Showing posts with label topless. Show all posts
Showing posts with label topless. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
Rachel McAdams Topfree in 2002 Movie
Via Egotastic comes video and photos of Rachel McAdams enjoying some topfree swimming for a 2002 movie entitled "My Name is Tanino". Normally I don't put a lot of stock in celebrity nudity because it's done for pay, but in this case Ms. McAdams seems to be having so much fun and is so natural with her topfreedom, that the images definitely have some naturist value.
(Note: This post has been modified to correct information about the film)
rachel-mcadams-my-name-is-tonino
Uploaded by EgotasticMedia. - Check out sexy vids. Caution - NSFW!
(Note: This post has been modified to correct information about the film)
rachel-mcadams-my-name-is-tonino
Uploaded by EgotasticMedia. - Check out sexy vids. Caution - NSFW!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Legislating the Human Body
Just when you thought the culture wars were over, the sexually-repressed among us rear their ugly heads with more ridiculous attempts to further control the human body, and, in the process, actually widen the spectrum of human skin areas which are defined as being sexualized.
In Federal Way, Washington, officials are considering changes to the public morals code in order to stop the spread of "bikini baristas", women who serve espresso while scantily clad.
I have news for you. The entire human body is covered with skin, which has many erogenous zones. Have you ever kissed someone on the neck, or nibbled on the ear? What about a foot massage, or a caress behind the knee? And is their really anything more arousing than a full mouth-to-mouth kiss, with tongues playing tonsil hockey?
No, this sort of legislative mapping of the human body, with the intent of making criminals out of anyone who dares to expose certain parts of anatomy, is way beyond reasonable government activity. This is legislators gone wild, so intent on protecting "public morals" that they are willing not only to trample on basic human rights, but directly violate the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution by discriminating against women.
And not only are these people trying to make the sight of a female breast illegal, they want to lock up "any person who touches, caresses or fondles the genitals or female breast, whether clothed or not..." So, will it now be illegal for a woman to adjust her bra in public, or scratch an itch, and will high school boys now have to grin and bear it when the urge to adjust their jock straps strikes in the middle of a game? And what about pinning on that corsage for the senior prom?
And is there an age restriction to this proposed amendment? Will 2 year-old girls be forced to wear tops while running through the backyard sprinkler? And what about women who have small breasts, or men who have large ones? Would a woman with a double mastectomy be allowed to be topfree? What about a man in the process of transgendering, who has both a penis and an ample chest? What if a man walked down the street wearing only pasties or tassels above the waist? Would that be worse than being totally topfree?
And how will areola size and location come into play? Any nudist knows that breasts, both male and female, come in all shapes and sizes. Who will be appointed nipple and breast judge in Federal Way?
And they won't even allow the sight of a breast which has been painted and taped over the "offensive" areas? Who is going to determine what these "similar substances" are? And what about see-through materials? Will it be OK for a woman to be completely covered in flimsy gauze, or clear plastic, even though the skin underneath is visible?
The arguments against this amendment are seemingly endless. It's simply stupid legislation, a knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as a problem, but is really just overreaction to harmless human activity. By specifically targeting women, the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional, and will undoubtedly be challenged in court if it manages to pass.
All this coming on the heels of a ruling by the Indiana state appeals court which ignored the 14th Amendment and decided that banning the baring of female breasts in public is not discriminatory.
These attempts at controlling what people can or cannot wear are examples of the power of the state over what are generally understood as being freedoms of expression and speech, and in the case of the burqa, freedom of religion. We have plenty of things to be really worried about on this planet, such as nuclear war, climate change, AIDS, poverty, hunger, disasters, etc., but somehow in our feeble attempts to control the uncontrollable, we settle for regulating things that make us "feel" safer, or better, but in reality we are merely fooling ourselves.
Locking up women for showing a breast in public is not going to solve any of society's problems. Defining the parts of human anatomy which are unacceptable for public viewing is not going to stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, halt teenage pregnancies, or lower the divorce rate. It's just more examples of impotent government unable to solve real problems, running around shooting straw men and flailing at windmills in order to present to an uninformed and fearful public an illusion of competence.
The rise of a dangerous politician like Christine O'Donnell who wants to abolish masturbation and lust, yet hasn't a clue about fiscal responsibility or actual governance, is an example of a frightened and frustrated public, looking to people who preach about angels and demons instead of policies and decisions. Perhaps emboldened by this new breed of morality warriors which are capturing the hearts of the fringe right-wing, the Montana GOP is actually discussing once again making homosexuality a crime.
And does anybody think that 17 state attorneys general putting pressure on Craigslist to censor its adult section is going to have any affect on prostitution or sex trafficking? Of course not, but it makes headlines and people think that these elected officials are actually doing something to "protect" society from demons.
Take a look at this chart. The government's expensive and foolish war on drugs has resulted in nearly triple the number of arrests for marijuana since 1990, while the number of pot smokers has not gone down, and might have actually increased a little. But somehow ruining the lives of nearly one million people in this country is justification for what is, in truth, abject failure to actually solve the problem.
It seems to be the fate of all big governments, from the ruling emperors of ancient Rome to the juggernaut which is our own Federal system, that in order to protect the people from themselves, a few heads must roll, and it's always the heads of the weak which are the first to fall under the knife. In dealing with the bikini barista "problem", the authorities in Federal Way haven't a clue about what to do, so they take out their frustrations on the women, who have no money to defend themselves, and are merely trying to earn a living. Whether or not this is exploitation is beside the point, because everyone is exploited to some degree in society. The issue here is equal treatment under the law, and this amendment specifically targeting women is government by men at its worst: sexist, cruel, discriminatory, and oppressive.
This is precisely why I get so angry at our nudist organizations, AANR and TNS, when they let their egos get in the way of the common good for nudism and naturism. If you think that nudist resorts and clubs are exempt from this sort of government overreach, then think again. All it takes is one emboldened, crusading moralist in a position of authority to start railing about the evils of nudists and the danger they pose to the general public, and specifically to children. It will matter not if there is any truth to the demonizing, or any shred of evidence - what will matter will be the public reaction and the ensuing actions of the legislators and judges, who have shown at least in the Indiana case of the topless girl, that the 14th Amendment does not matter when the "moral sensibilities" of the people are at risk.
