Has anybody else heard the story about Catherine Bosley? She was a TV Network News anchor on WKBN TV in Youngstown, Ohio. She and her husband took a vacation to Key West earlier in the year of 2003. While there, she decided to enter a wet t-shirt contest. While on stage, somebody in the crowd recognized her and took a number of pictures which were then posted on the internet. These were brought to the attention of WKBN management in early January of this year and she was forced to resign under a decency cause in her contract. Some say she was fired, others that she chose to resign, and yet others that she was forced to resign. Regardless, the end result is that she no longer has a well paying job that she held for 10 years and most probably, her career is ruined. Thoughts? Comments? Apparently, no laws were broken in Key West. She was not arrested or harassed while in Key West. Might this explain why a number of women are “uncomfortable” with being topfree in public in the United States, today? (not in Utopia, Europe, or the USA 20 years from now). Is it worth jeopardizing a
career in order to exercise a little bit of freedom? Also, do you think it would have made any difference if the pictures were taken on the legal topless South Beach sand?
I'm not familiar with this case, but I've heard of many similar cases, for example a female firefighter who was fired for posing for Playboy magazine, although she had broken no laws or done anything that was illegal. This is the kind of bigotry we are trying to end.
So? If Playgirl ask me to take off my shirt and show off my muscles (no laughing please) no one would care. So it is the fact that she is a woman that is causing the problem- that IS bigotry! She should have a right to take off her shirt for any reason I have a right to take off mine!
she wasn't just dancing. she was teasing with her breasts. she was holding them, slowly uncovering them, on stage.
people don't go on stage unless they have something to show like singing a song, doing an act, a trick, etc.
what she was doing wasn't like being at a nudist resort, which is non-sexual. and if she was to go to a club at a nudist resort and dance, that also wouldn't be sexual.
do you honestly believe that bosley did not consider what she was doing to be sexual?
I have to agree with Elijah.
Although no laws were broken the environment in which she was participating was one of a sexually teasing nature. This is not the same as walking down a beach topless or even in a t-shirt and being caught in the rain or going in the surf. She ultimately was eliciting the sexual attention.
The referance to the Playboy model who was a firefighter also falls into this catagory. She was not modeling for an art class, she was modeling in a periodical that focuses on the exploitation of the female body, not just breasts, for the sexual pleasure of it's "readers".
Both of these examples are instances where the females sold themselves out to the public as sexual objects, in demeaning environments.
These are the behaviors that will keep women down and bound up.
If I were the pricipal of a grade school and was on vacation and decided to participate in a strip dance at a club and barely wore a g-string, allowing women to tuck money in it, and should there be photos taken and sent to my school board, should I expect to have a job there for long? I think not.
>Although no laws were broken the environment in which she was participating was one of a sexually teasing nature.<
I agree, and I saw beer ads in the background. In some states, California included, a business that serves alcohol can lose it's license to serve alcohol if nudity is allowed. Topless bars are legal in Calif but not nude bars.
>This is not the same as walking down a beach topless or even in a t-shirt and being caught in the rain or going in the surf. She ultimately was eliciting the sexual attention. <
Yes, if one looks at all the pictures, one can see that what she did was of a sexual nature though she did not make physical contact with anyone.
If she were a teacher, she would be fired and few people would complain. She had a job that involves being in the public eye and that is wht she was fired.
If she had been sunning on a nude beach, I would say it was her business, but that isn't what she was doing.
Okay Elijah, suppose instead that it were a bodybuilding magazine with a man flexing his muscles (with no shirt). Do you think that voters should not elect that man governor of their state just because of that and not because they thought he would make a lousy governor?
I haven't heard of this either. It sure seems to me that decency clause or not, a person should be able to do what they want on their vacation. She wasn't on her job, so her contract really wasn't breached. It's like me...as a commercial driver I am not allowed even a trace of alcohol in my blood if I'm driving or about to drive a commercial vehicle or my own. Not .08, .04, or .01, but zip. But when I'm not about to be driving, I can drink just like anyone else if I want. No harm, no foul.
i think that if catherine bosley was sunbathing topfree at a beach, she probably wouldn't have been fired.
just like the female fire-fighter posing in playboy, what bosley did was sexual. both of these women didn't do what they did to exercise their topfreedom or to be comfortable without a shirt, just like men. these women were teasing and flaunting their breasts in a sexual nature--hence they believe their breasts to be sexual.
earlier i posted about a lady, elizabeth book, who is organizing a march in florida to legalize the display of female breasts in public. book's story started out when men jeered for her to show her tits and she got arrested for doing it.
these are bad examples for the topfreedom cause.
I agree that this is not the best way to achieve breast freedom, but the fact is what these women did in no way prevented them from doing their jobs and so the problem is not what they did- it the bigotry of our society and their employers that is the problem. That is what needs to be fixed.
in what way did the society or employer display bigotry? it would be bigotry if--for example--a porn star was fired for doing what bosley did.
it's true that what bosley did doesn't affect how well she does her job, but it does affect the viewer's perception of her. male viewers, by the nature of being men, will try to picture her naked instead of listening to the news.
sexuality and productiveness don't mix. that's why there's rules about what's appropriate in workplaces, schools, etc. just like you don't see your teacher, students, coworkers, or customers sexually, it's unfortunate that bosley's "customers" are potential millions of viewers who now see her in a sexual way.
I'm sure that she is properly dressed while she is doing her job so if male viewers can only think of her naked- then they are the problem- not her- they need to clean their dirty little minds! As I said before- that's where the problem is. When are you going to stop excusing and defending such behavior? You must think males are mindless robots controlled by primal urges. I am proud that I have advanced beyond this primitive state. You should too.
A man would be fired for dancing on a stage shirtless? In any case, I happen to think what a person does on vacation hundreds of miles from home is their business. We really are living in an Orwellian society now.
Actually she wasn't shirtless, she was totally naked but I don't see that she did anything wrong. She was in a wet T shirt contest in a bar with adults in another state, having some fun on her vacation.
