Cassidy Speaks on Breasts and Equality

May 14, 2010 by Ian
Filed under: Personal Freedom, Rant, Update

Cassidy If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know Cassidy Nicosia was the trailblazer for topless equality in Keene with her walk down Main St. in 2009. She posted the following thoughts as a comment on the recent Topless Tuesday thread, and I thought her words deserved to be heard as a guest blog post:

I don’t understand why people think bare breasts are so “wrong”. The human body is beautiful, and if men are allowed to walk around topless, so should women.

My breasts are not pornographic, and not made for the eyes of lovers. They are a harmless, life-giving part of my body. I am biologically engineered with breasts to feed my child, not to gain attention from suitors.

Society has perverted what women’s breasts are seen as to enforce puritanical thought processes. The idea that woman is inherently a temptress, and all actions by her are to lure in the unsuspecting, innocent male. That’s ridiculous. And we need to stop teaching our children this; enforcing these narrow-minded ideals, and using the gun of the government to get what we want. Anyone should be able to look at a woman topless in public and barely think about it, the same way it is with men. It happens, and it’s not a big deal.

Men who think this is “wrong” are obviously insecure with their testosterone levels, and are offended that breasts don’t belong only to them. If a woman would willingly take her top off in public, it’s not a private ownership of his partner’s body. Sorry boys (yes, you cannot call yourself a man if you fear breasts), but women don’t belong to men anymore, and that’s not about to change. Get over your insecurities, all your traditions, and prejudices, and throw them out the window. (Pssh, and y’all call females emotional…)

Women who fear breasts are submissive cowards. Your body belongs to you, and only you. You can feel free to do what you want with it. Same with anyone else out there. Women who feel they lack control in their own lives (such as in a relationship, where they have been conditioned to be submissive), try to control other people’s lives. Why don’t you teach your children that breasts are wonderful (wherever they might be)? They fed them when they were infants (if you breastfed), and are a beautiful part of the human body.

Breasts may be an attractive feature of the body, but no more so than a pretty face, or well-toned arms. That purpose is secondary.
I hope my son will see breasts while he’s out walking around town when he’s older, and just say, “Whatever.” It’s not a big deal.
Murder has always been wrong, and will always be wrong.

If you think bare breasts are wrong, you’re an ignorant asshole.

Paul

Are chest exposers made uncomfortable by people wearing shirts? I was not aware of this. It seems to me that they themselves wear shirts much of the time.

But yes, intentionally seeking a person out who you know will be made uncomfortable by your shirt, in order to do so, would be inconsiderate and unkind.

It's about attitude, more than anything, which then will be reflected in your behavior. If you care about other people, they can tell. When possible, one should seek to accommodate the needs/preferences of both oneself and others.

Again, I think the idea that cows are sacred is silly. But I wouldn't seek out a Hindu to eat a burger in front of them. In fact, if I had a Hindu friend, I'd intentionally try to avoid eating burgers in front of them, when possible. I do that because I care about their happiness and well being, and I want to show them consideration. Would I give up beef entirely? No.

What's more, if I lived in india, I would not have a meat eating demonstration in the main square, with the purpose of being an affront to others. I would eat beef, but I'd try to do so in a way that's minimally offensive to others.

It's about valuing other people's needs/desires equally with your own. Not more, or less.
bil

So just a gun is enough to wear? Haven't you read about exposure to UV rays?

It comes to giving the kind of respect for the ideas and rights of others that you expect they give to yours.Why go to extremes to offend the folks that really have no control over the laws or mores that we have to live with.I am sure that walking around naked is fine,I do it in the shower all the time.Sometimes I even look down!But I am not going to do it just to offend others.Do I 'hide' myself because i think it is dirty or I am ashamed? No,I tend not to.Do I walk around with every weapon I have,to prove a point? No,and it is not because I am ashamed,either.I would just prefer not to draw unwanted attention.I prefer to be clothed when armed,the belt slides over my arm easier that way.

I would also not proclaim my right to bear arms by firing a gun in a public park,either.

I guess I hadn't realised that there was such a repressive aspect to the wearing of clothes.In solidarity of womens right to wear no shirt in public,I will resolve to always wear one.I feel repressed already. —bil
MaineShark

@Paul:

"I’m not a hindu, for example, but I’m not going to go find a hindu and munch a nice juicy burger right in front of them. I care about their well being, even if I don’t share their beliefs. I want them to be able to live life the way they choose."

Hmmm… a friend was having an open house, and a Hindu guy showed up. He noticed that, in addition to the beef, there was also a box of bison burgers (and he was unaware, except in a very general sense, of what bison were). We ended up having a brief but interesting discussion about whether bison would qualify as prohibited, which neither of us knew the genetics of the particular animals well enough to bring to a conclusion, so he opted to eat a veggie burger.

He didn't ask me to stop eating the burger I was eating, or act all offended that I was eating one.

@BIL:

"So just a gun is enough to wear? Haven’t you read about exposure to UV rays?"

Read what I wrote. I did mention weather. Although sunblock is amazing stuff. I'll also note that activity plays a role. I wouldn't operate a welder in the nude, for example.

"Why go to extremes to offend the folks that really have no control over the laws or mores that we have to live with."

Who's going to extremes to offend anyone? Minding one's business while not wearing a shirt isn't exactly extreme.

You sound like one of the anti-open-carry ranters.
bil

Really?Actually,the gun as clothes was a joke-there is also poison ivy to watch out for,plus lying down in the woods for that real long shot is a good way to attract ticks.