Our government has shown that it is willing to ignore our Constitution when votes are on the line. On one hand laws and ordinances are enacted and clarified to prevent any display of public nudity, but on the other hand, in the interest of "national security", all airline passengers are going to be stripped naked electronically to be examined by security personnel. Our bodies no longer belong to us.
So I hope these bikini baristas in Washington state stand up for their rights, and in Indiana, the case of the topless woman should be appealed to the state supreme court. Moral "sensibilities", crusading politicians, the "will" of the people, and cultural norms should not be the basis for ignoring the 14th Amendment, which is clear as an azure sky in its simplicity: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Equal protection to any person, man, woman, child, black, white, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, gay, lesbian, and so on. There is no way anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States can argue that the Federal Way amendment, and the decision of the Indiana appeals court, are in harmony with the basic law of the land. If a man can walk topfree in public, then a woman is guaranteed equal protection, and damned be those who would seek to legislate the human body and subvert the Constitution merely to curry favor with voters and protect his or her phony-baloney job.
So when you hear talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, be very, very afraid. These people not only want to control your body, but your heart and mind as well.
In Federal Way, Washington, officials are considering changes to the public morals code in order to stop the spread of "bikini baristas", women who serve espresso while scantily clad.
If approved, the amendment will classify indecent exposure as a misdemeanor offense. It will prohibit a person from intentionally exposing any part of the genitals or pubic area, parts of the buttocks, the areola, nipple, or more than half of the breast area located below the top of the areola in public. Streets, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not) and businesses open to the public, including those containing a drive-through window, are considered public places.
The amendment would address risque attire, such as pasties, associated with bikini baristas. Body paint or dye, tattoos, latex, tape or similar substances applied to the skin to mask any of the above anatomical areas will not be permitted in public. Substances that can be washed off the skin and those designed to stimulate the regions would be banned as well.I guess police will now have to carry around human anatomy charts and tape measures to determine whether or not a plunging neckline or hot pants make the wearer a dangerous criminal.
I have news for you. The entire human body is covered with skin, which has many erogenous zones. Have you ever kissed someone on the neck, or nibbled on the ear? What about a foot massage, or a caress behind the knee? And is their really anything more arousing than a full mouth-to-mouth kiss, with tongues playing tonsil hockey?
No, this sort of legislative mapping of the human body, with the intent of making criminals out of anyone who dares to expose certain parts of anatomy, is way beyond reasonable government activity. This is legislators gone wild, so intent on protecting "public morals" that they are willing not only to trample on basic human rights, but directly violate the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution by discriminating against women.
And not only are these people trying to make the sight of a female breast illegal, they want to lock up "any person who touches, caresses or fondles the genitals or female breast, whether clothed or not..." So, will it now be illegal for a woman to adjust her bra in public, or scratch an itch, and will high school boys now have to grin and bear it when the urge to adjust their jock straps strikes in the middle of a game? And what about pinning on that corsage for the senior prom?
And is there an age restriction to this proposed amendment? Will 2 year-old girls be forced to wear tops while running through the backyard sprinkler? And what about women who have small breasts, or men who have large ones? Would a woman with a double mastectomy be allowed to be topfree? What about a man in the process of transgendering, who has both a penis and an ample chest? What if a man walked down the street wearing only pasties or tassels above the waist? Would that be worse than being totally topfree?
And how will areola size and location come into play? Any nudist knows that breasts, both male and female, come in all shapes and sizes. Who will be appointed nipple and breast judge in Federal Way?
And they won't even allow the sight of a breast which has been painted and taped over the "offensive" areas? Who is going to determine what these "similar substances" are? And what about see-through materials? Will it be OK for a woman to be completely covered in flimsy gauze, or clear plastic, even though the skin underneath is visible?
The arguments against this amendment are seemingly endless. It's simply stupid legislation, a knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as a problem, but is really just overreaction to harmless human activity. By specifically targeting women, the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional, and will undoubtedly be challenged in court if it manages to pass.
All this coming on the heels of a ruling by the Indiana state appeals court which ignored the 14th Amendment and decided that banning the baring of female breasts in public is not discriminatory.
In the appeals court decision, Judge Cale Bradford wrote, "In the end, (the girl) would have us declare by judicial fiat that the public display of fully-uncovered female breasts is no different than the public display of male breasts, when the citizens of Indiana, speaking through their elected representatives, say otherwise. This we will not do.
"We conclude that Indiana's public nudity statute furthers the goal of protecting the moral sensibilities of that substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public."I guess that the good folks of Indiana will not have to start covering up a lot more than their genitals and nipples. According to Discovery Health:
Other erogenous zones include the eyelids, the ears, and the shoulders. Many people also find that having their feet stroked is arousing. Stroking, caressing and massaging of erogenous zones can be titillating forms of sensual pleasure in and of themselves, or they can be invitations to further sexual activity.
The mouth, including the lips and tongue, for most people, is an area of high erotic potential. Kissing is one act that uses the sensitivity of this region in a sexually stimulating way.France just banned the burqa, but Indiana is now apparently embracing it.
These attempts at controlling what people can or cannot wear are examples of the power of the state over what are generally understood as being freedoms of expression and speech, and in the case of the burqa, freedom of religion. We have plenty of things to be really worried about on this planet, such as nuclear war, climate change, AIDS, poverty, hunger, disasters, etc., but somehow in our feeble attempts to control the uncontrollable, we settle for regulating things that make us "feel" safer, or better, but in reality we are merely fooling ourselves.
Locking up women for showing a breast in public is not going to solve any of society's problems. Defining the parts of human anatomy which are unacceptable for public viewing is not going to stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, halt teenage pregnancies, or lower the divorce rate. It's just more examples of impotent government unable to solve real problems, running around shooting straw men and flailing at windmills in order to present to an uninformed and fearful public an illusion of competence.
The rise of a dangerous politician like Christine O'Donnell who wants to abolish masturbation and lust, yet hasn't a clue about fiscal responsibility or actual governance, is an example of a frightened and frustrated public, looking to people who preach about angels and demons instead of policies and decisions. Perhaps emboldened by this new breed of morality warriors which are capturing the hearts of the fringe right-wing, the Montana GOP is actually discussing once again making homosexuality a crime.
