As publicity stunts go, this was typical. PETA reps like to go naked for the cameras.
At noon time, two young bare women were surrounded by ogling media and some drooling onlookers at Pliny Park.
Brattleboro citizens, alert to most naked people, are becoming jaded. "It's only because they're young and pretty that they've got a crowd," said one. "Yep," added a second. "It's only out of towners that come here to take their clothes off. We have the sense to keep em on."
A warmer-than-usual October day, two naked women and a bunch of gawkers. What does any of this have to do with animal rights? Dunno.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 12:42 PM GMT+5
Okay, since my other descriptions were "verbose" i.e. long winded and
boring, here's a shorter description: Beavers expose at doughnut hole
park fur animal rights.
Authored by: Timmy on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 01:14 PM GMT+5
I would venture a guess that drivers need to have control of their vehicle
regardless of the type of distraction, but of course you could always
submit that to the 'Ask a Cop' section.
Please don't say things like "29 year old hottness" around slightly older
(and yet fairly hot) lonely men. In fact if you could stay away from the
term 'bedrest' even, that would be appreciated.
Thank you for your under-30 consideration.
By the way, I was 29 for a few years myself too!
Don't Hold Your Breath for Too Long, Fellow Readers...
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 01:44 PM GMT+5
No, I expect others to post their photos via this thread, just as they did
fires on the mountain, gallery walk, etc. And after all, we're not a bunch
of prudes, are we? That's just being consistent with FREEDOM and the 1st
Amendment. It doesn't have to be Chris and Lise doing the photo shoot.
Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 02:46 PM GMT+5
There were ALOT of photos taken and I bet they are already getting emailed around. There will probably be some Youtube action as well.
I am thinking of how to present some footage in as original a fashion as I can think of. It may take me a few weeks to do that however...
In fact I think I would like to put out a call for statistics relating to everything else that is important here and will no longer be talked about for the next several weeks because nude hysteria will be on everyone's mind in some shape or form. I want to list at least 25 important issues in my video.
People dying every day with our tax dollars and the pressing needs of folks living here are just a couple of issues that will take a back seat to moral grandstanding and the rest of the wackiness again. I do think we probably need to end nudity downtown just so we can get on with real, pressing issues that are threats to people's well being rather than having these ongoing distractions that take our eyes off of more urgent matters.
I do also care about animals being needlessly tortured for vanity items. It is worth thinking about how we can reduce misery for our fellow creatures, humans included, whenever we can do that. Our dollars are our votes and anyone who thinks spending several thousand dollars on electrocuted animal pelts to wear around as a status symbol probably has their priorities a bit out of whack.
They really lucked out weather wise. It could have easily been 50 degrees today and raining.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 03:26 PM GMT+5
Floyd,
I doubt most people going to see the "show" were paying much
attention to the torture of animals. I'm all against that as well. Where
I have a problem with PETA is the strict vegetarianism and wanting to
block all animals used for lab research. I'll bet I get a ton of flack for
being honest and saying this, but a lot of medicines and human lives
have been saved by research done for vaccines, medical
developments, etc. that could only be done by animal testing,
especially rats and mice. Some labs go overboard or have really cruel
testing facilities, but many of them do not, and try to limit the pain
and the amount of harm done to animals. The polio vaccine was
created and developed for just one example because animals could be
tested. I am all for limiting animal testing wherever possible, but
sometimes rodents especially are needed because we don't have an
artificial life form that mimics mammals created yet.
As for eating other animals for their protein, I'm not against this
either. However, what bothers me is that many animals are "farmed"
in disgusting pens by big commercial operations, and this is unhealthy
for the animal and unhealthy for the consumer. Michael Pollen talks
about more ethical ways to butcher and raise meat for consumption
that I agree would be better to mandate as law. Grass fed cattle are
better than corn fed, for so many reasons, one of which is energy
conservation. We all could stand to eat less red meat, less meat in
general, which would help the planet. I just wouldn't give up all meat
or animal use for leather, for food, etc. We shouldn't waste what we
use either. Animal slaughtering just for their horns or pelts should be
illegal.
