Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nudity. Show all posts

Monday, December 08, 2014

The topless militants of Femen have a new target, Fox News and Sean Hannity.

Courtesy of Salon:

Femen’s manner of protesting has not proved to everyone’s liking, to put it mildly, but one thing is certain: In an era of rising political disaffection and apathy, people pay attention. Bare breasts are not incidental to Femen’s struggle. The movement has aimed to wrest conceptions about women’s bodies from the clutches of the three (doctrinally prudish and phallocratic) Abrahamic religions that would shroud them, partly or in full, in cloth as well as in shame. Toplessness is, in Femen’s view, a means of boldly violating gender- and faith-based societal norms; and atheism has formed a part of the Femen canon since the movement’s inception in 2008. 

Atheism has been dear to (Inna) Shevchenko in particular: Her own life has been shaped and even upended by her fight for secularist ideals. In protest against the harsh, Orthodox Church-supported prison sentence Pussy Riot received from the Russian authorities, in August 2012 she chainsawed a towering wooden cross in central Kiev in her native Ukraine. Publicly threatened as a result by Ukraine’s conservative President Viktor Yanukovych (deposed last year) and facing charges of “criminal hooliganism” for her deed, she fled to France and established Femen’s first outpost abroad. There, she soon rocketed to fame (better said, infamy), leading her militants in a multitude of fiercely faithless demonstrations in favor of women’s rights and same-sex marriage that pushed Gallic tolerance of free speech to the limit. Perhaps most controversially, she inspired the depiction of the revered (and bare-breasted) heroine of the French Revolution Marianne now gracing the country’s postage stamps, becoming the only foreign woman to do so. This still infuriates France’s nationalistic (and ascendant) far right, which has called (unsuccessfully) for the stamp to be withdrawn.

The Salon reporter, Jeffrey, Taylor, asked Shevchenko why she is so aggressive in criticizing the new pope, her answer was rather interesting: 

“The pope said he recognized the Big Bang,” she answered. “He sees how his doctrine doesn’t accord with progress, so he says things like this. He also said, ‘Who am I to criticize gay people?’ Just for this, we’re ready to hand over Parliament to him? This is just his strategy so he can come and speak at the Parliament. He says God isn’t a magician and wins great popularity even with some atheists. But if we believe him, we’re twice foolish; we become slaves of the most powerful religious institution, the Vatican, and then we invite him to Parliament. This just shows how stupid we [atheists] are and how clever they are.” She paused. “Not many Americans know that the Vatican received its statehood from Mussolini … It’s highly symbolic that Vatican statehood was created by a fascist.”

Very good points all. Clearly this is yet another Atheist who thinks the Pope is a little too good to be true.

(Nudity below the fold.)

Saturday, February 16, 2013

"Is that your nipple I see?" Those words spoken by a North Carolina police officer might soon mean jail time, as a new bill is set to make a woman's areola indecent.

Actress Milla Jovovich should probably avoid North Carolina.
Here is the portion of the bill referred to in the headline:

 (a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1. 

(a2)For the purposes of this section, the term "private parts" means external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.

That's right ladies. Your next nip slip in North Carolina might see you locked up in a prison cell for up to ten years where you and your now pornographic body part can rethink your wardrobe choices.

Here is a bit more about how this whole thing came about:

Brown, whose district is more than 100 miles from Asheville, said she hadn’t planned to get involved with the issue until she started getting calls about it from her constituents. “I felt that, if this was of concern to my constituents, it was going to be of concern to others as well.” 

Brown says topless protests are actually illegal under the current law, but there’s some confusion about it, dating to conflicting court rulings from the 1970s. 

North Carolina law already forbids “indecent exposure,” but it doesn’t specifically define “private parts” as including breasts. 

The proposal adds that definition, including “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast,” with an exception made for breastfeeding. 

“All we are doing is codifying the Supreme Court definition of ‘private parts,’" added committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Stevens, R-Surry. “That’s it. “

Well at least they are giving a pass to women who are using the offending protuberance to feed their babies.  But if you don't have a baby hanging off of those things then you are headed up the river my dear.

Okay well as you know I am quite liberal, and probably never more so than when it comes to the issue of sexuality and nudity.  If you want to walk around with your goodies hanging out, regardless of your age or gender, I have nothing negative to say about it. (Except in Alaska of course. Some things are simply not meant to be exposed to the elements.)

However I do have a question.

Exactly WHY is it that the aerola is the portion of the female breast deemed unacceptable? And why is it ONLY the female's that is considered so?

Now look I'm a guy, and I dearly love breasts. But personally I find the entire breast rather pleasing to the eye and do not necessary consider the actual nipple to be any more erotic than say the cleavage, or the side, or really ANY other part of the breast.

So why exactly is THIS, according to this new North Carolina bill, okay?


And the above picture, which actually covers up much more of the breast, considered "indecent?"

Anybody have an answer?