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

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I disagree. Where do you see this?. 

After re-reading the sltrib article it was the biological mother that reported. So pogi was correct that the biological mother reported. How she found out is unknown to us spectators. If the children suffered  "alarm" or "affront" is also unknown to us.

[Calm]

Looking at the law, I think there is another option to argue for her innocence, which is there is no inherent reason to assume that the kids would experienced “affront” or “alarm”.  

If the defense can establish a home environment that was relatively relaxed about such things, it seems to me the argument could be while she thought they would likely be uncomfortable, that she believed discomfort would quickly pass once she pointed out that men showing their breasts was no big thing. 

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looking at the law, I think there is another option to argue for her innocence, which is there is no inherent reason to assume that the kids would experienced “affront” or “alarm”.  

If the defense can establish a home environment that was relatively relaxed about such things, it seems to me the argument could be while she thought they would likely be uncomfortable, that she believed discomfort would quickly pass once she pointed out that men showing their breasts was no big thing. 

In this case, it seems the "alarm" or "affront" is from the biological mother - the salt lake tribune article put "alarmed" in quotation marks in reference to the biological mother. I do not know how the law works in that regard - can person not present claim "affront" or "alarm" OR can a parent not present suffer "affront" or "alarm" on behalf of the children who witnessed but did not suffer "affront" or "alarm".

 

[Calm]

Here is the Daily Mail article with the picture that led me to guess she has been the stepmom for at least five years.  They blur out the kids' faces, so purely guessing from height.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7522189/Utah-woman-charged-lewdness-taking-stepchildren-home.html

Also, the Leia costume could be used to argue she wouldn't expect the kids to be affronted or alarmed given they would have had previous experience with her in limited clothing.  If she is that comfortable in public with her body, she could easily assume that the family was as well.

(this is assuming her version of a teaching moment is accurate, if she was actually under the influence, etc. that changes the dynamic)

Edited November 22, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.

 

But just because the constitution was founded upon cultural ideals doesn't mean that the constitution was built to uphold local culture though.  Besides, think about the south in the 1960s.  Do you really believe that the constitution was built to uphold Jim Crow laws, segregation, and racism?  Because Jim Crow laws were the culture and sentiment of the time.  

Was the government oppressing the southern states by mandating they obey the law even though it went against their culture?

[provoman]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

 

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. 

after rereading an article it was the biological mother that reported it; it had been a while since I had read the article.

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Here is the Daily Mail article with the picture that led me to guess she has been the stepmom for at least five years.  They blur out the kids' faces, so purely guessing from height.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7522189/Utah-woman-charged-lewdness-taking-stepchildren-home.html

An curios aspect of "breast below the top of the areola"; her Return of The Jedi outfit exposes part of the female breast "below the top of the areola" . 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

There are pilot programs in other parts of the world.  It isn't working in Europe.  The female breast is still being exploited in sexual, but more bold ways.  Perceptions aren't really changing over there.  

Whats not working in Europ?.  I don't see children scared if they see a breast.  This case would be laughed out of the courts in Europe.  It would be impossible to show that children are harmed somehow if they see a woman's breast.  It seems Europe has a much more sane approach on this issue.

The female breast is still exploited on both sides of the pond.  I doubt that will ever change with a part of the population no matter what laws are passed.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But just because the constitution was founded upon cultural ideals doesn't mean that the constitution was built to uphold local culture though.  Besides, think about the south in the 1960s.  Do you really believe that the constitution was built to uphold Jim Crow laws, segregation, and racism?  Because Jim Crow laws were the culture and sentiment of the time.  

Was the government oppressing the southern states by mandating they obey the law even though it went against their culture?

As I stated, “so long as they conform to the larger context of the constitution”.  Our larger and more dominant culture protects the freedoms of all people and doesn’t allow for the  violation of other’s rights.  It wasn’t always so, but our evolving culture made it so. There was nothing “unjust” about our treatment of the south, therefore it can’t be considered oppressive.  What the south was doing, on the other hand was oppressive.  We justly put a stop to it.

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

To dictate law that is contrary to local and state cultures, sentiments, and people’s is oppressive to that people

You act as if someone here were advocating for a law that mandated women to go topless. Should local Utah communities be allowed to pass anti-sodomy laws? I’m sure you could find some communities where more than 95% view that viewed sodomy as wrong. What percentage of the population needs to support a view before we can put people in jail for it? 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You act as if someone here were advocating for a law that mandated women to go topless.

How so?

Restricting a community’s right to ban certain behaviors in public that the community views as indecent, is oppressive to that culture - so long as such laws are constitutional.  Anything else is more like an oppressive dictatorship which doesn’t consider the views and desires of the local people but dictates law without considering cultural sensibilities and customs.

That is so un-American.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should local Utah communities be allowed to pass anti-sodomy laws? I’m sure you could find some communities where more than 95% view that viewed sodomy as wrong. What percentage of the population needs to support a view before we can put people in jail for it? 

