Tweet
To Bare or Not to Bare...
By now, almost everyone has seen, heard about, or saw replays of the fiasco that occurred at the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII and yet it should be noted that this act took place in the shadow of a great game and an overall entertaining evening for most. However, in retrospect I am left wondering whether the deed that was done was all that substantial or that morally invading.
Television broadcasters across the nation, especially CBS who aired the show, are screaming to find out precisely what happened and what exactly was ?shown.? The questions arose, ?Was it indecent? Was it intentional?? To that I would ask, ?What does it matter?? If that is not your cup of tea, turn off your television. It happened. Get over it.
Later Janet Jackson publicly apologized for the act and expressed that she hopes it hasn?t offended too many, but this only answers one of the above questions? Yes, it was intentional. If not, what are you apologizing for, a clothing failure? If there is such a thing.
Whether it was intentional or not, I think that the American people are far less offended by it than the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and CBS. In fact, I have found few even talking about it. Most people want to know what was over her areola and where can they get one. (Just FYI, it was a sunburst nipple shield available at many mainstream piercing studios and online stores, and you must have a pierced nipple to wear one) To me, it seems that things have gotten a little blown out of proportion and need to be put back into perspective.
Moreover, I fail to see why the appearance of a female breast has become such a spectacle in the United States. If it were to have happened anywhere else in the world, perhaps for the most part, no one would have thought twice about it. You can see a female topless at just about any European, South and Central American, Australian, and Asian pool or beach, and I am sure there are some in Africa as well. Not only topless, but anyone can bare their buns in a thong or even go nude in most places. In France, some public pools won?t even let you enter the water with what Americans call swimming trunks.
Being an American, I grew up with it and to me it never seemed quite right. Though I never believed that I was special, I knew I was definitely not behind the learning curve in addition to knowing what was going on in the world. It often left me thinking, ?If this is the land of freedom, why do we not have some of the freedoms the rest of the world enjoys? Why should anyone be embarrassed to go topless or nude at a beach, pool, or even in your backyard if someone could see you?? To me, it has always seemed like a personal preference and to the rest of the world outside the US it is. No one is obligated to do it and no one, in addition, is obligated to look.
If, in America, people were suddenly allowed to make their own decision on this matter I find it hard to believe that there would be mass hysteria. In fact, I think that it would be a very gradual transition. First the people who have fought for this would practice it and others would slowly follow suit within the confines of their own conscience.
Conscience? Now there is an interesting word. What is ?conscience?? Well, Webster defines conscience as ?a sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one?s own conduct, intentions, or character together with the feeling of obligation to do right or be good,? whereas one?s own morals decides what is blameworthy and right. That being stated, who should decide if a woman can go topless on a beach or either a woman or a man goes nude there as well? Federal law does not touch that ball, but most states are quick to pick it up.
Let?s take for instance, my home state of Indiana. Indiana is no different than many other states in the legal definition of public nudity and classifies it as a Class C Misdemeanor:
IC 35-45-4-1.5
Public nudity
Sec. 1.5. (a) As used in this section, "nudity" has the meaning set forth in section 1(d) of this chapter.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity commits public nudity, a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (d).
(d) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity:
(1) in or on school grounds;
(2) in a public park; or
(3) with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person, in a department of natural resources owned or managed property; commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (c).
For the record section 1(d) reads:
(d) As used in this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
To me, that is a rather broad definition of nudity and it clearly outlaws the practice of topless or natural sunbathing. If one were to bathe topless or nude they would be a person who knowingly and intentionally appears in a public place meeting that critera, but there?s a catch? or is there? The Indiana State Constitution states in Article I, Section 3:
No law shall, in any case whatsoever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
? In other words, the right for citizens to establish for themselves, what is morally right or wrong and you would be hard pressed to prove to any audience that topless and natural sunbathing is not an issue of morals. In fact, isn?t the state?s duty to protect the citizens of the state and their rights and not to establish the moral standard? This Section of the State Constitution would have you think that.
So, is it unconstitutional, at least in Indiana, not to allow topless sunbathing at public beaches, pools, and state parks or to allow natural sunbathing with people of like conscience? If you subscribe to this interpretation of the law and constitution, it is. You cannot say that morals are not an issue of religion, nor could you say that conscience is not a product of one?s morals. In any case, you are taking away that individuals right to conscience and to establish what is right and wrong.
