Do you remember when Janet Jackson had a “wardrobe malfunction” exposing her breast for a half of a second during the Super Bowl halftime show? Americans were outraged because it was inappropriate for family viewing even though it was only for a half of a second and she was adorned with a nipple shield.
It led to an immediate crackdown and widespread debate on indecency in broadcasting, resulting in a $550,000 fine by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against CBS, as well as more fines for indecency violations. The media watchdog group Parents Television Council (PTC) issued a statement condemning the halftime show, announcing that their members would file indecency complaints with the FCC and the council supported the FCC’s decision to investigate the halftime show immediately.
What is happening in Farmington is much worse than the half-second nipple covered peep show we got during the Super Bowl halftime. These women are walking around in a public place with their breast and nipples showing and no one is doing anything about it. In our society, as seen with the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, exposing the female breast and nipple is considered indecency and should be treated as indecent exposure.
These women are using the excuse that it’s all about equality for women. I for one have never ever felt less than a man because it is more acceptable for a man to go without his shirt than it is for me. It makes me feel different than a man not less than. I like being different than a man. I like being a woman and there is nothing wrong with that.
A women’s breast have always been considered a very private part of the body and very different from a man’s chest. Because I do not want to display them in public does not mean that I am ashamed of my body but that I respect myself and others. As a citizen of Farmington, I do not appreciate the disrespect these women have shown by imposing their right on others who do not want this pushed upon them.
What about our rights? If we have to do business in the downtown area, this is being forced upon us. Many people are avoiding the downtown area in fear of meeting up with women without their shirts on. I myself feel the same and have also been avoiding the downtown area. They talk about freedom, what about our freedom? Freedom to shop downtown without feeling offended? Freedom from indecency?
On the day of the topless parade my 12-year-old niece was here on vacation from New Hampshire with her friend. They wanted to walk to Reny’s but we had to explain to them that they could not go downtown because there was going to be a topless parade – they looked at us puzzled exclaiming, “Why would anyone want to do that?”
(Sometimes children have more sense than adults.) Later, when all the traffic had cleared we told them it was OK for them to walk to Reny’s. Lo and behold when they got downtown there were two women walking towards them without their shirts on. They were very embarrassed and said they turn their heads and started running.
This is unacceptable behavior for these women to be in a public place where there are families and children. There is an age appropriateness on movies with breast viewing for a reason. You have to be a certain age to buy a playboy magazine – why? – it’s only flesh. What’s the big deal? Funny that everyone came with camera in hand for something that was no big deal. Why were all the news photos of their backs if it was no big deal?
I have had customers coming in complaining that the girls in school are being harassed by the boys to take off their shirts. Express your rights. Is this sexual harassment? Then I had another customer say that someone in her work place made a similar comment. This march has not helped women at all; it is very degrading and an embarrassment to women. This needs to be stopped now. I would like to think that it will never happen again since Andrea (Simoneau, the topless march organizer) is graduating but she was quoted on WMTW TV – Portland news that she would be back to lead another march. http://www.wmtw.com/news/23325372/detail.html
I am asking you to take a stand for what is right and appropriate for a community filled with families. Please put a stop to the indecent exposure by contacting our leaders in office. rdavis@farmingtonmaine.org, lanceharvell@hotmail.com, wgooley@hciwireless.net, governor@maine.gov.
Thank you,
Tammy Parsons
Farmington
I could not agree more. This is a very well written letter. Thank you, Tammy for sharing your prospective.
I don’t live in Farmington, but used to enjoy shopping downtown. I too am avoiding it now, and plan to stay away. Good luck with this, Tammy, I hope the majority prevails so that people can feel comfortable in the downtown area again.
With tourist season upon us, I think there should at least be warning signs at the town lines letting tourists know that women can and do go topless in Farmington. Seems only fair for visitors who otherwise could be unpleasantly surprised by something so socially unacceptable to most people. Families can then decide if they want to come into town to explore and shop or continue to another location. It would also cut down on calls to the police from visitors who might think decency laws are being broken.
Ms. Parsons,
It would appear that you are confusing pornography, which is intended to sexually arouse, with non-sexual top-freedom. Playboy and other such magazines are pornography. They appeal to the prurient interests. Likewise, the wardrobe malfunction appears to have been orchestrated to appeal to the prurient interests. You state that “Americans were outraged ” over the incident, but I am an American and I was not outraged, so you obviously are over-generalizing. The majority of the opposition (and lobbying) came from organizations such as the American Family Association and other religion-based groups who are attempting to force their beliefs upon the nation, by making such statements, inferring that they represent a larger portion of the American public than they actually do.