I think PETA goes too far, feeding off of people's emotions, rather
than their logic, the same way the far right religious groups do when
they go after stem cell research as being "wrong". Stem cell research
saves many lives, and is good for research in fighting diseases.
Banning it is an emotional response that simply lacks common sense
credibility. I feel the same way about banning all animal research. It
is an emotional response that lacks common sense, when you look at
the tremendoous gains we get from some animal research. I'm all for
cutting down on as much animal research as possible however,
because animal life is sacred and shouldn't be wasted or treated
cruelly.
As for the PETA protesters, let's see the photos, just as the Europeans
would show them---unrestricted. It's not sensationalism to show
naked protesters as part of a story. It's prude and pilgrim-like to
deliberatley go out of our way NOT to show them. It's typical
American cultural double-standards and we should rise above it. Let's
see the photos and the story. They wouldn't take their clothing off if
they didn't want to be seen anyway.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 04:28 PM GMT+5
I agree with you, almost 100%. I think PETA people have a yet-to-be named syndrome - sort of a hyper-anthropomorphism - in which they not only transfer their feelings and emotions onto animals but practically their very existence and psyche as well. But in a way, it's part Stockholm syndrome by proxy, too.
I blame Walt Disney.
I'm sure there will be indignant replies.
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 05:08 PM GMT+5
We have all seen how this works: an organization espouses a position that is well outside of the mainstream and they know that they will only move a segment of the population a portion of the way toward their ultimate goal. They may convince a small fraction of young or impressionable people to take their entire viewpoint, but those folks will probably gradually move more to the center on the issue as time passes.
The right wingers and religious nuts want to ban everything and stop most forms of fun and the honest ones know that they will only partly succeed in making the world a gloomy place again like they did in the Middle Ages.
Until the 20th century animals were not treated very well by many people. People seemed to think animals had no feelings, no concept of family or affection, or any noble traits that might be worthy of our respect.
I guess that is the arrogance of humans claiming they have souls and that animals do not so therefore there is nothing wrong with hurting or killing them for our pleasure or our vanity.
Animals were baited, taught to fight each other, electrocuted, trapped in painful traps and worked to death. The fashion of various eras caused the near extinction of various animals whose pelts or feathers were suddenly in great demand.
Humans had little regard for them and thought nothing of extincting entire species just because it was easy to shoot at them. That is a curious form of cruelty and I would say it is little different to wipe out a species of birds or mammals than it is to attempt to wipe out a certain race or religion.
I do think that we should carefully consider how we treat animals and largely agree with Buddy that there are more humane ways to assure that fewer animals are mistreated while still gaining important scientific and medical knowledge from humanely conducted tests.
Beyond that, we have a great deal to learn from other animals and we should continue to consider and reassess our place in the natural order of things. We have have gotten quite good at separating ourselves from the world we developed in to the point that some of us have sacrificed what many would call our humanity in the process. All of that still resides within us and we would be wise to try and get back in touch with those instincts and habits that ensured our survival for so long.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 05:18 PM GMT+5
It seems we are basically in agreement, Floyd, Maus and I. And I
agree with Floyd that animals and humans are not as different as we
humans once thought. With science, we have come to a far better
understanding of how we are in fact, part of the animal chain, not
separate from it. We humans are animals. The sooner we grasp this,
the sooner we can learn that, as animals, we need to better care for
the planet that we, as animals, can't live without. And the other
animals would probably "agree" with that sentiment. Maus makes a
good point that Disney probably did more to distort our view of
animals in the modern era than any other group.
Now, if we could just get the same kind of attention about global
warming. Anyone wonder why we haven't had a frost yet? And why
was the Bermuda High so powerful that the entire East Coast has been
bathed in unreal hot temperatures? Could it be that we are warming
not just the atmosphere, but the oceans as well? Yikes.
