Heika’s Letter to the Editor
Heika‘s letter to the editor was published in the Union Leader yesterday, but they apparently don’t put those on their website, so Heika kindly sent Free Keene a copy:
First things first: Baring one’s breasts in public is not a crime, nor is it illegal. That said, I also want to make clear that, contrary to what your article of July 19 implied, there were not several of us parading around downtown, taking off our clothes. A very talented local artist and I decided it would be beautiful to have my breasts painted. He was very respectful of not touching my body in any way except on a professional level. We were sitting on a park bench, covering what was not being painted.
I was officially—and wrongfully—arrested for holding an open container of alcohol in a public place. For the record, I was not intoxicated. Part of the reason people gather daily on the common in downtown Keene is to peacefully protest this ludicrous law. Some drink, while others socialize. Many people feel we are not properly going about achieving our goal to see changes in personal freedoms (such as drinking a beer on a property that we are required to pay for), but at least we are trying. Writing the government to ask them to change the law simply doesn’t work.
We are very peaceful in our gatherings. We leave the park cleaner than the way we found it, we don’t scream belligerently at cars or people passing through, and we do not threaten or harm anyone in any way. That sort of behavior is frequently seen on the patios of downtown restaurants and bars, yet the police do nothing about that. Why are we the ones being singled out and crucified?
The answer is simple: People are scared of change. Creatures of habit we may be, but like it or not, there will be change. Eventually we will truly be allowed to “Live Free Or Die,” as New Hampshire’s motto reads. I am proud to be a resident of a state with such a proud slogan. I do not need brutal police officers to tell me when and where I can relax and have a beer. I have a job, I pay taxes, and I am an adult–an adult with a very capable mind, and no intent of harming another being.
If the government can dictate what kind of beverage I can hold while sitting on a bench that I have in part paid for, then where does it end? Will they soon be telling me I can’t walk barefoot in my own back yard? Or will they be telling me what time I must be in bed? I am no longer a helpless child to be subject to such restrictions. As a grown woman, I do not require rules concerning my body and property, which I am capable of maintaining and paying for.
I have heard many people ask us to stop our protest, that we are wasting too much of the taxpayers’ money. My response to that is: Stop making rules that hinder my right to choose and be free. If that would happen, we would have fewer arrests, lower court fees, and less jail time, and more money for worthy causes and concerns.
I was cited yet again this week for holding an open container of alcohol, and I will continue to do so until we see results. Results that allow us to make decisions for ourselves. As time goes on, more and more people join us in our peaceful protest of this law. Many people are not activists, but agree that this law is unjust. We invite anyone that agrees with this to join us at the park! All are welcome.
Comments
80 Comments on Heika’s Letter to the Editor
Heika,
I respect you greatly and look forward to meeting you some day soon. Wonderful letter.
- B
Someone once said that it’s a bad idea to mix different types of activism. I tend to agree. Some who would support one kind, don’t support the other, so you reduce your potential sympathetic audience. In the future, I’d recommend focusing on holding peaceful, orderly assemblies with open containers. If others are interested in other goals, those can be done separately.
That said, this is a very good letter. I’ve only seen written statements from Heika twice, and have been very impressed both times.
I missed my edit window, but I wanted to say that it’s not only well written, but insightful, and persuasive.
Heika wrote in her letter the following, regarding the many people who drink alcohol in PUBLIC DOWNTOWN: …”we don’t scream belligerently at cars or people passing through, and we do not threaten or harm anyone in any way. That sort of behavior is frequently seen on the patios of downtown restaurants and bars, yet the police do nothing about that. Why are we the ones being singled out and crucified?”?….That’s a damn good question, Heika. You are being “singled out” by KPD for one very simple reason. Because KPD gets away with whatever they want. I for one, am sick of the crowd of rude, provocative drunks outside “Lab-n-Lager”, who smoke, yell, scream, try to pick fights, talk trash to passersby, etc. Any night that you walk by that hole, there will likely be some drunk outside looking for a fight, who will try to get somebody to fight. I feel I need to carry my own “heat”, in case I need to “cool off” some belligerent drunk. It’s disgusting. Kalis’, Pedraza’s(less so there, but still…), RailRoad Tavern (new owner no better than Filiault…), Kilkenny’s, same thing…bunch of drunks, hanging outdoors, harrassing passersby. I can actually hang out with the “freekeeners/staters” crowd w/no problem. Can’t say that about the other PUBLIC-INTOXICATION DRUG DENS known as bars. And as for BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK??? You freeweenies never do that! But at the other bars? Try that new 2 FOOT WIDE sidewalk in front of Pedraza’s!…Piazza is not off the hook!..The whole “permit process” of the Council is a JOKE!…Keene always has been, always will be, a BAR TOWN / PARTY TOWN…Deal with it, get used to it, but at least get KPD to give back the megaphone, and quit playing stupid games with the freeweenies. Let ‘em drink and smoke in the common late at night. At least theffreeweenies help keep out the REAL RIFF-RAFF!…
You freeweenies never do that!
All this freeweenie wants is peaceful people left alone.
@Paul:
What types of activism are being mixed? As far as the letter states, only one sort of activism was taking place.
Toplessness would be the other. Regardless of anyone’s personal opinions, it’s a behavior that’s widely considered controversial. Thus, dividing the audience.
Heika, you are a hero. Thanks for what you are doing.