The reason that your niece reacted as she did, is because she was taught to respond that way by conservative role models. Please do not attempt to manipulate her response into representing a natural response by a child. There are many who would not give it a second thought. Again, your experiences and training does not necessarily reflect the values of the rest of the nation.
I cannot defend the attempts by teenage boys to get females to take off their tops. There is a natural curiosity as one grows into adulthood, as to what others look like. This occurs for both sexes, and is based upon insecurity over their own bodies and their own body development. The use of “hormones” as an excuse for being rude, is not acceptable.
However, if breasts were left uncovered more often, there would be no more curiosity over a breast than there would be over an earlobe. Everyone knows what an earlobe looks like, and it is morally acceptable to leave them uncovered in our country, but they are the subject of arousal for some in a sexual situation. It is what we hide that is the focus of curiosity and arousal.
In more liberal societies, there are people who spend their day without any clothing on. They have children, and their children see the human body in its natural state. These children develop a much more positive body image, and have higher self esteem. They also tend to have less promiscuity, and as a result, fewer teen pregnancies. So, it could be said that covering the human body leads to lustful activities, and should be outlawed. See, there are two sides to every argument.
the events you describe happening at the school are very disturbing.
I wonder how Miss Simoneau feels about this?
I think people are forgetting that the town’s hands are bit tied, if it’s not illegal in the state itself.
I am also wondering which liberal societies Mr. Casey is talking about with more nudity and less promiscuity.
james, it didn’t sound like she was “manipulating” anything. just relaying to us what happened and that it embarrassed her niece.
Tammy,
Thank you. I know there are many people who agree with you.
As I said in another comment, people who expose themselves in public have, through time, been considered indecent, sometimes insane, and often arrested. Toplessness in public is offensive. It’s selfish and really has nothing to do with equal rights.
The topless women are exhibitionists (maybe for various reasons).
It’s time for a state-wide law banning it, which would mean Maine would join the majority of states–45, or at least a local law, like Rumford’s.
Tammy,
You have expressed very clearly and concisely what many of us feel. This is exactly how I feel. We “conservative role models” applaud your letter. If 45 states have laws that forbid displaying sexual organs in public, then it seems Maine can also. Farmington has the right to have an ordinance that forbids this- I think we really need to pursue this with the town officials. Thank you for the email addresses, Tammy.
Not so sure the town’s hands are tied. In Maine’s Classification of Offenses, found here
http://www.maine.gov/dps/cim/crime_in_maine/A-AnnualReportsp6-11/Offense.htm
is this:
17. SEX OFFENSES
(Except forcible rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice.) Include offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like.
• Adultery and fornication.
• Buggery.
• Incest.
• Indecent exposure.
• Sodomy.
• Statutory rape — (no force).
• All attempts to commit any of the above.
I interpret this to mean that if a majority of citizens in a community feel, for example, bare breasted females in public areas are offensive to “common decency”, then the behavior falls under indecent exposure and ordinances could then be put in place and enforced. The state has no specific law about it because it has been left to individual communities to interpret common decency as regards each community. And that’s why it’s important for Farmington’s citizens to let their leaders know how the majority of its citizens feel about topless females in its public areas.
Oh, for crying out loud! I do wish, Ms. Parsons, that you (and the people who agree with you) would stop throwing around words like “indecent”, and “immoral” regarding this issue. Those are value judgements based on your own religious beliefs. The appropriateness of women baring their breasts in public is a matter of cultural bias, NOT morality. If you saw a bare-breasted !Kung or Yanomami woman, would you condemn her for lack of morality and decency and make the assumption that she lacked character, or would you rightly acknowledge that in her culture, bare breasts are the socially acceptable norm? Ms. Simoneau is neither indecent nor immoral for choosing to be topless, nor is she breaking any laws. She, and the other women who have joined her in baring their breasts, are merely engaging in a social experiment designed to make us aware of our biases, and to push the envelope on what is considered socially acceptable – and why. Please stop assuming Ms. Simoneau has no morals simply because you find her actions puzzling or innappropriate.
Thank you, Tammy, for a well-written letter. You bring up numerous good points and it IS time for the town of Farmington to do something such as an ordinance similar to the one in Rumford. In the weeks since my husband and I were first exposed to this indecency while eating dinner downtown, I have not come across ONE person, Christian or otherwise, who has felt female toplessness was a positive thing. What next??