Authored by: Tenacious on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 04:10 PM GMT+5
Battleboro PETA Beauties in First-Ever Completely Nude Rally Against Leather, Fur
'Bare Skin, Don't Wear Skin,' Says Sexy Duo as Brattleboro's Temporary Nudity Ban Expires
For Immediate Release:
October 3, 2007
Contact:
Matt Rice 757-622-7382
Brattleboro, Vt. - Taking advantage of the expiration of Brattleboro, Vermont's temporary ban on public nudity, PETA members wearing nothing but a banner reading, "Bare Skin, Don't Wear Skin," will expose the cruelty of the fur, leather, and wool industries in Brattleboro on Thursday in PETA's first-ever completely nude protest. PETA members Meggan Anderson, a tall, sultry redhead, and Ali Cayer, a hot, leggy blonde, will lead the rally as other PETA members hold signs that read, "Wear Your Own Skin; Let Animals Keep Theirs," and hand out leaflets. PETA is calling on shoppers to cross all animal skins off their lists.
Date: Thursday, October 4
Time: 12 noon
Place: Intersection of Main and High streets, Brattleboro
What's wrong with fur, leather, and wool? For animals who are mutilated, treated like unfeeling machines, and denied everything that is natural and important to them in factory farms and slaughterhouses, there's no difference between fur, leather, and wool. All three cause great suffering that can be avoided simply by choosing from the many warm and fashionable alternatives to animal skins.
"We're all for people baring skin-as long as it's their own and not skin from an animal who was tormented and killed," says Anderson. "With all the luxurious alternatives available, there's absolutely no excuse for wearing animal skins."
Authored by: Thalia on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 06:29 PM GMT+5
At the risk of sounding prudish, I find it interesting that PETA is totally willing to align itself with language and a message that objectifies women for the sake of its cause.
What's the lesson for the 8 year old girl walking with her mother down Main Street?
"Hey Mom, why are those women naked?"
"Well, because they would rather be naked than wear fur. They care about animals and don't want people to eat them or wear them."
"Why don't they just wear pants and a shirt like me, and eat veggies instead of meat?"
"Well... I guess people pay more attention to them when they are naked."
"Oh." Silence.
Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 07:24 PM GMT+5
I agree that there seems to be a bit of a disconnect in some ways with this campaign. It is undeniably effective in getting attention on the cause to the world though. The newspaper readers of the world will just read about it and will not be particularly concerned about the particulars (and generally will not see the particulars either) of the effect it might have on Brattleboro or anything else.
I did hear one of the women say that "some feminists would consider this empowering" which is probably true while other feminists would condemn the whole thing. Alot of us have half joked about how much attention you could get for your favorite cause if you were doing it naked. I personally think that impeachment and a safe shutdown of the nuke plant are tow things that should be brought to as many people's attention through whatever means we can think of.
Heck, the Save the Corporations guy went out and offered hemp and organic cotton clothes to the naked gals today which was brilliant theater: piggybacking an event that was piggybacking an existing controversy. Maybe some anti nuke or anti war activists should have showed up in the buff and stated their case. Of course the detrimental effects of the town are also in the mix here and I am sensitive to some of that as well. I pay no mind to the moralists, but I don't think our town should be a joke either.
One thing that is important to note is that these women chose to do this to draw attention to situations where an animal has absolutely no ability to determine its own fate. They are trading on our society's curiosity an d"issues" about nudity and sex to make a point about something else, whether or not they recognize the ironies within or not. It is currently within their rights to do that and is arguably an effective tactic. A parent can explain some of this pretty well, but it leaves some elements open to individual interpretation and kids will learn that there are alot of ideas in the world and the debate about individual versus collective rights is ongoing and subject to revision as societies change. Obviously alot of adults struggle with these issues for decades beyond childhood.
I think there is a universal rule there in giving everyone a degree of self determination. The lack of self determination is one of the main reasons we have terrorism and senseless wars. This country loves to talk about democracy and freedom, but we mainly export misery and subjugation in the name of capitalism and military power.
