http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/06/lte-public-pools-and-mastectomys-sic Comments On: LTE: "Public Pools and Mastectomys" [<em>sic</em>] by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 13:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by malcolmxy]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:43:58 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wxPDX]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:11:29 -0700 The Stranger
Not asking for it both ways. "Ghost" sex organs, just like simulated ones, are still more than most people can take.

I agree that if women need to breastfeed their child, they should be able to do so whenever and wherever the need arises.

I also believe that they should at least attempt to take precautions so that this need won't arise when they are out in public, though I also understand that sometimes even the best laid plans can go awry. Still, my mother had a blanket or shall when these things came up, as did every other mother at the time. It doesn't seem like too much of an inconvenience to bring this along. Don't you typically have to bring a bag with diapers, baby wipes, woobies and Cheerios for the bratty little shit to spill all over the floor of the restaurant (or wherever) anyway?

A little off topic, but there is a politeness that accompanies modesty. If Jaecks tried other options beside just chaffing swimsuit and bottoms only, and none of them worked for her (I really don't know the whole story, though most of the others in this conversation don't either), then yeah. Let her go topless.

If she didn't, though, then it's her responsibility to put forth a little more effort to conform to certain societal norms like the one around women covering their chests.

Perhaps someday we will be as enlightened as the French, and also as easily coerced into surrender (which I ain't exactly saying is a bad thing), but for now, we have the societal norms that we have, and until we deal with the really important shit like indiscriminate killing and torture, let's all put our tops on (me included, if need be) and go back in the pool, no?

Fuck it. I'm a prude. Sue me.
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:56:37 -0700 The Stranger
I have no idea how looking into a mirror whilst noting that you are a douchebag will be any more enlightening than if I do it just sitting in front of my PC, but one sec. I'll give it a try.

...

...

...

Um...you're still the same douchebag when I'm in front of a mirror as when I'm not, but I do appreciate you taking the effort to prove that to everyone.

Thank you...douchebag.
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:42:39 -0700 The Stranger
I do not mean that she should have known better and deserves to be hassled. But she should cover her chest in public if asked to. She IS making a sexual statement, whether she means to or not. If I go to Argentina, and I hold up my hand in the "okay" sign, then I am making an obscene gesture, even though I only meant to say "okay." If you want to play handball in Brooklyn, you've got to learn Brooklyn rules.

The statement isn't in my head, or rather isn't only in my head. It's a fact of living in the U.S. What if someone took his or her pants and underwear off just because it was hot? That's not okay either.

@52 Wow! Thanks for reposting that. Yes, in the U.S., showing the female chest is reasonably likely to cause affront or alarm. There are parts of the world where that is not so, but this is not one of them. Yes, norms can change over time, but right now, it's not okay for women to show their chests in public.
Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:37:44 -0700 The Stranger
(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.

The phrase "likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm" is the crux of your argument. I'm not saying you are necessarily incorrect. I'm saying that "reasonable affront" is an imprecise definition. If I am affronted by a topless man on the grounds of inequity, is that reasonable? What grounds are reasonable?

Plus, if we have forgotten, the whole debate here is about swimming pool policies. Arguably if the policy allows breast cancer survivors to go topless, then other patrons would (quite quickly, I think) get used to it, and then we'd reevaluate what "reasonable affront" could mean in the context of breast cancer survivors. The definition is imprecise and can change as standards evolve. I say we should choose policies that favor evolving standards, not repression.

That's my final word. Good night.


Posted by wxPDX]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:29:55 -0700 The Stranger < "Sexual contact" means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.> In previous court cases, the prosecution has had to demonstrate the touching was for the purpose of gratification, e.g. State v. Stevens (2006). The definition of "intimate parts" is not precisely clear, but appears to have a quasi-cultural definition. I'm actually having a hard time finding a good definition within the WA legal code. Some law library this is! It appears if someone grabbed a man's chest, and that man felt threatened, and the grabbing was to gratify the sexual desire of the grabber, there could be a legal case there. It would absolutely be assault in the tort sense, and you could make the case that there is sexual assault as well. If a man grabs another man's chest and the jury is homophobic, you could definitely make a case. Law can be subjective like that. Certainly if a man's rear was grabbed, that would be sexual assault.

I'm not a lawyer, but if that man was my client I would absolutely challenge the assumption that a man's chest is "neutral" and can be touched by anyone. Particularly if my client felt threatened.

@49 "She is making a sexual statement" is the same kind of argument as "she should have known better and deserves this opprobrium". Breastfeeding moms get the same treatment. What if she isn't making a statement and it is just hot outside? The "statement" is in your head and really isn't her problem. Why should it be?


Posted by wxPDX]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:10:03 -0700 The Stranger
If one person grabs a woman's breast without permission, that person is probably getting off on it, and can be charged with a sexual offense. However, if one person grabs a man on the chest, that person probably isn't getting off on it and cannot be charged with a sexual offense. On men, chests are a neutral part of the body and on women, they're a sexually charged part of the body.
Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:20:47 -0700 The Stranger
@43 and @45, Yes, but the U.S. isn't Scandinavia or France. In some places, holding up two fingers means "Peace," in others it means "Victory," and in others it's obscene.

In the U.S., women going topless makes a sexual statement. This is arguably cultural but it is at the absolute least heavily influenced by the biological purpose of breasts and in the psychological (possibly biological) fetishization of breasts as sexually appealing organs in U.S. culture. In fine: In all human cultures, breasts are associated with womanhood. In the U.S., that includes female sexuality.