What kind of a world are we living in when you can be fired for something that you did no your vacation when no laws were broken. I mean what if they found out that her and her husband goto swingers clubs (legal) or like to enguage in threesomes (also legal) or that she cheats on her husband (imoral but also legal) could they fire her for that?
Nat, you did not have a job that put you on television, did you? This woman had a contract that provided that she could be fired for the type of thing she did. I don't believe an employer could fire you (you as in Nat) for being nude on a beach. If this woman had merely been nude on a beach, just sunning or swimming, I would agree with you, but she was not sunning or swimming and what she did, she was very public about what she did and what she did was sexual. She was completely nude.
It's a little like somebody being hired to promote Nike shoes, then when they are not actually working, they go on a late night talk show and say that Nike shoes suck.
In the times we are living in now I'm not sure that anyone could not be fired if their employer doesn't like what they do. In many states employers have absolute discretion to fire anyone for any reason- or no reason other than racial or religion. I wasn't concerned about this at the time because I think people were much more open-minded and tolerant back in the 1970s than they are today.
Nat, you are correct that in many states (California is one), an employer can fire anyone for any reason that is not covered by discrimination laws (like race, religion, etc) unless the employee and employer have a contract that provides for some term of employment. Most newscasters have a contract that says they have a job until some date, but there are also conditions attached, such as getting in trouble with the law or bringing disrepute to their employer.
She's a public figure who reads the news, which requires credibility. If she were a lowly backoffice civil servant nobody could or would care less. If she wants to sexually exploit herself in front of the probably hundreds of "mindless robots controlled by primal urges" then she should have considered another career option, such as a letter carrier.
The firefighter did not have a job in which she had to fight fires on television. A newscaster is supposed to conduct himself/herself with dignity and they are paid to present themselves a certain way. They agree to certain terms of employment because they are in the public eye. I am not saying she should be fired, I am saying her employer had the right to fire her.
I think the woman was possibly trying to get herself fired. Just look at her posing for the cameras in the pictures. It is obvious she is aware of their presence and that the management's promises of not making the film public were unreliable.
The posing in Playboy doesn't have anything to do with credibility in fire fighting. What it does pertain to, if I am not mistaken(which I have been known to be, tho infrequent ) her chain of command was aware of her plans and she was told not to do it, she was blatently INSUBORDINATE.
Fire fighters are also people who set examples and are role models, and the chain of command was attempting to uphold these possitive attributes.
Well I didn't know about any orders, but should an employer have to right to dictate what someone can do when they are off duty and on their own time? Seems to me this is leading down a long perilous road. We say we live in "the land of the free", but I think we are already so much less free than we use to be and this is just another step towards a totalitarian society.
Anytime you put on a uniform, military, police, EMS, firefighter, you are not only wearing something that identifies your job and position but also that you accept and obey rules of conduct and discipline, you give up CERTIAN rights for the PRIVILEGE of serving....VOLUNTARILY.
Anytime you put on a uniform, military, police, EMS, firefighter, you are not only wearing something that identifies your job and position but also that you accept and obey rules of conduct and discipline, you give up CERTIAN rights for the PRIVILEGE of serving....VOLUNTARILY.
You choose to identify yourself with the uniform, the others who wear it, and the service. You obey the chain of command or you resign and fined another profession.
No...it is called, discipline, esprit de corps, individual and unit pride.
Germany in the 1930's was in the middle of a devastating depression, the military was regrouping, the war machine was starting up to reunify the "Vaterland", the police state that was in power demanded obiedience or you were killed.
We are nowhere near that and I resent the implication that our men and women in ANY uniform are not there out of selfless service and devotion to the people they serve and do give up some personal freedoms voluntarily to ensure YOUR safety and security.
I'm not questioning their "devotion to the people they serve" in the least- but I don't see what that has to do with what they do on their own free time off. I guess you are telling me that if I am a fireman or paramedic that I can not go to a clothesfree beach or resort on my weekend off because some people wouldn't approve? What about a friday night poker game? Some people don't approve of that either. How far do you want to take this?
A fair question Nat. That's were the debate begins. I think it's safe to say that there needs to be some sort of "code" (honor, standard etc put in the word or words that makes the most sense) that "people in uniform" need to adhere to - the question is how high to make that bar. Would you agree this true?
It sounds like Peter and a few others seem to think that the "bar" should be a little higher for the public figures. I tend to agree with them. Maybe you feel the bar should be a little lower? That's okay with me...
I saw some tv show a couple of weeks ago, I think it was NCIS or something like that and there was a character in it who was afraid to talk to an investigator because she had been on a nude beach and didn't want to be found out. She said it was against regulations for military personnel to sunbathe nude on a public beach. I don't know if that is true or if it only applies to beaches on govmt property. Does anyone know? I don't think that people in the military should be prohibited from exercising the same legal freedoms as other people when doing so does not affect how they do their job.
Have you ever worn a uniform?
You don't stop being a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, or member of the armed force just because you take off the uniform.
The activities we were talking about, wet thirt contests, posing nude for magazines are completely different than relaxing at a nude beach, or at a poker game.
Well I guess my libertarianism comes out because I put a high value on personal freedom. I think those who dictate how others must conform to some idealize standard is the first step towards a totalitarian society where everyone is a pawn of the state.
So if you think civil servants must give up the right others have to do a legal act because it is offensive to some then where do you draw the line? You can't wear a fur coat because it offends members of PETA? Or use birth control because it offends Catholics? Or drive a SUV because it offends environmentalists? I can go on all day listing legal acts that offends one group or another so if this is the standard for being civil servant then they should be prepared to spend their off-duty life doing absolutely nothing!
The bottom line is that one enters into these professions with the knowlege that there are expectations and restrictions that accompany the privilege they are given. If they don't like it or agree, they resign, quit, leave......they are not forced to give up anything, they choose to by their serving in the capacity they do.