I usually try not to rant much,especially in the evening.But in fact,I am not anti-open carry.I am pro open-carry.I am also pro concealed carry.Maybe more so,the surprise factor is a big plus.I am also pro carry when it is not really allowed.I drove tanker truck in the late 70s,when they were getting hijacked,and I also delivered to the docks in Brooklynn,and worked in Bridgeport.F the laws,I was always armed.When seconds count,the police are minutes away.( bumper sticker,not an original thought)

As far as extremes,if you have to resort to having some women hang out topless in the main square to protest something(I am not sure what this protests,as the only time I see this is during a protest,and it doesn't seem to bother the police much),Then I think that is a bit extreme.I feel you do not help whatever the cause is by offending the general populace by offending them.The 420 protests seemed to be working in Keene.They were being ignored by almost everyone,including the police.I feel it is a small victory if you can change peoples attitudes to where the behavior is not bothering them.They would be more apt to support a move toward legalisation if they saw there was really no harm going on.I got the feeling the topless thing was thrown in to add extra attention and controversy.Instead of just some folks hanging out smoking pot and bothering no-one,now we have them hanging out smoking pot AND topless women. 'What is next?' is the question I hear.I think it would have been more effective if it had been two events,seperate places,and let folks decide on one issue at a time without muddying the waters.Too much change at once confuses people.Unless there is a total revolution,change will come one thing at a time.I am not advocating a total revolution (at least not here),but an evolution of ideas and mores that free the people,not confine them.There has been more damage to our personal freedoms in the last ten or so years than in any other similar time frame,and no-one seems to notice.Since it is done in the name of patriotism and freedom,it is accepted.How far do we progress if women are allowed to go topless,but we ALL have to show our 'papers' when we travel??That is what I fight against,the real government oppression.I hope this clears up any thoughts of my being an anti-open-carry ranter.I am just a regular ranter.Thanks. —bil
MaineShark

Arguing that they should not be topless at the protests is no different from arguing that they shouldn't open-carry at the protests. I mean, doesn't that "muddy the waters?"

I also think you greatly over-estimate the percentage of the populace that is offended. A small percentage of professional naysayers are hardly indicative of the whole of the population.
d

Stimulating article Cass (intellectual stim, at least for me).

Yet I fear that tho protest too much. You've made more that few generalization concerning gender, albeit challenging ones.

That said, i do enjoy a good gender-bending discussion.

Fundamentally, you're correct, breast are not such a big deal. But your explanations concerning the general 'taboo' against exposed female breasts in public are NOT universal. (and how can they be any society with greater than a few people.)

That is, people believe different things for different reasons, sometimes people are not even sure WHY they feel or believe a certain way, which as you point out is usually the result of social conditioning.

That said, its clear your bare breasted activism is more about how you feel about the status of women and their breasts than simply trying to agitate from a position of having anti-social attitudes. (hopefully that shuts up some of the nay-sayers)

Good to see you setting the record straight as to the who-is and what-fors behind the topless activism. (of course we could all do w/o the name calling at the end)

Just one man's opinion.
bil

Yes,that would also muddy the waters.And I am not saying do not do either of these things.It is not my place since this is not my personal form of protest.But too many issues all at once confuses people,and when confused,I think most will stay with the status quo,it is not confusing.So yes,I do think that carrying a gun,smoking pot,and topless women on the common doesn't advance any of these issues.It also tends to tie each together,which confuses also.I am not confused or offended personally,but I do know there is a fairly general feeling of confusion in the general populace in the Keene area.Yes,I live here,and yes,I do get out and see what the general population thinks.Thanks. —bil
http://frednik.tumblr.com Tonedeaf Troll

I think I offended someone at work talking about breast cancer. But I was wrong to ask her about it, she's got a right to medical privacy too. But I dont think that's what upset her.

Well, anyway, this is gonna be an uphill battle on all fronts. This perception is heavily ingrained in people's minds. Maybe people might not think it's worth all that effort. Maybe they think the world's not ready for this, but you cant wait for the world to change, you gotta be the change. And that's what you're doing. Big props.
http://www.youtube.com/user/slewofdamascus david

I find the whole thing a rather disturbing waste of time considering the war against freedom and liberty that is being waged by a government run amock, and I'm not speaking only of the police state, I speak of the war machine which has killed two million people from Iraq and Afghanistan. Have you seen "collateral damage" (from wikileaks)? There's a very disturbing lack of interest within the mainstream populace, a willful indifference to each succeeding atrocity committed by our troops that needs to be

focused upon, and examined and brough into the light, so we can re-learn a proper response to such abominations. We have been brainwashed (and probably drugged). Their is a domineering and deceitful group of elites, who delight in our ignorance. Back to your regularly scheduled "program".
MaineShark

And what if it convinces some folks that libertarians aren't just about "guns, drugs, and property rights," and makes them open their minds a bit, because a group of libertarians hit on an issue they care about?

If they then listen to us about the war, is that a win or a loss?
Brodie

How looking trashy will help liberty is beyond me.
MaineShark

Who looks trashy?
Brodie

I would guess most people would think women who are out in public topless are trashy (i.e. not classy).
MaineShark

You "guess?"

That's a bit different from the absolute statement you just made.

If we go a few more lines, how much will you have diluted it?

I'll flip it around and say that almost no one except sexists would think that.

As I've already pointed out, lots of folks have no problem with topless women, and many of them are stumbling in the dark when it comes to politics, supporting leftists because it's "cool." If folks who are /not/ socialists can show that they are tolerant and interesting, there can be some conversions.
bil

I don't consider myself an actual socialist,but am fairly tolerant,not sure how interesting,but certainly interested.I am pretty sure I am as converted as possible,but time will tell.(I may revert,that is a form of conversion)More offended by lime-green ricers than topless or trashy women.Try not to 'guess' too often,especially with politics.Trashy or classy is in the mind of the beholder.Or in Keene,the beholders mother. —bil