Home / General / Consent and the GOP

Consent and the GOP

Comments
/
/
/
432 Views

The former is a concept the latter will apparently never grasp.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • N__B

    WRT your point, yes.

    WRT to the linked article, WTF? WTF? WTF? WTF? WTF?

    • Origami Isopod

      I wish this even remotely shocked me anymore.

  • c u n d gulag

    I’d be ok with men grabbing publicly breast-feeding women’s nipples, if they’d be fine with when a man is seen taking piss against a wall outside, women can go and slam his dick with a brick.

    Until then, STFU, and act like you’ve seen a breast before!

    • The Temporary Name

      Why not just say you wouldn’t be okay with it?

      • ThrottleJockey

        Because sarcasm is more entertaining.

        Happy New Year, CUND, glad to see you back regularly commenting and all the best to you in 2016, sir!

        • The Temporary Name

          Endorsements from rape apologists make it that much better.

          • GeoX

            Boy, THAT escalated quickly.

          • This is unnecessary.

            • The Temporary Name

              That’s true, but what an ass.

          • I can’t and won’t support a lot of the arguments that ThrottleJockey has made here on most topics. But come on: if you’re going to argue with him, argue with him for what he actually said in this thread. Yes, I’m aware of what he says about the nipple ban below; it’s irrelevant.

          • ThrottleJockey

            From what he wrote, I presume CUND agrees with your opposition to the ban. I think his sarcasm was just his rhetorical way of giving the GOP the finger on this one…Why you would attack me for supporting him in his effort to agree with you is…odd.

            LGM features a lot of sarcasm here–“Chip Kelly Supergenius”, “Erik Son of Eric!”, “Obama Needs to Lead with Leadership!”–and, in fact, the most widely enjoyed comments tend to be the most sarcastic ones.

            And, no, I don’t think its ok for men to grab women’s breasts, even if they’re exposed, even if they whisper “Mother May I?” under their breath and do a dozen “Hail Mary’s” afterward.

    • efgoldman

      Until then, STFU, and act like you’ve seen a breast before!

      I’m not sure they have. They always do the act that shalt not be named in the dark.

  • FridayNext

    So much for living free or dying.

    • ThrottleJockey

      I certainly don’t think topless women are a scourge on the nation, but I also don’t see a big deal in the ban. The US is not Europe and while the misogyny and sexism and chauvinism of these GOP reps is highly objectionable, I don’t anything objectionable about the ban itself…It gives me the feeling that this is a proxy war for other gender related issues…And I don’t believe in proxy wars.

      • It seems pretty discriminatory, straight up.

        It affects breastfeeding mothers significantly, so it’s not restricted to leisure activities.

        Seems objectionable.

        And, then, what makes a ban objectionable (esp with linkage to the sex offender registry)? Is it unobjectionable to require gloves or hats?

        • ThrottleJockey

          Breastfeeding isn’t at issue, Bijan.

          So the only issue is how we construct “nudity”, and I don’t have a problem with the current construction. What’s the argument to reconstruct “nudity” to exclude breasts?

          State Rep. Amanda Bouldin, a Democrat, isn’t happy about the idea and expressed her opposition on Facebook. Bouldin called for the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Josh Moore, to kill it or at least exempt new mothers who are breastfeeding.

          “The very least you could do,” Bouldin wrote, “is protect a mother’s right to FEED her child.”

          The bill does exempt breastfeeding mothers, she later acknowledged to CNN, but she didn’t know at the time of the Facebook post.

          • DocAmazing

            The bill exempts breastfeeding mothers right up to the point where a cop rolls up on a mom who has just finished or has not yet started breastfeeding and harasses her. There’s a reason that the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against laws like this when they’ve been proposed: regardless of the wording of the law, they discourage and interfere with breastfeeding. I realize that nothing could be more eeew icky than a woman’s breast–after all, those decadent Europeans allow them to be shown!–but there are far too many documented health benefits to breastfeeding to allow this kind of crap to move forward.

            • ThrottleJockey

              A parade of horribles, really, Doc? That’s a stretch.

              • DocAmazing

                Not a stretch, TJ. It happens. Women do indeed get harassed by law enforcement and ticketed for breastfeeding. I know that since it can’t happen to you it just doesn’t seem real, but clue in: breastfeedng moms have had to fight to be allowed to breastfeed anywhere but home, and the fight’s not over.