1. breasts are not “sexual organs”
2. you’re offended. we get it. tough luck.
Exactly Tammy. James Casey, way too much to wade through. Sell it to the cheap seats.
jonboy,
Breasts are considered sex organs and organs of lactation. Perhaps a better word would be reproductive organs. Or do you doubt they are part of the female reproductive system, too? But as a women, I can assure you breasts ARE sexual organs.
And yes, we are offended. If that bothers you, perhaps you should avoid letters like this.
Jonboy,
1. We will have an ordinance.
2. You’re offended. we get it. tough luck.
Not so quick there Nancy, who made you the spoke person for the majority? – in Newport, Maine in 1998 a young lady ignited a neighborhood feud and attracted the world’s attention by mowing her mother’s lawn topless. The issue was put to town voters as to whether this sort of activity should be made illegal. Election day came and went, and Topfree won by a landslide: 775 to 283. I would say we have a vote before we start throwing around terms like “majority of its citizens”. Sorry WiltonMan you don’t count.
maureen: i admit that my knowledge of the female body is secondary, and i was not a biology major. so please explain to me, in as simple terms as possible, what the precise role of the female breasts are in human reproduction? or is it possible your partner is merely confused…
also, i am not bothered in the least by what may or may not offend you. but as i’ve said before, you have no legal right not to be offended. if such a right existed i would be exercising it daily. as for avoiding letters like this, that’s almost as difficult as you avoiding topless women in downtown farmington! i mean, the bulldog should really have some disclaimer.
wilton man: ordinate away! if you wish there to be a mandate that all farmington residents, male and female, must go swimming fully clothed, i don’t see any reason why there should be any further discussion about it. and please, for the sake of my weak stomach, be sure to include language requiring livestock and pets to be clothed at least from the waist down.
Pathfinder, have you been following this? We are seeking STATEWIDE legislation. I do believe(last time I checked the map) that Wilton is in the state of Maine. Nice try.
Pathfinder, please point out where I claim to speak for anyone other than myself? I’ve not said anything other than what I hope will happen: that the majority of people will decide they do not want to see topless females in public areas of Farmington, and that an ordinance will be put in place. Of course I don’t know what is in everyone’s mind. That is why, like yourself, I too would like to see the matter put before the people so the decision can be made by the majority, either for or against.
BTW, I am not a citizen of Farmington either. You could say I’m a concerned citizen of a nearby town who no longer spends money in Farmington. (Spent $200 on Mother’s Day gifts over the weekend, but not a dollar of it in Farmington, sadly)
PATHFINDER-
Of course Wiltonman counts. Out-of-towners do business in Farmington. And all citizens count in statewide votes.
Do women in Newport walk around topless in public? Is it commonplace there, now? Or did the citizens vote to leave the grasscutter alone………cutting grass on private property? That seems an awful lot different than parading around downtown topless.
Not a bad idea, Jonboy, seeing how beastiality in the streets will be the next norm that us “prudes” will have to “get over.”
It’s a shame that the University doesn’t have enough oncampus activities to occupy their student’s spare time so they have to disrupt our town to get their kicks.
Every hysterical minute WiltonMan. Have you?
“This is probably going to have to be taken care of at the town level, but that’s not without its problems,” said Harvell. “A town could put an ordinance on its books, but that can be challenged and they’d probably have to fight it in court.”
The problem, according to the United States Constitution, is that any law must pertain to men and women equally. That means forcing women to cover their torsos would also have to apply to men.
“That’s problematic because none of us wants to see a teenage boy playing basketball outside get arrested,” said Harvell. (Excerpt from BDN)
Conjecture Nancy, based on your hypothtical grouping of toplessness with incest and statutory rape. And then followed by your comment “And that’s why it’s important for Farmington’s citizens to let their leaders know how the majority of its citizens feel about topless females in its public areas.” If you felt that the majority did not believe the way you do why would you push people to contact their leaders? Obivously given you stated opinion on this subject on the 10+ postings on the bulldog – yours is a moral issue. The question then is “whose morality should be legislated” – time will tell – but don’t hold your breath. I for one will continue to spend my money in Farmington.
Why are you people punishing Farmington businesses? What can the businesses do to stop some woman from walking around topless? It could happen anywhere else in Maine as well, and I have a feeling it just might. Work for whatever ordinance or law you wish, as is your right, but please don’t punish Farmington businesses. Times are tough enough these days already.
