Archive for the ‘gay/lesbian’ Category
Allowing female nipples to be seen means total equal freedom
We have the freedom to believe whatever we think freedom should be even if we think other people’s definition of freedom interferes in our right to have freedom.
Men have had the right to be topless for about 80 years. Men can’t be topless everywhere, of course. “No shirt …” is standard in private establishments, especially around food. Outside in public places, walking down the sidewalk, at the beach, in a park: men have the right to be free and not wear a shirt.
With very few exceptions, women do not have the right to be topless in the United States. We have freedom unless you’re a woman on a hot day who wants to feel cool air on her upper torso.
The upper torso isn’t the issue. Backs, stomachs, collarbones: just fine to be on display in public. The problem, as it were, is breasts.
Actually these days, breasts are not the issue. You can see the majesty of the female breasts through cleavage. The underside of the female breasts is also pretty rare, but not technically illegal.
What is illegal to display in the vast majority of the United States … is the nipple.
Female nipples are very powerful: they are the source of life for babies. But their strongest force, apparently, is to freak people out.
People are scared and nervous about the idea of female nipples being seen in public. But if we think back to the idea of freedom, let’s see where the freedom of women choosing to expose their nipples interferes in the freedom of others.
- Children
“Will somebody think of the children?” — Helen Lovejoy, The Simpsons. Let’s think of the children. Children 5 and under likely get to see their mother’s nipples quite often, either through breastfeeding or the practical element of intimacy between mother and child. Young children can be scared at an early age but chances are nipples won’t be their greatest fear.
We have a society that strongly encourages women to keep their baby under a blanket when being breastfed in public. Associating a blanket over a head while getting nutrition would scare a child more than the exposure of the source of that nutrition.
Children 6-11 would be intrigued by female nipples. Girls would be curious to see what will eventually happen to them. Girls are more likely to wonder why at that age, they have to keep their nipples covered but their boy counterparts get to run around without a shirt.
Boys at a similar age who, if they aren’t paying attention to girls, are still likely to notice women who don’t have on a shirt. “Why does that woman not have a shirt on?” a boy might ask. A simple “adults are allowed in certain situations to be allowed to go without a shirt” will suffice. Children are curious but if breasts are out in the open, they are less likely to think of them as being a big deal.
- Teenagers
Children who eventually will become teenagers won’t think too much of a woman on a beach without a shirt or a bikini top. Teenagers who are already teenagers will have an adjustment period.
Girls who are in this age group might be shy to join in adult women who choose the topless option. Other girls may not care and will be some of the first adopters. They will learn quickly that freedom can apply across gender lines, setting a positive example for young females.
Teenage boys tend to get swept up in hormones, so even a bra or a hint of a bra can be enough to set them off. If you take a poll of teenage boys who are straight, you will get very few votes against women going topless.
- Adults
So far, we have groups that will need adjustment. But none of them have the slightest inclination of being offended by female nipples.
Clearly we have found our source of concern: adults. Most men aren’t offended by female nipples; they would welcome female nipples in the landscape.
Adult women have the most to gain. If enough women on a beach go this route, there isn’t just one direction to take notice.
We have to be realistic. Some adult men and women find female nipples to be offensive. To be fair, this is the same group that objected when male nipples were exposed. They object to nipples, mostly female but not always.
Religion, oddly enough, is an issue with some of them. Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden until they eat the apple. According to the logic of the story, things were ideal when they were naked. Shame only came when they disobeyed God.
These people feel shame today for seeing bodies exposed. They are as likely to be upset by cleavage as nipples.
- Freedom
One of the arguments for same-gender marriage is that their marriages don’t threaten “traditional marriages.” The freedom to marry doesn’t interfere with people who are already married or those who choose not to get married to anyone.
If a woman chooses to be topless in a park or on a beach, she doesn’t interfere in someone else’s preference to not go topless. Many men choose to not go topless even when they have the opportunity. Others do so every chance they can get to be topless.
A woman seeing another woman who is topless might be encouraged to join her but is under no obligation to do so. For all the “talk” about gays “recruiting” others, there also isn’t any agenda for those for topless freedom to force anyone to join in who is not comfortable.
Same-gender marriage and topless freedom both are about the freedom to do something that doesn’t threaten other people.
Pride Weekend is always a grand celebration, but especially this year. Chances are in attending a Pride Parade that you will see a woman wearing bandages or stickers over her nipples, but otherwise have their breasts exposed.
The women who do this are beautiful for taking the bold step, even if the stickers and bandages seem a bit silly. When you see a woman’s breasts, the whole breast except for the nipple, you truly realize how immature we are for being obsessed with keeping the nipple covered.