Interesting you should choose sodomy laws to talk about, because that is the perfect example of how culture dictates law in our nation.  It was culture which first inspired sodomy laws, and it was subsequently changing and trending cultural views which inspired removing/changing sodomy laws in the US.   

If you look at maps where sodomy is still illegal, you will see it follows cultural lines and local views.  You see, the constitution allows local laws to be built around local cultures and sensibilities - so long as they are found to fit in the larger cultural context of the constitution.

If you don’t like a law, you vote to change the law or vote for someone who will.  You see, the system is set up for cultural preferences to dictate law.

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Whats not working in Europ?. .

Turn on the TV.  I don’t want that here.  Women will be exploited in increasingly bold ways.

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours 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. 

While it is not explicit, the article stated “she wanted to make a point that everyone should be fine with it” both in private and public.  

That, to me, suggests that she knew it was viewed as wrong in both places.  Whether or not she knew it was illegal in both places was speculative on my part and I am happy to retract it if you wish.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

From the article:

“Judge Kara Pettit did not rule from the bench following arguments in Buchanan’s case Tuesday in Salt Lake City’s 3rd District Court.

“It’s too important of an issue” for an immediate ruling, she said, adding that she will hand down a decision within two months.”

That doesn’t sound like a preliminary decision to me.  Sorry for the font...on my phone

[provoman]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

How so?

Restricting a community’s right to ban certain behaviors in public that the community views as indecent, is oppressive to that culture - so long as such laws are constitutional.  Anything else is more like an oppressive dictatorship which doesn’t consider the views and desires of the local people but dictates law without considering cultural sensibilities and customs.

That is so un-American.

Interesting you should choose sodomy laws to talk about, because that is the perfect example of how culture dictates law in our nation.  It was culture which first inspired sodomy laws, and it was subsequently changing and trending cultural views which inspired removing/changing sodomy laws in the US.   

If you look at maps where sodomy is still illegal, you will see it follows cultural lines and local views.  You see, the constitution allows local laws to be built around local cultures and sensibilities - so long as they are found to fit in the larger cultural context of the constitution.

If you don’t like a law, you vote to change the law or vote for someone who will.  You see, the system is set up for cultural preferences to dictate law.

To the bolded. Could you elaborate? By still illegal do you mean in the US or world? 

Some States have not removed such laws from their books, even though the US Supreme Court deemed such laws violate the Constitution. So in a way, it could be said, those States cultural sensibilities keep some laws, though the laws are unenforcible. 

[Tacenda]

This story has gone national. https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/utah-stepmom-went-topless-in-front-of-stepkids-now-facing-charges-authorities-say This article doesn't mention the part where they were drywalling, or something like that that I heard about on the news.

And no, she shouldn't be put on the sex offenders list. But she and her husband were reckless in doing what they did. In my mind, I immediately thought they were up to some kinky stuff, by drywalling with nothing on top. Maybe some kind of foreplay and then got caught. But still, no on the sex offender's list. If it were your normal person it would just take finding an old shirt to throw on, if one doesn't want to get dirty.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This story has gone national.

International...

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

International...

Oh!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How so?

You stated “To dictate law that is contrary to local and state cultures, sentiments, and people’s is oppressive to that people”

No one is saying you need to dictate law contrary to state cultures. You could just give people agency? No? Let people decide for themselves what they want to do? Something about agency?

Quote

Restricting a community’s right to ban certain behaviors in public that the community views as indecent, is oppressive to that culture - so long as such laws are constitutional. 

Why is it only oppressive to restrict the laws when they are constitutional? Whose interpretation of the constitution are we using? How do we know if a restricting laws is oppressive in Canada? Or Mexico?

Quote

Anything else is more like an oppressive dictatorship which doesn’t consider the views and desires of the local people but dictates law without considering cultural sensibilities and customs.
 

And there is nothing oppressive about the government telling you what to wear in your own home?

Quote

That is so un-American.

🙄

Quote

Interesting you should choose sodomy laws to talk about, because that is the perfect example of how culture dictates law in our nation.  It was culture which first inspired sodomy laws, and it was subsequently changing and trending cultural views which inspired removing/changing sodomy laws in the US.   

If you look at maps where sodomy is still illegal, you will see it follows cultural lines and local views.  You see, the constitution allows local laws to be built around local cultures and sensibilities - so long as they are found to fit in the larger cultural context of the constitution.

If you don’t like a law, you vote to change the law or vote for someone who will.  You see, the system is set up for cultural preferences to dictate law.

Except that anti-sodomy laws are now unconstitutional. Doesn’t that mean they are oppressive? 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And there is nothing oppressive about the government telling you what to wear in your own home?

I do think it is unfortunate that it is this case that is driving the topless in public attention since, imo, they are significantly different things.

