Jump to content

pogi

Contributor
  • Content Count

    7,150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pogi

  1. She is a feminist who went to the extreme of exposing her breasts to 3 young step-children to teach them that it is ok for women to expose their breasts in private or public, just like men...and she is now in the legal arena making her case that it is unconstitutional to make her keep her top on in private or public - So, who is coming to ridiculous conclusions? If she wins, it is not just her I am worried about walking around the streets topless. Do you think that Utah law should allow women to expose their breasts to children and others in public or private? Because that is what this case is really about, in case you missed it.
  2. And if she is not convicted, then it will be because the judge found the law unconstitutional (as is the defenses argument) and we very well may see topless women strolling the streets of SLC in the not-so-distant-future. It seems you have more a problem with the sex-registry and how certain sex-offender laws are handled then you do with anything else. I have a problem with it too. But that is a totally different topic for a totally different thread.
  3. Again, it doesn't state or suggest that any body part is "inherently lewd". It clearly states that lewdness is an act, and not a body part (that would be madness to consider). It is explicit that lewdness is "performing" a certain "intentional" act in a certain context. If any part of the human body was "inherently lewd", it would be an inherent act of lewdness to expose it anywhere, anytime, anyplace, to anyone. There are situations where it is not considered lewd by law and culture to expose it, in private and even in public. So again, lewdness is about certain acts in certain contexts that violate cultural sensibilities. The "OR" statement is regarding a private place (the context of this case). Again, I ask you to retract your comment as the CFR you provided does not state (as you suggested it did) that any body part is "inherently" lewd.
  4. the level of "affront or alarm" absolutely is affected by the mother being biological or not.
  5. ...intentionally...knowing they will "likely cause affront or alarm".... No where does it say the nipple is "inherently lewd" nor does it insinuate that. I think you should retract your statement as the CFR was not answered.
  6. CFR that it says any part of the body is "inherently lewd".
  7. Diminishing the validity of a parent? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the validity of in-law-parenthood. This has to do with young children being intentionally exposed to breasts in violation of Utah law to prove how feminist she is - in that context I think the fact that she is not the biological mother does make a difference in how it might affect the children psychologically.
  8. First you tell me not to speculate, then you continue, "it seems evident..." Serious? It doesn't say they never told their mother. There are only 3 likely possibilities. 1) The defendant told the mother (get real), 2) the father told the mother (highly unlikely the husband would rat out his wife to his ex), or 3) the children told the mother. Hmmm... which is more likely?
  9. Yes, I do think that culture should dictate law and not the other way around - now that would be oppressive. You are viewing this from an American perspective and culture, but not all women in Saudi Arabia view it as "oppressive", and would probably take offense at calling the abaya a "cloth bag". Interestingly, cultural attitudes are shifting in Saudi Arabia and the law is following in step - as it should be.
  10. Did your mother shower with you at 13 years old? And has already been pointed out, this wasn’t their biological mother. Again, these weren’t infants and toddlers... I have already addressed this. Context matters. Also this isn’t about parts of the body being inherently _______(fill in the blank), it is about cultural sensibilities and how we violate those or not.
  11. The fact that the authorities found out about it 2 years later from investigating an incident that didn’t even involve the defendant suggests someone was upset about it enough to bring it up. First, it affected the children enough to where they felt compelled to tell their mother about it, and it affected the mother enough to where she felt compelled to tell the authorities about it. The children did all they knew how to do, and the mother may not have known that it was illegal or what her options were. How severely it affected them is speculation, but as I have already argued, I would have been very negatively impacted as a 9, 10, or 13 year old boy to where I wouldn’t feel safe in my own home if my MIL was walking around topless.
  12. I read it too and that is not true. There is not a lawmaker, prosecutor, or judge in Utah who would interpret the statute that way.
