Morning News: Parks Lightly Backpedals on Swimsuit Policy and Police Test-Race New Cruisers


Let's just get the stadium going.

It's in a good location for me, since I can just take transit in from Kent.
In other words, breast cancer survivors have to go to the Parks Director's casting couch.
That video is one of the most sad and pathetic things I've seen in weeks.
just asking, if I have a disease, say uncomfortable bowels syndrome, that makes wearing a pair of swimming trunks uncomfortable, then I don't have to wear them now?
So testicular cancer survivors can now swim trunkless?
Judging by how the "Stand your Ground" law is authored, by what basis would Bill Lee have to legally hold Zimmerman that night?

It just seems to me that with his injuries, that there would be no way they could legally detain Zimmerman because (sadly) the burden is on the prosecution/state to prove that Zimmerman was NOT attacked/threatened. Had they charged him that night with a crime for which there was no evidence yet, he would have definitely gotten off the hook legally.

From the article, it appears Lee is being sacked for political reasons, which is pretty lame, since he upheld the written law as he swore an oath to do, and is now being fired for circumstances essentially beyond his control.
@5: Your analogy only makes sense if that cancer survivor had his testicles, scrotum, and penis removed.

If that is the case, then yes, I see no problem with a guy who looks like a Ken doll swimming nude.

But then again, I do not fear nude bodies so maybe I am not the best person to ask.
You two do know that the female equivalent to penis and testes isn’t breasts, right? You know that the female equivalent to what a man has in/on his lower torso is what a woman has in/on her lower torso?

The male equivalent would be allowing a man who’s has breast cancer surgery to go topless.

And, BTW, if a man with boobs can swim topless, why can’t a woman without boobs?

That video is one of the most sad and pathetic things I've seen in weeks.

But one of the most beautiful pieces of cinema I've seen in a while.
if Brevik gets jail, he'll get out before he dies.

if he gets Psych, he never gets out.

he should never get out.
@8: I agree with you, I was engaging #5 on the grounds of his own analogy.

I do think that claiming that breasts are not sexual is silly though. While biologically they are not sex organs, our culture and evolution has created a sexualized view of the breast, which is why human females are the only primates that have large, fatty breasts all the time.

This is because they have a constant purpose, attracting mates, as well as the main purpose of nursing babies.

But once again, I agree that women should be allowed to swim topless if they choose, and see especially the restrictions placed on this one woman to be ridiculously sexist and prude.

Although, I think one should make the choice to cover up sexualized non-sex organs (boobs, butts) in public for the simple reason that most people do not feel comfortable seeing them in public.

Social contract.
Really horrible video...that poor bastard.
fat dudes with man boobs should be forced to swin with a top on.
@11 I’ve been thinking about this since I read Cienna’s article yesterday.

I understand the evolutionary theories and the socialization issues but then I think about fairness. Why should I have to cover up because *he* might get his jollies? I don’t equate having to wear a shirt with having to wear a burka, but I do see similarities in the reasoning.
@14: Well, men have always been overly concerned about women's sexuality and controlling their bodies, so I would say it is probably more about that then anything else. So honestly, I would say it is the exact same reasoning behind the burqa, just not taken to an extreme: that women have a responsibility to not incite male arousal in public, because men can't control themselves.

It is oddly sexist on both sides, but harkens back to the old idea of the "angel in the kitchen" and her responsibility to keep her men on the path of righteousness.

But like I said, I do not think you should have to cover up, and even if people find it offensive, no one has the right to not be offended in a free society.

Just another example of puritan America lagging way behind the rest of the developed world on issues of sexuality.
@15 ITA.

And one thing I think worth noting (about this particular case and also in regards to breastfeeding in public) is that most women will still choose to cover up. Just as women do not have to wear bras but most of us do anyway, having the freedom to go out in public or swim topless does not mean most of us will.
Your comparative analogy (which you seem to assume everyone shares) hinges on the principal that Sex Organs must be covered, (which wouldn't "cover" breasts (or butts) to begin with). My comparative analogy hinges on the concept that "sexualized" body parts (be they sex organs or not) should be covered in public places (this includes breasts and butts). By extension, its reasonable (and in good taste) to assume that the real estate they occupied should be covered in public once they have been removed.

There should be places for likeminded people to enjoy nudity (with or without breasts), but not in general public.

Yes. It’s “unfair” that men don’t have to wear tops at the pool. But life is full of unfair things. Deal with it. I would expect that anyone able to “deal with” breast cancer (a very unfair thing in its self) can rise to the occasion to “deal with” an “unfair” dress code.
@11 When our water-ape ancestors returned to the water, excess fatty breast tissue became an evolutionary advantage because it floats allowing breastfeeding at or above water level. Humans are the only primate with abundant adipose tissue (the same blubber on other hairless mammals that returned to the water, whales, dolphins).
@17: You should read my other two posts here, they pretty much cover what you are saying. I agree that people should cover those parts up out of respect to others, but I do not think they should be legally forced to, especially not in this particular case.

@18: Fascinating...I really find nothing in the world more engaging than evolutionary biology, with astronomy being a close second. From the looks of things, we Americans are trying to outdo whales in the adipose tissue department these days...
You said: “So testicular cancer survivors can now swim trunkless?”
And I made the point that breasts do not equate to testicles.

If she had asked to swim without bottoms, then you’d have a comparison.

The shameful way that the Sanford Police treated Trayvon Martin's body is a good enough reason to fire that son of a bitch. Do you think a dead white kid would have been shipped off to the morgue with no attempt to contact his parents?

Fair enough, I had not been thinking about that aspect of the situation. Although, in a homicide investigation, the body is taken to the morgue very quickly, in order to get an autopsy as soon as possible, and get as much fresh evidence as possible. So it may be that the process itself was correct, but a detective dropped the ball and did not contact the next of kin in a timely manner.

It is the responsibility of the investigating officer to do such things, so I am not sure it is fair to attribute that failure 100% to the chief of the entire police force. Of course one could argue that since he is in charge, he has to answer for every failure, but I do not think police chiefs typically get fired for such oversights.

This is why it seems more political than anything, but there is a lot of local stuff that none of us really knows surrounding this whole case, so maybe there were other motivations.

My apologies for kind of dominating the comments on this post, it has been a very boring day at the office.

Obviously I'm biased against the police department, but my impression from the beginning is that (with the exception of the detective who wanted to charge Zimmerman that night) the Sanford Police weren't interested in investigating the death as a potential homicide. That's why they didn't try to contact Martin's next of kin, along with the likelihood that they dismissed him as just some thug whom no one would miss.

And, if my impression has even the slightest truth to it, I think it's justified holding the police chief responsible.

And, remember, this is Florida we're talking about here.