The point is clear. Male breasts and female breast are the same, save for lactation abilities of the women, that make them larger ( most of the time). The point of to march was to make people aware of this. That we are more similar then some will agree.
I am a man of larger size and would parade down farmington, or any town without a shirt on, because I don’t want to offend anyone. Women should be able to as well if they feel comfortable.
The only reason that women don’t is because men for centuries have look at a women’s breast and get aroused because they don’t see them often in our society.
We are a suedo-puritan society. Travel the world, you will see a lot more nudity on TV and in everyday life, because it’s accepted.
What needs to happen is to have the freedom for women to do the same as men, walk around when they feel comfortable so it becomes commonplace. Get rid of the stigmatism.
It’s not wrong or immoral, just learned/ingrained in us that it’s wrong. Open your minds and change your opinions.
jonboy, are you serious that you don’t know the role of breasts in human reproduction? How about breadfeeding? For millions of years, before infant formula was invented, babies were fed by breastmilk, and it is still the best way to nourish babies. Please tell me you were aware of this…
Pathfinder–there is a HUGE difference between someone going topless on their own private property vs public property.
If a man walked down the street with his jewels hanging out, he would be arrested.
Likewise, if a woman walks down the street with her ta tas hanging out, she too should be arrested for indecent exposure. I shall call the police when I am confronted.
Nancy Townsend Johnson –
What a shame that the hardworking and economically challenged small business owners of Farmington are being punished by people like you. “Shirt and shoes required” signs have sprung up all over town. Obviously, shop owners feel the need to ensure the comfort level of patrons like you, and are doing all they can, and still – despite the fact that they have absolutely NO control over the sidewalks of Farmington, you deny them your business. Are you really so immature that the mere threat of a glimpse of a breast is enough to make you avoid a shopping trip to the kind of retailer that most needs business in these hard times? Keep up the self righteous boycott, Nancy…I’m sure Wal-Mart will appreciate it when you and your like-minded “Christians” do their dirty work for them.
Maureen –
Breasts are not reproductive organs. Women without breasts are perfectly able to reproduce. They may not lactate, but they can ovulate, gestate, and produce healthy offspring.
Please tell me you were aware of this.
Christine – there is not a huge difference if someone can see someone from public proberty going topless on private property (i.e. the road). This was the issue in the Newport case and hence one of the many problems with passing a law against toplessness in public.
Look at all the discussion that has occured over this issue. With the TV, newspaper and radio news coverage (WKTJ did a live remote broadcast during the march) brought attention to the issue that is is not illegal to be in public exposing one’s chest, male or female.
It looks like Andrea Simoneau has done exactly what she intended to do. Congratulations.
Kudos to MS. Simoneau for keeping the discussion going. I find it funny that the people who want to ban the mammaries in public are usually the same people who cry whenever lawmakers try to make a reasonable gun control law. “YOU CAN’T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS!” and then, “Please SAVE the CHILDREN from those Evil boobies! THERE OUGHTTA be a LAW!” Get over your hypocrisy and let people be. Breasts are for feeding and they are not reproductive organs. Quoth the Dylan, ” Even the president of the United States sometimes must stand naked….”
If anyone starts a partion or tries to pass a bill about this I will be right there to sign it. Men and women both should not walk on public street without a shirt,. As for basketball or the hayfields that is fine. Most stores have a sign on the door ‘NO SHIRT….NO SHOES….NO ENTRY” and that means the men also. Do it anywhere but walking in town streets.
Pathfinder – my post was not a “hypothetical grouping”, it came directly from Maine State law. You should have checked the link I provided. As for your statement that it’s a moral issue for me, of course it is, and so what? Did morals and common decency suddenly become things to be ashamed of and avoided? BTW, before anyone tries to say this is a value judgement based on my religion, I am not religious. But even nonbelievers have standards.
Dan I am not “punishing” Farmington businesses, I am simply unwilling to shop in an area where I could be forced to see something I find personally offensive. This is what people have been told too, that if we don’t want to see it to stay away. But IMO Farmington businesses can do something about it, just as Sarah is doing with her letter. It’s their choice, just as avoiding the downtown area is my choice.
Charles Darwin: “It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man, rudimentary mammae exist. These in several instances have become well developed, and have yielded a copious supply of milk.”
If you want to play the “breasts make milk and making milk is part of propagating the species and propagating the species is reproduction and reproduction is sex and sex is a bad, evil, immoral thing that we should never be reminded of” game, then MEN CAN’T GO TOPLESS EITHER.