While in the Army for 10+ years, I had to stop going to head shops to purchase my favorite fragrance, I wasn't permitted to roll my own cigarettes, wear my earings, wear long hair, have a desk job, always come home to my family, get up at 10 am, speak out against the commander in chief, and the list is longer, but I accepted these restrictions as a condition of the privilege of protecting YOUR rights and freedoms and my brothers and sisters-in-arms gladly put our freedom aside to secure YOUR freedoms. We knew/ know what we were doing, no doubt about it!
Those who enter into serving others as in the other professions I mentioned earlier, do so for higher reasons that out weigh themselves, and if those are not the reasons, they should leave that profession.
So if the draft were to return, it would be okay for draftees to do the things you mentioned? After all, nobody gives them a choice as to whether to enlist, other than going straight to jail for refusing.
Since you have used the "draft" card.....
Lets look at Americans in two groups. Group A who are those that serve, sacrifice, and suffer. Group B will include those that comfortably ride on the coat tails and enjoy the benefits and security afforded them by group A.
Should a situation arise that would require that individuals from group B are chosen to augment the strength of group A in order to secure and safeguard the way of life that group B has become accustomed to, these individuals should gladly and proudly conform for they are being given the opportunity to give back a little for everything they have been given in the way of freedoms.
I don't know if the Dutch army is unionized, but I seem to recall that they don't need to cut their hair very short and they don't need to salute. I could be mistaken about which army it was, but I saw this on television a few years ago and I believe it was the army of the Netherlands.
I think that the people in the US military should be given the same freedoms as other people, after all, they volunteered to serve. They are not there to learn discipline but to do a job. I don't think women in the military should have to wear bras if they don't want to wear them and men should not have to cut their hair shorter than women have to cut theirs. How is that for being fair?
On a side note, a unionized army is about as effective as any of these militia groups that pop up.
Although they may present themselves in a better light, the fact is that discipline reliability, effectiveness all decrease and the bottom line when you are in a foxhole or in the middle of a firefight is will my buddy have my back or will he go on strike and get me killed.
So it is about the same with unionized armies (if they exist) as it is in any other business. I think employers have to keep their workers happy to keep them from unionizing. Once they unionize, everyone loses. Just my 2 cents.
Actually I wasn't complaining about my loss of freedom in the Army, just noting, given the opportunity to re enter the army, I would go in a heartbeat, my disability hinders this at this time.
I don't know where you are from, but have the appearance of being somewhat intelligent and very literate, and yet you use "odd sort of cowboy army" to describe an army you most likely have never really seen or worked with or with ant luck never have to.
Gays although allowed in the army, can not divulge their orientation with out being kick out, have you heard of "don't ask, don't tell"? If they do their job and are quiet about their extracurricular activities they can serve. Yes, they have to hide their orientaion, and because they have to hide, they are a security risk.
You are absolutely right. Gays are only a problem in the military because they have to hide who they are. It's the same with spies who cheat on their wives. They are security risks only because of the shame that is connected with what they do. It can be used by foreign intelligence agencies to get them to do things they would not have done otherwise.
I tend to think that a person who cheats on their spouse is probably dishonest, but maybe I am wrong about that, I don't know.
I agree with all of this...and finally! someone who agrees that when a person cheats on their spouse, they lose credibility. I believe that a marriage is a contract where a person, or people rely on you. You cheat, you are dishonest, how can they trust you in anything? I feel the same about the president and the office he holds. He shouldn't cheat or lie.
If you are a cop or firefighter, it isn't anyone's business what you do on your own time so long as it is not illegal. I imagine lots of firefighters go to nude beaches esp if they are on vacation. Unless they dance naked in front of a camera, I don't think there would be a problem.
It is perfectly legal to dance naked in front of a camera. In fact, you can do full blown sex in front of a camera! Hundreds of perfectly legal porn films are made every year in California doing just that!
I have a problem with porn stars being in certain occupations, such as law enforcement. This is partly because they sometimes have to enforce laws that regulate sex businesses. If a cop goes to a nude beach on their own time, though, I have no problem with that.
Well I think its unlikely that a porn star would be a cop- or vice-versa- but I think that it is insulting to suggest that they would let their advocation bias the performance of their job. Cops are constantly called upon to do things that may be against their moral preferences, such as protecting a abortion clinic or a Ku-Klux-Klan rally, but if they can't do this then they shouldn't be cops.
Lets see it through another light.
Are these examples you have given people that are exhibiting behaviors that children should emulate.
That is the problem. Public figures become role models, they are held to a higher standard because of their influence. They do not cease to be public figures because they are on vaction.
"Are these examples you have given people that are exhibiting behaviors that children should emulate."
Yea but should every person who is in any way in the public eye have to surrender every aspect of there life to that BS ethic of living every moment as a rolemodel to children? Should Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich have been removed from officees that they held just because they cheated on their wives? I'm sure I can think of other examples but it's early and I have to go to work.
As a matter of fact...YES!
those in the public eye, especially where the one was the commander in cheif of the armed forces, and adultry can still be prosecuted to the fullest limit.
These individuals nkow and accept the good and bad of the positions they hold, and one of these items is as role model.
I personally hold the office of president in very high regard and respect, and accept that they represnt America in the eyes of the world, I have very high standards that I hold them to and so should all Americans.
The two individuals you mentioned have acted dishonorably and should have been dealt with more severely than they were.
You may think so but the fact is it works just the opposite- celebrities and athletes are allowed to get by with anything by their fans- look at OJ-Simpson, Koby Brian, Michael Jackson, Martha Mitchell to name a few, who have hoards of fans demonstrating in front of courthouses demanding that they be set free.
I don't recall who Martha Mitchell might be, did you mean Stewart? I think she is hated more than any of the others you mentioned with the exception of OJ.
I think in the cases you mentioned, there are many people who refuse to consider that those people might have committed the offenses of which they are accused and I think that is because they are idolized because they threw a ball (or whatever they did). They are not defending someone they think is guilty.
