with you 110%. This is our home, and we don’t want to be forced to have to see this indecency either. The only good that hopefully will come out of this is that by bringing our attention to this legal right, we can get a law passed to make it illegal. If these women weren’t so in-your-face about it, trying to shove their agenda down everyone’s throats, then it wouldn’t become a political issue. But they have forced the issue and now citizens can take action. No matter how you feel, there is a time and place for everything, and taking into consideration other people’s feelings and thoughts and trying not to offend when out in public is just common courtsey. But you have to have some measure of maturity to understand that.
Thank you, Chris, for your heartfelt letter and thank you for speaking out. This immorality will have an effect on downtown businesses. After being exposed to this woman’s toplessness, last night while eating dinner at a local restaurant, we are joining those who are avoiding downtown until graduation is over and this woman moves on. I encourage downtown business owners to band together and voice your concerns to local and state officials. Your united voice will make an impact.
Despite all the heavy-handed religious rhetoric, “There’s a time and place for everything” is not an unreasonable point of view on this issue. I wish you’d focused more on that than trying to push a Christian agenda.
It would probably better serve those of you opposed to this march to leverage such a brand of rational argument, rather than beat your fellow citizens about the head with proclamations about your “Moral Law-Giver” and what you perceive to be “God’s will.” Is it still possible for people with different sets of values to have a reasonable, adult discussion about our community?
It is unbelievable how venomous some of these comments are towards Christians and Christianity. Some of the contributors here use every opportunity that they can to get in some jab, usually in a very sarcastic and degrading way, at those who have any moral convictions at all. And if you happen to bring your love for the Lord into it–Well! Then there are no holds barred.
People, this isn’t even something questionable, this is something that nearly everyone KNOWS shouldn’t be happening in a public place. I laud this man for standing up and saying that he is a Christian and giving his name and saying what he did in such a Christian fashion. He didn’t call names or bash anyone. He didn’t fill his letter with sarcasm and derogatory comments. To Chris Phillips, whom I do not know–I second what Embarrassed in Farmington said–there are MANY of us out here who agree with you 110%.
Jess, The point IS that we DON’T want want to look at it or participate in it, but that the topless self-righteous selfish supporters are pushing it upon us by doing this in public where people traveling in town can’t help but see it. Do you see how ridiculious your response is??? Go topless in areas where others aren’t offended and don’t have to see it. Oh, but that would mean you would have to consider others than youself, that common courtesy obviously is lost on this group.
I see it as a college student trying to shake up the ‘status quo.’ College students have been protesting and rebelling since colleges were instituted. It’s what they do in some form or another.
I have read 90% of the letters responding to this “display” and what came across to me is it is amazing so many adults feel and think the bare female breast is obscene, dangerous if displayed, horrendous, and should be banned. It says something about our society. The nude female form has been sculpted and painted over the ages. Many are standing in museums. The nude male form has also been displayed.
I am not hearing protests over this form of nudeness.
I am saying this with a great deal of laughter…. What do you think these breasts are going to do? Jump off her chest and wrap themselves around your face so you cannot breathe, therefore threatening your life?
This young lady evidently wanted to ‘get a rise’ out of stodgy adults, and guess what? She’s gotten it.
Sometimes the best way to take the wind out of a situation is not to react. All you are doing is adding the desired fuel to the fire (so to speak).
To this I will agree: there might be a more desirable personal place to be in the presence of a live bared female chest; but it is not the end of the world if you aren’t.
Will I make sure I am in town during the hour of the Breast March? No. I see my own every day. However; if I happened to be in town and did see a bare breasted woman, it would startle me because I am not used to seeing something like this in our country; but I would re-focus the same way after seeing a moose crossing a downtown Farmington street.
Who would have thought the female breast had so much power…..? They’re mammary glands.
It is the mind of man who has made them into “weapons of mass destruction” (smile).
So, Chris, let me get this straight. To protect you from having ta tas thrust into your face, you want to pass a law (oh no, more ‘big government”) to make peoples’ legal rights illegal. Huh? Treat the ta tas the way I treat the flat hats/gray people, just walk past, don’t let them down your throats or into your faces. Does that sound mature? Doh? About this whole issue, remember…religion poisons everything.