All creatures should be treated with respect and ideally have at least the possibility of living a somewhat enjoyable life relatively free from harassment for the few years that most of us occupy this planet. Beyond that we all are taking our chances and sometime luck is on our side and sometimes we end up as someone else's dinner.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 08:06 PM GMT+5
Heck, the hotdog vendor next to Save The Corporations store could have
gone over and offered the gals some fresh hot meat. That would have
been a great marketing strategy as well, and could have put his hotdog
stand on the map. If they didn't eat meat, he could have offered them
some organic buns. Add free publicity and photos, and a new ad
campaign would be born!
A lesson in capitalism, my friends...
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 04:41 PM GMT+5
Well, I know he doesn't like what he calls "vegetarians." But why not
bring him in? If a clothing store salesman can enter the scene and offer
to clothe the women, why can't a dogman offer them some meat and/or
buns?
Are we descriminating here? Weiner-bearers have rights too, baby!
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 10:10 PM GMT+5
Buddy,
A hotdog is not illegal. But gripping your steaming sausage, slapping it in a bun, and presenting it, unsolicited, to two unsuspecting nudists is considered to be in the wurst taste.
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 04:39 PM GMT+5
Holy dunkin' doughnut park Batman!
The blonde is kinda hot. The redhead is turned, butt a nice view. The
heels were unnecessary, but women have worn them because it changes
the position of the pubic area, the angle, to what men like, and they've
exploited this for centuries. Or the other way around. Not comfortable to
stand in however. I'm guessing that the shoes are not made of leather.
Thanks for the link.
And like a one-time Playboy reader that I was as a kid, I also read the
article. : )
Authored by: mr.mike on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 09:28 PM GMT+5
Ah yes Buddy which raises the question. What are the shoes made of? Hmm? Not leather which is natural and biodegradeable. no. Probably synthetic or man-made and you know what that means ,Thats right. OIL!!!!!! That EVIL substance. Somebody better tell Post Oil Solutions so they can protest the protest.
Authored by: Todd on Thursday, October 04 2007 @ 09:52 PM GMT+5
Cute . . . but I don't think Post Oil Solutions protests anything, or even that most of them think oil is "evil". Rather they are simply wanting to be prepared for change. But heck, maybe for the first time in history - nothing will change? Anything is possible, so good luck with that.
Authored by: Christian Avard on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 09:33 AM GMT+5
Not sure if anyone caught their expressions in the photos or on the 11
o'clock news (go to the WCAX website) but they really looked like
they weren't having a good time nor did they seem totally
comfortable doing the protest.
Either that or they were inexperienced PETA protestors not used to
having people gawk at them because they were nude and all. Ya
think PETA would send some women who are used to the attention
when they go out and do these sorts of things. This isn't the first time
they've gone nude like this. It's a regular campaign they're involved
in.
---
"A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory." - Steven Wright, comedian
Authored by: annikee on Saturday, October 06 2007 @ 11:25 AM GMT+5
Patman, these two are the nude "spokesmodels" on a tour of the states for PETA. I think those are facial expressions common to folks who make their living by being naked. :)
---
The Third Horseman: Girls Like To Ride!
Sent by Hell's Affirmative Action Program.
Authored by: Perceptionist on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 09:09 AM GMT+5
Listen, this whole event could have been much better and I would have given up meat for the weekend if I could have SEEN IT ALL!
Do you think that anyone ever joins them, naked at those events?
If I weren't on bedrest could I have walked up to them, stripped and grabbed a corner of their sign?
The things that cross your mind when you don't get out of the house... Sigh...
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 04:43 PM GMT+5
Yeah, but aren't these women somewhat "professional"? They've had lots
of practice, as policewomen, as firewomen, as indians, construction
workers----it's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A!! ha ha
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 08:57 PM GMT+5
On a more serious note, I notice nobody is blubbering that poor ol' granny can't walk down the street without seeing nudity. I guess it's only an outrage when it's a middle-aged man from CT.