Yes, I meant Stewart. I guess I was thinking about the Watergate A.G Mitchell's wife. She was rather notorious too. You can see how old I am. But I heard on the news just yesterday that Stewart had many fans cheering out in front of her courthouse hearing. You know she has- or had a daytime TV show so she is well known to many people as a TV host in addition to being a business tycoon.
As for OJ, I still know people who think he is innocence despite the mountain of evidence against him- enough to convict ten ordinary joes.
I too remember Martha Mitchell and her husband (John Mitchell), who was one of Nixon's AG's. She told the truth and it got her husband into trouble. I seem to recall that some people wanted to have her declared insane or something so they could put her away and shut her up.
Removal from a position is not the only option that could have been utilized.
And...no, I haven't done anything that would fall into the area of MORAL TURPITUD, since you ask, there for will cast stones!
BTW I did not mean to imply that if a US President is cheating on his/her spouse, it is a reason to remove them from office by impeachment. What I am saying is that if I am aware that they are dishonest in that way, I would not give them my vote in the first place unless the alternative candidates were doing worse things and I had no choice. When a person cheats on their spouse, it shows a lack of honesty. It isn't so much about morals.
Some of the best presidents we ever had including Roosevelt and Kennedy had affairs. I for one, am damn glad we had FDR during WW-II and JFK during the Cuban missile crisis because if we had had lesser men none of us would probably be here today.
Yea but would you rather have a guy who cheats or does something else sexual that you don't approve of but can run the country well by keeping the peace, and keeping the economey sound or an honest guy who can't run the country as well but has the same sexual morals as you do?
Carter, all the way.
I don't know though, it is possible that Clinton never cheated on his wife, that she knew of his extracurricular activities and did not care. In that case, I could not say he was dishonest, just yucky.
I got tired of hearing about the stains on Monica's dress but the truth is that Carter seems like the nicest guy you could ever meet but looking at his record does not inspire confidence.
Clinton on the other hand, reduced the national debt, balanced the budget, took out of the Regan/Bush recession and commited us to a conflict in which a evil dictator was removed from power and not 1 American soldier lost his/her life, increased personal freedom in the media (check out the frontline documentary on the porn industry) and wrote the book on dealing with terrorism (the 93 world trade center bombing, Waco TX, the 98 embissy bombings and the USS Cole) a book that president Bush chose to ignore and concentrate on Missle defence until 9/11 changed his mind.
>I got tired of hearing about the stains on Monica's dress but the truth is that Carter seems like the nicest guy you could ever meet but looking at his record does not inspire confidence.<
He is the kind of man one would want as a neighbor.
>Clinton on the other hand, reduced the national debt, balanced the budget, took out of the Regan/Bush recession and commited us to a conflict in which a evil dictator was removed from power and not 1 American soldier lost his/her life,<
Clinton did reduce the national debt, but I think the country pulled itself out of a recession, that would have happened no matter who was president. I think the Republicans had nothing substantial about which to criticize Clinton (except for the scandals) and that drove them nuts. Which dictator were you referring to, Milosevic? I believe some soldiers did lose their lives, though not in combat. There were some who died in accidents. I think Clinton built a coalition of sorts before committing US forces to Bosnia, something Bush (the son) was unable to do before committing forces to Iraq and it now seems that as soon as he took office, he was looking for some pretext to invade Iraq.
Missile defense is not dead, it just doesn't work yet. There was supposed to be a major test of it later this year, but I don't know if that test has been postponed or cancelled. There was an article about it in Popular Science a few years ago, IIRC.
If I have to choose between a president that has the smarts to keep us out of war, and one who has never had an affair I'll take the smarts. Integrity won't mean a damn thing if we are a pile of carbon dust. And during the Cuban missile crisis, we were within a hair of nuclear war. Had a lesser president listen to some of the advice Kennedy was getting- none of us might be here today..
"Liking and individual has nothing to do with my post. Right, wrong, and integrity have everything to do with it."
Normally I'd not continue this thread, but I think I ought to clarify. "Right, wrong, and integrity" are personal value judgements, they rarely have any universal definition. They depend very much on the context of what you are talking about, and that context is generally your own life and life experience. Thus their definitions ultimately come down to what you, as a civilized but unique human being, are comfortable with, or "like".
But, as a unique human, you are by definition not identical with every other human on the planet, or even necessarily your own country, state, or neighbourhood. So different people will have different ideas of what is right, wrong, or integral given the same circumstances.
A big part of this is reflected in the attempt at democracy that involves all this voting that happens to select a president (with mixed success).
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that you think it's more important that a president (or someone else in a position of sufficient responsibility) meets the criteria that you like, rather than being someone you like, but that's not much different.
In any case, these subjective requirements differ from objective (result-oriented) requirements, like competence. There is no guarantee that a person who meets any subjective judgements will be successful in a given role. To be fair, there is no guarantee that an objective judgement guarantees success either, since that involves predicting the future, but it does provide a strong, persuasive probability of future success, and so for simple pragmatic reasons should be preferred.
I'll also grant that certain positions such as president require the making of moral judgements, which is a subjective endeavour. But even in those cases, morality without abitlity is a better recipe for disaster than the other way around.
This is one of the toughest areas we humans have right now, labling was is right and what is wrong, it is subjective and there doesn't seem to be a correct interpretaion.
I can base my definitions on scripture, where someone else may have learn from another source, just as an example. where does killing become acceptable and where is it not, ie, war vs death penalty vs abortion. We scrutinize the technical aspects of each and rationalize according to what has influenced us, and none is willing to concede that the other maybe right.
My tour in Bosnia took place at the same time that the scandal with Clinton was occuring. I was dealing with Serbs who felt it ok to kill whole villages and could not accept a moral judgement from a leader who appeared to be morally corrupt. This was a difficult task that was compounded by the actions of my president no matter how apparently unassociated the two actions were, his behavior had a very negative effect one those attempting to keep the peace.
I don't expect any leader to be perfect, humans aren't perfect, but I do expect that a leader will do the best job possible without bringing his/ her integrity and in turn the subordinates under question.