I hope that the shops downtown take this for what it is worth. I can not expose my two teenage boys, or myself, to the possibility of running into some woman parading around downtown topless. Sorry Reny’s, Broadway Barber Shop and House of Pizza but I won’t be visiting your fine establishments any more. Perhaps you could file suit against these fine women for loss of income. Just a thought.
I agreee with Phil, set up an online petition so we the people of the county can voice our opinions. Our children do not need to be exposed to nudity on the streets of Farmington.
Thank you Chris for writing this, we agree with you. We are afraid to drive into downtown Farmington with our two sons, we are worried about what they will be exposed to. Have we thought about what we are exposing all of our children to? Why is it that children are restricted to see certain movies, buy certain magazines, but they can view nudity on the streets of FARMINGTON. And it’s legal?? Are you confused? So are our children; we are sending them mixed messages. “It’s not o.k. for you to see nudity here, but its all right for you to see it where we live and shop.” Lets stop this now before nudity is in all of our neighborhoods and beaches! We will not be going into downtown Farmington until this issue is resolved.
It figures some one would try to get their God involved.
I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in equal rights. If you don’t want to look at my or someone else’s body, then don’t, but don’t shove your God down our throat.
Fortunately, the law is not equivalent to the morality of evangelicals or there wouldn’t be a bar in the county.
Some appropriate Edmund Burke quotations:
“I take toleration to be a part of religion. I do not know which I would sacrifice; I would keep them both: it is not necessary that I should sacrifice either”
and this one seems very relevent for the representatives not to knee-jerk legislate at all.
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
It’ll be cold again soon and all the breasts will go undercover.
I agree with the editors of the SJ that the open carry student in Portland should join the topless students in Farmington. Just as breasts are perceived as the ultimate symbol of femininity, so the penis is the symbol of masculinity. While it is properly legal to wander about topless it is illegal to wander about bottomless, but not illegal to openly carry that fine penis substitute, a great big gun.
Chris – you’re entitled to your opinion and I admire your eloquence when you use your own words and not conservative talking points like the PC comment. Further, were I a fundamentalist Christian I would hesitate to label God’s greatest creation an obscenity. The human body is only obscene when it is blown apart in the name of money, religion or power – or for that matter, by accident. In one piece, old or young, it is a thing of beauty.
Chris, Thank you for a clear and thoughtful contribution to the public nudity issue. I do not think of you as a bigot; however, a few of those who have responded to your contribution are, indeed, bigots. They are rude and impolite. They have made no real constructive contribution to the discussion. One would, at least, think that Jonboy would have learned better manners on Walton’s Mountain!
The chief issue here is public courtesy. The people who are encouraging this public display are not thinking of the feelings of others, of children, of older people, and of other women.
Well, if it still stays legal in Farmington, or in the state of Maine, cheer up, because seven months out of the year it will be too cold to parade in public naked to the waist. Sort of a law of nature stepping in, sans legislature or town father
What if a man was walking around bottomless, is that okay?
What if someone wanted to commit bestiality at the gazebo, is that okay?
What is the problem, just look away… after all indecency is just a construct of oppression.
I would hate to be judgmental about peoples right to expose their genitals or frolic with other of God’s creatures.
God forbid if I believe in God and talk about it, after all that is truly indecent.
Thank you, Chris Phillips, for a well-written, thoughtful letter which surely speaks for many people.
After reading through these comments, I find this very concerning. People are jumping on this issue like some great civil rights act, or some attack on our moral standing, or even that this is something new.
I will agree that I do not want my kids viewing a topless woman while I’m with them ANYWHERE. But, the fact is, no law exists, or has existed in Maine to keep women from going topless. The only thing that has occurred is an awareness of that fact. This event I am sure will spark some women to wander around topless for a period of time. I highly doubt it will become the norm, it’s still socially unacceptable by the majority for woman to wander around topless. I’m neither in support or in opposition of this issue, to me it’s really a non-issue.
The thing that bothers me in some respect, is where was this fervor when our flag was being trampled on and mistreated last year? The same rules apply, but apparently naked breasts rank higher than the symbol our founding fathers adapted over the years to represent a country of free people.
Farmington is a college town and what would one expect. A young woman blessed with thoughts of equal justice and following in the footsteps of courageous American women fighting for their rights. Wish I had the courage to join her but males already have rights to expose their bodies. You go, GIRL, just hold your umbrellar a little higher..walk on through the rain.