                • Origami Isopod

                  I know that since it can’t happen to you it just doesn’t seem real

                  ^^^^^^^^

                • ThrottleJockey

                  No, I’m not saying that, Doc. I read the newspapers. I don’t see a large number of articles featuring women being arrested for breastfeeding. In my entire life I don’t think I’ve seen even a handful of women breastfeeding their children. Clearly if thousands of women were being arrested for this there’d be articles all over the place.

                • DocAmazing

                  Well, TJ, not to pull rank or anything, but do you think that it is possible that I, as someone who works with breastfeedng moms every day, might be a little more tuned-in to the issue than you?

                • Thirtyish

                  Doc Amazing: +1000

                • ThrottleJockey

                  OK, Doc, you got me. How many of your patients have been arrested, ticketed, or fined for publicly breastfeeding?

                  You better hold off on that +1,000 until after Doc replies, Stalker-ish.

                • CD

                  In my entire life I don’t think I’ve seen even a handful of women breastfeeding their children.

                  Amazing. Are you a hermit?

                  More to the point, no, breastfeeding mothers do not get arrested much, but they do get harassed and yelled at, which is possibly why your sensitive eyes have been so shielded from them.

                  There are large numbers of nursing mothers. Infants need regular feeding. Being able to use public spaces is important. Think harder about the connections between these things.

                • DocAmazing

                  My patients are the babies; they don’t get hassled by the cops, as a rule.

                  I’ve had upwards of a dozen moms harassed by mall security in two different bay Area shopping malls for (legally) breastfeeding their children. Oddly, such stuff doesn’t usually make the papers, much in the way that kids on the corner being jacked up by cops doesn’t make the papers. Local pediatricians contacted the mall’s owners and told them to tell the security company to back off, and they did, for now.

                  I actually had to write a letter on behalf of one mom who was ticketed for (legally) breastfeeding in a park. SF Sheriff’s Dep’t failed to show up for the ticket, so it was dropped, but Mom had to take the day off work to go to court anyway.

                  I know that you don’t see the reality of police harassment of those who do not Look Like You, but try to stretch out a little.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  That you know a dozen women who’ve been arrested for breastfeeding is eye opening. I’m surprised. I’m hardly a hermit and I live in a big city. Maybe public breastfeeding is just less of a thing in Chicago.

                  It doesn’t sound like its anywhere near as prevalent as cops harassing minority youth, but perhaps even a slight risk of harassment is a reason to oppose such a law.

                • ColBatGuano

                  Maybe because these sorts of things don’t exactly make the front page of the newspaper. Again, it seems no big deal to you because it won’t happen to you.

              • sharonT

                Shorter TJ:

                Girls. Cooties.

          • That’s something.

            But if it’s ok to do so while breastfeeding why not in other cases?

            And we’re talking illegal nudity right? So were reconstructing the legal meaning of a certain kind of exposure putting female nipple exposure on par with genital exposure. That’s a shift, I think.

            So, it’s a more contested notion that I think you acknowledge. As such, I think there needs to be a more affirmative rationale or interest. “Men can’t control themselves” is obviously a bad one. So what’s the positive one?

            • ThrottleJockey

              And we’re talking illegal nudity right? So were reconstructing the legal meaning of a certain kind of exposure putting female nipple exposure on par with genital exposure. That’s a shift, I think.

              I don’t think its a shift at all. Our norm currently constructs breasts as part of nudity. The law would simply codify the practice.

              • I don’t think that breast exposure is constructed as a kind of sex offence. (Both for sexist and for connection to other sex offense reasons.)

                It’s the associating and penalties that are a big step up. Now, you coul argue that society treats female breasts as akin to make genitalia so the law should be uniform. But that’s a rather different argument.

                • But our society absolutely doesn’t treat breasts as equivalent to genitalia, anyway. You can get a dozen bare breasts in a movie or on HBO before a single limp dick, and good luck showing an erect penis or a vulva at all without being considered pornography.

                  Or look at the many jurisdictions in which topless dancing is permitted but nude dancing is forbidden or held to more restrictions… or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition featuring paint-clad naked breasts, on newsstands everywhere… or fashion magazine glamour shots, where an arm crooked coyly around the breasts is fig leaf enough while the same arm down by the crotch would get the issue pulped.

                • But our society absolutely doesn’t treat breasts as equivalent to genitalia, anyway.

                  Yep, but afaict, that’s the only route open to TJ.