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 09:19 PM GMT+5
Well, as Jan & Dean once sang in "One Piece Topless Bathing Suit (and
She's Only 94-Years Old)" people get kind of grossed out seeing old
people past their sexual prime doffing their clothes. And let's face it,
naked men appear more threatening than naked women, because men
can rape while most women can't (or won't). Nobody said that life was
fair. Okay, Jack Kennedy said that once to his friend Ben Bradlee.
Just don't challenge granny to a drag race on Putney Road. She'll shut
you down in her Shiny Red Super Start Dodge every time, man!
Authored by: annikee on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 07:52 AM GMT+5
As Maus observed, there was not a quack from all the Peggy Frosts and her ilk over these two lovelies. It's been a week; they've had ample time to make their up-til-now-vociferous condemnation of nekkidness. But the crickets are singing. Can it be that the only people these anti-nude crusaders are after are old men? Can it be that they only distrust men to be nekkid? It seems to not matter at all that their menfolk gathered at Pliny to salivate through lunchtime over these younguns, but have a saggy old man walk down the street without high heels and the crusades begin. What hypocrisy!
BTW, either the leggy blond or the sultry redhead has a LTTE in the Reformer today.
---
The Third Horseman: Girls Like To Ride!
Sent by Hell's Affirmative Action Program.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:42 AM GMT+5
It was the blonde who wrote in to the paper from San Francisco.
I caught the hypocrisy too. However I personally agree with the
redhead PETA woman who said something like "nobody wants to see a
naked man." I would amend that to: "nobody wants to see a middle-
aged man or woman naked." Or someone out of shape. So to be fair
to everybody, it seems a ban on some forms of nudity for ALL people
(genitals or whatever people decide upon) would be the fairest route
to take. If people want to go nude, there are plenty of swimming
holes and private spaces where they can do so, just not in the town.
This should be democratically decided upon, not decided by just one or
a handful of selectboard members. Then maybe we can move on to
more important issues. And whatever decision is agreed upon
democratically, the town would have to live with.
One big difference I noticed: the two PETA women were well covered
up with that banner, so unless you were strategically placed behind
them way in the back or to the side, you couldn't really see much.
This is much different from the man who walked around downtown,
exposing himself without a banner, and moving all around town.
Making a list, checking it twice, gonna decide what's naughty 'n' nice
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:53 AM GMT+5
I think you're missing the basic point of discussion: should we ban things, or cover things up, simply because we don't like them? Or because they fail to please us aesthetically? If so, I have a very long list of demands.
If we're simply succumbing to our prejudices, perhaps we should realize it, and avoid reducing our municipal law to the level of beauty contest bylaws.
Or maybe we should use the law to mold society to our "democratically" selected standards. As I said, I have a list.
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM GMT+5
Since there are many different viewpoints on what is acceptable
behavior/and or appearance in public, I think we should democratically
decide what it is we want. For example, I'm sure there are some
people who would want to see sexual intercourse in the town square,
or have it okay to take a leak in the gutter. How do you decide? It's a
huge cop out to just leave everything in the open. Every village or
society has rules that it decides to abide by. I wasn't arguing for
dictatorial minority decision-making, but for majority democratic
decision-making, which I grant isn't perfect (see John Stewart Mill on
minorities in democratic societies). What's wrong with having nudity in
town put up for a vote?
Taken to extremes, one could simply decide, "I don't believe in red
stop signs or red traffic lights, so I'm not going to stop at them" or, "I
am going to have consensual sex with a minor child and in the
Harmony Parking Lot, because it's okay" or some other such behavior.
Somewhere in the contract of civilization, there must be rules to
follow. That's the point I'm trying to make.
And like I said, if the majority of citizens vote to allow nudity in the
town, I would go with that ruling, abide by the democratic decision.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 12:18 PM GMT+5
***I think we should democratically
decide what it is we want.***
Great. What kind of car do you drive? I have a list of cars that are ugly, and another list that are bad for the environment. We'll put it up to a townwide vote.