And does anybody think that 17 state attorneys general putting pressure on Craigslist to censor its adult section is going to have any affect on prostitution or sex trafficking? Of course not, but it makes headlines and people think that these elected officials are actually doing something to "protect" society from demons.
Take a look at this chart. The government's expensive and foolish war on drugs has resulted in nearly triple the number of arrests for marijuana since 1990, while the number of pot smokers has not gone down, and might have actually increased a little. But somehow ruining the lives of nearly one million people in this country is justification for what is, in truth, abject failure to actually solve the problem.
It seems to be the fate of all big governments, from the ruling emperors of ancient Rome to the juggernaut which is our own Federal system, that in order to protect the people from themselves, a few heads must roll, and it's always the heads of the weak which are the first to fall under the knife. In dealing with the bikini barista "problem", the authorities in Federal Way haven't a clue about what to do, so they take out their frustrations on the women, who have no money to defend themselves, and are merely trying to earn a living. Whether or not this is exploitation is beside the point, because everyone is exploited to some degree in society. The issue here is equal treatment under the law, and this amendment specifically targeting women is government by men at its worst: sexist, cruel, discriminatory, and oppressive.
This is precisely why I get so angry at our nudist organizations, AANR and TNS, when they let their egos get in the way of the common good for nudism and naturism. If you think that nudist resorts and clubs are exempt from this sort of government overreach, then think again. All it takes is one emboldened, crusading moralist in a position of authority to start railing about the evils of nudists and the danger they pose to the general public, and specifically to children. It will matter not if there is any truth to the demonizing, or any shred of evidence - what will matter will be the public reaction and the ensuing actions of the legislators and judges, who have shown at least in the Indiana case of the topless girl, that the 14th Amendment does not matter when the "moral sensibilities" of the people are at risk.
Our government has shown that it is willing to ignore our Constitution when votes are on the line. On one hand laws and ordinances are enacted and clarified to prevent any display of public nudity, but on the other hand, in the interest of "national security", all airline passengers are going to be stripped naked electronically to be examined by security personnel. Our bodies no longer belong to us.
So I hope these bikini baristas in Washington state stand up for their rights, and in Indiana, the case of the topless woman should be appealed to the state supreme court. Moral "sensibilities", crusading politicians, the "will" of the people, and cultural norms should not be the basis for ignoring the 14th Amendment, which is clear as an azure sky in its simplicity: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Equal protection to any person, man, woman, child, black, white, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, gay, lesbian, and so on. There is no way anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States can argue that the Federal Way amendment, and the decision of the Indiana appeals court, are in harmony with the basic law of the land. If a man can walk topfree in public, then a woman is guaranteed equal protection, and damned be those who would seek to legislate the human body and subvert the Constitution merely to curry favor with voters and protect his or her phony-baloney job.
So when you hear talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, be very, very afraid. These people not only want to control your body, but your heart and mind as well.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Asbury Park Nixes Topless Beach
As I predicted, the Asbury Park City Council killed any idea for a "topless" beach after a city attorney reported that two city ordinances currently prohibit women from baring their breasts, and for anyone to be nude in public. The council expressed no intention to make any changes to existing laws.
Naturally, the proposal was defeated for all the wrong reasons, with people worried that exposed female breasts would scare away families and be somehow dangerous to children. Indeed, the beach idea was ill-conceived out of a twisted intention of promoting women's rights by forcing them to practice their "equality" on a segregated stretch of beach.
For AANR to have associated itself and its membership to this fiasco is an embarrassment, showing not only a lack of common sense, but a dearth of integrity as well.
Lacking a true grassroots movement to further topfree equality in Asbury Park, the proposal was doomed from the start. Topfreedom will only come when enough women decide that they really want the same rights already extended to men, who are free to remove their shirts virtually anywhere in public, and certainly at any beach or pool.
Sadly, the quick dispatch of this "topless" beach idea is likely to quash any enthusiasm for more clothing-optional beaches in New Jersey for the foreseeable future, and is a clear setback to topfree equality in the Garden State.
Naturally, the proposal was defeated for all the wrong reasons, with people worried that exposed female breasts would scare away families and be somehow dangerous to children. Indeed, the beach idea was ill-conceived out of a twisted intention of promoting women's rights by forcing them to practice their "equality" on a segregated stretch of beach.
For AANR to have associated itself and its membership to this fiasco is an embarrassment, showing not only a lack of common sense, but a dearth of integrity as well.
Lacking a true grassroots movement to further topfree equality in Asbury Park, the proposal was doomed from the start. Topfreedom will only come when enough women decide that they really want the same rights already extended to men, who are free to remove their shirts virtually anywhere in public, and certainly at any beach or pool.
Sadly, the quick dispatch of this "topless" beach idea is likely to quash any enthusiasm for more clothing-optional beaches in New Jersey for the foreseeable future, and is a clear setback to topfree equality in the Garden State.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Why I Oppose the Asbury Park Topless Beach Proposal
It seems at first contradictory that a nudist would have a problem with a legal topless beach.
But the proposed topless section at a beach in Asbury Park, New Jersey, is on the table for all the wrong reasons.
First, the idea is from a local woman named Reggie Flimlin who owns Yoga Basin, and is quoted as making this astounding statement: "I just thought it would be appropriate for Asbury Park, given how open and accepting we are, to celebrate women's rights in a particular area on the beach." She also stated that "currently men are topless and women should have the same right."
That would be like leaders of the Civil Rights movement in the sixties advocating "coloreds only" bathrooms and drinking fountains. One cannot "celebrate" any right by advocating segregation. Either the right exists, or it doesn't.
Secondly, the topless beach is heralded as being a boost to tourism. This I simply do not understand. Are they proposing to use exposed female breasts as an attraction, like they do at the topless pools in Las Vegas? Are they hoping to draw in more women who want to sunbathe topless, or more men who want to look at them?
Third, this effort totally undermines the women's topfree movement, which advocates equality between the sexes when it comes to taking off one's shirt in public. By creating a "topless" zone on a beach through legislation, this takes away a woman's right to be topfree anywhere except the designated area, sort of like an outdoor strip club. While topfree activists like Andrea Simoneau and so many others are trying hard to take back their female breasts from male ownership and sexualization, a topless beach only serves to further perpetuate the myth that a woman's body from the waist up is somehow lewd and a danger to children and society in general.