I think the first thing that all of you arguing this from a religious standpoint need to realize is that your religion is NOT the only “source of morality” for all mankind. I understand that you’ve been taught that “there can be no morals without God,” and what you should understand is that we live in a nation founded on the idea that religion should play *NO PART* in the decisions our government makes.
I’m not scared or offended by this woman wanting to walk around topless outside. Sure, I think she’s trying to defend an argument that didn’t really need defending, and I’m not sure she’s really doing any service to her cause by making a spectacle of herself, but I won’t get in the way if she feels like a better person for having done it. We all know the truth is that as soon as this march is over, our focus will move on to other (perhaps more relevant) local issues.
So to those of you defending your decisions in the name of your dogma, more power to you. It’s your right as an American citizen to preach all day and night to the rest of us about how “immoral” her behavior is. We’ll listen, and if we disagree, well… there’s an old story about flies and honey. I can’t remember the details.
Just one other thing: regarding some sort of legislative response to this issue, local or otherwise, I’d like to quote David Harsanyi, columnist and author of “The Nanny State” —
“Feel free to be indignant and hurt. Feel free to boycott and to cast nasty aspersions on the decency of those who offend you. But let’s keep government out of it. If we’re not careful, the war against offensive speech could morph into a war against free speech.”
You have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to NOT be offended. Remember, some of the things you say in defense of YOUR beliefs could be as offensive to others as you perceive their comments to be.
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
-John 8:7
Thank you, Chris, for writing a very polite, well-thought out letter. It is sad to see our society leaving the morality it once held dear. it is also sad to see those, who say they stand for equal rights, bashing Christians for exercising their right to believe in God and their right of free speech in expressing it. (Those of you who bash Christians for such things do not stand for equal rights – only what you perceive as your own.) Christians have the moral compasss of God’s Word to help them distinguish between right and wrong. There are also others, who are not Christians, but respect those who are and respect morality in general – they also are wise enough to know that what this woman is doing is a very selfish and wrong act.
Oh, and by the way, yes – God did did design men and women in His image, true, but not for the purpose of flaunting their private parts in public. And if you don’t admit there is a difference in the exposure of this area of the male anatomy and that of a female, you are showing your own ignorance.
Also, for those of you who think this is just the single act of a UMF student and it will go away when school ends, think again. In researching the laws of Maine concerning this, it has come to my attention that what this young woman is pushing is an actually an INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT, and, if something is not done to stop it now, nudity in public places will become the normal accepted thing in our country. Would this woman be allowed to go into an elementary school in Farmington and stand before a class of children half naked? Absolutely not! Then why can she parade around town where children are? Parents are responsible for what their children see, do, etc. – yet, in this case, they have not been given that choice. Essentially, they have no rights – for this woman, in pursuing her own rights, has violated the rights of every other person coming through Farmington when she is downtown. That is NOT equality! A petition must be started and given to the selectmen of this town; a law must be enacted in Maine. Once again, it is the “rights” of the minority pushing their agenda and trampling on the “rights” of the majority. If we do not do something to stop it – then shame on all of us! It’s time for us, the tax-payers who have provided those streets and sidewalks downtown, the business owners whose businesses are and will be hurt by this, anyone who shops in Farmington, our town leaders, and anyone who believes in decency to take a stand. The people of Farmington need to take back their town!
So, there’s a lot of religious fervor here. Let me just get this straight. You folks believe that just because you don’t agree with something on the grounds that it is “immoral” by YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS that it should be ILLEGAL? Well, lucky for many of us, that’s not how the world works. Guess what? I think parading around your religion and passing out fliers full of rhetoric to everyone who passes is equally as offensive to me personally as you folks believe topless women to be. Especially since this type of garbage goes on DAILY. Yet I’m not trying to get some petition together to stop various groups from doing what they do! Not even when they come to my DOOR AT HOME and try to force their literature and personal attempts at conversion on me WHILE I’M IN MY OWN HOME!! That’s the one place where I have earned the right to be safe from this crap, and YOU folks think that type of disrespect is just fine!!! Who do you people think you are? You pass “moral” judgment on anyone and everyone who does not agree or see things the way you do, and try to make anything and everything you disagree with illegal. And then when you don’t get your way, you complain and protest and threaten and generally get more obnoxious. Hey guys, Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, naked. We’re all born naked. If clothing is the only thing representing the extent of your morality, time to take a long look in the moral mirror.