I’m sorry. I’m sorry to all of the women out their that aren’t allowed to define their identity for themselves. I’m sorry that our society,(our men and our women), have it so ingrained in them that your breasts are always lewd and sexual that you have to hide your body away for fear of a) sexual assault and b) religious righteousness.
It is a woman’s choice to not feel sexual at all times, and it is society’s duty to accept that. Hiding female bodies so that men never have to be confronted with a female body that they aren’t allowed to grope because it is in front of them is not the MORAL thing to do.
The MORAL thing to do is to be good people (good Christians if you happen to be a Christian) and give our women the same freedom that men enjoy – to not live life as a sexual object that must cover up to avoid sexual, physical, or moral assault.
aald – Women’s topless basketball sounds very interesting, but I’m guessing the spectators would do more “dribbling” than the players!
As for topless haying, well, some farm women may enjoy it, but it sounds mighty itchy to me.
Think — think —
ME is one of only 5 states without a law against breast-baring. The people commenting here who want shirts on women are part of a huge majority of Americans. Those in favor of public nudity are in a very small minority; their viewpoint is aberrant, and they are mistaken to try to make the more conservative commenters seem close-minded or unaccepting of “equal rights” for women.
Breasts have a lot to do with reproduction — getting the ball rolling, you might say. If you don’t think so, you haven’t been there.
maureen: interesting that you consider breastfeeding, which normally occurs only after birth, to be part of the reproductive process. i would like to have a discussion with your high-school science teacher. and how sad that you apparently view breastfeeding as somehow sexual and indecent so that it must be associated in your mind with that other dirty natural process, reproduction.
ann d: not a strong argument. if you’re basing your assertion that “breasts have a lot to do with reproduction” on their erogeneity, it stands to reason you would also be opposed to the public exposure of male breasts, and the necks, ears, fingers and labia (the kind on your face) of both sexes. being sensitive to touch does not automatically make a body part a reproductive organ.
please tell me you were aware of this!
ladies, i’ll reiterate–if you believe that your mammaries are somehow organs of sexual reproduction, either your biology teachers or your sexual partners have duped you. guess i’m just not a breast man!
wiltonman: your logic is impeccable. and remember it all started with the gays…
Ann D. “Breasts have a lot to do with reproduction — getting the ball rolling, you might say. If you don’t think so, you haven’t been there.”
I think lips then too have a lot to do with reproduction, and they shouldn’t be allowed to be shown in public. Or maybe just women’s lips need to be covered, since they always look soft and sensual. All women must wear some kind of lip covering – like maybe lip stick that makes your lips look like they are covered in a flannel shirt.
Definitely. Women’s lips should not be allowed uncovered in public. Imagine the children out there, seeing those perverse body parts being flaunted at Gifford’s by some attention seeking girl eating an ice cream in an unacceptable manner.
Or the men who see young girls on the streets and think about kissing them on the lips. Those girls are DEFINITELY responsible for old men thinking that, so they should keep them covered.
No Nancy your hypothetical grouping was putting toplessness into indecent exposure. Toplessness is not against the law in Maine. And your link was about the classification of crimes using the National System of Uniform Crime Reporting not about what is illegal in Maine.
Kelly, are you really saying that breasts are not part of the reproductive system? Are you serious? Do some research. Women without breasts may be able to have children, but breast-less mothers are not natural. Please tell us you are aware of that! The breasts are made to make milk for babies- they are part of the reproduction system in women. Before infant formulas, mothers were the only nourishment that children had. If mothers had no breasts back then, then the babies would die. I guess in order for women to get to the point where they feel free to go topless, they have to convince themselves and others that breasts are not sexual or part of reproduction. Right.
“Huge Majority” Ann D quote your sources? What level of measurement is huge?
think – think –
Gymnophobia is a fear (phobia) of nudity. Gymnophobics experience anxiety from nudity, even if they realize their fear is irrational. They may worry about seeing others naked or being seen naked, or both. Their fear may stem from a general anxiety about sexuality, from a fear that they are physically inferior, or from a fear that their nakedness leaves them exposed and unprotected. The word “Gymnophobia” is derived from the Greek “gymnos” (naked) and “phobos” (fear). (Wikopedia)
Jeeezzzzz………..I just saw some pics of this march……it wasnt a ” Wardrobe malfunction”…………..more like an …eyesight infarction……………………..gaak!