Dr. Paul Rapoport of TERA has posted the following statement: "A specific area set aside by any government where women may be topfree is just another means to control them and deny them equality with men. There must be no legislated topfree beach in New Jersey. If women decide to congregate topfree voluntarily in one or more places, that's another matter. They must be lawfully free to be topfree just about anywhere, not in some legislated ghetto --- beach or other."
I was stunned when AANR decided to jump on the Asbury Park bandwagon by offering support for this ill-conceived topless beach proposal.
It has taken years for most states to recognize a woman's right to breastfeed a child in public, and it will take more time to decriminalize women's breasts for other non-sexual activities, such as sunbathing, or merely trying to keep cool on a hot day.
As far as I can determine, while there are legal nude beaches in America, there are no legal "topless" beaches such as the one being proposed. South Beach in Miami has long been unofficially topfree, but this has happened over time due to many less-inhibited European tourists frequenting the area.
Those who view this Asbury Park proposal as a "stepping stone" to a nude beach are pretty naive. Unlike Florida, which has the most nudists per capita in the United States and has 1800 miles of coastline, New Jersey already has Gunnison Beach and only 127 miles of coastline. Other than Friends of Gunnison Beach, I am not aware of any active movements in New Jersey to create a new nude beach. I am also unaware of any groups actively pushing for a "topless beach". This Asbury Park proposal does not come from any grassroots efforts, but from an idea of one businessperson looking to boost tourism.
And unlike Gunnison, which is a half-mile walk from the nearest parking lot and pretty remote, the Asbury Park beach will be overlooked by a high rise for senior citizens.
The city council will take up the matter on Wednesday, July 7. It is likely that there will be some heated discussion, especially from people who oppose the beach idea. One thing politicians don't like is controversy, so unless there is overwhelming support for this idea, the project will likely never get off the ground. It could be that AANR is banking on the beach's failure, using this news story merely as a means to achieve some cheap publicity.
Finding a silver lining in this whole mess is difficult, but one could say that the proposal for the topless beach. albeit ill-conceived and flawed, is a further indication that society is softening on nudity.
But the bottom line is that when it comes to freedom, men and women must be treated equally. Organizations like AANR who stray from this basic idea in the interest of sensationalist publicity should know better than to support regressive legislation.
I urge all readers to write to AANR and let them know how you feel about this issue. The future of nudism and naturism is in YOUR hands.
But the proposed topless section at a beach in Asbury Park, New Jersey, is on the table for all the wrong reasons.
First, the idea is from a local woman named Reggie Flimlin who owns Yoga Basin, and is quoted as making this astounding statement: "I just thought it would be appropriate for Asbury Park, given how open and accepting we are, to celebrate women's rights in a particular area on the beach." She also stated that "currently men are topless and women should have the same right."
That would be like leaders of the Civil Rights movement in the sixties advocating "coloreds only" bathrooms and drinking fountains. One cannot "celebrate" any right by advocating segregation. Either the right exists, or it doesn't.
Secondly, the topless beach is heralded as being a boost to tourism. This I simply do not understand. Are they proposing to use exposed female breasts as an attraction, like they do at the topless pools in Las Vegas? Are they hoping to draw in more women who want to sunbathe topless, or more men who want to look at them?
Third, this effort totally undermines the women's topfree movement, which advocates equality between the sexes when it comes to taking off one's shirt in public. By creating a "topless" zone on a beach through legislation, this takes away a woman's right to be topfree anywhere except the designated area, sort of like an outdoor strip club. While topfree activists like Andrea Simoneau and so many others are trying hard to take back their female breasts from male ownership and sexualization, a topless beach only serves to further perpetuate the myth that a woman's body from the waist up is somehow lewd and a danger to children and society in general.
Dr. Paul Rapoport of TERA has posted the following statement: "A specific area set aside by any government where women may be topfree is just another means to control them and deny them equality with men. There must be no legislated topfree beach in New Jersey. If women decide to congregate topfree voluntarily in one or more places, that's another matter. They must be lawfully free to be topfree just about anywhere, not in some legislated ghetto --- beach or other."
I was stunned when AANR decided to jump on the Asbury Park bandwagon by offering support for this ill-conceived topless beach proposal.
On Tuesday, the American Association for Nude Recreation sent a detailed letter of support backed by statistics and information in credible publications such Forbes, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today to the city of Asbury Park, New Jersey. The city is considering designating a portion of the Asbury Park beachfront as “topless optional.” The package sent by AANR showed the benefits of European-style sunbathing in regard to tourism dollars and community acceptance and was sent by e-mail, fax and Federal Express.This is not a nude beach proposal. This is a proposal to treat women as second-class citizens simply because of the physical makeup of their bodies. AANR should immediately withdraw its support of this topless beach and advocate a woman's right to be topfree anywhere men enjoy the same right.
AANR also included a small donation to the city’s Parks and Recreation summer project fund. City officials will meet on July 7 to further discuss the top-free proposal.
It has taken years for most states to recognize a woman's right to breastfeed a child in public, and it will take more time to decriminalize women's breasts for other non-sexual activities, such as sunbathing, or merely trying to keep cool on a hot day.
As far as I can determine, while there are legal nude beaches in America, there are no legal "topless" beaches such as the one being proposed. South Beach in Miami has long been unofficially topfree, but this has happened over time due to many less-inhibited European tourists frequenting the area.
Those who view this Asbury Park proposal as a "stepping stone" to a nude beach are pretty naive. Unlike Florida, which has the most nudists per capita in the United States and has 1800 miles of coastline, New Jersey already has Gunnison Beach and only 127 miles of coastline. Other than Friends of Gunnison Beach, I am not aware of any active movements in New Jersey to create a new nude beach. I am also unaware of any groups actively pushing for a "topless beach". This Asbury Park proposal does not come from any grassroots efforts, but from an idea of one businessperson looking to boost tourism.
And unlike Gunnison, which is a half-mile walk from the nearest parking lot and pretty remote, the Asbury Park beach will be overlooked by a high rise for senior citizens.