That?s just Indiana, but in a larger sense the issue of public nudity or most state?s definitions of public nudity is detrimental to the maturity and development of American youth, similar to the illegalization of alcohol before the age of 21. Not that teenagers are running around naked as some do drink alcohol in the corn fields just because they legally can?t elsewhere, but when they leave the US and travel they act as children in the eyes of others, especially when they have never seen a topless woman at the beach, so they often gawk and point accordingly. Sometimes these same individuals are acting as ambassadors of the US as members of our Armed Forces.
American immaturity is not hidden nor does it go unnoticed. Most Europeans, Asians, Australians and the like can identify an American before they even speak to them and it is frustrating to have to tell your travel companions to ?grow-up? or ?act your age,? especially when they are older than you. The problem is, they are acting their age, at least for Americans, but like I stated earlier, ironically it is not a Federal problem, but a state problem. For, the states are the bodies that make these laws.
Conservatism, by the American definition, is traditional. It is reinforced with every Republican and Democrat that we elect into office while most people don?t realize that if the same parties and their respective beliefs were to exist in most any other country, the Democratic beliefs would be considered extreme right wing conservatism and the Republicans would be under investigation by the state. That may sound drastic and it probably is, but the analogy stands true, and with each passing year American youth becomes more and more liberal. I can see that slowly the Republican ideal will fade and ultimately the Democrats? as well. I cannot picture an America without these two political parties so I can only believe that they will evolve to possess more representative ideals as time passes. Americans are finally growing up and realizing that they have the moral maturity of 18th and early 19th Century Europe.
Americans? attitude toward nudity and alcohol consumption both politically and morally is not a major obstacle nor is it the only barrier between us and the rest of the world, there is a lot more to it than that, but with each passing day we can take more and more steps toward leveling the playing field.
I am glad to see real change on the horizon and signs of today and the Super Bowl are giving the outlook real promise. Not that more women will get their clothing ripped off by overzealous pop stars, but that America will someday finally leave it?s bubble and join the rest of reality.
By now, almost everyone has seen, heard about, or saw replays of the fiasco that occurred at the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII and yet it should be noted that this act took place in the shadow of a great game and an overall entertaining evening for most. However, in retrospect I am left wondering whether the deed that was done was all that substantial or that morally invading.
Television broadcasters across the nation, especially CBS who aired the show, are screaming to find out precisely what happened and what exactly was ?shown.? The questions arose, ?Was it indecent? Was it intentional?? To that I would ask, ?What does it matter?? If that is not your cup of tea, turn off your television. It happened. Get over it.
Later Janet Jackson publicly apologized for the act and expressed that she hopes it hasn?t offended too many, but this only answers one of the above questions? Yes, it was intentional. If not, what are you apologizing for, a clothing failure? If there is such a thing.
Whether it was intentional or not, I think that the American people are far less offended by it than the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and CBS. In fact, I have found few even talking about it. Most people want to know what was over her areola and where can they get one. (Just FYI, it was a sunburst nipple shield available at many mainstream piercing studios and online stores, and you must have a pierced nipple to wear one) To me, it seems that things have gotten a little blown out of proportion and need to be put back into perspective.
Moreover, I fail to see why the appearance of a female breast has become such a spectacle in the United States. If it were to have happened anywhere else in the world, perhaps for the most part, no one would have thought twice about it. You can see a female topless at just about any European, South and Central American, Australian, and Asian pool or beach, and I am sure there are some in Africa as well. Not only topless, but anyone can bare their buns in a thong or even go nude in most places. In France, some public pools won?t even let you enter the water with what Americans call swimming trunks.
Being an American, I grew up with it and to me it never seemed quite right. Though I never believed that I was special, I knew I was definitely not behind the learning curve in addition to knowing what was going on in the world. It often left me thinking, ?If this is the land of freedom, why do we not have some of the freedoms the rest of the world enjoys? Why should anyone be embarrassed to go topless or nude at a beach, pool, or even in your backyard if someone could see you?? To me, it has always seemed like a personal preference and to the rest of the world outside the US it is. No one is obligated to do it and no one, in addition, is obligated to look.