Kelly, for me it’s not a self-rightous boycott. I understand that you (and others) believe that a woman bare from the waist up in areas shared by the entire public will help American society to be more enlightened. I absolutely understand that to be your right. But there are people like me who feel differently. To me, with just as much right to my opinion, seeing bare breasts in public areas is offensive. Common sense tells me to avoid being in places where I could be offended, which is what I’m doing. It’s as simple as that. I refuse to feel guity for that.
Ms.Johnson,
The document you quoted is not part of state law. It addresses uniform reporting by police agencies, and is based upon a national template.
Maine’s Indecent Conduct law (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec854.html) addresses exposure of one’s genitals in a public place, under circumstances that are likely to cause affront or alarm or in a private place with intent to be seen from a public or another private place. It does not use words that provide for interpretation such as “common decency and morals”. The credibility of your character and viewpoint would be served well by you not using unrelated documents in debate.
Nancy, your fear is in your own mind. The parade is over. If a random topless female walks down a street somewhere, it could be any street, including the street you live on. Yes, you are punishing businesses by refusing to shop there, as you yourself stated. I am in Farmington almost daily and have not seen any topless women.
I just can’t get beyond people claiming that women’s breasts are not part of a woman’s reproductive system or are not a reproductive organ. In order for this premise to be true, then reproduction would have no effect on breasts whatsoever. Anyone who has taken Biology 101 or a basic A&P course or has given birth knows this is not true. The pregnancy hormones have a very strong effect on breasts, preparing a woman for lacatation. The only way this can happen is if breasts are part of a woman’s reproductive system. To claim this is not the case is just another effort by the topless advocates to blur the lines, making it seem like women’s breasts are not sexual or a part of reproduction. I will give you this- I agree that men’s breasts are not part of their reproductive system.
Ms. Martin,
Pregnancy has an affect on most parts of the female body. Again, perhaps we need burquas.
PATHFINDER,
You are the first person in any of the comments here, on either side of this issue, to make any reference to fear of nudity. Hhhmm….
45 out of 50 is 90%. That can be described as “huge” or “a lot” or “most.” I like “most.” Most states have laws banning bare breasts in public.
That’s not a headcount, I admit; but it does represent a (huge) population of Americans. I suspect those laws banning bare breasts in public were put in place, probably consciously, by citizens of those 45 states or by their elected officials.
I do think it is very telling that those who have conventional values and find this offensive are now accused of having a phobia of nudity. Because they feel there is a time and place for everything and that there is something called common decency, they are called all sorts of names. I’ll bet the vast majority of these topless supporters are pro-choice in general. I am not trying to start an abortion debate, but from dealing with pro-choice people in general, I have found they are not really in favor of the concept that any choice is acceptable (which you would think pro-choice means), they are really pro-“their” choice. So others who choose to believe differently are belittled and called phobic, narrow-minded, and all sorts of other things.
And I have given birth five times- breasts ARE reproductive organs.
Thank you Momofabunch.
Well stated. “their choice” is how they see it.
I guess I need to ask it again. What actual harm comes to a person who sees an uncovered breast? I have asked this many times and been ignored. This leads me to the conclusion that no actual harm occurs, therefore our government has no need to protect us from it. I am offended by smoking. It causes harm to the smoker, and everyone around them, but because of societal acceptance to this disgusting habit, it is not outlawed. Why then, should simple exposure of a breast be so much more important? I hear of no studies indicating that thousands of people died due to breast exposure.
James,
I agree. Pregnancy affects all of a woman’s body in one way or another. So doesn’t a car accident, or a bad case of the flu. However, pregnancy affects the breasts very directly in that it is only through pregnancy that breasts make milk. Women can gain weight or go through moodiness in other ways than pregnancy, but only pregnancy prepares the breasts for lactation. As a part of human reproduction. To say that breasts are affected the same way that weight or other parts of the body by are affected by preganacy is ridiculious. And again, it is all part of the effort to make men’s and women’s chests the same.
Embarassed,
The nipples may also become darker, but that does not make the breasts part of the reproductive system. Lactation is triggered by hormones for the sole purpose of feeding the offspring. It is an ancillary function to reproduction. A woman without breasts can still reproduce, and no function of the breast has any affect on the development of the child prior to birth.
If breasts are classified as ‘non sexual’, then would it be as acceptable to have a pat on the front as it is on their back?