We aren’t trying to compare the two movements, but just that they come together on Pride Weekend and they are both about freedom. They are asking for rights already being given to other people; they aren’t asking for something that doesn’t already exist.
People can be offended if a man takes off his shirt, either because they are concerned about all men who are topless or a particular male chest. Yet men are allowed to be topless.
Movements such as Free The Nipple have done a lot to expose people to this cause. Teenagers taking selfies and sexting has opened up a generation that isn’t as afraid to show nipples.
When a young woman from Iceland was cyberbullied after posting a topless picture, a number of Icelandic women went to Twitter and posted pictures showing a nipple or two in solidarity. One of those Icelandic participants was a female politician.
With all those nipples floating around the Internet, the world didn’t suddenly freeze. People who chose to look did so. Those that didn’t chose to look were not harmed by having pictures of nipples all around the Internet.
Freedom and tolerance requires us to respect the feelings and views of those who think topless females do harm to society. That has to be weighed against the harm to society that comes from not allowing women that option. Bad body images, low self-esteem, feeling not equal for reasons that feel trivial: being denied total equal freedom comes at a price. The question is whether that price is costlier and whether we want to keep paying that price for a lack of total equal freedom.
Chick-Fil-A should be about love, not hate
Dan Cathy has kicked up the heat on Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage. Yes, we know the restaurant chain supports “traditional marriage” and contributes money to groups fighting against gay marriage. By making that stance more than obvious, Chick-Fil-A’s PR nightmare shows that associating a brand with hate, not love, is detrimental to the financial bottom line.
Conservatives are trying to help out the Chick-Fil-A franchise by declaring today as Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Pro gay marriage forces have organized a “kiss-in” for Friday. The conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee, Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, aren’t necessarily there for the chicken sandwich, but there to counter the move toward equality in marriage.
For more on the coverage and an in-depth analysis, check out this column from our sister blog, BalanceofFood.com.
South Carolina notebook: Candidates rushing to leap rather than be pushed out of the race
We knew that some of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates would be practically eliminated after South Carolina. Two of them jumped before they were pushed.
— Jon Huntsman’s timing was bad because it looked like he dropped out as he realized he would lose to Stephen Colbert. Huntsman endorsed Mitt Romney, which seemed sad since most independents, if they had to vote for a Mormon former governor with great hair, would have picked Huntsman over Romney.
— Rick Perry’s timing was bad because it looked like he dropped out as he realized he would have to debate one more time. Perry endorsed Newt Gingrich, which seemed sad since if the coin had come up tails, Rick Santorum would have had the endorsement. Perry likes coins because they offer only two options; he never remembers the third option for some reason.
— Herman Cain’s timing was great because it looked smarter for staying out. Cain endorsed Colbert’s bid to campaign under his name, which seemed sad since Colbert is a better candidate as a fake candidate than Cain was as a real candidate.
— Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined would represent a serious threat to Mitt Romney. Not quite in a Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton kind of race, but the tightest race the Republicans have had since, well, William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. The problem is even though they are vested and experienced politicians, while they know they are splitting the conservative vote, neither of them can get the other one to leave. Santorum’s Iowa win, now confirmed, would give him that momentum, but Gingrich’s loudness overshadows Santorum’s attempts to get noticed. After all, Santorum didn’t have an ex-wife on “Nightline” this week. Gingrich should be thankful it was only one.
— Gingrich got a partial standing ovation for confronting John King on asking the question about an open marriage in Thursday’s debate. As offended as Gingrich appeared to be, he had to love the question so he could react the way he did. As for Gingrich, when you protest that way, we assume your ex-wife’s charge is true.
Gingrich puts his marriages on the record because he preaches family values, the “sanctity of marriage,” and his hypocrisy during the Clinton years. So he shouldn’t pretend to be miffed.
If politicians really could admit what they’re thinking, especially GOP politicians, wouldn’t it have been great for Gingrich to say, “Yeah, I wanted a open marriage. What does that have to do with running the country and getting the economy back on track.” The problem for Gingrich and other “holier-than-thous” is that they would have to admit that family values and “sanctity of marriage” have nothing to do with running the country.
— If you had to name the two most consistent GOP presidential candidates besides Mitt Romney, Rick Perry is the most obvious choice for finishing consistently bad and saying really horrible things but Ron Paul has had two solid finishes and is looking for a third in South Carolina. This isn’t to say that Ron Paul will win or should win. The MSM’s curious coverage of Ron Paul lends itself to conspiracy theories from people who aren’t normally paranoid. The voters have spoken in Iowa and New Hampshire, and later today in South Carolina; the MSM should start listening. If you are running for president and score as high as Ron Paul does, attention should be paid to you. If not, then you aren’t doing your job.