The city council will take up the matter on Wednesday, July 7. It is likely that there will be some heated discussion, especially from people who oppose the beach idea. One thing politicians don't like is controversy, so unless there is overwhelming support for this idea, the project will likely never get off the ground. It could be that AANR is banking on the beach's failure, using this news story merely as a means to achieve some cheap publicity.
Finding a silver lining in this whole mess is difficult, but one could say that the proposal for the topless beach. albeit ill-conceived and flawed, is a further indication that society is softening on nudity.
But the bottom line is that when it comes to freedom, men and women must be treated equally. Organizations like AANR who stray from this basic idea in the interest of sensationalist publicity should know better than to support regressive legislation.
I urge all readers to write to AANR and let them know how you feel about this issue. The future of nudism and naturism is in YOUR hands.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Naturist Action Committee Newsletter for May 2010 Now Online
May 2010 Contents• Manitoba: Beaconia Beach Hangs in the Balance - by Judy Williams. Activists in Manitoba fight to save a traditional clothing-optional beach from a naked land grab.
• Maine: Topfree in Maine. Bare female breasts are legal in the state. Are high profile public topfree walks creating greater acceptance?
• The "proper" setting for TNS events. Before you show up, a great deal of thoughtful consideration is put into choosing a venue.
View pdf file here.
Of particular note is the NAC declaration of support for topfreedom:
For many, topfreedom is about women’s rights; for naturists it can also be an incremental march towards full body freedom. Both goals merit our support and applause.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Breast Cancer Survivor Berates Topfree Marchers
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell, a breast cancer survivor, minces no words in her column today when it comes to women actually showing their breasts.
Mitchell then goes on to say other ridiculous things such as "gender equality always sounds great, but what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander", and "there's probably not a woman left on the planet who does not know about Spanx."
Perhaps her most offensive and sexist comment is "if men didn't look, they just wouldn't be men."
And all of this from a breast cancer survivor. It's apparently OK to write columns about your breasts, Ms. Mitchell, but God forbid that anyone should actually see them, or anyone else's. But if a man did see them, it would be OK for him to ogle, because, after all, he's a man.
Tell that to poor schmuck state Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, who was caught yesterday on the Florida Senate floor looking at a photo of topless women, and has become a media laughing stock.
The same media which cannot get enough of nude PETA protests. Spencer Tunick shoots, naked Hollywood starlets, nipple slips and see-through gowns, now is shocked, completely outraged, that someone is actually looking at what they disseminate.
But, as Ms. Mitchell points out so deftly, after all, he's just a man, and women's breasts are there simply for ogling pleasure.
It is this sort of Philistine attitude which is the motivation for the women's topfreedom movement, to push back against the dumbing down of America and the objectification of women's bodies.
Mary Mitchell is dead wrong when she so casually accepts male sexism. Of all people she should know that the fact that she can write so openly about her own fight against breast cancer is due to the fact that women had to overcome vast cultural taboos. Nobody ever talked about breast cancer until First Lady Betty Ford underwent a mastectomy and opened up the national dialogue, which is manifested today in pink ribbons on everything from autos to athletes.
These brave women in Maine are marching against male ownership of their bodies, and it's people like Mary Mitchell who simply cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead of seeing the problem, she is part of the problem.
I'm the last person in the world to criticize someone's body.The blatant insult of these women's bodies is particularly troubling, especially after making the statement that she would never criticize someone's body. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
But if you were going to join a topless protest, and be photographed from the rear, wouldn't you want your back to look like you've done more than sit on your butt all winter?
The photograph of the young woman with the words: "Sexuality is what you make it!" scrawled on her fat back was enough to convince me America's not ready for topless.
Mitchell then goes on to say other ridiculous things such as "gender equality always sounds great, but what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander", and "there's probably not a woman left on the planet who does not know about Spanx."
Perhaps her most offensive and sexist comment is "if men didn't look, they just wouldn't be men."
And all of this from a breast cancer survivor. It's apparently OK to write columns about your breasts, Ms. Mitchell, but God forbid that anyone should actually see them, or anyone else's. But if a man did see them, it would be OK for him to ogle, because, after all, he's a man.
Tell that to poor schmuck state Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, who was caught yesterday on the Florida Senate floor looking at a photo of topless women, and has become a media laughing stock.
The same media which cannot get enough of nude PETA protests. Spencer Tunick shoots, naked Hollywood starlets, nipple slips and see-through gowns, now is shocked, completely outraged, that someone is actually looking at what they disseminate.
But, as Ms. Mitchell points out so deftly, after all, he's just a man, and women's breasts are there simply for ogling pleasure.
It is this sort of Philistine attitude which is the motivation for the women's topfreedom movement, to push back against the dumbing down of America and the objectification of women's bodies.
Mary Mitchell is dead wrong when she so casually accepts male sexism. Of all people she should know that the fact that she can write so openly about her own fight against breast cancer is due to the fact that women had to overcome vast cultural taboos. Nobody ever talked about breast cancer until First Lady Betty Ford underwent a mastectomy and opened up the national dialogue, which is manifested today in pink ribbons on everything from autos to athletes.
These brave women in Maine are marching against male ownership of their bodies, and it's people like Mary Mitchell who simply cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead of seeing the problem, she is part of the problem.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
More Stupidity on Topfreedom
It truly is amazing how idiotic and irrational people can be when it comes to matters of nudity and the human body. While seemingly supporting women's topfreedom, an editorial today in the Bangor Daily News veers off in an asinine direction.
No, the point of women's topfreedom is simply equality. Men can take their shirts off just about anywhere in public, and women simply want the same right as protected under the Constitution of the United States. It's not about distractions, or leering, or gun rights, it's about women's rights.
And it's not like women everywhere are suddenly going to start taking their tops off. Men have the right, and certainly not all of them take their shirts off. What's the percentage of shirtless men on any given summer day walking down the main street of town? The point is that nobody cares about how many men take their shirts off because it's simply legal and accepted that they can.
And let those who want to change the law give it their best shot. It's high time this issue is tested in the courts. When the laws were tested in Columbus, Ohio, and in New York State, the right for women to be topfree was upheld. Either women have to be accepted as having the same right as men to be shirtless, or the law needs to be changed to force men to wear bikinis at the beach, and t-shirts when playing basketball on public courts. And you know that ain't gonna happen.