You know what I do when I pass by a church whose message or congregation I find undesirable? I DON’T GO IN!! I don’t petition to have the chuch closed, and I don’t try to make attendance at that church illegal. These women do NOT represent moral turpitude, depravity, or any such thing. They’re even telling you when and where they’re going to be “parading.” If you don’t like it, stay away at the appointed time(s). Just as you all find topless women morally reprehensible and offensive, so do I find being handed a religious pamphlet a tried to refuse, being approached as I try to walk my dog, and the blatant disrespect you folks exhibit when you invade my personal space by showing up at my house and soapboxing. It’s absolutely NO DIFFERENT.
I am not taking sides on this issue, though I can see both point of views. I suggest we pass a local ordinance which requires everyone to wear shirts in downtown Farmington area. While dining at the Homestead last summer, I was equally offended as a rather large man walked without a shirt, fully exposing his distended midsection.
Since the college student desires equality this serves both sides well.
Chris, thanks so much for writing your letter, and putting yourself out there on an intellectual level. I takes so much more courage to do that than to just rip your clothes off. And if someone reads your words, and disagrees, no cultural consideration has been violated. To you and to other Christians reading all this, I would encourage you to pray for this misguided young woman. She doesn’t realize what she is really doing to this community. She doesn’t realize what she is really doing to herself and her future. If you look at her facebook page, you will see that she is confused about many of life’s issues, and is worthy more of pity than contempt.
Having said that, I apologize to the downtown businesses, because you won’t have any of my business until after graduation. The cry of the offenders is “if you don’t like it, don’t look”. Well, I do like breasts- and I do realize that they are a body part that not only feeds babies, but generates sexual arousal. I choose not to be exposed to bare breasts in public. Whether that choice is exercised by where I choose to avoid going(nude beaches, downtown Farmington) or whether circumstances change due to action by town political officials or the state legislature remains to be seen.
To ME
Excuse me, but this is different. You have a choice of reading a pamphlet or not. You have a choice of listening to someone or not. You have a choice to enter a church or not. But when people are downtown shopping and they turn a corner and are suddenly face to face with a half naked woman, they have NOT been given a choice. They have already been exposed to her indecency. (I’m not just talking about the march on the 30th. This woman has been downtown two or three times unannounced except to the police. ) She is trampling on the rights of others.
Have you heard the theory of the box of crayons? They are all different; yet live in the same small box. Likened to living in a small town ya think? I don’t see the point in this parade; where it’s already legal. All you’re going to gain is the legal right to cover it up! When she stops folks on the street; to try to give them a flier; she is intruding on their rights. Just like the Jehovah’s coming to my door. Anyone who would stop giving business to this man for writing his opinion is the bigot here. I like the analogy of seeing a moose on Main St. He moves on; so do you. And this comes from someone; who goes to church; but not the Judge!!
Dear Benjamin Pottle,
In this country we do have the right to be offended. Per the many comments above that state their anti-religion views they seem offended, so are they the only ones that can be offended? Oh since you want to quote the bible here you go: “And the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special MODESTY. 1 CO 12:23
I disagree with God is not the source of Morality, he surely is. However if you would like to take God out of morality this is how humans define the word:–noun,plural-ties
1.conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.moral quality or character.
3.virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4a doctrine or system of morals.
So if I were to agree with your viewpoint and keep God out of the subject I am still able to argue against your concepts.
I think that some people missed one of Chris’s main points- even before he was a Christian, he would of thought of this as wrong. It is not socially acceptable for anyone, male or female, to walk around downtown without their shirt on.
She is an attention seeker and she is getting it- so she will escalate the behavior. It is sad that the downtown businesses are the ones who will suffer. My son needs a haircut – but he will not be going to the barbar shop downtown as he usually would. Although, I am sure that once people clear out of downtown, she will show up elsewhere.
I called the town office and was told that they want to defer to the state. It sounds like Farmington could pass an ordinance- it would take awhile, but it could be done. But the town officials are concerned it might not hold up in court, so instead of trying to do the right thing and take a stand, they will wait to see if the state does anything…in January. So we are going to have to deal with this indecency all summer long. The UMF student is not the only one involved- She is getting support from all over, so it most likely won’t end when she’s gone.
And Rory, I agree with you 110%.