  13. Move along Scott. If you are not concerned that the ACLU is fighting to tear down Utah law which prevents women from walking around topless like in Colorado, then don’t participate. But no need to stick your head in to be a jerk and mock those of us who are interested in discussing it.
  14. Utah law does. Again, not even her attorneys refute that it violated Utah lewdness laws - their argument is that it is not fair because their father had his shirt off too...wow.
  15. I thought I read in the article that the kids filed charges, I am mistaken. I still stand by what I said about why it would be an unsafe environment for young children and a violation of Utah law. It is not a question, or even refuted, that she violated the children’s protected rights surrounding Utah lewdness laws, what is in question is if those laws are constitutional.
  16. She knew the children were home and would be exposed. She even took pride in what she did, exposing herself to 9, 10, and 13 year old boys. She was trying to make a point by forcing her extreme feminist views on innocent children who had no one there to protect them and allow them to have a choice in the matter of what they want to be exposed to. It was lewd to them...hence the charges. Don’t their sensibilities matter? The children, ages 13, 10 and 9, asked why Buchanan wasn’t wearing a shirt. “Tilli explained that she considers herself a feminist and she wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,” her attorneys argued in court filings earlier this year”
  17. You’ll have to ask the kids why they felt violated enough to file charges. If I was in their position, I could understand why I might feel violated and unprotected from lewdness in my home, and why I might feel unsafe to go home in fear of being exposed to indecent situations that would cause me to feel severe anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort, confusion, and perhaps even sexual arousal - which would cause me to feel terrible shame for feeling that way about my mother-in-law. She is not ugly. I could also understand why the biological mother would be irate and feel like it was an unsafe environment for her kids and was in violation of cultural values and standards and lewdness laws.
  18. I think the husband was complicit. I am guessing the biological mother is influential in criminal charges as neither the husband or step-mother were competent or willing to provide a safe home and environment for her children.
  19. Because that's what they are and that's what they do. All of our laws are based on cultural perspectives, beliefs, and traditions. What is considered "lewd" is a cultural perspective and should not be dictated by law contrary to cultural sensibilities. The law protects cultural sensibilities - that is it's purpose. The constitution itself is nothing more than cultural beliefs built to protect cultural beliefs. Why should a law be allowed to define what is lewd contrary to cultural sensibilities, wouldn’t that be a self defeating purpose of lewdness laws? I feel like I have addressed both of these points many times on this thread. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. There is nothing "inherently" obscene about the human body or any of its parts. As I said elsewhere:
  20. I never said women don’t find it sexually attractive. Ya are missing the point, and I don’t intend to try and help based on past experiences with you
  21. She is not filling a law suit. She is being charged for lewdness towards children. Somehow, I don’t think your suggestions would make her situation better...
  22. Ya, I think it is a loosing battle at this point to try and change the culture, to be honest, and I don’t think that repeated exposure is the right way - that isn’t working in Europe. At this point you have religion supporting the culture and the media/advertising/porn industry making billions off the culture. I don’t think you can fight both extremes of society and win. Rewiring men’s and women’s brains will take generations for sexual perceptions and identities to change. Sometimes, it just takes time.
  23. No. But I think that needs to happen before changing the law which is really built to protect cultural sensibilities. As I stated in the OP:
  24. While it doesn't state it specifically, I think it suggests that the endowment will enable us to endure (remain in) His presence. Those who are not worthy cannot endure his presence and would not "walk back" willfully into it.
  25. I don't think a man's areola and nipple, cleavage, or lower breast are sexualized in quite the same way. It is not the cultural symbol of sex in the same way that a woman's breast is. Cultural perspectives toward the man's nipple just is not the same and you know it. I would argue that the male abs are far, far more sexualized then their nipples. Besides that, the point is not to ban all things that are sexualized - because EVERYTHING is sexualized, even our blue jeans! The point is to protect cultural dress standards and norms of decency and civility. It is not culturally perceived as lewd for a man to expose a nipple.
×
×
  • Create New...