People get all worked up, calling the baring of breasts immoral, or dangerous for the children, or a manifestation of the homosexual agenda, or any other irrational reason they can pull out from their confused minds. The bottom line is that it's simply no big deal, they are just breasts, and they do no harm to anybody. If someone does not want to see a topfree woman, there is a wonderful part of the human anatomy called the neck which allows the head to turn and look the other way.
In some cultures, bare-breasted women would not garner a second glance from a man. But here in the U.S., they get second, third and fourth glances. Unless someone can show that bare-chested women would not cause the sort of distractions that result in car crashes, twisted ankles and slaps from spouses, the women’s point is lost.Slaps from spouses? Talk about losing a point! Show me exactly who, what, when, where and why the sight of a woman's breast caused any car crash. If automobile accidents are going to be touted as a reason to prohibit the public display of female breasts, then let's ban cell phones in cars altogether because anytime I see someone driving dangerously they always seem to be laughing and talking with their phone pressed to their ear.
Before they organize the next parade, they should consider what happened when gun owners hosted a barbecue recently in Portland with side arms strapped to their waists to assert their gun ownership rights. The demonstration spurred some to call for stricter gun controls. Bare-breasted parades are an assertion of legal rights, but they ultimately empower those who would want to change the law.
No, the point of women's topfreedom is simply equality. Men can take their shirts off just about anywhere in public, and women simply want the same right as protected under the Constitution of the United States. It's not about distractions, or leering, or gun rights, it's about women's rights.
And it's not like women everywhere are suddenly going to start taking their tops off. Men have the right, and certainly not all of them take their shirts off. What's the percentage of shirtless men on any given summer day walking down the main street of town? The point is that nobody cares about how many men take their shirts off because it's simply legal and accepted that they can.
And let those who want to change the law give it their best shot. It's high time this issue is tested in the courts. When the laws were tested in Columbus, Ohio, and in New York State, the right for women to be topfree was upheld. Either women have to be accepted as having the same right as men to be shirtless, or the law needs to be changed to force men to wear bikinis at the beach, and t-shirts when playing basketball on public courts. And you know that ain't gonna happen.
People get all worked up, calling the baring of breasts immoral, or dangerous for the children, or a manifestation of the homosexual agenda, or any other irrational reason they can pull out from their confused minds. The bottom line is that it's simply no big deal, they are just breasts, and they do no harm to anybody. If someone does not want to see a topfree woman, there is a wonderful part of the human anatomy called the neck which allows the head to turn and look the other way.
This Is Why They Are Marching
 |
BANGOR DAILY NEWS PHOTO BY KEVIN BENNETT |
The Stupidist Thing Anyone Has Ever Said About Women's Topfreedom
Maine Republican legislator Lance Harvell doesn't want women baring their breasts in public, but the reason he hesitates to enact legislation against bare chests against it is because "none of us wants to see a teenaged boy playing basketball outside get arrested". So, if not for the Constitution of the United States, which requires that laws must treat men and women equally, this jerk would love to lock up any woman for exposing a nipple in public.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Anatomy of a Topfree Activist - Andrea Simoneau
 |
PHOTO BY AMBER WATERMAN, SUN JOURNAL/AP |
That memory stuck with Andrea, and when she marched topfree with Ty MacDowell and others in Portland, Maine, a few weeks ago, she was inspired to take action.
At 1 PM on Friday, April 30, Andrea Simoneau and a crowd of both men and women will exercise their topfree rights in Farmington, Maine. The march will begin at Meetinghouse Park on Main Street and will go about a half mile to Abbott Park. Andrea says that 60 people have signed up on her Facebook page, but due to all the publicity it's impossible to predict the number of people who will participate.
"If we're protesting anything, its that societal double standard of women's chests being considered sexual, no matter what context they are presented in, and men's chests are only sexual in certain context", said Andrea.
The 22 year-old University of Maine Farmington senior, who has been on the Dean's list for academic excellence, has been walking topfree through the town handing out flyers for the event, with the word "Freedom" written across her chest. As for public reaction either pro or con to her free expression, Andrea says that it's "pretty evenly split, and there have definitely been uncomfortable confrontations. You just have to keep on going, and ignore them and do not engage with them or escalate the situation in any way, as that hurts the cause far more than helps it." In a radio interview today, Andrea says that most of the negative reaction comes from people who oppose her on moral grounds, and, of course, for the sake of the children.
"I believe no religious group should have any sway in lawmaking, as it promotes special interests for certain groups. Morality is subjective. Therefore, I feel that morality is not a grounds to stand on to make policy, and should never be."
Ms. Simoneau believes there is "no time like the present" to promote women's topfreedom, and credits Dr. Paul Rapoport and TERA for "great encouragement and assistance". She hopes that other organizations interested in equal rights for women will also pick up on the movement.
The April 3 topfree march in Portland, while successful in generating lots of publicity, descended into somewhat of a circus, with hoards of men tripping over each other to take photographs, and some of the female participants obliging with some cheesecake posing. "There's nothing that can be done to stop men from taking pictures or making inappropriate comments. However if any inappropriate touching occurs or assault, the participant must report it to the police. There are going to be a lot of counterprotesters present also, I am told, and the police have expressed that they will be present to hold order."
As for anyone acting in a sexual manner, Andrea makes it clear that she wants none of that. "Anyone I catch doing that I will personally ask to leave, with great admonishments about them undermining our cause. Those women's actions disgusted me about the Portland march far more than the men taking pictures and leering."
Although there are no laws in Maine specifically prohibiting the exposure of female breasts in public, Andrea admits her actions could result in a backlash, and people are already calling for laws prohibiting topfreedom. "The town of Farmington has decided not to take an official position on the issue, and has decided to defer it to the State legislature to be ruled on, possibly even put to state referendum. Since support seems to be so evenly split for it, I feel confident that even when that happens, we stand a good chance for it to be officially legalized, as I believe the law stands now that only genital exposure is "indecent" exposure. I will do my part to speak out to the legislature as well, as I hope women's equal rights organizations in Maine or even national ones will do the same."
