The consequences of female toplessness (2005 edition) - Baxil [bakh-HEEL'], n.
[The TTU Wiki]
View My LJ
The consequences of female toplessness (2005 edition)|Beach in Europe:
A nice, even tan.Protest in Sacramento, Calif.: Arrest and registration as a sex offender.
Gee, I'm sure glad my state's authorities are taking such steps to protect our children from knowledge of human anatomy. With diligence and vigilance, we might even be able to shield kids from seeing an evil, psychologically scarring breast all the way until their first PG-13 movie.
Current Mood: cranky
Current Music: "Star Trek Rhapsody"
I don't understand the concept of nudity harming children. And that belief is so prevalent! I see it the other way around... making it taboo is more harmful, in my opinion. I need out of this country, ASAP.
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 02:28 am (UTC)|| |
I think the only places you could go would be a few small equatorial tribal groups. The taboo is even recorded in Genesis.
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 02:21 am (UTC)|| |
As we know, nudity is extremely sinful and harmful to all, but violence is no problem really. It's reminiscent to the Grand Theft Auto controversy: a game can have your character murdering civilians for fun, but if there's the remotest possibility there might be anything to do with sex hidden in the game's code, normally inaccessible, it's re-rated AO and pulled off the shelves of mainstream retailers.
Oh, and need we mention Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' being way more important, for at least a week, than anything that was actually of any real-world significance?
I really don't understand how they can claim that these women are sex offenders, though.. if they want to get them with something, I'm sure there are public indecency laws about.
Government types these days seem especially resentful of protestors, don't they? The impression I get with some of these people is that they would outright ban protesting of any sort if it weren't unconstitutional to do so.
(Which, of course, is exactly why the First Amendment is needed.)
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 08:01 am (UTC)|| |
"We feel what we are doing is harmless," said Sherry Glaser, speaking for the group on the steps of the federal courthouse in Sacramento where she had gone to try to block the state from making arrests Monday.
"It's a demonstration of what freedom is, what peace is, what liberty is."
Actually, it's none of those things. It's a collection of flesh and glands used to hold vital nutients and fluids for offspring. It also happens to be a well doccumented eroginous zone, marketing tool and trigger for what some psychologists would term latent sexual agression.
Last I checked, it didn't look anything like an olive branch... Granted, it has been some time...
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 09:14 am (UTC)|| |
Now if they're really smart, they'll get together a group of new mothers, and stage public breast-feeding instead. I'd like to see the political shit-fight if anyone tried to arrest that.
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 01:08 pm (UTC)|| |
Re Janet Jackson....
eurgh. Not the nipple but the tacky jewellery on it.
|Date:||November 6th, 2005 06:31 pm (UTC)|| |
*scribbles in notebook*
Public nudity, provided there is no sexual element, is legal in Oregon. It would be perfectly acceptable for Breasts Not Bombs to stage their protest on the Capital Lawn here in Salem.
Oh, right. We have the most strip clubs and porn shops per capita in Portland than any other city in the United States. Guess all the sickos live here, then.
Writes in notebook: reason # 1023 why I'm happy I no longer live in California.
So does that mean that with my small bra size, it would count only as possession of a "small amount" and thus be a misdemeanor instead of a felony? ;)