We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, May 21. 2013
I have tremendously good news.
It must be awful constantly being treated as a second-class citizen in a male-dominated society. We all know about the inequalities in the job market, corporate structure and politics, but it's exceptionally cruel when even something as simple as sports needs an official Act of Congress (Title IX) just so a college can have a girls softball team.
But perhaps the biggest reminder of your lowly status is that even your clothes are regulated. Wear this, don't wear that. Do you see men going through any such restrictions? Of course not. Your being told what to wear based on your gender is the moral equivalent of being told which bathroom you can use based on the color of your skin.
And the great progressive city of New York has decided to address this hideous injustice, once and for all.
No longer will you be castigated and restricted and confined merely because of your gender. No longer will you be forced to wear the shackles that the male-dominated society has placed upon you.
Because of the grand farsightedness of the great city of New York, you no longer have to wear the shackles at all.
Progressivism isn't always bad.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Like so many times before, Doc, you have opened my eyes.
Long live progressivism!
Not sure why this is a good thing as I don't want to men topless in public either. Clothes provide a valuable civic function and everyone should be properly covered.
There's a reason why women topless in public is verboten, the majority of women are not and know they are not suited to go topless and they, not so much men, are the ones against other better endowed showing off their assets.
Other than some museums, shows, and tourist destinations, there has been almost nothing in NYC that to me is worth the time or energy required to get to and around NYC and even they are marginal enough that I can easily avoid NYC.
UNTIL NOW!!! Why I might decide I have to visit regularly (at least in the summer) now...
Unfortunately, Mrs. Mudbug also reads Maggies so I may not ever get the chance!
Wonderful build-up to the link, doc, although I'd have to disagree with the new NYC non-law. It runs counter to the whole feminine mystique that keeps our society bubbling and fun. I once did a college paper on it titled "What Lies Beyond The Hem Line?", focusing on how more powerful and interesting allurement is than outright exposure.
Still, besides innumerable auto accidents from distracted drivers and bedazzled pedestrians walking into the roadway, I guess I don't see any harm in it. This'll obviously be a NYC-only event, and the few exhibitionists who do it won't gather any real media attention outside of a censored pic in the tabloids.
Long live allurement!
I'm in 100% agreement with you on the allurement issue, and I like the title of your college post. To be truthful, seeing a hot chick in short shorts really doesn't do much for me, but put her in a miniskirt (that, ironically, shows even less skin) and she looks red hot. The bottom line (to pick a phrase) is that there's no hem line in shorts.
AMEN, SISTUH!! I do agree Ginny, & also would hate to see what happens to said topless girls when they run across some of our resident radical Islamic friends living in NY CITY. Already in a couple of other Northern states & 1 more central state, we have had numerous crimes against women carried out by muslims on our own soil. In one subject of this type, it was a father who murdered his daughters in shorts, supposedly, because they were intent on dating some American boys.. the father has yet to be found unless I just have missed the reporting of his capture. Seriously speaking.
I'm with mudbug on this one. As a native Kansan, I've never had the slightest interest in NYC.
But, well, times change, and it's only right that we change with them.
Long live Change! And Hope, too!
(Hey, wait a sec -- didn't someone already use that line?)
"(Hey, wait a sec -- didn't someone already use that line?)"
Yep. Democrat Lyndon Johnson used it extensively in his presidential campaign. So did Democrat Bill Clinton. Other important Democrat presidential candidates might also have used it, but no one springs to mind.
As a native Kansan, I've never had the slightest interest in NYC.
There was a T-Shirt that made its debut in the 1980s:New York: It Ain't Kansas, complete with an image of a snub revolver. I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg gets upset about the gun image.
My NYC cousin is married to a native of Kansas. They have both been in NYC for about 4 decades. But they do have an escape house in flyover country.
Small-breasted women celebrate!
Because let's face it, those women who are able to make a bold statement while clothed generally are not so well displayed without structure. Small-breasted women, however, excel in an unstructured environment even as they draw less attention in a more decorative arrangement.
There is a downside to this official recognition, however. Now that the allure of taboo has been removed, the bulk of those who will embrace this topless mode will generally be those who are less preferred to be sees topless.
Well, I've often read that most of the people you will see on a nude beach are those you don't want to see.
Yes, I've been suggesting that, too, ever since he called Sophia Vergara and Catherine Zeta-Jones hags.
Besides, Tom, it's cheaper than shock therapy.
Why did I parse that as sock therapy?
Anyway, it's true. Everybody has 'em, what's the big deal? Some are small, some are medium, some are large - essentially they are all the same - hence, seen two, seen 'em all.
"Why did I parse that as sock therapy?"
Because of the lack of better eyeglasses -- as we've all been telling you. In other words, that above line is proof before your very own eyes. I mean, for what that's worth, ancient eyeglasses and all.
"essentially they are all the same"
Well, so are galaxies, given that. Ho-hum. Seen one, seem 'em all.
I think I'll stick with that allurement stuff Ginny was talking about.
Piffle....true elegance is only found in the beauty and perfection of mathematics - nothing else compares especially the mammary prominences of the human female.
"nothing else compares"
Or would you say that music is math?
Everything is math - consider the bio math involved in creating a human being - or a clone - of a hydrogen bomb or sending men to Mars - it's all math.
That's the beauty of it.