Paul,
Toplessness isn’t illegal. It’s not civil disobedience. There will be civil disobedience, if they make it illegal, but currently it’s barely activism.
If it’s really activism like you say, then the risk vs. reward for toplessness is big reward, for little risk.
If they have a knee-jerk reaction to this and politicos decide to use violence on women who are topless. College campuses will be fun. We’ll get great youtube footage of their police state kidnapping women. –We’ll get a lot of new young recruits. It will be a huge win for people who believe in civil disobedience.
Topless “activism” is good because it exposes the liberty phonies.
It does divide people who want to use violence on women who dress like men have for centuries in western civilization, from people who don’t believe in using violence to enforce victim-less “crimes.”
If you are going to do something “controversial” Keene is the right place to do it. It’s the epicenter of the peaceful evolution.
@Paul:
There’s a difference between living one’s life, and activism.
Open-carry little pick-ups are activism.
Me eating dinner in a restaurant is not activism, even if I happen to take my vest off.
Regardless of the legality of the issue, it’s highly controversial. I suggest that those who really think it’s worth pursuing at least conduct those events separately, to avoid alienating the many people, some of whom I know personally, who support orderly open container, but not what they consider to be nudity (and to attract those who don’t support open container, but would support toplessness).
I’ve stated my personal opinion, that I’m not a fan of the public toplessness for a number of reasons. I’m not wanting to re-open that issue. I’m just suggesting a way that those who are interested in promoting either or both of these issues could be maximally effective, and avoid inadvertently damaging either effort.
The more issues you combine into a single event, the more you narrow support for that event.
I’d actually say the same for male toplessness, although it’s less controversial … I don’t think it’s a good image to project.
You don’t seem to grasp the difference between activism and just going about one’s life.
@ Paul
Should there be a law against more than one way of living free?
Is anybody hurting anyone?
Can we go back to living free and minding our own business? 
Peace
I sense strong feelings of freedom being fostered! The feeling of a warm embrace! Everyone is passing it around.
Steven,
If you give hugs at an event, then you’re combining different types of activism!! If you hug a shirtless woman no one will support hugging anymore.
That hug will make it so no one supports hugging!
Stop hugging people or you’ll be inadvertently damaging efforts! Two humans embracing their arms around each other is controversial!
“You don’t seem to grasp the difference between activism and just going about one’s life.”
There should be no difference; you don’t need to make it some kind of show – just do what you want to do when you want to do it – as long as you remain peaceful you’re fine. If it happens to conflict with the state then it’s ‘activism’.
You should be professional about activism, but then again you should be professional about a lot of things. Try to blend the two.
woo hoo heika ftw ! ! ! !
proof that a person can just walk right into the liberty movement and instinctively get it and articulate it.
Lets rip Paul for having an opinion! Its fun! i agree with him,there are several differant points being made.The point I will make is that anyone surprised by heikas arrest hasn’t been paying attention.The point has been for SOMEONE to be arrested,because if the people just went about their business and life went on as usual,why protest? To imply that the CD was the drinking beer,and the fact that she just happened to be getting her breast painted at the time is disingenious.Everythink done was meant to provoke a reaction.That is what CD is about.Getting your breast painted on the Common is not the same as removing your vest while eating.At least not in any restaurant i have been in. —bil
@bil:
No one’s “ripping” Paul for having an opinion.
However, when he goes out of his way to tell everyone how wrong they are, every single time this subject comes up, it’s bound to be noticed. Especially when past experience tells us that his “opinion” is based upon sexism, not something noble.
The point of the open container was CD. Not bothering to wear a shirt isn’t illegal, so it really can’t be CD.
Paul, please don’t let the fact that I think you’re a dweeb, stop you from posting your thoughts on here. Your opinions count. You read my words here, I read your words here. I don’t think we have to agree, at all. I think Heika’s breast-baring was a little silly & pointless, but that’s only my personal opinion. I absolutely DO support fully her right to do exactly what she did. So what? I absolutely DO NOT support the mild over-reaction of the knee-jerk jerks in the city-cops-n-courts game. So what? When I log off here, and go about my business in meat-space, at least I have exercised some little rights. Remember: “A right you don’t exercise, is a right you DON’T HAVE!”. So EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS! Even if that dweeb next to you can’t stand your sweat. Hey, maybe Paul thinks >*I’M*> a dweeb. So what?…maybe I am!…grin!,
his “opinion” is based upon sexism
I’m certainly not sexist, and I’m not taking your bait.
Paul, please don’t let the fact that I think you’re a dweeb, stop you from posting your thoughts on here. Your opinions count. You read my words here, I read your words here.
Lol, thanks bro 
.
Given that you rail on and on against women exposing their breasts, and not against men exposing their breasts, you are, by definition, sexist.
Here is the problem with this whole “free State” thing you people are doing. We live in a society. What that means is that as a society we have decided to pass laws restricting certian behaviors. I shouldn’t have to walk through keene NH with my children and have them exposed to naked women nor should I have to watch people consume alcoholic beverages. That makes me a victim of your behavior. I don’t want to see it and we have laws against it. Your entire article is all about you and what you want. You don’t want to be in a civilized society. Why don’t you leave with the rest of the idiots and start a “Free State Land” somewhere else. Stop blaming the police and stop antagonizing them with “gotcha media”. They are not the enemy, all of you people are. You are the problem and you need to leave. I ask Keen PD to please keep arresting these people and take them out of the society they can’t conform to. The people who want to live in this society would like that very much.