              • Bill Murray

                Our norm currently constructs breasts as part of nudity.

                for women. Men can go as bare chested as they want, despite having just as many nipples

              • sharculese

                EDIT: this went in totally the wrong place somehow

                • Lee Rudolph

                  That’s what she said.

                  (While nursing.)

              • alex284

                “Our norm currently constructs breasts as part of nudity. The law would simply codify the practice.”

                Or, you know, the law could be fair instead of encoding sexist attitudes.

              • efgoldman

                Until then, STFU, and act like you’ve seen a breast before!

                Would you stop being a clueless asshole, just once?
                First of all, if this stupid goddamned thing passes (probably not) it will go to court, and lose, because there’s nothing in the law preventing men from being in public with their shirts off.
                Second, if that fails, crowds of women will go to malls and other public places in mass demonstrations, daring the cops to arrest and charge them. Do you think any of the police chiefs in the 563954378457t8 little teeny towns in NH want to deal with that?
                It’s just an asshole RWNJ legislator showing off.

            • nocutename

              And we’re talking illegal nudity right? So were reconstructing the legal meaning of a certain kind of exposure putting female nipple exposure on par with genital exposure. That’s a shift, I think.

              Is it a shift? I would guess that going topless is illegal most places in the US. I don’t necessarily agree with this law, but I was surprised that it didn’t already exist.

              • nocutename

                Well, to answer my own questions, it looks it is only outright banned in three states, and ambiguously in fourteen more.

                http://gotopless.org/topless-laws

                • postmodulator

                  One of the weirdest things about Ohio’s blue laws is that women can be topless literally anywhere except a bar. So a woman could be topless in the parking lot of a strip club, but once she walks inside the strip club she must don pasties.

                  I conclude that nipples are okay and liquor is okay but nipples and liquor together are some kind of deadly sin-Epoxy.

                • nocutename

                  One of the weirdest things about Ohio’s blue laws is that women can be topless literally anywhere except a bar. So a woman could be topless in the parking lot of a strip club, but once she walks inside the strip club she must don pasties.

                  Blockquoting this because apparently you can’t directly reply this deep in a subthread. That is one of the most awesome bits of ridiculousness I have ever heard.

          • alex284

            “I don’t have a problem with the current construction.”

            Why not? it’s on-face discriminatory, and the reasoning behind it (as exemplified in the linked article) is horrible.

      • brad

        You mean aside from the inherent and inescapable gender bias of it? The clear expression of the bill’s supporters that breastfeeding, a natural, normal part of human life would be criminalized? The idea that women could be labelled sex offenders, something I recall you having that oh so crucial personal experience with, and face a a ruined life for it?
        It’s just a tit, grow up.

      • sharculese

        I mean, no duh it’s a proxy war. You can’t outright ban being female in public, so you do the next best thing, which is put all kinds of restrictions on how women are allowed to be female in public. The thing is, one side is trying to wage a war, and the other side is saying ‘hey, no, knock it off, this is not how adults behave.’

        If you’re against proxy wars you should be 100% against this.

        • ThrottleJockey

          To be honest I would’ve thought that such a ban already existed. How many women walk around bare breasted? That’s why I can’t get that outraged about a ban. I don’t see this as being something that even 5% of women would be interested in doing. Maybe in sunny Miami, but in nippy chilly New Hampshire? Even in Europe, younger women are choosing to forego going topless.

          • Not that many men go around topless either.

            • ThrottleJockey

              That observation is obvious, but I don’t really get the point.

              The right to walk around semi-nude is a rather odd right to champion in a broader struggle for gender equity.

              • DocAmazing

                The right of both sexes to walk around equally semi-nude
                ftfy

              • Why give up freedom that you already have for nothing in return? Not a lot of people are actively fighting for changes to public nudity laws in states which already criminalize the female nipple (because of priorities), but in this case we’re talking about an attempt to remove freedom that already exists. In the Live Free Or Die state.

              • sharculese

                You could say the same thing about the right of 18-year-old boys to drink watered down beer, but it matters because it’s emblematic of how our legislative bodies ought to be thinking about gender.

                A law that specifically singles out the bare torsos of women but not men serves no purpose except to send a message to women that says “you’re different and not as good.”

                I’m really confused as to your argument here, TJ. You seem to be simultaneously saying that this is a fight that’s not worth picking and siding with the people who are choosing to pick the fight? Why?

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Its because I’m operating from the view that the ban only codifies what’s actually the current norm. I do think the ban is a waste of time/energy, though, and think the Legislature should be focused on real issues.