Don't forget that Newt Gingrich was the one who started the whole "family values" witchhunt, or am I wrong? If someone is going to throw rocks, he should know that people are going to throw rocks back at him.
I don't think that Clinton or Gingrich should have been removed from office for cheating on their respective spouses, just not reelected. I think that once someone is voted into office, you have to put up with them until either the next election or until they do something illegal in which case they should be removed from office (as in impeached). Sure, Clinton lied about sex, but don't forget he also lied (under oath)about having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. Any general in the army could lose their job for that and in many corporations, the same thing could happen to a manager who has such a relationship with an employee.
It is still prosecutable under U.C.M.J.
As for the rest of the country, as I said, I'm not sure.
I would venture to guess that as in all cases where breach of contract occurs,it is a legal infringement that potentially could result in legal actions. Illegal, I don't know.
I think Clinton's defense hinged on one's definition of 'sex'. There is no legal definition of "sex". Some define "sex" as an act of procreation in which pregnancy can result. No-one ever accused Clinton of having coitus with Monica. Many don't consider fellatio to be 'sex' because it can not result in pregnancy or the legal and social consequences of pregnancy. So when Clinton said he didn't have 'sexual relations' with Monica, there are those who would agree.
On linda Tripp's tapes of Monica, where monica didn't know she was being recorded, Tripp kept trying to get Monica to say that she had sex/sexual relations/something like that) with Clinton and MOnica keps saying "no we just fooled around."
She was legal and she was naked, but she had a job that was a "public eye" job and she had a contract with her employer that allowed the employer to fire her for doing what she did. I even think it possible she was trying to get fired for publicity or to sue.
Okay let's suppose that someone gets hired as a newscaster and when they are hired, one of the contractual terms to which they agree is that they will not do anything that might harm the reputation of their employer, even if the act is not illegal. Let us say that newscaster is later exposed as a member of a racist organization. This would undoubtedly hurt the ratings of the station where they work. Do you believe they do not have the right to fire that person even though they agreed not to do anything that might hurt the reputation of their employer?
If this newscaster were instead a plumber, electrician, accountant, etc, then perhaps the aforementioned activity or association would be easier to conceal and not as likely to cause problems for an employer, but what about jobs that put a person in the public eye?
I understand the Playboy channel actually has a newscast where the reporters (attractive young women, ofcourse) are nude. In fact, it's called "The Naked News". I think there is a simular thing on the internet too.
i agree that bosley shouldn't be fired for just being shirtless. but dancing on stage provocatively and teasing with her breasts is percieved by most to be almost as sexual as a man doing the "rope dance".
I didn't know what it was either until Peter told me about one of the morning radio DJ's talking once about one of their college buddies performing this move at a party back when. What made it interesting to us was that the buddy just happened to be the principal at our high school! Yikes! Too much information. (I had to ask Peter what rope dance was too).
I think if Ms. Bosley had merely been topfree at a beach, she would not have attracted attention, but she attracted attention because by entering a wet t-shirt contest, she was saying "hey, look at me".
It reminds me of a story I saw on tv a couple of years ago about a female college student (in California) who worked at a topless bar to put herself through school. One night, some male students from the same school visited the topless bar and recognized her as a fellow student athlete. Of course, they told everyone they knew at school and the "news" got to the people who run the athletics programs. The student was "fired" from athletics for giving the school a bad image. While she worked at the topless bar, she did not wear any team clothing or identify herself as a student of that college or a student athlete, so how could she possibly be giving the school, the team, etc, a bad image? And what of the male students who frequented the topless bar? If the exotic dancer/athlete was giving the team a band image by performing, wouldn't the male students be equally guilty for being present there? I don't know if any of them were wearing the team colors.
The female student was not kicked out of school, just the team. I know there is one public college in California that has recently had several student athletes who have criminal records, and those athletes were recruited for athletics despite criminal records, some involving violent crimes. I definitely see that something is very wrong, men being treated one way, women in another.
In the case of the female newscaster, she probably has little legal recourse since she signed a contract in which she agreed that her employer could fire her for doing something that might be considered controversial.
If instead of the wet t-shirt contest, she had taken part in a PETA demonstration or an anti-war (or even pro-war) demonstration, I think she would also have been fired. I don't think it was so much for what she did, but for the publicity that might be generated and that the publicity would be perceived to be a bad type of publicity.
Well as I understand it, she was on her vacation hundreds of miles from home. I'm sure she was not displaying her name let alone her employer's, and she assume that no one there would even know who she was, let alone be taking pictures and posting them on the internet.
Orwell's time has come- individual freedom and privacy are over- you are now a pawn of society and will henceforth march in step. Big brother(s) will be watching to see that you do.
Sorry if I've lead too sheltered a life, but do wet t-shirt contests always lead to total nakedness?
And...is that what implants in breasts look like?
And...If I were to go to the public pool being just a lowly school bus driver, and I were to be topfree there, and someone were to see me...say, one of my students! and word got back to my school board, director, superintendant, whatever...you suppose I'd get fired too? Even though it is legal for me to do this here in Austin...
>*Sorry if I've lead too sheltered a life, but do wet t-shirt contests always lead to total nakedness?*
Not necessarily- but it often does.
>*And...If I were to go to the public pool being just a lowly school bus driver, and I were to be topfree there, and someone were to see me...say, one of my students! and word got back to my school board, director, superintendant, whatever...you suppose I'd get fired too? Even though it is legal for me to do this here in Austin..*.
Well I don't know- but anyone who works with children are at increased risk I think.
>*And...is that what implants in breasts look like?*
Well it depends on how big they are and the skill of the surgeon. Most women get some that are just to big, and they don't look natural- especially when they have their arms raised. Look below- it was taken from the Catherine Bosley photos above.
Notice how it just doesn't look right- too rounded at the top and sides. Looks like a ball under the skin.
Any future topfree experiences I try to have in public places will have to be carefully designed, because of my "job".
