Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

before my conscious mind takes over and melts with admiration. 

This is a classic example of rigidly enforcing a law that already makes no sense. If the 'authorities' or the American public are so desperately afraid of bared breasts or bared female chests in general, they should get counseling for themselves and leave women alone.

I lived in Europe after college. Even back then, I remember many French women sunbathing or sometimes swimming topless at public swimming pools. Billboards and television adverts featured toplessness or even full nudity (they still do). And oddly enough, there was no mass hysteria about any of this. No crazed preachers denouncing this terrible wickedness. And most telling of all, much less sexual violence of all kinds in Western Europe than anywhere in the United States. So who really has the problem with healthy sexuality and the human body? We should stop persecuting women, starting with brave people like Jodi Jaecks.

Note: After writing my post I came upon this update: http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12343787-breast-...

I'm glad it's been sorted.

Helpful discussion! I got some good information about "Breast Cancer". Really i was looking forward to read about this entry. Thnaks for this helpful words. :lol:

http://www.ladieshealthnow.com/

"Reality?" Since when is reality allowed in public? We wear clothes 99% of the time to conceal reality. In this case though, the issue is the female breast. Generally any clevage can be visible, but not the areole or nipple (yet strangely they're ok on men (even fat ones with proper breasts.)) So insofar as the law is concerned, we've sexualized the female breast thereby rejecting reality.

I'd imagine the operators of the pool argued her going topless caused some kind of alarm or undo curiousity and gawking, though in reality probably uncomfortable questions from children to their parents who didn't wanna discuss such things. Adults would know in an instant what was going on and be polite about it. Legally, she could almost certainly win a judgement against the pool's owners and operators, especially since they allow topless women otherwise. This was simply a dumb decision made by somebody. The equivilent would be a veteran and amputee. No one woulda said poop then. It's just as self-evidant and obvious what happened as an adult women without breasts because the breasts are sexualized it's a different thing (to them.)

Reading the follow-up article, it's as I figured. Some lacky's dumb decision got out of hand. I wish they'd come up with abetter term though than family-friendly or family-values since families come in every shade and every extreme. Whose family is being modelled as the G-rated faire they're always thinking of when objections to content come up anyway? And in the case of social nudity invoking family-friendly is simply ignorance. America prides itself on being a melting pot with many and vierse cultures, and most every culture but our own has no problem with communal nudity. So if we use the average, it's the minority who's objecting to it, not the majority.

This wasn't a case of public nudity but a case of ignorance. Very fact someone said other breast cancer survivors would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis reveals their concern was medical scars and overt evidence of such procedures as some kind of objectionable surgery.