— We would like to welcome back Keith Olbermann to anchor coverage of the South Carolina primary tonight on Current TV. Coverage gets underway at 6:30 pm Eastern and runs 90 minutes. The coverage resumes at 9:30 pm Eastern for another 90 minutes. You might remember that Olbermann sat out coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Building a news operation takes time; even within that, Current TV has been off to a bad start. The graphics issues and lighting problems are real, and Olbermann has every right to be concerned about the professional approach of the cable channel. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks, Jennifer Granholm, and former Vice President Al Gore, head of Current TV, has done a pretty good job, though their coverage has been sidetracked at times, especially when you want results. I drifted back to MSNBC at times. It does help that MSNBC is in HD and Current TV isn’t, but Rachel Maddow was focused. Olbermann had that potential to keep the focus; Olbermann has done a lot more anchoring than everyone in this paragraph combined. The best solution would be to combine the two approaches into one, but it looks like everyone we’ve seen so far in coverage won’t be there tonight.
Tea party goal is anarchy; credit rating slash is drop in the bucket
“Anarchy in the UK” was a Sex Pistols song from 1976. You could easily see a remake done by the teabaggers in 2011.
The Daily Show and Colbert Report, as well as the current and former members of MSNBC, have made fun of the ads for gold on various right-wing shows, including Glenn Beck, because, well, they’re funny. But what they may not realize is that the teabaggers are set to create a scenario where those commercials make sense.
The tea party antics have all been about bringing a worst times, end of times scenario. And since the teabaggers have been given more power than they warrant, the rest of us will suffer.
They love the idea that our credit rating has been reduced. They are upset that only Standard’s and Poor has made the cut. They also love that Europe, of all places, is having its own debt problems.
The deficit is the ruse; this is about anarchy, at least right-wing anarchy.
Looking back on the times of the Sex Pistols, a simpler time in 1976 on either shore of the Atlantic, the adapted phrase is, “Protesting? I’ll give you something to protest about.”
Imagine the Sex Pistols were upset at the government before Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan in the U.S., free trade agreements which cut jobs in countries such as England and the United States, and the anemic economic growth of the 21st century.
Imagine the teabaggers are upset at the government in 2011: taxes are the lowest in decades, we’re in 2-4 useless wars, badly needed domestic spending is on a very high shelf and we can’t find the damn step-ladder. True, a small percentage of women can still have abortions, and slightly more people can get gay married, so life isn’t perfect for them.
The MSM still thinks the teabaggers are upset about the deficit, but since they refuse tax increases on the very rich and any liberal suggestions on budget cuts, the teabaggers may be fooling the MSM but not the rest of us.
Teabaggers/Republicans don’t want the government to spend money on the American people; we can certainly spend money propping up governments and people elsewhere in the world, usually in the chase for oil, but they see spending money on American needs as un-American.
“Lift yourself by the bootstraps” is a common phrase from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, though she comes from a state where the citizens get subsidy checks from the government for oil.
They sincerely believe that the government helping people produces character of weakness, again, unless they live outside the country.
The fact that they are borrowing tactics from the 18th century, 1976 England, and wherever they can find them speaks volume to a people that aren’t used to protesting. They have been the “America: Love it or leave it” crowd.
Panic in the streets is what they want. A slashed credit rating is only the start; in their Biblical world, the end times don’t come in a sea of calm. While gold is a metaphor to most Americans, they believe that gold is a sign of the bad times, and they want that sign.
What would help is if liberals would take to the streets, like they did in Wisconsin. Several states passed similar union-busting legislation but Wisconsin got the media coverage in part because people were protesting.
But fighting for government help isn’t as exciting and getting people to rally to support Social Security and infrastructure isn’t awe-inspiring. After all, abortion rights have been stripped away, and the protesters we see are the anti-choice crowd.
The teabaggers insist this is their country. And mock them as you will, but they are fighting for what they think they want, even if it doesn’t make sense.
If liberals don’t fight back, the teabaggers’ goal of anarchy may soon be realized, even if the anarchy would look foreign to Johnny Rotten and the British youth of the late 1970s.
Chick-Fil-A or gay: the choice is in your corner
The latest Chick-Fil-A vs. gay controversy was a ripe topic for a food/politics story for our sister blog, BalanceofFood.com.
If you don’t have a Chick-Fil-A nearby or you don’t believe in gay rights, you likely might not care. But you might want to use this as a case study in other food/politics conflicts.
Here is the column from BalanceofFood.com.