Perhaps the most high-profile opposition to Ms. Simoneau's protest comes from conservative activist Michael Heath of the American Family Association of Maine, who is seeking records from UMF regarding a recent campus event for EqualityMaine.
Heath said he draws a connection between the upcoming march in Farmington and his records request because "the promotion and presentation of public nudity is a staple of the homosexual rights movement." Heath's recently founded organization is a chapter of the Mississippi-based American Family Association.Calling the march "more typical of San Francisco than Maine", Heath joins other religious groups who plan to counter-protest, including women from local churches holding a silent prayer vigil, and Rev. Bob Emrich who recently helped to overturn Maine's gay marriage law.
"We see an organic connection between the two," Heath said. "Many still confuse sexual license, and indifference to the gospel of Jesus Christ, with true freedom and liberty."
But Simoneau says all of the criticisms of the march are off-base. For instance, the march will be held while children are in school and will follow a route that is away from schools, Simoneau said.
And in a way, Simoneau said, "we are doing this for children -- to create a more equal world for them by presenting a female body that is not a sexual contest."
"This is for a noble cause of gender equality," she said. "Giving up has not crossed my mind."
Adelle Shea, Canadian topfree activist and naturist, has come to Andrea's defense.
It is curious that it is not enough in our society that something not be illegal but instead must be made specifically legal in order to be enjoyed freely? In North America a woman going topfree risks being charged with anything from ‘causing a disturbance’ to a sex crime. Breastfeeding women faced, and in some cases still face, the same discrimination and many States and Provinces had to enact laws to make breastfeeding a child in public specifically legal. In some cases even this was found to be insufficient and laws had to be enacted to make harassment of a nursing mother (by passers-by, business owners, police) illegal. In this case the attending constables were a great help in protecting Ms Simoneau’s legal right and informing the public that she was doing nothing illegal. In my opinion, it isn’t topfreedom that is immoral but the systemic discrimination of women that surrounds it.Andrea understands the wide societal ramifications of women's topfreedom in America. She says, "it saddens me greatly that nursing mothers are particularly discriminated against in this matter. I encourage nursing mothers particularly, as well as breast cancer survivors and those who have been victims of sexual assault to come out and experience the empowerment and freedom of going topless in town."
Eventually the topfreedom movement will need a leader, or an organization, which can mobilize women nationwide. Is Andrea up to the challenge? "I'm not a leader by nature, but if that role falls to me, I will do my best to fill it. I cannot do it alone, not by a long shot. I'm having a terrible time trying to handle this myself, though I have had help in advertising, definitely, from UMF students and friends."
If you would like to help Andrea, or participate in her march this Friday, you can contact her on her Facebook page here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Andrea Simoneau Topfree in Maine
Simply because Andrea is exercising her right which is clearly supported by the law, people who oppose the exposure of her breasts in public are calling for a law to ban women from taking off their shirts. It's hard to even think of a similar example where someone is doing something perfectly legal and people start calling for a ban on that activity. It's clearly not rational, based on religious dogma and old social taboos, and not on the law or equal rights. If anything, the police and government officials should be protecting a woman's right to topfreedom. When the police say that their "hands are tied", this is not a ringing endorsement of the law, but rather a coded message that the legislators should act to prevent the public display of female breasts.
Our society is already burdened by too many laws and codes which restrict personal freedoms. To suggest that another law is needed to persecute women like Andrea Simoneau is over-reactive and completely unnecessary. Society has oppressed women for far too long, and sexualized their body parts to the point where they are sometimes more object than person.
Let's hope that Ms. Simoneau's march is peaceful and successful.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Topfree Organizer Needs Thicker Skin, Clearer Message
In the past, protesters have been subjected to tear gas, bullets, fire hoses, taunts, thrown eggs, spit or worse. The heart of any protest is for people to stand up to an inequity in society, and to accept the consequences from the reactions of those who disagree.
When 20 year-old Ty MacDowell decided to organize a women's topfree march through the heart of Portland, Maine, she somehow thought that people would automatically accept bared women's breasts as a normal occurrence. "I was shocked by the number of people", she admitted. "I expected that (people would watch), but not to the extent that it was."
Ty was also upset that a video of the event was posted online and blurred out as if it was pornography, noting that such censorship felt like "total objectification".
Now I give Ty major props for taking on this endeavor, but she needs to thicken her exposed skin a little more in the face of public reaction. After all, the women were not arrested or hindered in any way. If some men behaved like young boys seeing their first Playboy centerfold, it's a male problem, and illustrates exactly why the topfree movement is important. The only way to reverse the objectification of women's breasts is to make them ubiquitous.
Ty states that she "can't understand" why other women would find the display of female breasts "disgusting" since there is nothing inherently sexual about nudity. Again, I applaud her efforts, but Ty has to get a little more savvy in dealing with the press if she wants to make her positive message more effective. It's hard to imagine Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem declaring that they "didn't understand" society's push back against feminism. I would argue that Ms. MacDowell does in fact understand, which is why she is organizing topfree events in the first place, she is just inexperienced at articulating her position.
Embrace the photographers, embrace the publicity, and embrace your new position as a women's rights leader, Ty. It's all a good thing if you channel some of the negativity you feel into focusing your message and expanding the movement. Shock and indignation should not be the thrust of your platform.
Ty reports that she has been contacted by a University of Maine at Farmington student who wants to organize a similar march on that campus, but she also states that she wants to take her movement "more grass-roots" and plan events through word-of-mouth rather than through social networking on the Internet.
Like it or not, Ty MacDowell has made international news with her topfree walk through an American city. Shying away from the publicity is a mistake, and will likely create the impression that society is not ready for topless women in public. Trying to avoid the "circus atmosphere" only assures that the objectification and voyeurism will continue. A civil right not properly exercised will wither and die.
When 20 year-old Ty MacDowell decided to organize a women's topfree march through the heart of Portland, Maine, she somehow thought that people would automatically accept bared women's breasts as a normal occurrence. "I was shocked by the number of people", she admitted. "I expected that (people would watch), but not to the extent that it was."
Ty was also upset that a video of the event was posted online and blurred out as if it was pornography, noting that such censorship felt like "total objectification".