Yes, these implants look like they might be about to pop. I've never seen augmented breasts without a top of some sort before. I can usually tell though, even with the top. They have a ridge across the top that natural breasts don't have. Hummm, now I don't feel so bad about the way my natural pair look.
Well I wouldn't universally condemn implants, if done right they can look pretty good- they work best for older women who have lost breast tissue from age or nursing and have droopy breasts. Then the implant is just replace the lost adipose tissue that was originally there filling out the natural contour of the breasts and that looks pretty natural. But as I say- most women get implants that are just too big for the tissue thats there so everything looks stretched and unnatural.
"Sorry if I've lead too sheltered a life, but do wet t-shirt contests always lead to total nakedness?"
Not always but they are really just an excuse to show as much skin as possible. Exactly how far it goes depends on the inhibitions of the participents and the legality of where it's happening.
I was in one in Cancun (guess that means I can never be a TV newscaster if a video of it ever shoes up) where most of us did get naked before it was all over. I actually lost my chance of winning when two girls basically started giving eachother oral sex right on stage. I had fun playing around on stage dancing and being sexy with the other girls on stage but I wasn't going that far.
I've also been in clubs here in Atlanta where flashing is tolerated but taking shirst compleatly off will result in the bouncer telling you to put in back on, because they are worried of getting trouble wiht the law.
Michaela, I think that is a different situation because you don't have a public eye job. I think if you went topfree at the beach, you should not be fired, but reality is something else and I think if your employer and esp if the school board got wind of it, you would be fired.
As literate as you appear to be I would have assumed ( I know a bad thing to do) that your ability to discern the uniformed individual that takes an oath for their position and one that is simply wearing it for utilitarian reasons, and nothing more.
Michaela was employed several years with the district before the implimentation of a "uniform" policy.
Assume nothing about what I really believe from what I write...
"to discern the uniformed individual that takes an oath for their position and one that is simply wearing it for utilitarian reasons, and nothing more."
I suppose it depends on what you consider to be an "oath". I expect there's a contract involved in most employment - a pledge to uphold certain rules or follow requirements, in exchange for the same from the other party.
And in the case of a school bus driver, there is certainly a responsibility that goes beyond the written word. After all, there are children entrusted to her care, and she'd be expected to go beyond what the work rules say in the event of an emergency, if the lives of the children were at stake - as well as being trusted to be with children alone and unsupervised. It's not hard to imagine someone in that position with questionable motives being able to strike up a friendship with a child which extends outside of the job, and then in that outside situation takes advantage of that child's trust or inexperience.
If she engages in activities which would make people believe she could do something like that (not on work time), isn't that a violation of the trust required for her position?
Is that really "just a job", and not very important?
If it's important to trust her at work, isn't it important to trust her off work as well? Meaning, regulate her personal life? Nothing major - only prohibit her from doing clearly wrong and inappropriate things. That's only a problem if she wanted to do wrong and inappropriate things, right? If she's really trustworthy, she wouldn't be doing those things anyway. So there's absolutely no reason to oppose certain things that everyone agrees show questionable morality...
i know that you all are probably tired of hearing me bring this up again. i've repeated it maybe too much but i think the situation with bosley is a good example.
i'm sure everyone here has seen the pics posted by observer. now when looking at the expression on bosley's face in the pics, does it look like she's oppressed, degraded, humiliated, or feel bad in any way at the sexualization of her breasts? do you think that she wishes to have a chest like a man so that it won't be made a big deal of?
i believe that an overwhelming majority of womens' attitude of their breasts the same as bosley; they enjoy it. they may not always do what bosley did, but they have fun in different ways.
Elijah said...<do you think that she wishes to have a chest like a man so that it won't be made a big deal of?>
NONE of the ladies here, or the men too, have ever said that we wish we had chests like a man! We are very happy with our female "chests", but want to have the right like men to be able to go without shirts/bras without being arrested or harassed.
women can't have topfreedom and complete brafreedom and have the benefits of their breasts which bosley enjoyed that night. i think that women have chosen the latter to be more in accord with their self-interest; the benefit outweighs the cost.
i bring this up because i think that if one wishes to spread the topfreedom ideology, they have to recognize this and work with it.
on a slightly different topic, i read that there are currently more women pursuing higher education than men. also, the gap in pay between the sexes is lessening. i believe that if this trend continue, women won't feel the need to use the sexualization of their breasts too much as that they will be more occupied in productive endevours. and when the cost of having sexualized breast, in terms of restrictions and comfort, outweighs the benifits, teasing, seducing, and eliciting reactions from men, then women will welcome the topfreedom movement.
so i think that we are on our way, but the majority of women have to agree on it first.
I think you may have a point there in that if the playing field has been leveled as far as equality in the financial/ business aspect of a womans life the need to use her physical attributes will diminish because she will have accoplished what she wants with her intellect. Am I tracking?
i noticed that eventhough physical size and strength makes the difference in deciding who's dominant (male) in most species, it is applying to a constantly lesser extent among humans.
and this is only a recent event. througout most of human history, dominance depended on muscularity. someone with more muscles could be more productive, offer more protection, hunt easier, etc. so women had no chance of being equal to men.
but these days, with machines doing physical work, humans depend on their intellect. so now, the playing field between the genders is equal. men no longer have the natural advantage. lol
i believe that in the future, women won't have to use sexuality to get the food that they needed men to hunt for or money from the physical labor that men do easier, etc. it could be a huge milestone is social human evolution because we've been doing this for millions of years and it will take hundreds of thousands of years to get rid of the insticts--biologically--we all have that support the "old way" of gender roles.
I just wanted to point out that I read your response and that I believe that you have made some logical deductions...thanks for thinking "outside the box"! I appreciate that - it gave me an different angle to think about!
I hate to burst your bubble but we males are far more expendable than females. Today It is perfectly possible to have a all-female society propagated by sperm banks and cloning. But we are a long way from being able to maintain a all-male society.