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 12:29 PM GMT+5
I try not to drive very often. But if I said Honda Fit, which gets pretty
good gasoline mileage, would you approve?
The problem with automobiles should be addressed by the people
through their democratically-elected representatives, to push for
higher CAFE standards for automobiles. Then those with gas-guzzling
SUVs and trucks would have to grandfather out their vehicles for a
more low carbon emitting vehicle. I'm also a big fan of democratic
decision-making to have better town planning so that more people can
use mass transit instead of individual automobiles. This is not just
aesthetic; it's environmentally responsible to democratically decide to
do.
I'm not a fan of communist, top-down decision-making, which I am
guessing you are alluding to, since you are familiar with Cold War
Europe. There is a "Middle Way" like in Scandinavia and the Low
Countries, however, where citizens democratically decided upon town
aesthetics and ways to govern and live. In Denmark, for example,
many towns have aesthetic codes that people must live by (how to
paint your house) if they want to live in that town. Seems reasonable
to me, if done democraticallly. In America, it's all about "ME". I think
it's time WE in this country did a bit more thinking of how our
individual actions affect others, rather than just run around screaming
about our libertarian ME-ness everytime someone suggests some
community standards and rules.
But yes, communisim and totalitarianism are NOT the answer.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 01:01 PM GMT+5
Communism? No, I'm suggesting we vote on your car. Democracy.
I meant the car as an example of the arbitrary nature of the desire to control behavior based on preferences, but it was a poor example - because a polluting car can easily be said to threaten society and, perhaps, worthy of legal control.
Seriously, my point was that laws aimed at preventing certain behavior are enacted because that behavior is deemed to be harmful to society. That's not what's going on here, in fact we're having this exchange in the middle of a thread in which people, including you, asked for MORE nudity. Nobody, in any of the threads on nudity, has been to identify how nudity damages society. Some people have said it does, but they offer nothing more than their opinion. The ones that have come the closest to offering a reasoned approach are those who claim (but do not demonstrate) that business levels will be adversely affected.
Instead of looking at the deeper question of "when is it ok to use the power of law to control society," people seem simply interested using the law to satisfy their own desires.
The discussion in the thread above is just proof that the real issue is not any harm to society by nudity, it's society's sophomoric discomfort with male genitalia and imperfect body types.
Personally, I don't give a rat's arse about nudity, what I care about is the integrity of our system of law. Reducing it to a code of aesthetic preference really renders it an absurdity, rather than something worthy of respect. On a national level, the law has already been kneecapped by people who care more about an issue than they care about the law itself.
But I guess if we're really going to pronounce the age of reason dead, why not start legislating majority preferences?
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 01:12 PM GMT+5
In town planning, it's often decided what color you can paint your
house, whether you can keep old cars in your front yard, etc. I used
Denmark as an example. This isn't just limiting the laws to "acts that
could cause harm to others" but to aesthetic standards for a town.
Why are you opposed to having say, a design standard in a
community that limits how high or what color you can make your
house?
I don't see this as an end to the age of reason. For example,
Washington, D.C. and Paris are cities that were designed with certain
standards for houses to adhere to, during the Age of Reason. They are
very beautiful cities because of these standards that people living in
them must adhere to.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 01:40 PM GMT+5
***In town planning, it's often decided what color you can paint your house***
Yes, and you may be surprised to find there's plenty of towns that do that in Vermont - you don't have to go to Denmark. But again, it isn't an arbitrary decision, just because "we like historic colors" or "just because we don't like junk cars." In all zoning, regulations are enacted either to protect the public from the impact of their neighbor's land use, or because of an identified benefit to those who are regulated.
In the instance of design control, a study is commissioned to identify the benefits - which are usually either economic, historic, or both - and, presumably, a rational person would make the decision to vote for or against such a design ordinance would do so based on the desired benefit.
