letters to the editor

[Bob S.]

Oh, what an August it has been in the world of newspaper letters to the editors! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

It started in the Virginian Pilot (http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/) on August 1 when Judy Taylor of Virginia Beach wrote:
Topless Alert
Last Wednesday, I observed three young women sunbathing with their bikini tops down at Virginia Beach. On Thursday I returned to the beach and, you guessed it, they were there again, tops down. What really disturbed me was that they had their (rented) beach chairs near the water where there were children playing nearby.
So if you are thinking of taking your children to the beach next week, stay away from 22nd Street.

This was followed two days later with three letters responding to that letter:

Grateful for Warning
Oddly, your "Topless Alert" (letter, Aug 1) appears in the same section with Kerry Dougherty (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108463&ran=232248)'s treatment of a very similar topic ["What to do if you stumble across a bit of derriere?"]
The writer was Johnny on the spot to catch the social danger of the bare female breast. I personally want to thank her for preparing all of us for such an inflaming spectacle.
If this is allowed to go unchecked, children will go stark raving mad and men will become lust-obsessed lunatics.We need only to look to Asia, Australia, South America, and Europe to see the depraved societies that have resulted from sight of a naked breast.
I'll sponsor a trip to Europe for the writer--not to go to the beach, but rather to spray paint all the naked breasts in the Louvre.
David Brewster (Norfolk)

To the Rescue!
Bared breasts at the Oceanfront? Two days in a row? It's an outrage! But merely writing a letter to the editor, as concerned citizen Judy Taylor chose to do, is not going to make this problem go away.
So I volunteer to personally monitor this situation. I will plant my chair at 22nd Street today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes before the authorities intervene.
Rest easy, Ms. Taylor. I'm on it.
Scott Mackey (Norfolk)

Better than squinting
Re Judy Taylor warning people about nude sunbathers on 22nd Street: I happen to own a binocular stand on 21st Street and I am offering a 20 percent discount with a copy of this ad--er, letter.
Georgette Constant (Norfolk)

In fun, on Aug. 10 Robert K. Ander of Norfolk chimed in regarding a story about a rare spotting of a bird that isn't seen much in this area, but contained a sentence in the article that was just too good to pass up:

False Alarm
I picked up the paper Wednesday and my sleep-blurred eyes caught this:
"Brown boobies found in Virginia Beach? I would say, 'Wow, that's really rare.'" Eric Davis, federal biologist.
My pulse quickened! Finally, I thought, The Virginian Pilot's crack staff of photographers had caught, on pixels, the elusive topless sunbathers on 22nd Street.
Come to find out it was only about some dumb bird in Fort Story.

But of course, there must be a poor sport in every batch. Kathryn P. Bartlett of Chesapeake offered her opinion of Aug 11:

A matter of indecency
Re "Grateful for warning" (letter Aug 3), responding to a letter about topless sunbathers:
We are not talking about trips to the Louvre here. We are talking about indecencies and what is morally right, especially when children are present.
The last time I checked, Virginia Beach was not a clothing-optional beach and I know the police have arrested men in the past for showing themselves to children. So what makes this right?

If there are any more of these fun letters, I will supply them.

Bob S.

[NakedGary]

Bob S.

Great catch there!

I’m especially amused by this partial comment:

" <span class="ev_code_blue">If this is allowed to go unchecked, children will go stark raving mad and men will become lust-obsessed lunatics.</span> We need only to look to Asia, Australia, South America, and Europe to see the depraved societies that have resulted from sight of a naked breast."

Who have these people been listening to?

Could this sort of thinking be in any mainstream print?

Hard to believe people actually believe or think this way after being barraged on national television with bra ads, and the latest in fashions showing cleavage.
.

[WNYjoe17]

I suspect the "lust obsessed lantics" letter was tongue in cheek.
Cirtainly the binoculars one and the observer one were meant that way.
Sad reality is this. Some people DO feel that way.

Joe

[Bob S.]

Gary, like Joe, I feel that the "stark-raving mad" children and "lust-obsessed lunatics" was meant to be sarcastic.

The last letter writer, however, is confusing two types of exposure. She is comparing a woman sunbathing topless to a flasher who is exposing himself to innocent victims for sexual gratification.

People who can't tell the difference between the two are the biggest problem.

Bob S.