Ofcourse, without males there would probably be no football or wars. Hmmmmm.
i don't think that we will have a matriarchal society, just an equal one. there is nothing preventing men from competing intellectually.
women have more connections between the two hemispheres of the brain. so it means that they're more creative and in-touch with their emotions. they can express what they feel better. but since the hemispheres of mens' brains have less connections between them, men are more visual, focused, and have better spacial ability. so men are better engineers, mathematicians, and are able to think in concepts easier than women.
so there'll be an equal society.
but what about our instincts which were developed through millions of years of evolution in response to adapting to our enviroment? men have the instinct to be dominant and women to be submissive. that worked best in the past primitive enviroment.
this is where i think it'll be interesting to see what happens. we all wont feel right even though objectively things are working out fine. men won't "feel like a man" and women won't feel femine if the genders are equal.
i know women who are powerful in their careers but still display submissive traits when around their man. i'm 23 and just started seeing a 32 yr old woman who is partner is a marketing firm. but when we're together, she acts submissive in certain ways, having me make decisions and all.
I know of no job today that a woman can not do- and probably does do.
True, there are jobs that men are as a rule better at- but there are also many exceptions and there are some very good women doctors, lawyers, engineers, cops, firefighters, truck drivers, etc, etc.
if you were trapped in a burning building, would you feel comfortable knowing that a woman is going to knock down doors with her shoulders and carry you to safety?
men also have better spacial ability. that's why eventhough men are less safe drivers, because of their aggressiveness, they are better at manuvering vehicles for stuff like parking in a tight spot. it takes considerable amount of spatial ability to manuver a 16-wheeler. with all these exceptions, there are exceptions.
because of increased connections between both hemispheres of the brain, women are better communicators, which should make them better lawyers.
has anyone seen the video of the female officer who was beaten-up at a routine trafic stop cause the driver had warrants. even though cops have training in fighting, the size difference between the genders is a bigger factor.
doctors, equal chance. engineers, spatial ability. there are very very few women engineers cause of that.
this is a good thing cause it's beneficial when people specialize. everyone wins doing what they do best.
i've been reading women authors lately on my free time--like anne rice, ayn rand--and i think they're just as good or even better than males.
Well I know women who I think are just as capable as any man I know. And speaking of your lady cop- there wouldn't have to be very many if there are no men since 90% of all crimes are committed by men. Nor would we need a military since it's men who start the wars. Obviously a primative breed.
And I once backed a 38 foot tow behind trailer out of an RV park full of trees after it was found that there was no way to get through in the forward direction. And this was in the dark, no less! Around corners, too! I won't say who drove it in there. Elijah, can you parallel park a school bus? I can, and with a driving test examiner watching me. (was there enough boast and testosterone in this post for ya?)
i did mention that with all the examples i gave, there are exceptions. about you operating a big vehicle, you are the exception.
very few people are completely masculine or completely feminine. that trait about you is a masculine trait cause it's not common with women. just like--not to brag--but i think that i'm a good listener, which is somewhat a feminine trait. in this trait, i'm the exception to most men.
You don't need to go any further - you're guilty right there of interpreting a generalization as an absolute. The best you can say is that "most" men have better spacial perception than "most" women - but it is also true that a particular woman who has better spacial perception than a particular man, still has better spacial perception than that particular man, regardless of any other man or woman's ability. By definition.
I take it that you're interested in biology in an amateur fashion. Professional biologists need to learn and understand statistical analysis, which explain mathematically exactly when generalizations can reveal valid conclusions, and when they can't.
It less often than you seem to think, based on your arguments.
i'm a economics major so i understand statistical analysis and math pretty well. i'd like to think that i apply it accurately in stuff i read and say on this board.
i did not state a generalization as an absolute. i mentioned that the examples i gave were mostly true; i didn't say they were always. i also mentioned that there were execptions to all my examples. if what i said was true for more than 50% of men or women, then what i said is correct. but in reality, the number is way more than 50%.
about the amateur biologist,... you're right about that.
I have seen women like that and I have observed that some of the ones that are married allow their husbands to think they are in charge and they also make it appear to everyone that the husband is in charge, but if one observes closely, it is apparent the woman is the boss.
i noticed that women are the decision makers in older couples. i also noticed that teenage girls are most submissive and they look for dangerous guys.
i believe it's cause of hormones. when young girls have lots of female hormones, estrogen and something else, they are submisive in ways that they put up with abusive guys and all. all the female hormone makes them have nice figures, perky breast, desire to get pregnant, and seek dangerous guys.
then from 25-menopause, it lessens. after menopause, when the ratio of estrogen to testosterone is at it's lowest, women become assertive and bold. this stage is when they become the decision makers in the relationship. the opposite happens for men. older men become mellower due to lesser testosterone, which welcomes the female to be the boss of the relationship. anyone notice this in older couples? unfortunately, this stage is also when women get hair on their upper lip. :-|
"i'm 23 and just started seeing a 32 yr old woman who is partner is a marketing firm. but when we're together, she acts submissive in certain ways, having me make decisions and all."
You may be misinterpreting her motivations here. For example, a woman may want a man to make certain decisions simply as a relief from having to do it herself - you deciding things is a service to her. Or, she may be observing what your decisions are, to better understand (or judge) your personality. Or how much you love her. Or understand her. Or she might feel that it's a bit of freedom she can give to you, to make you feel better.
There are many more possibilities - human minds are nearly infinitely varied in thoughts and motivation.
"You may be misinterpreting her motivations here. ..."
i've been that way with all my girls. teenage girls love it. past 25, i ease up slighly.
she doesn't ask me to make decisions or set out opportunities for it, and it's not something i thought much about until i read about animals and realized that by leading women, during dates and all, i was acting like an animal.