                  From our side, I just don’t see a reason to get outraged over the fact that most Americans think of breasts sexually. I suppose that back in the 1910s that might’ve been different (I’ve heard stories from my grandparents about women publicly nursing babies during Sunday church service) but exposed boobs have been considered semi-nude for a long, long time now.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  I guess I’m running a Energy Calculus in the back of my head. To get people in this country to stop thinking sexually about breasts would be a huuuuge undertaking. For the upside–a dozen women in New Hampshire might walk around topless between June 15th when summer begins and August 15th when summer ends–it seems like an inordinate amount of effort, that would likely just make us look out-of-touch.

                  I can see the responses now. “What do you mean, Mr. Liberal, that breasts aren’t sexual? Have you seen MTV, Cosmo, Vogue, or Sports Illustrated lately??? Have you seen how many plastic surgeons perform breast enhancements??? But now you’re telling me that they aren’t sexual? For realsies?

                • DocAmazing

                  If you’re running an energy calculus, try this question:

                  What purpose is served by codifying that norm?

                • Hogan

                  Substitute “lips” for “breasts” in your thought experiment and then tell me why we shouldn’t ban women (and only women) from displaying their mouths in public. Or, what the hell, tell me why we should. I have no idea where you come down on that.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  I don’t think any great policy objective is achieved by the ban, Doc. I might not oppose the ban, but neither am I a proponent of it. Based on the above arguments you made about women being hassled I might even vote against the ban if I were in the Legislature. That’s certainly a very reasonable position.

                  But getting outraged and trying to make the argument that ‘breasts aren’t sexual’ just seems to me to be pissing into the wind.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Hogan–In this culture, at this time, breasts are seen sexually. Arguing that they aren’t is…anachronistic. The amount of money spent on surgical enhancement of breasts proves this… I think we come across as out-of-touch for arguing otherwise. I think its a counter-productive strategy.

                • sharculese

                  I guess I’m running a Energy Calculus in the back of my head. To get people in this country to stop thinking sexually about breasts would be a huuuuge undertaking.

                  Okay, cool, but that’s not the issue here. The issue here is whether this specific law is needed, and on that your energy calculus has clearly landed on devoting more of it to wagging your finger at people who think this law is stupid and unnecessary. Why is that?

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Why is that?

                  Probably because there’s so much outrage about it. If this were a right wing blog, and the blogger was outraged by the scourge of bared breasts in New Hampshire, I’d also chide them about being outraged. Either for or against the bill, I think the outrage exhibited is far out of proportion to the actual bill. On this bill I’m “radically” moderate: Either way I just can’t see a reason to be outraged.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  And, by the way, Sharc, Happy New Year to you. I hope its off to a good start. Glad to see a regular back commenting. Your views have been missed.

                • Have you seen MTV, Cosmo, Vogue, or Sports Illustrated lately… Have you seen how many plastic surgeons perform breast enhancements

                  By this standard, noses, lips, eyes, chins, pectorals, biceps, thighs, etc. are all sexual and should be covered up.

                  Portland has a naked bike ride every year, and yet I haven’t heard of any endemic problem with people sitting on the curb and jerking off as it goes by. Nudity can be sexual but isn’t inherently so. A body is just a body.

                  Think about it this way: for most people, feet are not sexualized. Yet, many restaurants and other private establishments would insist on my wearing shoes upon entering. Others don’t. The exposure of the naked foot is a matter of propriety, which varies from context to context. Similarly, the exposed breast can be inappropriate in some contexts and unremarkable in others.

                  What we don’t see is the government legislating whether I should wear shoes or not based on a sense of propriety. They might regulate it as a matter of health and safety. But there is no reason to make “no shirt, no shoes, no service” a criminal matter. Similarly, there is no reason to criminalize the exposed breast.

          • Barry_D

            “To be honest I would’ve thought that such a ban already existed. How many women walk around bare breasted? That’s why I can’t get that outraged about a ban.”

            I will accept this an admission that you don’t have any good arguments.

          • sharculese

            I don’t see this as being something that even 5% of women would be interested in doing.

            So why is it important to impose a ban that’s never been needed before, unless it’s to make clear that female is a lesser status?

            • ThrottleJockey

              Probably because people now consider breasts sexually (when they maybe didn’t 150 years ago)…I’m no historian but I wouldn’t be surprised if we stopped thinking of breasts as nutritional delivery systems about the same time that we started selling baby formula.