[Walt Iliff]

Bob,

I remember when I was a youngster, delivering the Virginia Pilot (oh maybe 45 years ago), there was a question about whether the mono-kini (if anyone remembers that) would become popular...so the editors of the Virginia Pilot ran a picture of a naked breast and asked for reader's responses, obscene or not? Letter after letter appeared about how could the Virginia Pilot, a family newspaper publish such a disgusting picture of a breast....where children could see it.....so the paper then published the entire picture of.....Johnny Weismuller. For those of you too young to remember, Johnny Weismuller played Tarzan and had very well developed pectoral muscles. It would be interesting if the Pilot ran that article again.

Walt Iliff

[Nude in the North]

How come people that ask the question, "What if the children see it?", Can Never answer the question?

From my experience, the younger a person/ child is, the less interested they are. Not to mention, the more often they see nudity the more they accept it.

I hope the result of this letter to the editor turns the 22nd street beach into C/O.

Steve

[ken0254]

This was an editorial in the 11 Aug 06 Pilot in reference to Kerry Dougherty's Aug 3 column.
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108569&ran=89869

"Re: Kerry Dougherty's Aug. 3 column, "A swimsuit style that a grandmother could... hate".
A great big thanks to Ms. Dougherty and others in the media who downgrade Christians desiring to cover up thier beautiful bodies so they may share them with only their spouses as God intended.
I am not one of those "kooky" people who are modest enough to do just that. For years I have visited the beach, I have been wearing a skirt and top that cover necessary parts. I'd love to be the first ones at our Oceanfront with a suit from WholesomeWear [at left}, featured in the Aug 2 Daily Break. I would never have known about Sholesome Wear if Ms. Dougherty and others had not had the bad taste to criticize the standards of people who may not feel the same as they do about modesty.

Kathyrn P. Bartlett
Chesapeake

www.wholesomewear.com (http://www.wholesomewear.com)
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108814&ran=203493

So I wonder if she meant "our oceanfront" as in the people of va beach or as in the christians who want modesty to prevail at the oceanfront. It is because of attitudes such as this to why Virginia Beach will never be the tourist attraction it wants and has the potential to be.
Gee, I wonder if us locals should flood the Pilot with opinions to the contrary?

Oh, and now I see we're "kooks". Whatevvvvverrr!!

ken

[Nude in the North]

Christians desiring to cover up thier beautiful bodies so they may share them with only their spouses as God intended.

I don't know what god she is worshiping,
But it's not the Christian God. I'm betting she is being influenced by her local pastor more than by God.
God's biggest problem is finding "Spokespeople" that won't preach their opinions as the word of God.

She's just another misguided soul.

Steve

[LamontCranston]

I wonder if any of these letter writers complain about the skin and sexual dalliences displayed at supermarket checkout counters. Sex, but not nudity.

At least at the beach, there's sun, water, small bathing suits.. sighting skin is actually expected. Nudity, but not sex. Stay away if you find it a problem.

But at the supermarket? Why do I need to see the Hollywood rags when buying Cheerios and milk with my kid?

The hipocracy is annoying.

Ms. Bartlett should be remined that the commandment is to love your neighbor, not control your neighbor's behavior.

"Ms. Bartlett, leave me alone, please. I'm just walking along the beach and wading into the surf now and again. I'm sorry I didn't by a $50 pair of bright colored knee-shorts for your benefit. Will you forgive me?"

[Bob S.]

Walt, I wonder how those indignant letter writers felt after realizing the breast they despised so much was one of the most famous of the time?

ken:"So I wonder if she meant "our oceanfront" as in the people of va beach or as in the christians who want modesty to prevail at the oceanfront."

I wonder if she is one of Pat's followers?

Steve:"How come people that ask the question, "What if the children see it?", Can Never answer the question?"

Because they have no answer. It is meant rhetorically, but when treated as a legitmate question, the answer eludes them, and that makes them even angrier.

Steve:"I hope the result of this letter to the editor turns the 22nd street beach into C/O."

No luck there. 22nd is right in the middle of the main part of the Oceanfront beach. Actually, what I would love is if they could turn some of the Back Bay (Southern VA Beach) beaches into CO.

But I am not holding my breath. VA Beach is a very conservative city. On the Boardwalk, there are signs every so often that have a red line through some symbols meaning no cussing.

Bob S.

