Coming Soon to a Strip-ping Mall Near You - Topless Women

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 In public, though, I would have something more to say about that.

Well, again, that is what we are looking at. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

Based on the article Calm posted, it seems evident that the children NEVER told the birth mother.

I disagree. Where do you see this?

———

I agree with Pogi that context matters and his scenario is as valid as any other at this point given the lack of info we have on the family (and for the children’s sake that is probably a good thing even if it makes it difficult to judge the circumstances). 

I do have a little more info for the context. I am speculating she was their step mother for at least five years based on a couple of family pictures from a Daily Mail article showing them all dressed up either for Halloween or a Sci-fi convention (Star Wars outfits). Depending on how often they lived with their dad, they should imo normally be very comfortable around her if there were no ongoing conflicts, etc. I would also speculate based on her choice of outfit (Leia’s slave one) that Buchanan is comfortable with her body and the kids were likely familiar with her in less covering outfits so it wouldn’t be a huge shock. 

For me the context that matters most is whether or not it actually happened in a conflict moment with her aggressively demanding the father expose himself before she put her top on again and behaving this way possibly due to alcohol as first reported. 

What might be simply awkward gets altered into trauma imo if in the context of aggressive confrontation rather than a misguided matter of fact lecture. 

——

However perhaps that type of context is seen as irrelevant to the legal issue currently being discussed, which is broader legislation than just intentionally exposing female breasts in one’s home before minors. 

[Ahab]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, again, that is what we are looking at. 

That is actually beyond the scope of this case.  When setting precedent every detail of the case is considered and it applies only to similar cases.  This event occurred in a private home so applying the decision to public venues would not be appropriate.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

the level of "affront or alarm" absolutely is affected by the mother being biological or not. 

I think it is more the level of familiarity that matters. If the biological mother was not the primary caregiver and only saw the kids on holidays and a few weeks in summer, I think it would be much more awkward with her than with a stepmom that had cared for the children since preschool on a daily basis. 

We don’t know the level of caregiving in this case though. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

God only preferred them naked when they were innocent and didn't know they were.

Or he didn’t care about clothing or not because their nakedness was simply a means to an end. The reason they were naked might have been so they would be more teachable later on, having experienced shame. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

The way she talks about it as it just being on her mind due to the Free the Nipple group doesn’t give me the impression it was a significant issue for her at the time.  Since it is now her legal defense, it may temporarily become a thing for her, but there is imo no reason to assume after the case she will become an activist. There is no indication she has joined any activist group after all and this one time is the only reported activism on her part. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

And if she is not convicted, then it will be because the judge found the law unconstitutional (as is the defenses argument)....

Is that the only option?

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That is actually beyond the scope of this case.  When setting precedent every detail of the case is considered and it applies only to similar cases.  This event occurred in a private home so applying the decision to public venues would not be appropriate.

Think again:

Her attorneys -

Quote

"...are asking a judge to declare part of Utah’s lewdness law unconstitutional, arguing it treats men and women differently for the same conduct of baring their chests."

Their argument is not that it is ok because she was in a private home.   They argument is that the law "treats men and women differently for the same conduct of baring their chests" and is therefore unconstitutional.  If it is found to be unconstitutional in the home, then it is unconstitutional outside the home for the same reason, regardless of the specific conditions of this particular case.  It will have far reaching impact if they win. 

Quote

Farrell, the ACLU attorney, argued the Utah law violates Buchanan’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection. She argued it is similar to an ordinance in Fort Collins, Colorado, that was found unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The city had banned women but not men from being topless in public.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Once again, this is not about the body part being inherently _____(fill in the blank) as if it should be compared to a disease...or that they are dangerous...

In a different time, place, culture, etc. sure, I see what you are saying.  In a different context I would not be affected at all by women/men walking around bare naked, but as I have already explained - given this culture of modesty, and the opposite objectification of women by the media/advertising/porn culture using the female breast as a sex symbol and to make a buck, religious teachings, etc. - our brains have been wired to perceive the female breast a certain way.  Repeated exposure to them wont change that.  Media will simply become more bold in their exploitation of the female breast, as we see in Europe.  Cultural perceptions of the female breast are so deeply ingrained that to pretend like these cultural perspectives and attitudes don't exist would be unwise and entirely insensitive to the local culture.  I  agree there is nothing inherently wrong or damaging about walking around totally nude.  However, in this time, place and culture - yes, there is something VERY wrong with it!  If you want people to have different perceptions of the body - start with the culture (good luck with that!)...the law will follow.   

 

I'm talking about our culture, our day, and our time, and from my perspective, my comments are still valid.  You and I will just have to agree to disagree because I don't see your conclusions as being as evident as you see them.  

Quote

Given our culture, it can be dangerous...unfortunately.  Just like a male exposing his penis in public might be damaging to little girls - given our culture in Utah.   This is about cultural perceptions of decency - violations of those perceptions can be damaging to those in that culture.  Otherwise, if culture really doesn't matter, why stop at the female breasts?  Why not free it all, including genitals?  Public displays of sex, etc.?  Would you be cool with men walking around with their penis's hanging out?  There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this - it is all cultural.  We should respect our local cultures and the sensibilities of the people and children in it and not force our extreme views (relatively speaking) upon any people by law - that is oppressive.  That is all I am saying.  Culture should dictate law, not the other way around. 

Again, I hear what you are saying and see where you are coming from, but I disagree.  And I do not believe that culture should dictate law.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

The way she talks about it as it just being on her mind due to the Free the Nipple group doesn’t give me the impression it was a significant issue for her at the time.  Since it is now her legal defense, it may temporarily become a thing for her, but there is imo no reason to assume after the case she will become an activist. There is no indication she has joined any activist group after all and this one time is the only reported activism on her part. 