              I think you can oppose public nudity without subscribing to the misogynists playbook. The question is how many Americans consider breasts in a sexual sense? I think even the vast majority of liberals consider breasts sexually. Am I wrong about that?

              • sharculese

                Unless the sexualization of the female torso started in the last decade this is pretty weak sauce. You don’t have to be a historian to know that the female torso has been sexualized for a long time, and yet New Hampshire has gotten along fine without this law. Why do they need it now? What’s the explanation?

                I think you can oppose public nudity without subscribing to the misogynists playbook.

                You can support general bans on nudity without being a misogynist. You can’t support laws that specifically single out women without being a misogynist.

              • brad

                And what about the burkha? Where does this line you draw stop? Should women of a certain level of beauty have to cover up because their form alone is easily sexualized?
                That we find the female breast to cause sexual thoughts should be our problem, not theirs. Women have enough problems with the male gaze without the law itself blaming them for us having poor self control.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  That we find the female breast to cause sexual thoughts should be our problem, not theirs.

                  Who is we? You suggest that its solely a “problem” of men, and yet how much money is spent annually by women on push up bras, cleavage exposing dresses, and breast enhancement surgery? Stop pretending like its “a problem” that breasts are sexualized–its not a problem–and that its primarily a problem caused by men.

                  I don’t know if you’re straight, but if I assume you are for the sake of argument, do you not find women’s breasts erotic? Don’t you think both men and women enjoy sexualizing breasts?

                • brad

                  Do you… know women?
                  Yes, I understand that some will say they want to look good for themselves, not to please men. But guess who’s still defining “looking good”. If it’s not a problem then why defend the attempt to treat it as such? You’re still not answering Sharc’s question.
                  And personally, I’ve known many more women who have had, or wanted, breast reduction than “enhancement”.

                • alex284

                  You suggest that its solely a “problem” of men, and yet how much money is spent annually by women on push up bras, cleavage exposing dresses, and breast enhancement surgery?

                  I’d throw out a “not all women,” but that appears to be a lost cause.

                  I don’t know if you’re straight, but if I assume you are for the sake of argument, do you not find women’s breasts erotic?

                  This is the part of the argument I don’t get. Your logic is:

                  1. There are body parts that straight men find erotic.
                  2. ????
                  3. Therefore, women should cover these body parts at all times.

                  Like, why don’t we make men cover body parts that straight women and gay men find erotic? Or body parts that aren’t breasts that many straight men find erotic, like leg and hair? Etc., etc.

                  This is what people are talking about when they bring up sexism. Straight men are turned on by breasts, so women’s freedom must be curtailed. Gay men and straight women are turned on by men’s chests, but how dare anyone curtail men’s freedom!

                  And why even make people cover up “erotic” body parts at all? Like, what purpose does that serve? The Republicans in the linked article suggest it’s because straight men can’t control themselves and therefore they’ll just have to sexually assault women, but at least that’s an argument. You’re not making any argument at all.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Brad–Women have as large a role in defining “sexy” as men do, arguably larger even. I don’t care about lingerie, but every gf I’ve ever had does.

                  Alex–You’re making a very libertine argument. America ain’t that libertine. And I don’t see any great loss of freedom at stake. How many women in this country want to walk around topless? Is it as many as 5% even? Even in Europe fewer and fewer young women go to beaches topless anymore.

                  Cultures change. My father, who was born in the late 20s, tells me that it was common when he was a boy to see women publicly breastfeed. Likewise, through the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s it was common to go to gyms and see men working out bare chested. At my college gym more guys than not went shirtless. Nowadays, though, guys working out without shirts are asked to leave gyms. I haven’t seen a guy working out without a shirt in twenty years.

              • alex284

                “people now consider breasts sexually ”

                People consider men’s chests sexual as well. I would know. So why not ban men going around shirtless?

                Oh, wait, that’s because only some people count as “people” in your statement.

              • Barry_D

                ….still waiting for a real argument…..

                • ColBatGuano

                  What, TJ’s “Guys think boobs are sexy so they should be covered up.” isn’t an ironclad argument to you?

        • efgoldman

          If you’re against proxy wars you should be 100% against this.

          I heard that “Hijabs R’Us” has announced a new store at Pheasant Lane Mall.

          • N__B

            “Sire, sire, the pheasants are revolting!”

            “How can you tell when they’re all wearing burqas?”

