I found the recent article regarding the upcoming topfreedom march both interesting and informative. Likewise the comments that it generated. The article, unlike many of the comments, was fair and balanced and I hope that many more women will be willing to stand up and be counted on April 30. Though there are many people that simply don’t understand the necessity of such marches, it is something that needs to be done and done often. Only by seeing topfree women will people get used to seeing topfree women, just as has already happened with topfree men.
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.
To put it in perspective, it is not illegal in North America for a woman, like a man, to go about in public without a head covering. If someone were to complain to the police or mall-security about such a woman it would be very unlikely that she would be arrested, accosted, harassed or told to cover-up or get out. In fact, the complainer would be informed that this is not illegal and that they had the option not looking. Should they confront the woman or women offending them in this way it would be they, and not the women in question, who would be arrested or asked to leave. Yet should a woman, like a man, choose to go about in public without a breast covering the complete opposite reaction is not only likely but expected and accepted. It wouldn’t matter that breasts are not genitalia, that their exposure is non-sexual and not illegal, that men can do so freely or even that they are being used for their natural function. In our society, unlike in Europe, it seems that the primary purpose of the female breast is to please men or generate profit, often both together. Their accepted role is to titillate and they, and therefore women, are treated accordingly. Please, tell me how that is NOT systemic gender discrimination and objectification of women.
Adelle Shea
Edmonton, Ab
Canada
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to bare breasts.
Henry Braun: The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. I sure hope you are not implying that this is Freedom of speech issue.
ModestLady: Thank you!
Henry Braun: I don’t think so.
Thank you, Ann D., for your civil “I don’t think so.” As fellow citizens on this dispute about “toplessness,” may we all remain thoughtful & civil. As we should on someone’s saying “The Second Amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to bare arms anytime anywhere.”
ModestLady,
Yes, our country was founded on religious principles, but you notice they did not establish a theocracy. I would read your entire post, but it has already been established that this is not a religious issue. It is a social issue. Therefore, my reading your quotes from the version of the Bible you choose to accept as “the word” will have no bearing upon my position on this issue.
James, my “version” of the Bible has nothing to do with it. How we apply it matters. When I put verses in my post I figured most people would stop there and not even finish. Truth convicts and people don’t like to feel guilt. They like their sin more. By the way, everything is a “religious issue”, everything we do stems from how we view God and His Word. I am not just “religious” though, I am a Christian.
Henry-This is NOT an issue of freedom of speech, it’s freedom to offend without consequences. She isn’t looking for equal rights for everyone-just herself.
James Why should people stop quoting the Bible? How is it not a religious issue? What bible, no matter which version you chose to read, NIV NKJ etc do you find that this kind of unmoral behavior should be overlooked? Thats the problem in this country sometimes Christian don’t get involved in these issues. But I want to thank everyone out there trying to shine a moral light on this issue and please don’t listen to people like James a Christian is a Christian 24/7 on every issue you don’t need to “turn it off” ’cause some bully tells you to.
Henry, as much as I respect you as a person (yes, I know you) I cannot agree with your statement. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression have different meanings. Even with freedom of speech, we are not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. I believe that the right to “be” is a right inherent to our existence. Part of this right is the right to exist as an individual as you please as long as you are not causing actual harm to another. This does not protect one from being offended by another, but it does protect from harm.
I have asked a number of times, without reply, what harm comes to a person who sees another in their basic human state. If God created us in His own image, then that image, and everything God has created is good, then our image must be good.
To many morality is what they think morality is. Unless someone can tell me what actual harm comes to a person who sees another in their natural state, I have no further use for this conversation.
Interesting that discussion here appears to be unaware that the rest of the state is finding this all hilarious, possibly because the rest of the state has a sense of humor. I’d suggest that everyone take a deep breath and walk away. If anyone of any gender wishes to walk “top free” (good grief) on Friday, go right ahead and have fun. If anyone wants to ogle, well, there’s your chance. If you’re “offended” (good grief), don’t ogle.
Honestly, the amount and intensity of this “discussion” calls for Farmington to pass an ordinance mandating a sense of humor as soon as possible.
henry, did you mean bare arms or bear arms? i always interpreted the second amendment as allowing me to bear bare bear arms.
Jonboy: “bear arms” is what I meant. “Bare” was a slip of my bare typing finger. And James Casey: Yes, I do understand that speech and (expressive) action can have different meanings. Trying to lower the tension–a bit–between sides on this discussion was the reason for my punning. The United States Constitution….the Bible…. the economic future of Farmington……let’s take deep breaths before Friday.