[JohnFourtyTwo]

I remember reading an article a few years ago in my former hometown newspaper the Mobile Press Register in Mobile, AL. Someone wrote a letter to the editor about women jogging wearing sports bras and very short and tight shorts. The writer thought it was very inappropriate, vulgar, .etc.

Another writer wrote wrote in defending the joggers saying something to the effect that it was just a sign of the times and if the joggers are in great shape and proud of their body then more power to them.

I later moved to Norfolk, VA and noticed a few female joggers wearing the same attire while jogging along Hampton Blvd past my room at the Navy Lodge and quickly remembered that article from Mobile, AL.

[ranul]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Gary, like Joe, I feel that the "stark-raving mad" children and "lust-obsessed lunatics" was meant to be sarcastic.

The last letter writer, however, is confusing two types of exposure. She is comparing a woman sunbathing topless to a flasher who is exposing himself to innocent victims for sexual gratification.

People who can't tell the difference between the two are the biggest problem.

Bob S.
now what would be the differnce between a male and a female flasher

[Bob S.]

ranul:"now what would be the differnce between a male and a female flasher"

My guess is what they flash. Now going topless for sunbathing is in another galaxy from going up to someone and exposing yourself for sexual gratification. It would be like comparing forgetting to look both ways before pulling out of a parking space and causing an accident to knocking another car off the road because they cut you off.

Bob S.

[ranul]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
ranul:"now what would be the differnce between a male and a female flasher"

My guess is what they flash. Now going topless for sunbathing is in another galaxy from going up to someone and exposing yourself for sexual gratification. It would be like comparing forgetting to look both ways before pulling out of a parking space and causing an accident to knocking another car off the road because they cut you off.

Bob S.
I still don't see what the differnce is they are both exposing themselves to people that may or may be offended by it
there is also a differnce between a woman that goes topless and one the flashes here breasts at people .

[Nude in the North]

I still don't see what the differnce is they are both exposing themselves to people

You are wrong about that. Only a flasher is "exposing" him/her self to a victum.

Being nude is not exposing yourself.
Dropping your pants in an alley or mall parking lot for self gratification at the reaction of the people seeing you is.
I am nude in my house/yard almost always. I am not exposing myself. If someone comes to my door and sees me nude in my house/yard I am not exposing myself to them. I am simply nude.
If I were at a beach tanning nude and someone walked by and saw me, I am not exposing myself to them. I am simply nude.

If I was lurking in the bushes or behind a rock waiting for someone to walk by so I could jump out and force them to see my nakedness,so I could feel a thrill at their reaction , Then I would be exposing myself.

But don't feel alone. Some people will never "get it". They are stuck with the belief that all nudity is obscene or offensive. They believe that human skin is sinful to be seen. They are Victims of Puritanical teachings that have been handed down for generations. Teachings that are designed to Control and Manipulate people to conform to someone elses prudish opinion.

Steve

[Bob S.]

ranul:"I still don't see what the differnce is they are both exposing themselves to people that may or may be offended by it"

INTENT! ranul, if someone were on fire in public, no one would blame them for taking off their clothes. But if that same peson just started undressing in public for the exposure, people would view the incident differently. Same naked body, different reaction due to different intent.

The intent should be taken into more consideration than how much was exposed. Should a woman who is lying out trying to get a topfree tan be considered a sex offender? Should skinny-dippers be put in the same category as those who ambush people and flash them?

Bob S.

[ranul]

you still do see the point I am trying to make . A woman is walking down the street and walks by a family and flashes her breasts at them regardless of they are offended by it .
and a man who is exposes himself to the same family . they are both doing it for shock value but yet you are saying that it is okay for the woman but not for the man .

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by ranul:
you still do see the point I am trying to make . A woman is walking down the street and walks by a family and flashes her breasts at them regardless of they are offended by it .
and a man who is exposes himself to the same family . they are both doing it for shock value but yet you are saying that it is okay for the woman but not for the man .

OK, let's be clear here. Being topfree on the beach, or even walking down the street is not flashing. Flashing is when you corner a victim or otherwise deliberately draw attention of another person without warning or prior consent and then display your genitals in order to shock them and excite yourself.

You might consider a woman "flashing her breasts" under those circumstances to be a flasher - even though breasts are not genitals.

But you CANNOT consider a woman being topfree in any location where a man can be topfree to be a flasher. There is no 'cornering' of a victim, no subterfuge and surprise exposure. Anyone who is inexplicably offended by harmless flesh is free to avert their gaze.

