Poor Linda Meyer. She just isn’t the best spokesperson for mammary activists.
Meyer, who champions the right for women to bare their breasts in public, recently wrote the Vancouver Province telling them that "by publishing male nipples and refusing to publish mine, your newspaper is violating Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Then she threatened to report them to the Human Rights Commission if the newspaper continued to refuse. Which begs the question: since when do any of us have the right to have our picture in the Province?
Unfortunately, social conservatives, dismissing Meyer for the crazy exhibitionist she is, think they’re actually right. They use her diatribes as proof that they have the right to cover the female nipple.
Why do they think breasts should be covered? When Linda asks why the Province publishes male, but not female nipples, it’s parent publication, the National Post answers, "how about because female nipples are a sexual organ?" Ah, I see. So a woman who loses both her breasts cannot have children?
Breasts are not a sexual organ. Social conservatives, such as the editors of the National Post, just try to use the stuffy, clinical term "sexual organ" so that they don’t have to admit to the real, and embarrassing, reason why they want female breasts covered: seeing boobies gives them a warm feeling between their legs that makes them feel uncomfortable.
Breasts aren’t the only things that arouse. I happen to find navels, the part of the body were the neck and shoulder meet, and even legs more attractive than breasts. Just because something arouses doesn’t automatically mean it should be covered. If a line is to be drawn between what should and should not be covered, why is it different for men and women?
There are times when not wearing a shirt is inappropriate for both women and men. But if there’s a time when it’s appropriate for men to expose their nipples, there is no reason for women to be forced to keep theirs covered.
Not only don’t they want to look at breasts, but they don’t want anyone else to either. Social conservatives, party-poopers that they are, are just doing their part in trying to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives: no sex; no gambling; no drinking; and get a haircut while you’re at it. If you live your life differently from them, you are just plain wrong, my friend.
Uncovered breasts aren’t going to destroy our social fabric. They aren’t going to create a generation of sociopaths. Bad parenting creates sociopaths, not bare breasts. We seem to get along exposing most of our bodies at pools and beaches without destroying a social fabric.
Perhaps the best reason to keep breasts covered is so that we can be spared from seeing Meyer but since when do we force ugliness to be covered? Ugly, flabby men mow their lawn bare chested; Alexa McDonough goes through life without having to wear a balaclava; and we let Ricky Martin make music.
Life would be horrible if we all go to enforce our own aesthetics on the rest of the world. Which would you prefer: being told what to wear, listen to and see, or just look away when you see something ugly?
For more information, e-mail the Students for a Bare Breasted Campus at [email protected].