      • Speak for yourself. I live in a state (Oregon) where public nudity is a constitutionally protected right. That doesn’t make us any less American than other states.

        New Hampshire has apparently made it this far without a ban without society collapsing. A law that discriminates against women is subject to intermediate scrutiny. What important government interest is served by prohibiting women from breastfeeding in public?

        • sharculese

          Come on, SP, you and I both know that to true freedom loving Americans, the 14th amendment is the second least legitimate (after the 16th, obviously).

          • Bill Murray

            wait what about the 17th? electing Senators by the people is so Democratic

            • sharculese

              Opposition to the 17th amendment seems to have died down since the wingers realized it means they get to vote shrieking crackpots into the Senate.

        • Lee Rudolph

          New Hampshire has apparently made it this far without a ban without society collapsing.

          I dunno. My impression of New Hampshire has always been that society there is pretty well collapsed already, and has been throughout living memory.

          • muddy

            It’s always had an extractive economy, this does not generally lead to a solid society.

    • I don’t think boobs should be allowed in the state legislature, impeach Josh Moore.

  • Nobdy

    Can I still be considered a man if I don’t have the “natural inclination” to grab strangers’ nipples (of either sex) nor to stare, jaw agape, at breastfeeding mothers?

    What is wrong with me?

    • Warren Terra

      Surely the type of human that’s supposed to have a strong drive to grasp at nipples, a lack of self-control, and an ignorance of others’ prerogatives is “infants”, not “men”.

      • Bill Murray

        like there is a difference in many cases

    • Last I checked, you weren’t allowed to grab a person’s clothed chest, either.

    • Gareth

      That guy’s comment would have been much more interesting if he’d stopped at “stare”. Grabbing people’s nipples is obviously assault, but there’s a whole lot of behaviour that falls under the same freedom of self-expression as toplessness. There’s a classic photo of a topless woman standing up for her rights in New York… surrounded by dozens of leering men, all filming her on their phones. There’s no principle under which you can stop one behaviour and not the other.

  • tsam

    Moral crusaders are the perviest wankers of all. You know they spent hours on the internet looking at examples of just how scary boobs are.

    • ThrottleJockey

      This reminds me of the reaction when Erykah Badu shot her video “Window Seat” by stripping down naked and then strolling through a public park as shocked by-standers tried to quickly shield their children’s eyes. She enjoyed many supporters who saw her nudity as a strike against The Man, but I think a lot of us thought she was simply crazy, self absorbed, and inconsiderate.

      • Ronan

        It was a pretty good music video though, which is the main point.

        • ThrottleJockey

          She’s a pretty good artist.

      • JR in WV

        You, personally, should be required to wear a burka for the rest of your life, in public and in private.

        Your remarks here are revolting. And un-American.

        Shut up about your perverted desire to grab women’s nipples!

        Just shut up. Don’t post here.

  • CrunchyFrog

    This is like the GOP fundies whose arguments for religion is that without it, they could just rape anyone who came along.

    Yes, the members of the bully party actually have those kind of fantasies. No wonder the most relgious/red parts of the country (i.e. Utah) have the biggest market for hard core internet porn.

    • Captain Oblivious

      Yeah, this.

      It’s less about “consent” (in this case) than “we men can’t control our own lust so let’s control youze women’s”.

      • Sly

        I find it completely unsurprising that people who have extraordinarily fucked up views about women also have extraordinarily fucked up views about men.

    • nocutename

      No wonder the most religious/red parts of the country (i.e. Utah) have the biggest market for hard core internet porn.

      Searched that, found this:
      http://en.fairmormon.org/Utah/Statistical_claims/Pornography_use_in_Utah#cite_note-3
      And this:
      http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5744801
      Doesn’t bode well for your theory.

      *Not sure what to make of a site called fairmormon, but they do have citations.

  • Mudge

    While I patiently await your Oregon-TCU bowl game post, you give us a one liner. I will, of course, concede that continuing revelations about the Republican war on women is far more important, and easier to write about, than a historic Duck collapse. I wonder why New Hampshire and Maine are so different than sensible Vermont and Massachusetts.

    • The Temporary Name

      a historic Duck collapse

      Not since the town of Codswallop was wiped out in the Great Duckslide of 1906 has there been an anatidaelian tragedy of such consequences schmonsequences.

    • Feathers

      Masshole speaking.