"human minds are nearly infinitely varied in thoughts and motivation."
i disagree with this statement. i believe that human minds are predictable--in a statistical manner, not individually though.
i understand that what i say is politically incorrect and it goes against feminists' view. i take it a lot on this board are feminists, especially nat, who seems like he'd be estatic when the women take over. i don't expect people here to read up on what i say cause it may not be their interest, but try to watch the discovery channel or national geographic specials on tv once in awhile.
all mammals are made up of similar things--two eyes, nose, four feet (or two hands), mammary glands, etc. and we behave similarly also.
let's look at primates, our closest animal relatives--genetically speaking. they display gender roles and behaviors in mating that humans have been doing since recorded history. do you think it's a coincidence? many say that we are "better" than animals, but history has shown that we have the potential to be but haven't consistently displayed it.
many years ago, my friends and i were at the park and happened to see rabbits mating. the male chases after the female, violently catches her and holds her down. the female manages to wriggle out. he chases again. grabs her tighter. this happens a few times. finally she submits and lets him have her.
and since rape in unnatural, because contradicts natural selection-- a female has to select a genetically fit male--i think that display of dominance and submisiveness was a mating ritual, just like a successful human date. i think that the female rabbit wanted the male to be dominant to show that he was worthy of spreading his genes through her.
was the male rabbit a chauvanist? should there be feminist rabbits making things "right"?
basically, we've been doing certain things since we can remember, and animals still do it, so it must be natural.
The main thing that differentiates us (homo sapiens)from the rest of the animal world is that we are rational. In this we are able to overcome those "traits" and learn/ train ourselves to behave differently from the animal world.
Those behaviors, dominiation, has been for the most part trained out of the picture, and that which is left is that which we struggle with today, and eventually that will be taken care of as well.
We have the potential and ability to mold ourselves to fit in what ever environment we create or simply find ourselves.
I am pretty sure that if I had chased Michaela down and tackled her THREE times and mounted her, I would be in prison! Not a behavior acceptable in society , WHY, because we are RATIONAL.
well, duh. and besides, i don't think that i am a chauvanist. i'd like to think that i, in a respectful way, understand the differences between men and women.
many species can be trained to go against their instincts: circus animals, the tigers or sigfried & roy, pets, etc.
but going against ones' instinct creates stress on an organism. for examples, i sit in front of couple computers all day. when i'm not doing that, i sit in a classroom. when not doing those, i sit at my table studying. eventhough i can do those things, they stress me out, like how a circus animal feels when he has to perform.
but when i mate, or am getting ready to, i don't want to do what i'm "supposed" to; i want to follow my instincts and women i've been with appreciate but won't say so because they've been taught by society--specifically feminist and christian ideology--not to admit to themselves that they enjoy it.
survey: this is kinda personal, but how many women here like it when a man takes control in the bedroom? how many prefer the women to take control?
i believe that we have socially evolved, but not yet physically (or nuerologically).
we didn't have close to enough time to evolve into the enviroment we're currently in. eventually, people who think like you guys think i think will be weeded out, but not for hundreds of thousands of years. it takes a species our size that long.
the intellectual demanded enviroment, which i talked about earlier, where men and women are at a level playing field, is very recent. before the intellectual society, dominance depended on physical attributes, which put men at an advantage in getting food, building houses, and obtaining all kinds of resources. so it was beneficial for women to look for men who display traits of dominance.
homo sapiens have been living in that society for 1/2 million yrs. different homos have been around for 2-3 million yrs before that. this is where our instincts came from.
our brains are still configured to live in the primitive society. for example, humans can deal with numbers in millions, but we can't conceptualize it. we can conceptualize what 10 or 20 apples are, but no one can conceptualize (or picture) what 1 millions apples is.
the configuration or our brains came from a time when we didn't need to. same with gender roles. our instincts may no longer needed, but written history has shown that humans are yet to not be subjected to their influence.
anyone listen to rap music? hear how men talk about women? politically, it's degrading to women. but so is the way the male rabbit treats the female. so, we haven't completely--or even a little bit--evolved yet and we all got a little bit of that rabbit in us.
>anyone listen to rap music? hear how men talk about women? politically, it's degrading to women. but so is the way the male rabbit treats the female. so, we haven't completely--or even a little bit--evolved yet and we all got a little bit of that rabbit in us.<
It's interesting that you make that observation. I have made that very same observation about rap music and how it shows that some people have not evolved much. I swear, people, I am not Elijah
Are you saying though, that social evolution means nothing? I think it shows that to some extent, we are capable of being more than the sum of our genes.
rap music has become very mainstream lately. for the most part in america, it's appeal trancends race, gender, age, etc. pretty much, it means that people can relate to it.
have you heard the song by a male rapper with the hook sung by a female and goes something like this: "spank me choke me pull my hair...." sounds like it could be the soundtrack on national geographic when the rabbits mate.
but it's funny though, women as well as men liked that song--especially young, high-school aged girls. go figure.
this shows my point how we can go against our instincts. i never said we couldn't. our social evolution is an example of it. but when we're off our guard, excited, in stressful situations, etc, our instincts are there and they come out.
""You may be misinterpreting her motivations here. ..."
i've been that way with all my girls. teenage girls love it. past 25, i ease up slighly. "
You're still only observing effect, you're making a conclusion about the motivation (or measuring the observations against your hypothesis, but even when observations fit, you have to be aware that the hypothesis may still be wrong, or correct but incomplete).
"she doesn't ask me to make decisions or set out opportunities for it, and it's not something i thought much about until i read about animals and realized that by leading women, during dates and all, i was acting like an animal."
Just don't get too inflexible in your comparisons. And I don't think I said she asked you (many women take pride in having a lot of ways to get what they want indirectly).
Although on that topic, you might like to read "Anatomy of Love" by Helen Fisher (actually anyone here might want to). Humans are driven by instinct a lot more than most people like to think, though I think a lot less directly than you seem to think).
""human minds are nearly infinitely varied in thoughts and motivation."
i disagree with this statement. i believe that human minds are predictable--in a statistical manner, not individually though."
Well, my statement was about individuals (hence "minds" as a definite object). You can't explain how the subjects of "America's Dumbest Criminals" are of the same species as Pope John Paul II otherwise.