I ask Keen PD to please keep arresting these people and take them out of the society they can’t conform to. The people who want to live in this society would like that very much.
Those black people who dared sit in the front of the bus sure needed to be taken out of the society that they couldn’t conform to, now didn’t they?
Most of the people back then liked it very much when the black people who were not conforming were arrested for breaking laws society passed which restricted “certain behaviors.”
Jeff, do you realize that you would have been one of the people stomping his feet back in the 60′s saying black people should be arrested? You may try to deny it… but that would have been your place in history, as you’re proving now.
Not surprisingly, “Jeff” is posting from a “Town of Bedford, NH” IP address.
More evidence that our most vocal opponents work for the violent monopoly (or are related to people who work for the violent monopoly).
Jeff, I am not part of your society. I am a member of the Shire Society. We believe in interacting peacefully with our neighbors. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.
Jeff,
A civilized society doesn’t kidnap and cage peaceful people who haven’t hurt anyone else. Words on paper that you call “laws” don’t magically justify using violence on non-violent people.
A civilized society doesn’t “vote” in elections or “pass laws” to use violence on their neighbors. Because that’s uncivilized.
If you want to shield your children from the real world then don’t take them out in public places. People drink “alcoholic beverages” outside in front of restaurants, just like they do at the park. If they aren’t hurting anyone then you have no right to stop them.
You probably take your children to restaurants where people drink “alcoholic beverages” with their meal. Do you claim to be a victim in restaurants as well?
NH’s motto is “live free or die”, it has been for a really long time. If you don’t like the “live free or die” state, then why are you in it?
@Jeff – you have the right to tell people what they can and can’t drink on your own property. Not property that is public.. if you don’t like what happens then.. I suggest you write the city and tell them to stop taking your money for that park. As you don’t use it and feel you can’t go there anymore.
Maybe then they’d sell the park and we wouldn’t have this problem. Until then welcome to tragedy of the commons. . .
#
Jeff on Tue, 3rd Aug 2010 1:17 pm
So, this dick-head from, where, >*BEDFORD*< ASKS / SAYS THIS: ………" Keen PD to please keep arresting these people and take them out of the society they can’t conform to. The people who want to live in this society would like that very much."…KEENENATIVE sez: You sure got some brass balls there, asswipe. You ain't even from Keene, only spell it correctly 50% of the time, get bunched-up panties over bullshit, and, *AND* you're a fucking COP-CALLER….Dude, KPD has got way better things to do than dick around with your bullshit. Don't go giving us that self-righteous crap…You're a poser & a hoser…FUCK-OFF, Jeff. How much more clear can I be? Keene natives don't want you here. I know I sure don't…go troll someplace else…Now, I bet I can get Capt. Letourneaux over to Bedford PD to harrass YOUR ASS, Jeff…see how you like it…That thin blue line don't stretch too good over MONADNOCK, does it???…And stay out of CHESHIRE. Between Foote&Rivera, we can take care of our own…
We live in a society.
Yes, that’s correct.
What that means is that as a society we have decided to pass laws restricting certian behaviors.
Also corr…Wait, what? Why did we pass these laws? Perhaps you need to examine their origins before you can be so sure about their intent.
I shouldn’t have to walk through keene NH with my children and have them exposed to naked women nor should I have to watch people consume alcoholic beverages.
You’re 100% right. You shouldn’t have to. Well guess what: you don’t have to. No one is forcing you to. As a society, no one has passed any laws requiring you to do any of the following:
(1) Walk through Keene, NH
(2) Walk with your children
(3) Expose yourself to naked women
(4) Expose your children to naked women
(5) Actually spend time looking at these naked women you encounter while walking, instead of just turning the other way
(6) Watch people consume alcoholic beverages
Just as you believe you should be free to do as you please without being disturbed by others, so do the naked women drinking alcoholic beverages feel they should be free to do as they please without being disturbed by you.
That makes me a victim of your behavior.
HAHAHAHA. From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/victim :
(1) A living creature which is slain and offered as human or animal sacrifice, usually in a religious rite
==> Nope, I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.
(2) Anyone who is physically harmed by another.
==> To be clear, at no point did you claim to be the recipient of any physical violence. Please correct me if that’s not the case.
(3) An aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime (e.g. swindle.)
==> Were you swindled into looking at these naked women drinking alcoholic beverages? Were you tricked somehow? Was there a sign that said “Free Kittens” with an arrow, and when you followed where the arrow was pointing….BAM there’s a naked woman drinking alcoholic beverages!
(4) A person who suffers any other injury, loss, or damage as a result of a voluntary undertaking.
==> Although you partook in a voluntary undertaking, as far as I could tell, you did not suffer any “injury, loss, or damage”. Again, please correct me if that’s not the case.
(5) An unfortunate person who suffers from a disaster or other adverse circumstance.
==> I’d like to see you attempt to define this as a “disaster”.
(6) A character who is conquered or manipulated by a villain.
==> Do I even need to address this one?
If those aren’t good enough for you, feel free to refer to the government’s definition of “victim”: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp&tid=9#350 .
I don’t want to see it and we have laws against it.
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. You don’t want to see it. That’s fine, I respect that. In fact, I have a friendly suggestion for you: just don’t look. And no, there’s no law forbidding toplessness in the town of Keene.