If, however, such a design ordinance was based solely on "aesthetic preferences," for example, if a town said all buildings in town had to be painted orange, it would not be likely to hold up in court. There has to be an actual reason, something beyond a simple "excuse."
That's the rationality I'm saying does not exist in any of the pro-banning arguments. Voting on it may make it democratic, but it won't make it rational.
***I don't see this as an end to the age of reason.***
Then what is the "reason?"
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 01:47 PM GMT+5
Ah, but if we apply the standards of paint color or junk cars to be part
of the economic impact to the town, then one could reasonably
(there's that word--reason--appearing again) say that many business
owners who are concerned about the economic impact to their
businesses of naked people in the town would be following your logic
by deciding through a planning commission to ordain not to have
nudity. It fits in with aesthetic codes that have an economic impact. If
the majority of town business owners conversely decided that naked
people would not have a negative impact on their stores, that would
also be a reasoned choice. The point I'm making is, it is entirely
logical for a town to democratically decide if they want to have or not
have nudity in the public square.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 02:25 PM GMT+5
That's almost what I'm talking about. You're coming close to rationality, and I don't mean that in the insulting way it sounds. But the thing is, right now, there's nothing but a few uneducated (by which, I don't necesarily mean those who hold them are not educated) and random opinions suggesting that business levels are or will be impacted. An opinion is just that, it's not a "reason" or a rationale.
Now, commission a unbiased, professional study (doesn't have to be an expensive proposition) on the impact of nudity on business, property values, historic preservation, public morals, or whatever you like, and, depending on the outcome, you may have an actual "reason" upon which to build a law.
Although, if one wishes to be conservative in pursuing regulation, you might first try using the results of the study to find non-regulatory solutions - basically things that encourage the desired behavior. Failing a non-regulatory approach, then you have an additional reason supporting a rational ordinance - not only do you have the supporting study results, but the simple fact that a non-regulatory approach failed to create the desired change supports the need for regulation.
Right now, the only common exuse I've heard for enacting an ordinance is "don't like pee-pees and fat people." We've got to demand better than that in our lawmaking.
-Maus
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 02:31 PM GMT+5
***The point I'm making is, it is entirely
logical for a town to democratically decide if they want to have or not have nudity in the public square.***
Logical? I see no logic in a knee-jerk reaction based on "wants." It seems more emotional that logical, Mr. Spock.
But, if it's based on a reasoned approach, to begin with, then yes, a vote seems logical.
---
The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: annikee on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 01:03 PM GMT+5
I'm not even talking about community rules and getting along.
I'm saying, where are these shrieking anti-nudists whose children are crying over seeing naked people? Where is the outrage? Where are the preachers and good churchfolk when there are naked nubiles inciting lust in the hearts of men? Wasn't it the chance of someone feeling randy and having sex thoughts that brought the Salem trials to the SB meeting? Is it only indecent exposure when it's a man?
Hypocrites.
---
The Third Horseman: Girls Like To Ride!
Sent by Hell's Affirmative Action Program.
Making a list, checking it twice, gonna decide what's naughty 'n' nice
Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 12:11 PM GMT+5
Yeah, it's a slippery slope. People are remarkably candid, sometime with a coating of humorous sugar, about expressing how they feel about different naked people, but probably wouldn't say " I don't want to see 'ugly' people or purple people on the street." "And the mentally ill and some old people might be disturbing to see, best to keep them out of the public eye too."
Randy Newman taught us that short people got no reason to live, but what about those with bad haircuts or large noses? Oh, is that code for something else? Until a generation ago alot of people were offended by mixed race couples and some still get upset about same sex couples even holding hands in public. We would certainly get lots of different kinds of lists about what should be banned in the name of something or other.
Authored by: Perceptionist on Saturday, October 06 2007 @ 08:43 AM GMT+5
Great pics artworking...
I think if they are against fur and are baring it for that cause then the sign is a useless prop. Really, if your going to bare it, that means more than a butt cheek. I wasn't there but assure you no pic I have seen is signless. Then should have had loudspeakers and a smaller sign..