In your home you control more or less the audience plus there is a hugely different dynamic between seeing the breasts of your mother, bio or otherwise, and seeing athe breasts of a woman you likely have never seen nor will see again (if we are talking about kids or adults who aren't shown such things on a regular basis, as in the scenario Pogi has mentioned a few times of walking down a street, etc).

Not saying one is more or less traumatic as I think that is dependent on the background of the viewer as well as many, many other things.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

To the bolded. Could you elaborate? By still illegal do you mean in the US or world? 

I was speaking about the US specifically, but I could have worded it better - illegal on state books but unconstitutional. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

You can clearly see how cultural lines have influenced laws historically. 

10 hours ago, provoman said:

Some States have not removed such laws from their books, even though the US Supreme Court deemed such laws violate the Constitution. So in a way, it could be said, those States cultural sensibilities keep some laws, though the laws are unenforcible. 

I'd agree with that. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

As I stated, “so long as they conform to the larger context of the constitution”.  Our larger and more dominant culture protects the freedoms of all people and doesn’t allow for the  violation of other’s rights.  It wasn’t always so, but our evolving culture made it so. There was nothing “unjust” about our treatment of the south, therefore it can’t be considered oppressive.  What the south was doing, on the other hand was oppressive.  We justly put a stop to it.

People who want women to be able to walk around bare-chested could argue the same things though.  That all that they are trying to accomplish is to put a stop to women's oppression, to make room for our evolving culture, and make sure that women are being treated according to the 'larger context of the constitution.'  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I do think it is unfortunate that it is this case that is driving the topless in public attention since, imo, they are significantly different things.

Indeed. My wife and I have a straggler (a one year old, the next youngest is 9). Well the nine year old has no problem coming of his own volition and hopping in when either my wife or I are bathing with the baby. Apparently though I should be worried about going to jail? My older sons all appreciate their privacy and we give it to them, but they have certainly seen their share of breasts over the last year due to breastfeeding. The 15 year old boys just look the other way. Somehow I just don’t see how seeing breasts functioning naturally can be scarring in anyway unless you were raised to see them as such. If this is the case, seems to me it’s you that needs to change. 
 

Non sexual nudity is only an issue if you make it to be. And that starts with the home.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No one is saying you need to dictate law contrary to state cultures. 

Dictating law which would allow women to walk around topless, contrary to state culture, is precisely what people are saying here. 

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You could just give people agency? No? Let people decide for themselves what they want to do? Something about agency?

They already have agency.  They can choose to break the law or not.  Perhaps you mean liberty?  The constitution allows liberty up and until the point your liberty infringes upon the rights of others.  I think people have the right to walk their towns without affront or alarm.  To pretend like violations of long-long-held cultural sensibilities and religious beliefs will not cause affront or alarm, think again.

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why is it only oppressive to restrict the laws when they are constitutional? Whose interpretation of the constitution are we using? How do we know if a restricting laws is oppressive in Canada? Or Mexico?

I think you misunderstood what I said (probably my fault). I said it is oppressive to restrict the rights of people to ban offensive behavior, so long as it is found constitutional to do so.  I am not interested in discussing international law.

But you bring up a good point about interpreting the constitution - even that is influenced by culture as is evidenced by how people vote and how judges rule in different ways.  It is all culturally based with "liberal" cultures and judges and "conservative" cultures and judges.

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And there is nothing oppressive about the government telling you what to wear in your own home?

Contrary to popular belief, you are not at liberty to do whatever you want in your own home.  Children living in your home still have rights and are protected by law. 

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except that anti-sodomy laws are now unconstitutional. Doesn’t that mean they are oppressive? 

 It was the evolving and shifting culture which led to it being found unconstitutional.   The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in 1983 and reversed the decision in 2003.  Cultures change and that influences how judges rule.   

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Think again:

Her attorneys -

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. 

 

We'll see how it turns out, I suppose.  i'm not sure but if she won her case I think it would be presented something like this:

It was decided in [defendant vs government, whatever names they use) that it was unconstitutional to charge indecent exposure or lewdness against a woman with no top clothing while in her home when appearing before her family members when her husband appearing with her was not so charged.  Something like this, however they chose to word it.  It would then set precedent for other cases with similar circumstances, saying nothing about other types of indecent exposure of lewdness.  

Sure, some attorneys might try to use this precedent as grounds to consider other forms of indecent exposure or lewd conduct as unconstitutional, such as women appearing topless or totally naked in public, but this case would not be setting any precedent for those kinds of cases unless the judge in those other types of cases for some strange illogical reason considered those other examples to be the same kind of thing, thinking private is the same as public and family the same as anyone at all when clearly there are some differences there.

And it's not as if states or local governments around the country would immediately apply the decision of this case to their local laws, either.  There are separations between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government and the decisions of one do not automatically affect the other.  So even if she won this case it wouldn't necessarily be the case that the laws would be changed and a woman would be able to legally walk around in public while being topless.