@47 You are reading too much into my words. My argument is about context. A hundred years ago, a woman showing her ankles was inappropriate, so maybe a hundred years from now, Western women will go bare-breasted wherever they like, but Ms. Jaecks wants to swim in the U.S. in 2012, not somewhere else or in some other century.

@48 Yes, there is a good reason why a woman cannot do the same: because she would be making a sexual statement and the man would not. That might not be fair but right now that's how it is.
Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:14:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wxPDX]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:47:34 -0700 The Stranger
Seems you and I agree on the problem, but I would go with the latter solution. It appears your argument for your solution relies on an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Others here have also appealed to biology. Again, if biology is the problem (women's sex organs, men's way of seeing women), there are at least two possible solutions. We could cover women, or put blinders on men (or chemically castrate them, or do other things).

I'm just asking you to consider different solutions to the problems you pose, instead of jumping from the problem to one solution via a logical fallacy.
Posted by wxPDX]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:32:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by suddenlyorcas]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:11:40 -0700 The Stranger
Besides, on the beach it's fairly common to see women going bra-less.
Posted by sissoucat]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:36:26 -0700 The Stranger
Some women will be topless - some women won't. It will depend on location and time of year but I suspect that most women will continue to not be topless because, today, most would feel more socially comfortable that way.

For those women who go topless, they will draw about as much attention as if they were wearing a bikini. In some instances, it will draw learing. In others, it will be brief curious ganders. Some people will choose to move away. Some may choose to get closer. Nothing new here.

Adolescent boys and girls may get an eyeful - maybe of what real-life women look like. That's not the end of the world, or the end of ones's family outing. Parents can alwys tell their kids to stop staring. Done. Again, isn't this the same as our bikini rules?


Posted by NotSean]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:25:57 -0700 The Stranger
@42: I guess here it's just me being Scandinavian again, here it's very common to see prepubescent girls without a top on at a beach or playing in the yard on hot summer days. Nudity isn't automatically sexual.
Posted by Friendstastegood]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:08:57 -0700 The Stranger
There are cultures in which women and girls are not expected to cover their chests in public places--and in those cultures, a woman's toplessness is not taken as an invitation to sexual speculation or behavior--but this is not one of them.

As for scars, they don't bother me. If she had a surgical scar on her arm or back, we wouldn't expect her to cover it. If she'd had an arm or leg amputated instead of a breast, we wouldn't expect her to hide it, even if others found the sight disturbing.
Posted by DRF]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 07:43:45 -0700 The Stranger
Whether or not the sex organs remain (and, if she has a reconstruction at some point, she will still not have sex organs where she used to have sex organs, and she will also not have scars, no?), it is customary for women to cover their chests.

For the public at large, it's a women covering their chest thing.

For me, it a being freaked out by scars thing.

If that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.

I think it makes me an honest person, but whatever (and Padma's big arm scar is kinda sexy, I suppose, but that's neither here nor there, other than it will give people more fuel to call me whatever name they're gonna call me).
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:35:06 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Friendstastegood]]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:15:12 -0700 The Stranger
2. Why would anyone object to women bathing in burquinis at any hour? They're wearing more clothing than is necessary for public modesty, not less, and lots of women cover their hair with caps in the pool for non-religious reasons. Do Muslim women need single-gender pool time or something?
Posted by DRF]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:05:14 -0700 The Stranger
Like I said, if she should be allowed to go topless, then all women should.

Scars are unattractive. I didn't make the rules. I'm just not so delusional that I ignore them.

Regardless, it is customary for women to cover their chests. Drop the custom or abide by it. I care little for which choice is made, though the former would basically destroy public pools as family recreation, so there's that.
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:36:51 -0700 The Stranger
I'm a socialist (mostly).
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:32:13 -0700 The Stranger Posted by god you're revolting]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:15:14 -0700 The Stranger
Yep! That oogie cancer survivor should have to put her chest away because "icky". That's the real reason behind most people's objections.

Meh, I go swimming at a public pool every weekday. If Ms. Jaecks or someone in a similar situation wanted to swim topless, it wouldn't phase me. There are a couple of Muslims ladies who wear full head to toe swim gear when I'm there, too. That doesn't phase me. There's plenty of families with whooping, shrieking children - which comes closer to bugging me, as they're loud! - but meh, that's part of going out to be around & with our fellow humans. Sometimes we see or hear or interact with people we wouldn't regularly.

Maybe Ms. Jaecks can come up with a covering that's more comfortable for her, maybe not - but talking about why she should or shouldn't have to has been enlightening.

Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:37:41 -0700 The Stranger
also, I said VISUALLY. I understand what the mammary glands are and what it means to no longer be in possession of them as a woman.

I also know how hard surviving breast cancer is, like I know how hard dying from multiple myloma cancer is (2 people close to me, women as it just so happens, have perished from this shitty form of cancer).

Life's a bitch. I don't need to be reminded of it every time I want to go swimming.
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:45:57 -0700 The Stranger
This is the only solution to her chaffing issues, I assume?

Of course it isn't. I can think of 100 other solutions (that her medical insurance should pay to test out) that would work for her in her swimming, and work for everyone else who wants to swim without having to see her sans a top.
Posted by malcolmxy]]> Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:40:50 -0700 The Stranger