I appreciate your letter Chris. Thank you for standing up for what’s right. I don’t understand why some find it so difficult to recognize that men and women are different. That’s not something to fight against but to be secure in. Someone earlier asked if we think that just because something is immoral by our own personal standard it should be illegal… isn’t that how all laws are born?
Yes, Rory – thanks for posting the dictionary definitions and yes, Embarressed in Farmington, you are right – the town selectmen are trying to pass the buck. By the way, Rumford has such an ordinance; it is my understanding that their town selectmen did not want to do anything as well, but one couple started a petition, a town vote was eventually taken, and an ordinance has been in place for years. Maine has a law which states that towns have the right to pass such ordinances.
Hi Rory,
Thanks for responding. I agree, let’s take a look at this from a secular point of view. Like I said, there’s a time and place for everything, including legally walking around with your top off as a man OR a woman. Do I think downtown Farmington in the middle of the day is an appropriate time and place? Absolutely not. Would I support some sort of restriction in that SPECIFIC area, in order to make that environment as friendly as possible for the local businesses we all love and try to support? I probably would. What I take issue with is when people move so quickly past local, community concerns and instead climb the pulpit to preach that “this behavior should be banned” because, in their own view, it’s “immoral,” and expect the rest of us should just fall in line.
You know, I think it really boils down to that one word. The discussion should be framed around what is appropriate and socially acceptable for the downtown area of Farmington, and instead we’re arguing over a universal definition of the word “morality” that none of us will ever reach a meaningful consensus on.
Also just wanted to clarify one thing I may not have worded well — I wasn’t saying that you don’t have a “right to be offended” — of course you do. You can feel however you want about anything. I said we don’t have a “right to NOT be offended;” That is, nowhere does our law guarantee you the right to live out your existence without ever having to look at something you don’t like.
I also just want to say that it’s a little disheartening to hear so many people say they won’t be visiting any downtown businesses while this woman is being allowed to do her march. Haven’t they suffered enough from the economic downturn without you taking away your patronage because of something they have absolutely no control over? Argue all you want, try to pass laws stopping it if you like, but regardless of how you feel about this issue, don’t take it out on your friends and neighbors trying to make a living. They don’t deserve that.
Benjamin,
People have a right and responsibility to protect their children. While this woman is walking around Farmington not fully clothed, that right has been taken from them. They have a right to shop elsewhere.
I agree that it’s a shame it is hurting local businesses – which is one reason we need to have a local ordinance. I have urged the businesses to ask the selectmen to get an ordinance passed in Farmington for the purpose of protecting the people who shop there and the businesses which are downtown. If everyone would urge the businesses to back up such an ordinance then it would be a help in having that goal accomplished.
Just another thought, Benjamin,
It’s not the people who have decided they cannot shop in Farmington (at this time) who are hurting the local businesses but rather the one(s) who is/are causing the people to have to shop in another location.
Local business owners need to get together with town leaders and pass a law to keep these wannabee social, heros off main street and keep them on weird street where they belong. Maybe businesses could all cough up a small “tax” to pay for sunblock and fly dope….dope being a operative word here, and a small piece of land out in the middle of nowhere. That way , they could all practice their topless faith without “barely” bothering anyone at all. That wouldnt work tho,…..cause the whole point of their cause is to BOTHER people going about their business..They need attention. I sure am glad my daughter went to Orono. Most of the kids there dont have time to be on a “march”, they are studying to be engineers and working for a living………………………………………………………..Na zdravie.
I am sorry to say that I, too, will not be shopping in downtown Farmington, either until this act of exhibitionism stops. I see that young lady’s point, however, I do not think going toplessness MALE or FEMALE is appropriate in a downtown business district. I cannot subject my children to this behavior. Have some scruples!!
With that being said, I would also like to hope that if she is at UMF to become a teacher that any school district that she may apply to teach in turn her away. I would not want her teaching my kids.
Sandi,
Excuse me, but NO, it is NO different. I can turn the corner and run right into any number of relgious zealots without having been given a choice, just like you can round the corner into some bare breasts. And, these people are just as much “in your face” as the topless young lady is. The only difference is that the way they LOOK doesn’t personally offend me. (Though if it did, we’d be dealing with EXACTLY the same thing, wouldn’t we?) But their overall MESSAGE does. The ONLY choice I am given dealing with these people is whether or not I take their message to heart.