Wait a minute,gabe-he never said he exposed himself to naked women!I think he was exposed to naked women.Big dif.I don’t think she was naked,she was just topless.maybe next time she should go to MAACO for the paint job!
Even though it is legal for Heika (and any woman) to be topless in Keene,to say it had nothing to do with the rest of the CD action is just nonsense.It was as much an action designed to get a reaction.Even though it is legal.
Having met Paul when I was out on the west coast,and having a long discussion,I can safely say he is neither a dweeb nor a sexist.Having met plenty of each in my life.
Could Jeff have been posting from a public library,and maybe not working for the violent monopoly that is Bedford?
KEENENATIVE-I like your phrase for the real off-line world–’meat space’. Perfect! —bil
Paul believes that a woman exposing her breasts is different from a man exposing his (biologically-identical) breasts.
That is, without a shade of gray, a sexist belief. No ifs, ands, or buts.
MaineShark – I am a man, and I have breasts. They don’t produce milk. So, while you may want to claim that they are sociologically identical to a woman’s breasts (and, admittedly, that is not a universal belief), they are most definitely not biologically identical.
Women’s breasts dpn’t produce milk unless their hormonal balance changes.
If your hormonal balance changes in a similar way, you will most certainly start lactating, because you do have mammary glands. They’re just switched off, like most women’s.
There is a well-known, well-documented, wholly autologous biological reason for the hormonal changes in women.
Barring rare cases of hyperprolactinemia, inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue, the mammary glands of human males do not produce milk under normal conditions.
Again, if you consider male breasts sociologically identical to female breasts, I completely respect that opinion. However, for you to assert biological identity indicates to me that you are merely trying to drive home a point, or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
“We were sitting on a park bench, covering what was not being painted.”
Greetings,
Have never commented here but have been reading for sometime. I just could not help but notice that Heika’s statement in here letter is incorrect. The pictures clearly show that that is not that case. Really doesn’t matter to me… just suprised that no one had commented on it before.
As an aside I would much prefer to stroll by Heika lounging topless enjoying a beer then have to stroll down main street and pass the “men” for lack of a better word that tend to hang out, literally, with their shirts off. I mean good god show some compassion to your fellow man! Oh… one more thing how ’bout some of them pulling there pants up so they are actually over their ass? Does give me a chuckle though to watch them scurry across a cross walk trying to hold their pants up. Have a good day.
Ian
Gabe, you could argue that there’s a sociological difference. Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.
As I noted, and you ignored, most women are not lactating, at any given time. So lactation provides no difference, for these purposes. A non-lactating male and a non-lactating female have biologically-identical breasts. I suppose you could make a case for discriminating against women who are lactating, and have it be based upon biology, but if you are comparing a non-lactating woman to a non-lactating man, and claiming the woman’s breasts are different from the man’s, you are not make a statement based upon biology… just your own prejudices.
Ian Freeman on Tue, 3rd Aug 2010 1:40 pm
Not surprisingly, “Jeff” is posting from a “Town of Bedford, NH” IP address.
More evidence that our most vocal opponents work for the violent monopoly (or are related to people who work for the violent monopoly).
Ian, you needed to investigate Jeff because of a message you disagree with? And you gleamed from this investigation that Jeff or his family works for the “violent monopoly’?
You could have chosen to rebut or ignore his post.
This is the same kind of broad-brush inference you are being painted with, and dislike so much, when you are characterized as the “leader” of the activists in Keene.
No reply necessary. It’s futile to argue with micro-tyrants. Yes, I know it’s your property… la di da.
Others already refuted Jeff’s points. Why would Ian need to bother reiterating what they said?
No, scrote. As the original poster of the article, every comment is emailed to me with info about the source. This took zero investigation as the IP and domain was right next to his post. Technically, I saw the town-of-bedford info before I even read what he wrote.
Glad I could clarify that for you.
Fman, you clarified the first question. How about the 2nd?
“And you gleamed from this investigation that Jeff or his family works for the “violent monopoly’?”
And I’ll pile on a third question: Care to comment on the irony (to be generous) or rather the hypocrisy of drawing conclusions from an IP address, that really tells you nothing about ones employer or families employer?
No conclusions were drawn. The info attached to his post made the conclusion, as it left no question:
1:17pm
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX-town-of-bedford-nh-ne-nh.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
That’s a town bureaucrat, sitting at his/her computer, on-the-clock.
No hypocrisy here – just an observation of the facts.
Ian, thanks for the clarification. I construed ‘someone from the Town of Bedford” as someone who lives within the town limits, not the town offices. You have made it clear.
With that, Jeff should get back to work or alternatively, resign for the good of his conscience.
Gabe, you could argue that there’s a sociological difference.
MaineShark – I was claiming that you were arguing for no sociological difference. I made no claim regarding my own opinion on the matter.
Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.
Please enlighten me with your background and experience. I consider myself someone who knows “something beyond the basics” and hope that I have demonstrated that in my previous posts. On the contrary, your posts come across (to me, at least) as stubborn, inflammatory, and recalcitrant. Anything you can share regarding your background in biology and how you scientifically came to your conclusions would be appreciated.
As I noted, and you ignored, most women are not lactating, at any given time.
At no point did I willfully ignore this. In fact, frankly I don’t see where you claimed it in the first place. The closest I can find is this: “Women’s breasts dpn’t produce milk unless their hormonal balance changes.” Is that what you were referring to?