I thought the second amendment allowed bears to have bare arms. Another right that would exist not be often exercised. What if bears did have the right to bare arms? Would there be an uproar over the first bear that came to town with bare arms? Imagine the trauma to the poor children who had been taught that bears don’t shave their arms, what would they think? Would it be less acceptable in Europe where arm shaving isn’t even done by some human females?? Would it matter if it was a female bear or a male? I don’t know, I guess we would just have to grin and bear it.
Luckily the second amendment does not guarantee bears the right to bare arms, so that is all water under the bridge. But the question arises whether or not we need a permit for the bridge, and if such a bridge can be built over the water. Does a bridge constitute a structure, and can such a structure be built within a shore-land zone? If so, is a permit required, and could a denial be overturned by an appeals board? Is there a requirement regarding the amount of water that can pass under the bridge? If this conversation exceeds the amount of water that should pass under that bridge, should IT be declared a disaster by FEMA?
See, I do have a sense of humor.
So from what I am reading, the only rights that are important here are the topless marchers’ rights. Those of us who don’t want to be offended, don’t have any rights here. These college students, who don’t come from Farmington, who don’t pay taxes here, can disrupt and anger local residents, and we just have to shut up and deal with it. That is what I am hearing. I’d like to see these girls go to their own hometowns and have similar rallies, where their proud parents and grandparents can see them in all their glory.
Forty-five states don’t give this right to women, so these states must be controlled by right-wing extremists? Right. A survey was done fairly recently by Pew Research and found that Maine is the third most God-less state in the country. Vermont/NH were tied for the most Godless, Alaska was next and Maine was third. What we are seeing is the effects of this God-lessness. Some on this board would say this is a good thing. But our country is the reaping the results of this turning away from God- sky-high crime, half of all marriages ending in divorce, one-third of all pregnancies ending in abortion. Yes, keeping God out of it all is certainly bearing good fruit.
Haiti will be in tremendous need for years. Tornadoes in the South destroyed 1,000 homes and business in just one night. Since these marchers have so much time on their hands, why don’t they do something productive with their energies, like collecting clothing or goods that be used to help others. There is such need in so many places. Work for a cause that matters, not for a cause that makes matters worse.
Nowhere in law is it stated that we have the right to not be offended.
you have no right not to be offended. if you did, i would be the first to exercise it and every mainer with a rebel flag on display would be in jail. television would not exist, and the daily bulldog would have no comment capability. if you’re really afraid of being offended, hide under a church pew. if maine isn’t godly enough for you, perhaps you should consider relocating to utah… or iran, where god smites the topless with earthquakes and homosexuals are extirpated.
There is also the National Gotopless Day.__The first national protest was in 2008 and this August is the 3rd annual national protest in US history.__If you live nearby one of the cities it will be in make sure & come show your support. For details just search on the web or click my name.
For those who claim bare breasts (or for that matter, nudity in general) is “immoral”, what is the basis for your opinion? Is there any verse in the Bible that says thou shalt not show skin? God can never command someone to sin, therefore simple nudity can not be considered a sin (and therefore not immoral either), since God comanded Isaiah to go completely naked, including barefoot too, for 3 years while he prophecied. (Isaiah 20:2-3) Saul likewise became naked and prophecied in the same manner, and the people thought since he was naked, he must be one of the prophets. Apparantly being naked was customary for old testament prphets. (1 Samuel 19:24). The Bible also mentions that Peter was naked while fishing in his boat. (John 21:7) Even Jesus himself had no problems being naked, for he completely undressed before washing his disciple’s feet. (John 13:4) Another interesting fact is when someone criticized another for being naked, it wasn’t the naked person who was punished, but rather the one who complained that was cursed by God! (2 Samuel 6:20-23) And one more thing to consider… What is a sign for? It is meant to be SEEN. Circumcision was a sign of being a decendant of Abraham. If everyone was always covered in public, this would make it totally useless as a sign. The plain truth is that those who cry morality and shame for public nudity do so from their own bias, not from any Biblical authority. Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil”
It’s always good to consider the upside to the exhibitionist parade. It’s an opportunity for some of our fellow citizens to mount the pedestals of their own creation to announce to the world their enlightenment, their progressive values, tolerance, broad-mindedness, sensitivity to the injustices perpetrated on the persecuted sex and the purity of their regard for the naked bod.
Weeks, months go by without an opportunity to proclaim these lofty ideals and demonstrate their superiority to the vulgar mob of unenlightened citizens. It can’t be easy to keep sentiments bottled up, concealing their bright lights.
It’s unkind to deny them these brief moments of self-congratulation.