When you round the same corner into a morbidly obese (but fully clothed) hideously ugly individual (speaking in gender neutrality), are you not in some way offended? Let’s get real here. But do you raise a stink and try to create ordinances barring fat, ugly people from shopping downtown in fear that more fat, ugly people will “parade around”? Don’t think so. It IS the same.
And Steve,
If you mean to imply by your last post that UMF students don’t study or plan to work for a living, you sir, are completely ignorant. I graduated from UMF as a Dean’s List student myself, and personally I work 65 hours per week on average. How many hours per week do YOU work? It’s clear how well you studied (assuming you even completed school), since you can’t even be bothered with the basics. You know, things like punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar. Why don’t you climb down off your high horse and do some studying of your own? Seems like you might benefit from a little education to go with all that good work you do.
How and why would you punish the business owners for something they do not have any control over? This is extremely small minded and petulant.
To avoid shopping or riding in town during the time of the march is one thing; but to boycott businesses forever is outrageous behavior.
You are, as the old saying goes: “Cutting off your nose and spiting your face.”
You’re behaving like spoiled children when you take that route. Work to get things legally changed.
Please reconsider your actions. Don’t punish the innocent.
These people don’t deserve spiteful behavior.
Just another reason to keep your kids out of the Progessive Youth.. er.. public school system.
Good to see our tax dollars hard at work.
Jean Minor,
You do realize that this is not a one-time only deal, don’t you? This organizer has been parading around town on her own, topless, up and down streets whenever she wants, according to the newspaper articles. It is not just on March 30 that town people will be subjected to this. We are not doing this to punish the businesses- we are practicing our right not to be offended by the selfish behaviors of a few. To call those of us who choose not to be subjected to this small-minded and petulant is outrageous in itself. We choose to practice our right to shop where we won’t have to deal with this indecency. Or are “rights” only given to those who choose to remove their tops?
Dear Me,
Let’s suppose I was walking down the street and somebody handed me pornography. The moment I realized what it was I would throw it away because I do not want anything to do with that trash for many reasons. I would assume you do the same with the religious material that you are referencing. OR, If someone was standing on the street corner espousing the glories of Athiesm, I would gladly ignore them (actually, I would probably ask them to have a discussion about it). But in this scenario I would have little concern about my children because I will have the opportunity to teach them what I believe with the hope that they will accept it as well.
However, if we turn the corner and see a topless woman, I can in no way shield or disregard what they just saw. You claim that it is NO different because you also hear want you don’t want to and are given things to read that you don’t want to, but it is very easy to disregard those. My children however would have had the image of walking pornography confronting them. I think it’s quite easy to see a difference here.
If you believe that there is nothing wrong with these topless displays, than you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the subject which is not likely to easily be overcome. I would assume, however, that when it comes to understanding one another’s sensitivities, that the difference between invitation and confrontation is abundantly clear.
Dear Me,
I’m sorry you have so much anger in you. From the attitude display in what you write, it is obvious that you have a chip on your shoulder toward those who believe in God and anyone who takes a stand for morality.
This woman is indecently exposing her private parts to the public; it is far different to walk around town half naked than to walk around fat and ugly. What kind of comparison was that? There IS a difference.
Me, thanks for the name calling and patting yourself on the back. Congrats on your deans list accomplishment !! I have never heard of such a thing! Thank you for your kind comments on my brains and work ethic. You really are too kind. By the way,”ME” sounds like a good pen name , cause you are really good about talking about yourself. I am willing to compare brainpans,anytime at all. We can have a I Q test in public, maybe the same day the boob lady has her “march” You can then show everyone how smart you are!!! We can test on history,grammer,physics,math,science,computer skillzzzzz, biology, gardening, speech,raising kids.cooking, painting,carpentry,masonry,plumbing,electronics (kinda like computers,but not really) dishwashing,laundry, whatever you like……..what say you? Deans list , “ME”???? By the way, in my last post ,my trigger happy “me” friend, I wrote,”most of the kids”, you being a genius in english, should have noted this small, but very important part of my post.” Most” ,does not mean all, labeling everyone would be kind of …………..ignorant,.would it not?? ………..Na zdravie!