      I think blue state crazy voting is a kink. Like red state porn. You do it in private, only your browser history/vote count knows. It’s a weird mix of getting a private thrill while willie waving at all those prudes who are trying to rule your life. FREEDOM!!!

      Historical version – while the Bay State was a colony, those who thought they were too FREEDOM!!! for Mass made their way to the wilds of New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island. Those who realized that FREEDOM!!! is another way to say Doesn’t Have Their Shit Together kept going until they reached Vermont. Also noted without comment, Vermont almost defected to Canada during the Revolutionary War.

    • Scott Lemieux

      I patiently await your Oregon-TCU bowl game post

      For the record, as best as I can determine Scott Lemieux, Erik Loomis, and Robert Farley are all different people and only two of them have any connection to the University of Oregon. I’ll let you guess which two!

      • Warren Terra

        as best as I can determine Scott Lemieux, Erik Loomis, and Robert Farley are all different people

        That’s what they (you) want us to believe!

      • John Revolta

        I personally have never seen the three of yez all in one room or measured your locations and velocities at the same time. Ipso fatso, bitchezz.

  • MAJeff

    Don’t forget the “marital rape is impossible” legislator from TX: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/texas-gop-lawmaker-rape-is-non-existent-in-marriage-take-what-you-want/

  • Matt

    “Some of us liberty-minded Reps do beleive[sic] in family values”

    So Al, how many kids have *you* diddled this week?

  • A-Nony-Mouse

    While this may be a bit gross for some people to think about, some of us of the female persuasion do not have breasts, having lost them both to that Boob Great Reaper, cancer. I have often wondered (if such a woman were daring enough) what would happen if a boob-free woman were to appear on a (non-nudist, non-topless) beach without a top. Would she be arrested? Is her chest on that beach any different from that of any man on the same beach? Well, yeah, it is (a little bit). He has nipples (O, the shame of it!) and she doesn’t. Have we got an Equal Protection case here? Shall I bring the popcorn?

    • Warren Terra

      You may not be surprised to learn that this issue has indeed seen the light of day

      • Lordy lou, someone needs to give a handout to every government official on the day they start that says “Pro Tip: don’t accuse people making rights-based claims of trying to be shocking to send a message. This makes you, and the government you represent, look terrible.”

      • A-Nony-Mouse

        Holy Moly! It’s like looking in a mirror! Good for her!

    • nocutename

      Somewhat related, there is a man who is transitioning to a woman, and taking a daily topless photo to see when it becomes illegal.

  • wjts

    It’s a half-way measure, granted, but part of me is willing to get on board with it as it gets us incrementally closer to a utopia where nobody gets to wander around in public without a shirt on.

    • Hogan

      Especially me. Oh the humanity.

      • N__B

        It could be worse. You could be walking around in shorts and sandals: as has been geometrically proven, the calves are the one part of older white men that need more hair, not less.

        • wjts

          Ah. That explains the knee-high black socks.

        • pillsy

          [T]he calves are the one part of older white men that need more hair, not less.

          My scalp begs to differ.

  • New Hampshire is a reliable source of deranged local representative stories because their House of Representatives has 400 members for 1.3 million total residents. They also have multi-member districts where party-line voting is allowed (so there can be 6 open seats and voters will just vote for all 6 Republicans running).

    The end result of this seems to be a state legislature made up of the kind of people who in larger states would be limited to, at best, the school board, the PTA, or bringing prepared speeches into city council meetings.

    • sharculese

      What I’m taking away from this is that New Hampshire is just a giant version of Pawnee, IN.

  • FWIW, the bill adds (b) here:

    I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if:
    (a) Such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm; or
    (b) Such person purposely exposes his or her anus or, if a woman, purposely exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts in a public place and in the presence of another person with reckless disregard for whether a reasonable person would be offended or alarmed by such act.

    It does include a breast-feeding exemption, contrary to the initial reports:

    IV. This section shall not apply to the act of breast-feeding.

    I still think it’s needlessly discriminatory, unless there’s been some kind of reign of flashing terror by the Bunghole & Boobie Bandits. Any genuinely offensive exposure of the breasts should be covered by “gross lewdness” already.

    • unless there’s been some kind of reign of flashing terror by the Bunghole & Boobie Bandits.

      That would add a whole new meaning to stand and deliver.

      • wjts

        Try to use a mamm’ry, not a bullet or a knife.

    • Origami Isopod

      AFAIK New Hampshire has not suffered any drive-by Goatse’ings.