From everyone I speak with, the event was the chicks, not the cause.
Did someone really offer these girls meat?
What about the UPS driver in the photo Timmy posted? I say the truck but not the driver, unless he was taking photos?
I like public nudity, I just don't want to see anyone "just anyone" naked...
I did see an older (than I) lady driving topless down Elm St earlier this week. Myhusband didn't look in time to verify, but I think I know a nipple when I see one. Probably scouting the firemen at the station. (I would have been.) Turned down Elm and took a right onto Flat St. I could never imagine getting pulled over, topless or naked. I better be on cluod 99, that day.
Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 03:24 PM GMT+5
Just went through this thread again, to check for one single complaint about these chicks being nude. Not one. Do ya hear that Selectboard, Town Manager, Police Dept and Bob Fisher? Not one complaint!
---
The Third Horseman: Girls Like To Ride!
Sent by Hell's Affirmative Action Program.
Authored by: Jack Snow on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 04:25 PM GMT+5
Yeah, the seems to be a double standard here.
A 60something male tourist, who although clearly eccentric and showing questionable judgment about the time and place of his nudity came just to hang around (sorry couldn't stop myself) and not necessarily to make a big fuss about himself. In reaction to this man we get all sorts of fearful and ridiculous concerns and threats of boycotts and leaving town because "fluids" might be left on park benches. There are suggestions that nudity is directly connected to sexual assaults, pedophilia and perhaps even bestiality.
A couple of attractive young females from California disrobe for an international campaign to draw attention to their cause and draw large crowds of gawkers with cell phone cameras, news crews who usually pay little attention to Brattleboro and are the indirect cause of a minor traffic collision.
Which one of these was the real circus and which one caused more harm and disruption?
Authored by: Perceptionist on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 08:54 AM GMT+5
You mean being naked breeds animal sex! YUCK and untrue.
I yesterday left something in my car and for the sake of the law not stopping me, I walked out to my car topless. (Yes, it was wonderful, but cold.)
I swear to you, I do not have any interest in animals. That is a harsh statement.
Also, these fluids left on surfaces, OMG! Gross!
If I went bottomless outside my house, I would bring a clean towel for MY sitting comfort, pleasure and peace-of-mind. (That and sitting surfaces can leave odd lines on your bum-bum.)
Pedophiles...
VT IS TOO LAX on the Sex Offender tracking and laws.
When I relocated to Wilmington last year, I walked into the PD and asked for a list of the sex offenders in the surrounding 30 mile radius. They chuckled and said VT doesn't track sex offenders. I went home to the Google Machine and found next to nothing. I came from MA and you can bet your bottom dollar they at least TRY to keep track of these monsters.
If Brattleboro is going to offer nudity it might want to offer sanitation also. When I used to go tanning, they spray (or I would a few times) down the tanning surfaces, to avoid those bodily fluids you mentioned.
As for me, glad the sun is shining and I think we should make a nude park. Like a dog park but high fences (So the paparazzi doesn't get too crazy on their shoot-button) and charge and entrance fee, to maintain the grounds...
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 09:52 AM GMT+5
Vermont has had a sex offender registry since 1996. An internet searchable database has been available at http://170.222.137.2:8080/sor/ for the last few years.
-Maus
--- The Second Horseman: Less than a year and a half left in office.
Shear the Sheeple!
Authored by: Floyd on Friday, October 26 2007 @ 11:24 AM GMT+5
Don't forget that Pat Robertson taught us that "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Actually can anyone tell me why it is bad to destroy capitalism and become lesbians? I think lesbian anarchists are super sexy and we need to reduce the human population as quickly as we can! An anyone who has seen Bell, Book and Candle can tell you that sophisticated metropolitan witches are fun to hang out with. Let's all become anti-capitalist, witchcraft, practicing, children adopting lesbians today!
PICTURES, anyone?
What kind of citizen reporters are you?