“MaineShark – I was claiming that you were arguing for no sociological difference. I made no claim regarding my own opinion on the matter. ”
Indeed. And I stated that you /could/ make that argument. Not that you had.
“Please enlighten me with your background and experience. I consider myself someone who knows “something beyond the basics” and hope that I have demonstrated that in my previous posts. On the contrary, your posts come across (to me, at least) as stubborn, inflammatory, and recalcitrant. Anything you can share regarding your background in biology and how you scientifically came to your conclusions would be appreciated.”
I “scientifically” came to that conclusion, based upon the fact that the structures are identical. If you know of some biological differences, by all means do share.
“At no point did I willfully ignore this. In fact, frankly I don’t see where you claimed it in the first place. The closest I can find is this: “Women’s breasts dpn’t produce milk unless their hormonal balance changes.” Is that what you were referring to?”
I stated:
They’re just switched off, like most women’s.
I “scientifically” came to that conclusion, based upon the fact that the structures are identical. If you know of some biological differences, by all means do share.
I already did that. Did you not see it? It seemed like you responded to it.
Nope. All you stated was that some women, some of the time, lactate. That doesn’t address women who are not currently lactating. Nor does it mean that there’s a /structural/ difference. If a woman is exposed to the right hormones, she lactates. If a man is exposed to the right hormones, he lactates. Some males lactate during puberty, as hormonal balances shift around. Newborns of both sexes also occasionally lactate. Some anti-psychotics and other drugs can induce lactation in either sex.
Nothing you’ve presented identifies /any/ structural difference between male and female breasts. You’ve only identified induced differences which are more common in one than in the other, but are by no means exclusively male or female in nature.
I would refer you to the first two paragraphs of Comment #34.
To expound on that, you previously wrote: “The structures are identical. They vary only in size.”
If I created an identical replica of your automobile, only 1/10th the size, could you still derive the same utility from it that you do from your current vehicle? What about your house? Your clothing?
“I would refer you to the first two paragraphs of Comment #34.”
Which I just addressed, again, for your benefit. Your claims regarding lactation are utterly without merit.
“If I created an identical replica of your automobile, only 1/10th the size, could you still derive the same utility from it that you do from your current vehicle? What about your house? Your clothing?”
Oh, so it’s going to be size-based? Anyone (men-included) with a cup size over ____ shall not go topless, and anyone with a cup size below that, is free to?
Maineshark, Gabe, et al,
This is one of the most enjoyable debates in the history of lactating man-boobs. Thanks.
Which I just addressed, again, for your benefit. Your claims regarding lactation are utterly without merit.
Udderly? I hope that was an attempt at humor.
“If I created an identical replica of your automobile, only 1/10th the size, could you still derive the same utility from it that you do from your current vehicle? What about your house? Your clothing?”
Oh, so it’s going to be size-based? Anyone (men-included) with a cup size over ____ shall not go topless, and anyone with a cup size below that, is free to?
If you’ll notice, I was quoting something you wrote, and responding to that. For your benefit, I will quote it again. In Comment #36, you wrote: “The structures are identical. They vary only in size.” My response (in quotations in your post) was in response to that.
That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one.
I’m guessing you’re totally failing to find meaningful biological differences upon which to base your theory that discrimination against women’s breasts isn’t actually sexist?
Okay, let’s recap, shall we?
You claim that mens’ and womens’ breasts are “biologically-identical”.
I counter that while they may be sociologically identical, there are in fact biological differences.
You respond by pointing out a very specific way in which you claim they are similar, under the influence of “hormonal balance changes”.
I cite well-known and well-studied science (“rare cases of hyperprolactinemia, inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue”) to point out that the biological similarity is not as close as you claim.
Your response merely waves generalities around and attacks a straw man (“Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.”).
Given this, I ask about your background and experience, since your comment implies you have quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to biology.
Rather than mention specifics, you mock my attempt to involve actual real science in the discussion (“I “scientifically” came to that conclusion, based upon the fact that the structures are identical”). Then, you challenge me to point out the differences (“If you know of some biological differences, by all means do share.”) even though I had already done so.
After I mention that I already pointed out differences, you again attack a straw man, completely ignoring any of the cogent points I previously made. When I point out that you yourself highlighted a difference in size, you take this to mean that *I* am the one claiming a difference in size matters, when in reality I was quoting something you yourself wrote.
I try to politely clarify that I was quoting your words, not my own. Your response? “That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one.”
So, I’m left to draw one of two conclusions. Either you’re essentially incapable of following a discussion. Or you really don’t have any actual support for your point of view, and are left to throw proverbial stones at me and to try to discredit me somehow. At this point, unless you are going to attempt to move the conversation forward, I really don’t have much else to say. I’ve made several attempts to point out specific ways in which they are biologically different, while still maintaining the notion that they can be sociologically identical. Each time, you’ve either ignored the points I made, misconstrued your own words as mine, or lobbed insults at me.
I’m guessing you’re totally failing to find meaningful biological differences upon which to base your theory that discrimination against women’s breasts isn’t actually sexist?
Again, just to be perfectly clear. At no point did I advocate for discrimination against womens’ breasts, or any other sexist action. In fact, to the contrary, I went out of my way to acknowledge the viability of sociological equality between them. I have been pointing out that sociological identity is not the same as biological identity.
It sounds like this concept may be to subtle for you to grasp.