Now I give Ty major props for taking on this endeavor, but she needs to thicken her exposed skin a little more in the face of public reaction. After all, the women were not arrested or hindered in any way. If some men behaved like young boys seeing their first Playboy centerfold, it's a male problem, and illustrates exactly why the topfree movement is important. The only way to reverse the objectification of women's breasts is to make them ubiquitous.
Ty states that she "can't understand" why other women would find the display of female breasts "disgusting" since there is nothing inherently sexual about nudity. Again, I applaud her efforts, but Ty has to get a little more savvy in dealing with the press if she wants to make her positive message more effective. It's hard to imagine Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem declaring that they "didn't understand" society's push back against feminism. I would argue that Ms. MacDowell does in fact understand, which is why she is organizing topfree events in the first place, she is just inexperienced at articulating her position.
Embrace the photographers, embrace the publicity, and embrace your new position as a women's rights leader, Ty. It's all a good thing if you channel some of the negativity you feel into focusing your message and expanding the movement. Shock and indignation should not be the thrust of your platform.
Ty reports that she has been contacted by a University of Maine at Farmington student who wants to organize a similar march on that campus, but she also states that she wants to take her movement "more grass-roots" and plan events through word-of-mouth rather than through social networking on the Internet.
Like it or not, Ty MacDowell has made international news with her topfree walk through an American city. Shying away from the publicity is a mistake, and will likely create the impression that society is not ready for topless women in public. Trying to avoid the "circus atmosphere" only assures that the objectification and voyeurism will continue. A civil right not properly exercised will wither and die.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Women Exercise Their Topfree Rights in Portland
The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on, said Ty MacDowell, 20, of Westbrook, who organized Saturday's event and promoted it on Facebook....MacDowell said she understood that for women, going topless in public "is not socially acceptable yet, and obviously there's going to be a reaction to something that breaks the norm."
But, she said, the picture-taking was particularly upsetting.I find it rather odd that Ms. MacDowell would be so savvy about her topfree rights, yet so ignorant about photographer's rights. Anyone who appears in public and has no reasonable expectation of privacy can be photographed.
"A lot of people were taking pictures without even asking," she said. "Even if you're somewhere where people are fully clothed, you should ask."
Also, in our breast-obsessed society, women who appear topfree in public should not be surprised by getting a lot of attention, particularly from males who have been conditioned to regard female breasts as sexual objects.
It's very encouraging that women turned out in such a relatively large number for this event, and since interest was high with no incidents or arrests, perhaps the next topfree protest in Maine will be even larger. For their next event, the women say they are planning a "topless adventure".
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Victoria's Secret Brings Back the Topless Bathing Suit
Wouldn't it be ironic if it's the fashion industry which makes it trendy for people to wear less clothing? This could be an interesting summer for the topfreedom movement if this suit begins to catch on.Victoria's Secret Topless Bikini
Friday, October 09, 2009
Baristagate Continues in Washington State
A barista in Puyallup Washington was arrested and charged with indecent exposure when she was seen outside the Bikini Bottom Espresso stand wearing only a bottom and pasties.
Since the woman was wearing pasties on her nipples, it's unclear whether or not she was technically violating any indecent exposure laws. According to the Naturist Action Committee, the laws in Washington state are pretty vague. Perhaps Paul Rapoport of TERA will have something to add to this.
"I saw her out of the corner of my eye," said Robin Whitten of Olympia. "I hadn’t approached the stand yet, and you could see boob, and of course a bikini bottom, and I said, 'No way! This chick is not standing out there with no shirt on.'"Naturally, Whitten called the cops because everyone knows that female breasts are dangerous to children and small furry animals.
Since the woman was wearing pasties on her nipples, it's unclear whether or not she was technically violating any indecent exposure laws. According to the Naturist Action Committee, the laws in Washington state are pretty vague. Perhaps Paul Rapoport of TERA will have something to add to this.
Another Easy Target
Don't you just love a tough cop who knows how to put a woman in her place?
Alton Illinois police chief David Hayes is cracking down on nudity in local taverns, and he's started by arresting 22 year-old Jessica L. Thomas, who allegedly was bartending without a top on.
Thomas has been charged with "lewd entertainment", and the police chief wants state charges of public indecency brought against the young woman.
Way to go, Chief Hayes. You're a real man.
Alton Illinois police chief David Hayes is cracking down on nudity in local taverns, and he's started by arresting 22 year-old Jessica L. Thomas, who allegedly was bartending without a top on.
Thomas has been charged with "lewd entertainment", and the police chief wants state charges of public indecency brought against the young woman.
Way to go, Chief Hayes. You're a real man.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Punish the Monkey, Let the Organ Grinder Go
Well, they found a way in Washington state to close down those bikini hut coffee shops - they have charged five young women with prostitution.
This wonderful little photo essay "Waiting Topless" on the Vassalboro topless coffee shop, which later burned to the ground, shows the humanity behind the objectification, that these young women who bare their breasts for money are just trying to make ends meet in a horrible economy.
So congratulations to all involved in the Washington state bikini hut scandal, you have successfully taken down the weakest members of society, likely ruining their lives, and the lives of their loved ones. What real men you must all be.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=281995e3-450f-413c-ace8-4e0e5fc753e0)
Detectives also witnessed some of the women charge customers to touch their bare breasts and naked buttocks. Touching of that kind, for pay, falls under the city's definition of prostitution.As is typical in "investigations" like this, it was the undercover cops who were the recipients of the alleged sex shows.
On a second visit, a detective was told he couldn't have a mocha because the stand was out of chocolate. He also was told he couldn't order a small drink because they only served 20-ounce beverages.The barista told him that for $20, she and the other barista would give him a show. He paid and they bared their breasts and pulled down their undergarments, police reports said.He paid. HE PAID. And apparently lots of other men PAID. Yet the "city's definition of prostitution" apparently does not include any responsibility on the part of the men who employ, encourage, exploit and PAY women to take off their clothes.
This wonderful little photo essay "Waiting Topless" on the Vassalboro topless coffee shop, which later burned to the ground, shows the humanity behind the objectification, that these young women who bare their breasts for money are just trying to make ends meet in a horrible economy.
So congratulations to all involved in the Washington state bikini hut scandal, you have successfully taken down the weakest members of society, likely ruining their lives, and the lives of their loved ones. What real men you must all be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)