If, in America, people were suddenly allowed to make their own decision on this matter I find it hard to believe that there would be mass hysteria. In fact, I think that it would be a very gradual transition. First the people who have fought for this would practice it and others would slowly follow suit within the confines of their own conscience.
Conscience? Now there is an interesting word. What is ?conscience?? Well, Webster defines conscience as ?a sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one?s own conduct, intentions, or character together with the feeling of obligation to do right or be good,? whereas one?s own morals decides what is blameworthy and right. That being stated, who should decide if a woman can go topless on a beach or either a woman or a man goes nude there as well? Federal law does not touch that ball, but most states are quick to pick it up.
Let?s take for instance, my home state of Indiana. Indiana is no different than many other states in the legal definition of public nudity and classifies it as a Class C Misdemeanor:
IC 35-45-4-1.5
Public nudity
Sec. 1.5. (a) As used in this section, "nudity" has the meaning set forth in section 1(d) of this chapter.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity commits public nudity, a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (d).
(d) A person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity:
(1) in or on school grounds;
(2) in a public park; or
(3) with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person, in a department of natural resources owned or managed property; commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this subsection or under subsection (c).
For the record section 1(d) reads:
(d) As used in this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
To me, that is a rather broad definition of nudity and it clearly outlaws the practice of topless or natural sunbathing. If one were to bathe topless or nude they would be a person who knowingly and intentionally appears in a public place meeting that critera, but there?s a catch? or is there? The Indiana State Constitution states in Article I, Section 3:
No law shall, in any case whatsoever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
? In other words, the right for citizens to establish for themselves, what is morally right or wrong and you would be hard pressed to prove to any audience that topless and natural sunbathing is not an issue of morals. In fact, isn?t the state?s duty to protect the citizens of the state and their rights and not to establish the moral standard? This Section of the State Constitution would have you think that.
So, is it unconstitutional, at least in Indiana, not to allow topless sunbathing at public beaches, pools, and state parks or to allow natural sunbathing with people of like conscience? If you subscribe to this interpretation of the law and constitution, it is. You cannot say that morals are not an issue of religion, nor could you say that conscience is not a product of one?s morals. In any case, you are taking away that individuals right to conscience and to establish what is right and wrong.
That?s just Indiana, but in a larger sense the issue of public nudity or most state?s definitions of public nudity is detrimental to the maturity and development of American youth, similar to the illegalization of alcohol before the age of 21. Not that teenagers are running around naked as some do drink alcohol in the corn fields just because they legally can?t elsewhere, but when they leave the US and travel they act as children in the eyes of others, especially when they have never seen a topless woman at the beach, so they often gawk and point accordingly. Sometimes these same individuals are acting as ambassadors of the US as members of our Armed Forces.
American immaturity is not hidden nor does it go unnoticed. Most Europeans, Asians, Australians and the like can identify an American before they even speak to them and it is frustrating to have to tell your travel companions to ?grow-up? or ?act your age,? especially when they are older than you. The problem is, they are acting their age, at least for Americans, but like I stated earlier, ironically it is not a Federal problem, but a state problem. For, the states are the bodies that make these laws.
Conservatism, by the American definition, is traditional. It is reinforced with every Republican and Democrat that we elect into office while most people don?t realize that if the same parties and their respective beliefs were to exist in most any other country, the Democratic beliefs would be considered extreme right wing conservatism and the Republicans would be under investigation by the state. That may sound drastic and it probably is, but the analogy stands true, and with each passing year American youth becomes more and more liberal. I can see that slowly the Republican ideal will fade and ultimately the Democrats? as well. I cannot picture an America without these two political parties so I can only believe that they will evolve to possess more representative ideals as time passes. Americans are finally growing up and realizing that they have the moral maturity of 18th and early 19th Century Europe.
Americans? attitude toward nudity and alcohol consumption both politically and morally is not a major obstacle nor is it the only barrier between us and the rest of the world, there is a lot more to it than that, but with each passing day we can take more and more steps toward leveling the playing field.
I am glad to see real change on the horizon and signs of today and the Super Bowl are giving the outlook real promise. Not that more women will get their clothing ripped off by overzealous pop stars, but that America will someday finally leave it?s bubble and join the rest of reality.
Comment