You know, I could fisk your post, but there’s really no point.
Your premise is based upon /me/ bringing lactation into the discussion. Which is false. /You/ brought that up, in reply #32. Your very /first/ reply to me.
I refuted your claim, and you have since failed to bring up any /actual/ biological difference, so your claim stands utterly in shambles.
Please explain how my premise is based upon lactation.
And even if it is, does that not constitute a biological difference?
Also, please explain how you refuted my claims that I made in Comment #34. Your reply consisted of: “Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.”
That’s not a refutation. That’s just insulting the person with whom you’re having a discussion, while introducing your own estimation of the differences.
Please, go ahead and fisk. I was merely summarizing our discussion to date, since your latest comment implied you had forgotten all of it.
This is really getting crazy. Anyone walking down the streef can see that there is (generally) a differance between mens breasts and womens breasts. How you look at them and what you feel about them is where a differance comes in. In this society, a womans breasts have become sexualised ,to a degree not seen in most of history. At many times in history, the clothes were made to practically display womens breasts,at other times they were flattened so as to deny their existance. But to declare that if a person sees a differance is being sexist, I think that stretches political correctness a bit too far. —bil
“Please explain how my premise is based upon lactation.”
That’s the only supposed difference you’ve given.
“And even if it is, does that not constitute a biological difference?”
Again, no. Some men lactate. Many women do not lactate. Lactation constitutes a biological difference between “lactating” and “non-lactating” breasts, but does not constitute a biological difference between male and female breasts.
Male and female breasts are structurally identical. Let’s repeat again: male and female breasts are structurally identical. Any claim to the contrary shows a complete lack of understanding of biology (as easily seen by the total and complete inability of those supporting that claim to come up with any actual differences).
In Comment #36, YOU wrote the following:
Anyone who knows basic biology should know that male and female breasts are the same. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics, should have no doubt of that. The structures are identical. They vary only in size.
(emphasis added by me)
So, I pose the question to you again. Does size not constitute a difference to you? If not, then why did you write it?
You might say that some men have larger breasts than some women, while some women have smaller breasts than some men.
If that is your argument, then let me further specify the question. What if there was a statistically significant difference in the mean sizes?
Size is not a structural difference.
Men average taller than women. Women average larger breasts.
These are not structural differences. Arguing that women’s breasts are different from men’s breasts because of average size differences would be like arguing that men’s spines and women’s spines are different, just because the average man is taller than the average women.
The structures are identical. Unless you’re going to institute a cup-size-based standard for exposing breasts, and apply it equally, such that large-breasted men are criticized for going topless and small-breasted women are not, saying that women should not go topless is a sexist position.
Since we know that Paul is explicitly stating that women should (regardless of breast size) not go topless, and since there is no structural difference between male and female breasts, his assertion that women should not go topless is an explicitly-sexist position to take. And your claim that is is /not/ sexist is illogical.
Size is not a structural difference.
Men average taller than women. Women average larger breasts.
These are not structural differences. Arguing that women’s breasts are different from men’s breasts because of average size differences would be like arguing that men’s spines and women’s spines are different, just because the average man is taller than the average women.
Shall I re-state the examples I gave previously, or can I just refer you to Comment #48? You know, it’s getting real tiring having to restate every point I make several times.
Either way, if size does not constitute a difference, then why did you choose to mention it?
The structures are identical. Unless you’re going to institute a cup-size-based standard for exposing breasts, and apply it equally, such that large-breasted men are criticized for going topless and small-breasted women are not, saying that women should not go topless is a sexist position.
So now you claim the only way to discern a difference is through some artificial categorical measurement, discretized by “cup size”. I didn’t know that was one of your rules. Are there any other rules of determining sexism that I should know about?
Since we know that Paul is explicitly stating that women should (regardless of breast size) not go topless, and since there is no structural difference between male and female breasts, his assertion that women should not go topless is an explicitly-sexist position to take. And your claim that is is /not/ sexist is illogical.
Please point out, using Comment # or otherwise, where I made any claim on whether or not it was sexist. Furthermore, please point out where I made any sexist remark myself about what should and should not be allowed in public.
This entire time, I have been stating that while some people may or may not believe in sociological identity between male and female breasts, they are not biologically identical. For you to take this and somehow misconstrue it to mean something sexist is bizarre. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology.
When Darwin wrote about the finches he discovered on the Galapagos, he noted biological (and evolutionary) differences in their bills, beaks, flight patterns, and song patterns. There were differences between the birds from different islands, which had evolved over time in order to maximize their ability to obtain food from the native sources. They had adapted and evolved based on necessity.
In much the same way, biological differences exist between male and female humans. That is a fact. The difference in size is a by-product of this, but really is missing the point. If you don’t believe in any biological difference in breasts, I suppose next you’re going to tell me there’s no difference between the multi-colored plumage of a male peacock, versus the dull brown plumage of a female peacock. Or no difference between male and female reproductive organs either. Or cloven hooves found on pigs, deer and sheep, versus odd-toed ungulates such as horses and rhinoceroses
Sexual dimorphism is real. It exists. Granted, humans are less dimorphic than most other primates. But for you to deny it exists is honestly just perplexing.
“You know, it’s getting real tiring having to restate every point I make several times.”
You should stop doing it, then. Re-stating false things doesn’t magically make them true. When your statements are refuted, the honest thing to do is concede that point, and find something new to say.