Steve, let’s face it, the ones who are doing this do not seem to be the brightest of the bunch. They seem a few clowns short of a circus. Even a two-year olds know there are consequences to their actions (Johnny, if you touch the hot stove, you’ll get burned). If these women really were interested in keeping their topless right in Maine, then they would go out of their way to be discreet and not offend anyone. You know, thinks of others. But because they are so in your face about this right, the consequence will be that citizens will mobilize and fight to see this right taken away. So either a) they subconsciously want this right taken away, or b) they missed the class about consequences to actions. Or c) they think they really will change mainstream America’s belief system by walking topless, which demonstrates the clowns and circus analogy I mentioned earlier.
So…..whoever “ME” is….Let’s quote from your last entry:
“When you round the same corner into a morbidly obese (but fully clothed) hideously ugly individual (speaking in gender neutrality), are you not in some way offended? Let’s get real here. But do you raise a stink and try to create ordinances barring fat, ugly people from shopping downtown in fear that more fat, ugly people will “parade around”? Don’t think so. It IS the same. ”
Comparing people who are overweight and not attractive is HARDLY the same. 1. Overweight people are not overweight to “make a statement”. 2. “Hideously Ugly” individuals are not intentionally so for the shock value they can generate on a downtown street.
Shame on you “me” for even attempting to make such a comparison. This young “Lady”, (I use the term loosely) is intentionally creating a spectacle of herself for no other reason than to do just that….Shock the General public.
Put your shirt on little girl…..if you had any intellegence at all you would realize that this WILL follow you and probably create trouble for you down the line……………
I think we need to be careful about calling a topless women “walking pornography.” Some writers here would evidently not give entire countries the honor of their presence because custom there does not dictate a woman must cover her breasts. The operative word is “custom.” Ideas of what is and is not decent change over time and across cultures. I am not that old, but I can remember when some of the things women wear as “pants” would have been called “tights” and worn only under skirts, and when what some of them wear as “shirts” and “dresses” would have been seen as slips and camisoles. And after all, a woman wearing a two-piece bathing suit top away from the beach is basically wearing just a bra. I can also remember when some women decided to go braless. Some found it very uncomfortable and put their bras back on, but others have remained braless. Most of us women would find ourselves called indecent when walking through the ultra-orthodox section of Jerusalem or any number of Muslim-majority countries even now, for showing our elbows, ankles, faces, hair, knees — you take your pick.
I found out today that the town selectmen, etc. are researching ordinances which are presently in place, etc. to see what can be done about this situation.
The talk from the guys on the streets that I’m hearing is” Wow, boobs,’ in a sexual tone. So where is SAVES? what happened to ‘not in my town’ logo. Maybe they are not doing what they should be doing. hmmm.
Pete,
I have supported SAVES for years. All I ever heard was that men were bad. So with a display of sexual energy from this march, some men will be excited and may create a sexual assault situation. Again men are bad. Thus no reply from SAVES. It seems that SAVES supports the march to prove their point.
A Vet
To Kippy,
I appreciate what you are saying. I see a different culture for what it is. It doesn’t mean that i would not show my presence, but it does not mean that I would accept that aspect of their culture as necessarily appropriate either. I see a great difference in our situation. A young woman and others who join her are trying to rewrite our cultural norms and very strangely only in area that involves sexuality. I have not heard any discussion regarding equal pay for equal work, the exclusion of women from various offices and organizations, etc. – just “we want to be topless like the boys are”.
If I can apply the term authorial intent to our infamous demonstrators, I think (i could be wrong, but i think) she is showing herself off with the purpose of having people notice. “Cause” or no “cause”. In my opinion it’s on the same level with pornography.
My apologies for not mentioning this earlier: Chris, Praise God for your courage. Your letter was eloquent and accurate. Thank you!
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.
Remember “SOUND OFF” in the old Franklin Journal? This segment of the Daily Bulldog trumps the
old “call in” at the Journal and increases the space allowed. How cool!
Keep it up, Bulldog! Gives everyone a chance to speak their piece!
It would seem that every member of every conservative religious group has chimed in here t0o make it look like the community is outraged. Truth be told, it is the thousands who haven’t spoken who will vote on any ordinance. Their deafening silence tells me that they don’t care about the issue, and are likely to vote down any such ordinance. DON’T TELL MAINERS WHAT THE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!!!!
James, James,
You have spoken of your college degree in another thread. So please go back for some typing skills.
A Vet
I didn’t realize that having a college degree automatically cured my disability and required me to be perfect.
I didn’t realize that having a college degree automatically cured my disability and required me to be perfect. Hmmm
I am thinking twice about whether I want my child to attend any school related events on the UMF campus.