Is it as acceptable to pat someone on the leg as it is on the arm? Just because a body part is not part of the reproductive system, that does not mean that it is open to being touched. Touching anyone anywhere is rude if they don’t like it.
The wonderful thing is…whether you are for or against the protest, your words here are a vote of support for Andrea…she wanted to get a debate going, and you all have shown how quickly people will jump on this topic!
Personally, I could care less…yes, the town received a fantastic economic stimulus, and yes, the crowds and excitement were a breath of fresh air after a long, dull winter.
The Bible thumpers had an excuse to snuff and groan and preach it up in public and the papers , the new age hippies had something to have an opinion about, and everyone had a chance to whip a dead horse by rattling off an opinion about a non-law-breaking event.
The funniest thing about the entire affair is the people making grand statements of exclusion towards hard working business people about not shopping here, and the ignorance displayed by parents who will “not send their kids to the university (see the Sun Journal for those clowns)…
Now, if ALL of Farmington’s store owners, university faculty and student body , PLUS residents participated, I could see the rationality, but really…isn’t boycotting Farmington because it did not Nazi -out and ban a legal activity (gosh, where DO you want to live, then???) a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?
Shannon Dorr,
I wasn’t one who said I will avoid downtown, but I wonder if you have misunderstood those who have. I’m not certain, but my sense is, for the most part, that no one wants to punish the downtown businesses. However, they don’t want themselves or their children exposed to someone who is partly and indecently undressed. If it was happening in another place (WalMart, the high school, a different town, etc.), that place would likely be avoided, also. People I’ve talked with face-to-face, who are avoiding downtown, feel regret about having to do busines, which they’ve always done downtown, elsewhere.
By saying “everyone had a chance to whip a dead horse by rattling off an opinion about a non-law-breaking event,” I’m not sure what you mean.
The issue doesn’t seem at all dead. If it was, would the march have taken place, would stores have signs on their doors requiring shirts and shoes to be worn, would 45 states have laws banning bare breasts in public, would 12-year-olds be unable to buy pornography? The subject is not dead just because, at this time, neither Farmington nor the state of Maine requires breasts to be covered in public.
This is something new for this area and very controversial. Of course people are going to have a lot to say about it.
Embarassed – I’m sure the cancer survivors out there who have had children after a radical masectomy would be very interested to find out that according to you, they are “not natural”. Embarasssed? After a comment like that, you should be.
so i guess to you folks that honestly believe that breasts are sexual reproductive organs, breast-feeding is incest and dairy farmers engage in bestiality? what a world we live in. and maureen, if female breasts are part of the reproductive system, why can’t males’ be also? after all, they are erogenous, we have mammary glands, and under certain circumstances they are capable of producing milk.
Good point jonboy !!
Okay, so I have been able to defend my viewpoint based upon sociology, psychology, theology, physiology, anthropology and criminology. I have yet to address dermatology, ethology, gynecology, immunology, neurology, and oncology (although, that one may support my opponents). We have come so far, but we have so far to go.
Now, who will answer my question???
What actual harm comes to a person who sees a naked breast ???
Ann D.
Well, for a phrase intended to simply mean that a legally resolved issue was again being raised, that garnered a response. And to think that all along I was sitting here remorseful about the Bible thumper reference which I regretted after much thought…(repeated cliché’s are often under thought-out).
The phrase “beating a dead horse” is relatively well known, and it embraces the concept that people are trying to revive an issue that has previously been laid to rest. Andrea started this, by bringing out a whip and seeing if there was any life left in a legalized behaviour that had not been exercised in a while. Everyone who arrived at the protest, or commented on a news article, added their own whip stroke on the matter (by attending the protest, or commenting on the news articles). I fail to see what is not understood.(I did not say that I agreed or disagreed with her activity , that is completely different, and it is part of the glory of having an opinion…it is how one individual sees it, not necessarily another. I also did not say that this legislative “dead horse” may not in fact be revived by said whip strokes, though in fact it has been revived in person’s talk…it may or may not go to Augusta…time will tell.) My thought was simply that this WAS a dead issue legally. And now everyone is trying to whip it back into being a new , live topic for legislative concern. I hope that is clear.
For the record, I completely appreciate that some people feel that they will come all unglued spiritually/morally if they see a breast (and knowing ones limits is a good thing), but most people are healthy enough and intact enough not to suffer permanent harm due to exposure. Even Children. In fact, children are only effected negatively by nudity when they are observing comments or behaviours that put a negative spin on nudity that renders it “nasty”, “forbidden”, or “immoral”.