      • N__B

        Has New Hampshire enjoyed any?

    • Hogan

      Alarmed?

      “Active nipple! Everybody down!”

    • alex284

      Well, a reasonable person would not be offended by other people’s bodies. So that takes care of that.

      Unrelated: I wonder if there have been instances of people going around and flashing their anuses and then telling police “Anuses aren’t genitaliaaaaaa! You can’t arrest me!”

    • “Bunghole And The Boobie Bandits” is such a great band name that i am going upstairs to practice guitar right away…

  • Dr. Waffle

    *sigh* I live in Portsmouth. I wish we would/could secede from the rest of NH.

  • Jake the antisoshul soshulist

    As far as I am concerned, the best response to this type of nonsense is:
    “If God intended people to go around naked, they would be born that way.”

  • Brett

    Public nudity falls under free expression for me – as long as you’re not posing a sanitary or safety risk to others, you should be allowed to dress (or undress) however you like. We allow the same things with forms of free expression that are disturbing to others, like if a protester carries around a gruesome anti-choice picture on a sign, or if someone were to cover themselves in viscera.

    Singling out women on this for extra scrutiny and policing is just sexism (as usual). But since Throttle Jockey has defended doing so on the grounds of culture and “this is America not Europe”, I assume that means he thinks it’s okay for the religious police in Saudi Arabia to beat women who slip up in wearing the mandatory niqab – after all, that’s Saudi Arabia, not America, right? And they are law enforcement.

    • alex284

      This is America, not Europe, so people should be arrested for speaking German.

      The sky’s the limit when it comes to justifying policy with non-sequiturs!

      • nocutename

        Speaking of non sequiturs, Brett just compared a law against toplessness with beating a woman for not wearing a niqab.

        • In what universe are “wear a niqab or be beaten” and “wear a top or be prosecuted for a sex offense” not differentiated primarily by degree, not kind?

          “That’s just our way” isn’t a justification for oppression of any degree.

          • nocutename

            oppression of any degree

            When we have gotten to the point of comparing women who are beaten and killed for their dress with the women who might be cited under this law, we might want to reconsider just how far down the “oppression of any degree” road we really want to go.

            • brad

              Words mean things. Sexual harassment is not rape, but they are behaviors in large part related on the degree of sexual aggression and assault involved.
              The shallow end is still part of the pool.

              • nocutename

                The shallow end is still part of the pool.

                And speaking German is not very American. alex284 said that as a joke, but a lot of people in this thread seem to be taking it seriously.

                • PohranicniStraze

                  “And speaking German is not very American”

                  Says who? Last I checked there isn’t an official language here.

                • nocutename

                  Says who?

                  Says alex284. At least take the time to read the thread if you are going to bother to comment.

            • sharculese

              So what precisely is the appeal of the attention this kind of behavior generates?

              • nocutename

                So what precisely is the appeal of the attention this kind of behavior generates?

                Are you referring to the women who go topless? I have no problem with that behavior, I just think it is kind of ridiculous to compare the attention they get to the beatings that the women in Saudi Arabia get.

            • You forgot to start with “Dear Muslima”.

        • Brett

          Hello, Dear Muslima! Is this your first time treating sexism as a case of Oppression Olympics?

          Kindly fuck off. Sexism is sexism, and calling it all out matters. Don’t pretend this isn’t part of a larger problem, either (namely, society’s insistence on a double standard in policing women’s appearances, particularly young women’s).

          Although now I’m imagining some defensive Saudi nocutename (or Freddie DeBoer) defending the beating of women who aren’t properly wearing the niqab with “What are you complaining about? At least you’re not a woman in subsaharan Africa being forced to go through mandatory genital mutilation”.

          • nocutename

            Kindly fuck off

            That seems kind of hard to do, what with the “kindly” and the “fuck off” all bundled together as such.

            Sexism is sexism

            Just so we are clear, this thread is about American women being cited for a misdemeanor and Saudi women being beaten, sometimes to death. I have taken the apparently controversial view that these two things aren’t equal, others seem to disagree.

            • You obviously have no idea what the “Dear Muslima” bit is referring to.

              • nocutename

                You obviously have no idea what the “Dear Muslima” bit is referring to.

                Yes, obviously! Because I don’t have access to the web. Oh wait … Just because someone remade a bad point doesn’t mean it wasn’t obvious what that point was.

  • JR in WV

    To require anything of women that isn’t required of men is perverse.

It is main inner container footer text