Now, do you agree there IS a difference?

-Mark

[Stu2630]

Anyone who is inexplicably offended by harmless flesh is free to avert their gaze.

Mark, you could say the same of, say, harmless pornography on billboards. After all, what is porn if not "harmless flesh", except in a sexual context, and sex is a natural thing. But we don't tell people to "avert their gaze", do we? No, we take down the obscene imagery. In fact, we'd probably prosecute the person who displayed it.

Stu

[ranul]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ranul:
you still do see the point I am trying to make . A woman is walking down the street and walks by a family and flashes her breasts at them regardless of they are offended by it .
and a man who is exposes himself to the same family . they are both doing it for shock value but yet you are saying that it is okay for the woman but not for the man .

OK, let's be clear here. Being topfree on the beach, or even walking down the street is not flashing. Flashing is when you corner a victim or otherwise deliberately draw attention of another person without warning or prior consent and then display your genitals in order to shock them and excite yourself.

You might consider a woman "flashing her breasts" under those circumstances to be a flasher - even though breasts are not genitals.

But you CANNOT consider a woman being topfree in any location where a man can be topfree to be a flasher. There is no 'cornering' of a victim, no subterfuge and surprise exposure. Anyone who is inexplicably offended by harmless flesh is free to avert their gaze.

Now, do you agree there IS a difference?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes I agree there is a differnce between being topless and being a flasher . I never said that I didn't agree with that . I am just don't agree that there is a differnce if the flasher is male or female . the law should deal with them the same .

[Naturist Mark]

Mark, you could say the same of, say, harmless pornography on billboards. After all, what is porn if not "harmless flesh"


Indeed, but I'll leave the defense of pornography to Stu. Under US law (and I suspect British) pornography is subject to censorship precisely because it IS considered harmful - the opposite of harmless. There is certainly room for disagreement since much of the research reporting the "harm" of pornography has been unscientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meese_Commission) .

(A note on terminology - pornography is legal in the US, but obscenity is not. The words are not synonyms.)

Mere nudity is not pornography under either US or British law, and there is absolutely no basis for considering it harmful. It CAN be considered offensive to those so inclined - but so can bad haircuts.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

yes I agree there is a differnce between being topless and being a flasher . I never said that I didn't agree with that . I am just don't agree that there is a differnce if the flasher is male or female . the law should deal with them the same .


I agree.

A man who 'flashes' his breasts would not be charged with a crime, neither should a woman.

A woman who flashes her vulva should be treated the same as a man who flashes his penis.

Breasts are not genitals.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

ranul:"A woman is walking down the street and walks by a family and flashes her breasts at them regardless of they are offended by it .
and a man who is exposes himself to the same family . they are both doing it for shock value but yet you are saying that it is okay for the woman but not for the man."

A woman who is walking down the street and purposely reveals her breasts for the sexual enjoyment of it is flashing. A man is walking down the street and flashes the family by opening his overcoat. They have both violated the law of flashing and indencent exposure because they wanted to get a rise out of the other people for posible sexual intents.

But I have not been talking about. I have not said that women should be treated differently than men for flashing. As for exposure, I do think that the breast should be legal for both sexes. Personally, it makes no sense for me to discriminate working breasts from non-working ones--mammary tissue from fat tissue.

An equal comparison would be a male naked sunbather to a female naked sunbather. Not a female naked sunbather to a man who walks around and ambushes and exposes his body to them for sexual gratification.

But if you can't tell the difference between getting an all-over tan and a sex crime, then I can't help you.

Bob S.

[ranul]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes I agree there is a differnce between being topless and being a flasher . I never said that I didn't agree with that . I am just don't agree that there is a differnce if the flasher is male or female . the law should deal with them the same .


I agree.

A man who 'flashes' his breasts would not be charged with a crime, neither should a woman.

A woman who flashes her vulva should be treated the same as a man who flashes his penis.

Breasts are not genitals.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes they should not be consider genitals but in this day and age in most areas a woman can't go topless

[ranul]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
ranul:"A woman is walking down the street and walks by a family and flashes her breasts at them regardless of they are offended by it .
and a man who is exposes himself to the same family . they are both doing it for shock value but yet you are saying that it is okay for the woman but not for the man."