It was a significant enough issue for her at the time to take an extreme enough measure which violated law to prove she means it.  So based on past and current behavior and language, I take her at her word.  We can’t base our judgment at this point on anything other than her actions and words.  To me, it looks like, and sounds like she means it.   Regardless of what she decides to do after the fact, her role in this case may pave the way for future activists.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

However perhaps that type of context is seen as irrelevant to the legal issue currently being discussed, which is broader legislation than just intentionally exposing female breasts in one’s home before minors. 

Exactly!

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is that the only option?

It would be highly unusual for the judge to not convicted on grounds which the defense is not even arguing.  This is the ACLU using this girl as a puppet for making a constitutional argument.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

It was a significant enough issue for her at the time to take an extreme enough measure which violated law to prove she means it.

That you see it as extreme does not mean she saw it as extreme. In fact, the way she presents it, she apparently sees it as no big deal.  

And given nothing more was apparently said or done like it by her for two or three years afterwards, I don’t see it as reasonable to assume she is all that committed to the cause.

If she had previous worn limited clothing around the kids, worn only a sports bra while exercising, maybe had sunbathed her back with bikini strings untied, accidentally had the kids walk in on her while getting dressed...it may have been just a small step for her instead of how you appear to be picturing it. 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I do not believe that culture should dictate law.

Well, like it or not that is how the constitution was built and functions.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It would be highly unusual for the judge to not convicted on grounds which the defense is not even arguing.  This is the ACLU using this girl as a puppet for making a constitutional argument.

Do we know if this is the only thing the defense is arguing though. It seems more like a side issue that is being decided before the main part of the trial gets underway, like a motion where if granted they ask for the case to be dismissed and if not, they move on to the next thing. 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

That you see it as extreme does not mean she saw it as extreme. In fact, the way she presents it, she apparently sees it as no big deal.  

And given nothing more was apparently said or done like it by her for two years afterwards, I don’t see it as reasonable to assume she is all that committed to the cause.

If she had previous worn limited clothing around the kids, worn only a sports bra while exercising, maybe had sunbathed her back with bikini strings untied, accidentally had the kids walk in on her while getting dressed...it may have been just a small step for her instead of how you appear to be picturing it. 

 

This is all besides the point, but by “extreme” I am talking about the context of the larger culture.  She knew her actions were contrary to culture and law as she explicitly stated that she was making a point to her children in a “teaching” moment that it shouldn’t be so.

[Calm]

If she was under the influence as claimed by prosecutors, her moment of feminism may have been just that, a moment of stupid she never meant to repeat. 

But than she gets arrested and decides to reframe the moment as a ethical stance. 

We have no evidence she was politically inclined outside of this one occasion that took place in her home with her kids. There has been nothing else presented by defense or prosecutors publicly that shows ongoing behaviour.

So yes, we do need to judge by behaviour, but one possibly anomalous behaviour in the privacy of her own home is not a good reflection of public activism imo. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is all besides the point, but by “extreme” I am talking about the context of the larger culture.  She knew her actions were contrary to culture and law as she explicitly stated that she was making a point to her children in a “teaching” moment that it shouldn’t be so.

And I have talked to my kids about things I would never say in public because I knew them well, had control of the environment and knew if there was confusion I could later discuss it with them. 

Extrapolating public behaviour from private behaviour is not always valid.

Do you have any evidence of activism on her part outside of this case and the one private event with her family? 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, like it or not that is how the constitution was built and functions.

Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do we know if this is the only thing the defense is arguing though.

They are not refuting that she broke the law, the only way she has a shot at this point is to attack the law itself - which they have done.  That is how they have presented their case to the media anyway.  I don’t think this is a side issue.  The judge has decided to take two weeks to decide the issue because of the magnitude of the consequences either way.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And I have talked to my kids about things I would never say in public because I knew them well, had control of the environment and knew if there was confusion I could later discuss it with them. 

Extrapolating public behaviour from private behaviour is not always valid.

Do you have any evidence of activism on her part outside of this case and the one private event with her family? 

This is really a side topic I don’t really care about.  It’s all speculation at this point.  I choose to take her at her word, then and now.  My bigger point to Ahab was that this case will have larger implications than simply setting her free or not.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

 I don’t think this is a side issue.  

I don’t mean not that relevant, but thinking more along the lines of where a judge makes decisions on what is and isn’t relevant to a case that is then presented to a jury. 

This seems more preliminary to me than arguing about what the defendant actually did. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. 

I’d be really curious to hear your constitutional views, but if you don’t want to engage, that’s fine too.

To dictate law that is contrary to local and state cultures, sentiments, and people’s is oppressive to that people - which is really the inspiration for the constitution itself. “...government of the people, by the people, and for the people...” with local governments allowed to make law according to their own local customs, cultures, and ideas so long as they conform to the larger context of the constitution, which itself was founded upon cultural ideals.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[provoman]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

She knew her actions were contrary to ... law ...

Did she know it was against the law?

I do not think many Utah mothers know it can be illegal for their children to see their exposed breast. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

 

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did she know it was against the law?

I do not think many Utah mothers know it can be illegal for their children to see their exposed breast. 

The law doesn’t make a lot of sense imo since it allows nakedness for breastfeeding, which is a practical matter so why not other practical matters be allowed?  And then there is the intentional nakedness of sex or walking down the hall to the laundry room to grab that towel one forgot and accidentally bumping into your kid.

I can see lots of women assuming the context of privacy and family was okay and not being aware that not grabbing for one’s top for a few extra seconds or even minutes in front of a family member even if a child actually made a difference. 

———

I noticed another difference between the original prosecution report and the defense. The prosecution has her removing her shirt in the presence of the children as a statement while the defense had the kids walking in on them. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Calm