“Either way, if size does not constitute a difference, then why did you choose to mention it?”
I didn’t say it’s not a difference. I said it\’s not a structural difference. Kindly be honest, eh?
“Please point out, using Comment # or otherwise, where I made any claim on whether or not it was sexist.”
#32. Or was your point not to defend Paul’s sexism, but merely to argue for the sake of arguing?
“This entire time, I have been stating that while some people may or may not believe in sociological identity between male and female breasts, they are not biologically identical.”
Which, no matter how many times you repeat it, is a false statement. Your inability to name an /actual/ structural difference tells the story.
“If you don’t believe in any biological difference in breasts, I suppose next you’re going to tell me there’s no difference between the multi-colored plumage of a male peacock, versus the dull brown plumage of a female peacock. Or no difference between male and female reproductive organs either.”
That’s puerile. Male and female reproductive organs are actually, anatomically different. Breasts are not. Male and female breasts are no more different than male and female hands, or male and female eyes.
Your posts show a total lack of understanding of anatomy and logic. Not to mention an utter disregard for honesty.
Male breasts consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, mammary glands, milk ducts, and nipples. Female breasts consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, mammary glands, milk ducts, and nipples. If you can’t list some actual difference in the structure, don\’t expect a reply.
“#32. Or was your point not to defend Paul’s sexism, but merely to argue for the sake of arguing?”
The point was trying to help you with a friendly suggestion. Because I believe in this movement. So when you make a claim that is patently false, it makes you sounds like a damn fool. And spreading that misinformation will only harm us in the long run.
“Which, no matter how many times you repeat it, is a false statement. Your inability to name an /actual/ structural difference tells the story.”
I didn’t say it’s a structural difference. You keep mentioning structural differences. I keep saying it’s a biological difference. Kindly be honest, eh?
“That’s puerile. Male and female reproductive organs are actually, anatomically different. Breasts are not. Male and female breasts are no more different than male and female hands, or male and female eyes.”
Please explain how it’s childish. In other words, what makes male and female reproductive organs different, in your mind? They both consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, and genetic material, among other things.
Perhaps I’m wrong here and you’re correct, but repeatedly demeaning me won’t help to convince me. If you can provide thorough, fact-based evidence, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, all you’re doing is slinging insults, calling me a fool, and telling me I’m bereft of knowledge. That doesn’t seem very intellectually honest to me.
“Your posts show a total lack of understanding of anatomy and logic. Not to mention an utter disregard for honesty.”
Which part? The part where I discussed sexual dimorphism? Was that devoid of an understanding of anatomy? Or the part where I cited inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue, as two possible reasons for male lactation? Logically, those lead to male lactation.
“The point was trying to help you with a friendly suggestion. Because I believe in this movement. So when you make a claim that is patently false, it makes you sounds like a damn fool. And spreading that misinformation will only harm us in the long run.”
The minor problem being, of course, that yours is the false claim. “Helpfully” injecting falsehoods isn’t very helpful.
“I didn’t say it’s a structural difference. You keep mentioning structural differences. I keep saying it’s a biological difference. Kindly be honest, eh?”
Since we’re not doing genetic testing on-the-spot to determine who’s allowed to do what, the only biological differences that are relevant to this discussions are ones that create structural changes.
“Please explain how it’s childish. In other words, what makes male and female reproductive organs different, in your mind? They both consist of fatty tissue, ligaments, and genetic material, among other things.”
And we’re all carbon-based.
Let me know when a testicle forms a cyst and releases an egg. Males don’t have vaginas. Females don’t have penises. Different positioning of the urethra and its outlet. Dramatically different shape of the erectile tissues. Et cetera.
See, those are structural differences. You can look at the organs and tell that they are different.
If you removed the breasts of a small-breasted female, and those of a large-breasted male, you could not create a similar list of differences.
But feel free to try. You know, to argue based upon /facts/. As I keep challenging you to do, list any actual differences. How would you tell the breasts in that example from each other. They’re sitting on a platter, removed from cadavers. List what differences you will use to determine which pair belongs to the female, and which to the male.
“Which part? The part where I discussed sexual dimorphism? Was that devoid of an understanding of anatomy? Or the part where I cited inhibition of dopamine in the tuberoinfundibular pathway, or intake of large amounts of a galactagogue, as two possible reasons for male lactation? Logically, those lead to male lactation.”
You do realize that your ability to look something up on Wikipedia doesn’t make you knowledgeable? It’s amusing that nothing you’ve listed isn’t linked right there…
Fine, I give up. There is no such thing as sexual dimorphism. Galactagogues don’t exist. There are no biological differences between men and women. Everything you write is truth, and should be accepted as such, without any evidence or presentation of fact.
This is all Pauls fault. Sexist bastard. Imagine, while he isn’t against women being topless ,he prefers not to see them in public .He isn’t against it, just doesn’t prefer to see it. Although if he actually prefered to see topless women in public, wouldn’t that also make him a sexist?? And to think I actually had coffee with him!! I feel so dirty!! And he seemed so nice,too. Him and his personal preferances. —bil
@Gabe: You know, I should thank you. The complete disregard for the truth you just demonstrated really put the final nail in this argument.
@Bil: Yeah, just like if he wasn’t against Jews, he just didn’t want to see them in public, he wouldn’t be a racist? Of if he wasn’t against gays, he just didn’t want to see them in public, he wouldn’t be a homophobe?