A woman who is walking down the street and purposely reveals her breasts for the sexual enjoyment of it is flashing. A man is walking down the street and flashes the family by opening his overcoat. They have both violated the law of flashing and indencent exposure because they wanted to get a rise out of the other people for posible sexual intents.

But I have not been talking about. I have not said that women should be treated differently than men for flashing. As for exposure, I do think that the breast should be legal for both sexes. Personally, it makes no sense for me to discriminate working breasts from non-working ones--mammary tissue from fat tissue.

An equal comparison would be a male naked sunbather to a female naked sunbather. Not a female naked sunbather to a man who walks around and ambushes and exposes his body to them for sexual gratification.

But if you can't tell the difference between getting an all-over tan and a sex crime, then I can't help you.

Bob S.
lets me explain it again can you tell me what is the differnce between a man in a trench coat and a woman in a trench coat opening it up and showing themselves to strangers walking by .
I see nothing wrong if either sex wants to walk down the street naked or half naked .
I have been comparing flashers this whole time where you have been comparing a flashers to sunbathers
I want want to check my post and show where I have asked what is the differnce between a male flasher and a female topless sun bather I have not done so . I have asked what is the differnce between a male and a female flasher

[Stu2630]

Indeed, but I'll leave the defense of pornography to Stu. Under US law (and I suspect British) pornography is subject to censorship precisely because it IS considered harmful - the opposite of harmless. There is certainly room for disagreement since much of the research reporting the "harm" of pornography has been unscientific .

This is precisely the point. Some people claim pornography is harmful yet there is no reliable scientific evidence to prove it. Some people think children seeing adult nudity is harmful (e.g. Freud, Spock) but they haven't proved it with evidence. Whether there is evidence or not, we don't want to live in a society in which pornographic¨images are on open display so we don't allow it to happen. Why is that so different to prohibiting nudity in puvlic?

Stu

[Bob S.]

ranul:"I have asked what is the differnce between a male and a female flasher"

ranul, as I said, the difference is what they flash. A male flasher, by definition does not go around flashing his chest. He can only flash his penis to be considered. A woman can be considered a flasher by exposing either her breasts or her vagina.

After reading your reposnse to Mark, I think I understand more of what you are talking about. That breasts should not be considered genitals or categorized with the sexual areas.

Stu:"Some people think children seeing adult nudity is harmful (e.g. Freud, Spock)"

Freud never suggested that children seeing adult nudity was harmful. Just the opposite, in fact. His Oedipus and Electra complexes in the phallic stage (3-5 years of age) requires that children see their parents naked in order to associate with their same sex parent.

After that is the latency stage in which sexual energy recedes so viewing adult nudity would generally get no reaction given they came out of the phallic stage fine.

It was the Neo-Freudians such as Spock and Dr. Brothers who perverted the psychoanalytic stages to suggest nudity is wrong. Spock reached his conclusion by watchign as his two or three-year-old son reached for his penis as he was shaving. From that, he concluded that the boy was jealous.

Dr. Brothers does not even trust siblings to sleep in the same bed for even one night for fear they will give in to temptation or have those feelings ruin their relationship.

Bob S.

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Spock reached his conclusion by watchign as his two or three-year-old son reached for his penis as he was shaving. From that, he concluded that the boy was jealous.Bob S.
His two or three year old son was shaving? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif
Sorry, I just could not help myself.
I also reach for my penis when I shave, it makes it easier to reach the hair around it. Somebody stop me now. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif

[Nude in the North]

lets me explain it again can you tell me what is the differnce between a man in a trench coat and a woman in a trench coat opening it up and showing themselves to strangers walking by .

In that context, there is No Difference.

I'm sure that most courts would treat the offenders the same.

Steve

[Naturist Mark]

I'm sure that most courts would treat the offenders the same.

I'm pretty sure they would not. Male nudity is always seen as more "dangerous".

-Mark

[nimrod]

There is a double standard. When a man flashes someone it is considered an agressive sexuall behavior, when a woman flashes she is just being an exhibitionist. I believe that generally female nudity is better accepted than male nudity. There is an attitude towards male nudity as being sexually motivated, or agressive. If a woman is nude, she is either being exploited by men, or she has no morals. The latter can be seen in the first letter.

[Bob S.]

nimrod:"His two or three year old son was shaving?"

Yes. A very hirsute family! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Bob S.