Just as children are innocent of racism until racism is brought into their frame of reference mentally, body part shame is part and parcel of the child’s observance of adult reaction to body part exposure. Those adults making a big to-do about this are the ones involved in shaping children into believing that nudity is somehow an exposure of something nasty. And in my opinion, shame based thinking is sad.(It is also my opinion that this is the sort of thinking that children generalize, and by proxy our teenage girls are made to feel ashamed of their bodies when when they start to “develop”, to the extent that this mentality is contributing to eating disorders and low self esteem. This is my opinion only…I know that others do not agree).
I must say, however, that your intimation that the equivalent to this protest is porn is personally VERY offensive. Pornography is proven to be demeaning to women, and the women involved are in an overwhelming majority the current and past victims of abuse. I would NEVER defend the right to embrace pornography, and commenting on the option to exercise a legal right to go topless is far different than trying to justify pornography. Furthermore, National Geographic Magazine is more along the lines of what happened in Farmington than your porn magazine reference…(I saw no sexual posturing on the part of the demonstrators).
In any event, people will boycott what they want to in an effort to preserve what they consider to be their own virtue, and they have that right. I merely think it is going overboard. Do these individuals realize that by driving further away they are supporting foreign governments who perpetrate horrid crimes against personal freedoms by purchasing more gasoline? And that they are also adding more pollution to an already overburdened ecological system? Or do they get more bang for their buck by making a statement in a small circle of individuals in little Farmington Maine? It is the ability to discern the impact of choices like this that make a true difference in the world…
Shannon Dorr,
It seems good that you feel remorse about your Bible thumper remark.
Until children reach an age when they can explore a topic independently, of course they will be taught by parents the differences between right and wrong. That’s part of parenting.
I would ask why the supporters of toplessness in public repeatedly refer to modesty (being decently clothed) as being equal to body shame, but the answer is obvious.
I think girls’ negative body images and eating disorders have much less to do with the issue of dressing modestly and much more to do with media images of “perfect” and scantily-clad females being constantly put in front of them and their feeling imperfect by comparison.
My hypothetical question about minors having access to pornography was on topic. The issue of nudity in public is never discussed without reference to decency and morality.
The school buses, that day, took a different route to avoid exposing their passengers to the display downtown. Why? Was there something questionable going on? Something to keep the children from viewing?
Was extra fuel consumed that day by those buses? A justifiable expense, perhaps?
Does anyone even know if downtown businesses were negatively impacted? Maybe they haven’t been affected at all, and who knows, maybe they’ve done more.
“Until children reach an age when they can explore a topic independently, of course they will be taught by parents the differences between right and wrong. That’s part of parenting.”
Some parents teach healthy body acceptance, and others instill fear in children.
“I would ask why the supporters of toplessness in public repeatedly refer to modesty (being decently clothed) as being equal to body shame, but the answer is obvious.”
Being “decently clothed” is not equal to body shame. Body shame is caused by attitudes that cause people to think of the body as shameful (if it is sahmeful to look at, it must be bad).
“I think girls’ negative body images and eating disorders have much less to do with the issue of dressing modestly and much more to do with media images of “perfect” and scantily-clad females being constantly put in front of them and their feeling imperfect by comparison.” because they have no realistic images with which to compare.
“My hypothetical question about minors having access to pornography was on topic. The issue of nudity in public is never discussed without reference to decency and morality.”
It is when I discuss it, unless someone such as yourself attempts to link the two. There is a big difference between mere nudity and pornography. Look at the many statues that line the public streets in Europe. Those are art, not pornography. Why then is a real life person in the same state of dress considered pornography?
“The school buses, that day, took a different route to avoid exposing their passengers to the display downtown. Why? Was there something questionable going on? Something to keep the children from viewing?”
No, it was because of people like you making such a fuss over whether or not the students would be exposed to anything. I can imagine that many parents didn’t care.
“Was extra fuel consumed that day by those buses? A justifiable expense, perhaps?”
Or perhaps a waste of tax dollars.
What a shame that a few prudes have made Farmington look so bad. Why would anyone want to move to a community with such shallow values?
Ann D.,
Apparently you are VERY emotionally invested in this issue… I however am not. So rather than lead you on I will just explain that I was merely responding to your question, not seeking a standing date. Far be it from me to engage in a big picture discussion with individuals who can see through a keyhole with both eyes simultaneously…It would merely vex both of us.