Actually,not at all. It would be like if he didn’t want to see women out in public at all,or maybe with a chador on. That would be sexist. Whether or not he or anyone else cares to see women topless is their personal choice. As long as he doesn’t try to stop someone else doing it. I don’t see where he advocates that. If he prefers to see his wife topless at home, is he sexist? If I go to a titty bar, am I sexist? What if I am just thirsty and just want a drink, not to watch the show? If someone has differant standards that they live by that are not your own, does that mean they are sexist, racist ,statist, or any other ‘ist’ you can think of? You yourself have mentioned a fondness for being armed. Are you a militarist?
Not wanting to see something and not wanting it to exist are two seperate things. —bil
Thanks bil, but it’s alright, I’m comfortable with MaineShark’s disapproval . And he really, really likes to argue about things endlessly, so I wouldn’t spend a lot of time on this unless you want to.
So someone who doesn’t want to see two men holding hands, even though he’s fine seeing a man and a woman holding hands, isn’t homophobic?
Sorry, no.
He wants to apply different standards to men and women. That makes him sexist. If he didn’t want anyone to ever be topless in public, that would be different.
“Isms” are about personal standards, not necessarily about enforcing anything. If someone believes that “Jews will cheat you in business dealings,” but never advocates any law to keep Jews out of business, he’s still a racist, due precisely to what he believes.
And yes, if someone believes that there should be a government that controls others by force, whether they consented to participation or not, is /automatically/ a statist.
This post brought to you by “words mean things.”
Forgot to answer your question about being armed:
I’m not a “militarist,” because that would have something to do with being in the military. “Hoplophile” might work.
I have stated on numerous occasions that I find folks walking around unarmed (naked, no matter how many layers of clothing they wear) to be lewd, and a bit disturbing. That’s part of who I am, and I make no apologies for it.
If I know that someone is a responsible member of armed society, I will give him or her preferential treatment. If I know someone is unarmed for some fairly-legitimate reason, I’ll not be offended. If I know someone chooses to be unarmed, but also expressly does not want me to defend him, I’ll think him a bit odd, but also put him in that neutral category. If I know someone would like to be defended, but refuses to take part in his own defense, I’ll definitely discriminate against him to varying degrees.
I also don’t tell folks that it’s their fault that I feel this way. I choose to be the sort of person who feels offended by the unarmed, and I own that choice. I don’t go around accusing those who choose to be unarmed of “making” me feel that way. I don’t tell others that they are behaving wrongfully, because they don’t cater to my personal preferences.
Glad to see you have gotten a sponsor!
Actually,wouldn’t any discrimination against Jews be classified as anti-Semitic, rather than racist? I don’t recall any mention to an aversion to seeing two men holding hands. As for myself,I don’t have a problem with anyone going around topless,unless maybe Rich Paul. (watch the video)
It is nice to know that I am up for some preferential treatment from you,as I am always well armed,unless the situation calls for a temporary disarming. (banks,courthouses,the shower). I would also agree with your values as to others and their personal degrees of defense. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, my family,and those in need. Not so much those that refuse to prepare, then want my help when the shit hits the fan. Is hoploism a word?? Hoploist sounds better than hoplophile. —bil
Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism (like “white supremacy”) which relates to Semitic peoples (which includes Arabs).
Paul’s complaints are equivalent to someone saying, “I have no problem with gays, I just don’t want to see them holding hands or kissing in public,” and then trying to claim that he’s not homophobic.
I see what you mean,Paul. I am out on this one,too. However,I will stick to my guns on guns. —bil
Yup, that’s what I thought.
Reason always triumphs, in the end. Which is why liberty will eventually win: it’s the only reason-based philosophy out there.
Reason has nothing to do with it-I am just sick of the same stuff over and over. —bil
Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism (like “white supremacy”) which relates to Semitic peoples (which includes Arabs).
You’re a fucking idiot, and this just proves it once and for all. Whether or not you want to break down the commonly-accepted term “Antisemitism” into its root words, the well-known meaning of the term refers specifically to Jews. For you to group all Jews into a race shows that you have no clue what you’re writing about.
Anyone who knows basic anthropology should know that all Jews are not of the same race. Anyone who knows something beyond the basics should have no doubt of that. Your statement is not based upon any reason or facts at all — just your own prejudices. Your claims are completely without merit.
And even if you want to pretend this commonly-accepted definition doesn’t exist, and that it somehow refers only in the general sense to “Semitic” people (which includes Arabs), all Semitic people are not of the same race either.
Q.E.D. ’nuff said! —bil
Now that’s just funny.
There’s no real referent for “race.” Jews are the same “race” because “race” is a social construct, and has precious little to do with genes.
The psychos who machine-gunned my ancestors in ditches sure didn’t give a hoot about genes, given that their genes came from Europe.
That was a post bereft of content, if there ever was one.
You used the term “racism” (“Antisemitism is a specific sort of racism…”). If, in your opinion, no real referent for “race” exists, then how can the notion of racism exist?
I’m guessing you’re totally failing to find meaningful explanation for your previous comments, since your last post does nothing to explain them at all.
Race is a social construct.
That doesn’t mean racists cannot act in certain ways as a result of it.
Someone who is delusional might see demons and act as a result. Doesn’t mean the demons exist.
If you actually understood anything that was being discussed here, rather than just being a Wikipedia genius, that would have been blatantly clear.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012