Gotopless.org - a new Raelan Revelation

TOP
by tonyapts

GoTopless We are a US organization, claiming that women have the same constitutional right to be bare chested in public places as men.

Maitreya, Rael, spiritual leader and founder of goTopless.org states: "as long as men can be topless, constitutionally women should have the same right, or men should also be forced to wear something hiding their chest."

I must give credit where credit is due; the Raelians have done something worth doing, and are taking heat for doing it. From where? Well, it's not from where you might expect... it's from Terribly Serious Nudists, who grump about how the Raeliens are causing people to take this issue less seriously than it should be taken.

Well, frankly, naked people who wish to be Taken Seriously should put some clothes on. That is what clothes are for. They convey status and social position. They indicate rank and station. They hide our flaws and scars and pot bellies, while allowing us to not look at things that might give us woodies or wide-ons, which would surely be seen if we were... well, it's a circular observation, ain't it?

Personally, I can't imagine why one would wish to pretend that being naked could be divorced from human sexuality, or for that matter, why that would sound like a good idea in the first place. "Grimly Naked" just sounds... not fun. And chilly.

Look, this is a very simple idea. If looking at another human being bothers you, don't look. "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out," the Bible advises. Not "beat the woman until she puts on a burkah." Thine woodie is thine OWN issue. Cut it off or whack it off, whatever you need to do to maintain an even strain within a civil society, but don't put your issues where they don't belong. That is the essential ethical point behind this struggle, and a bit of whimsy does make the point go down better.

And frankly, only those already discounted by the mainstream could afford to do something this courageously, conspicuously, subversively ridiculous. The various nudist and naturist associations might think they deserve to be taken more seriously, a point that is beside the point. It's rare that they are considered or consulted or indeed, thought about. Meanwhile, the Raelians got behind the cause and jiggled.

And lo, it was seen that it was fun to watch, and nobody died.

This is a core liberties issue. I'm more than willing to - urm - support this cause and not merely because I like boobies. After all, this is not about asserting the right to show off a nice pair.

There are entire industries devoted to that, after all. No, this is about equality, and the right to bear your chest, regardless of whether or not one could get paid, or at least tossed a string of beads.

It is a matter of equal rights; the sight of breasts cannot be argued to be harmful to anyone, and if the thinking of those offended argues otherwise, that it justifies bad behavior, let us look to the Blackletter law, that those who commit violent acts are the ones who are justly held accountable.

Even if there are boobs wagging about, violent tantrums are NOT permissible.

However, as an artist and aesthete, I do hope it's a right that is exercised with some discretion. I may hope - but I have not RIGHT to demand it. That simple understanding, recognized in law, is the entire point to the exercise. Equality under the law.

And of course this:

"Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense!
Our template driven Go Topless T-Shirt by webcarve is designed to be modified, to celebrate your own subversive experience - and it can also be used to fundraise for an upcoming event in your town next year. An excellent idea, methinks. There are substantial discounts for bulk orders. :) Permalink to full story.

Voyeur, meet Exhibitionist.

HIGH LINE'S STANDARD HOTEL DRAWS VISITORS AS GUESTS POSE NAKED IN WINDOWS - New York Post H/T The Daily Beast

Make of this what you will; for me, the interesting thing is that the Post has dropped any pretense of disapproval. This sort of tabloid used to be driven by faux outrage; long-lens nippleslippages presented as proof of how very very decadent and evil "those people" were. But perhaps several years of dedicated, uppercase Faux outrage has made the lowercase hyporcacy seem a tad retro.

Now, they seem willing to admit that they like boobies and expect their readers do as well. I concur. Boobies are fun.

More people are flocking to the High Line's Standard hotel as word spreads of X-rated sights like these gals cavorting behind floor-to-ceiling windows.

The city might want to rename its newest park the "Thigh Line."

Thrill-seekers yesterday flocked to the Meatpacking District's newly christened High Line urban paradise to catch a glimpse of the free skin show playing out in the massive windows at The Standard hotel, which straddles the park.

I must say, The Post treated this in a classier way than one would expect. This hotel, with all that cavorting, and nothing whatsoever was made of the fact that it's in the "Meatpacking District" or that the hotel is clearly visible from a city park built on the former "Elevated Line."

Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink, Know What I Mean?

I presume that Benny Hill is no longer on the Editorial Board. Permalink to full story.

Graphictruth: Don't Piss on the Crazy Bush

Any discussion of any topic of any importance (say, human trafficking and slavery) will be degraded into incoherence by dealing with the sort of people who insist on their right to be heard because of what the insects in their heads tell them is Too Important To Be Ignored.

This advice does not merely apply to such people speaking out against you. It's far more humiliating to have such people thinking they have a place in your "posse."

Crossposted from Graphictruth.




The thing about us cosmopolitan elitists is that we have learned that taking crazy people seriously can make you crazy. They USED to teach people in Journo 101 that you don't give credence to the incredible.

It is fun at times to ridicule the ridiculous - but some things are so fucking INHERENTLY ridiculous that pointing it out amounts to insulting the intelligence of any audience worth having.

Rick Perlstein -- Birthers, Health Care Hecklers and the Rise of Right-Wing Rage - washingtonpost.com: "So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are 'either' the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests."

Never mind watering the Tree of Liberty. Stop pissing on the Crazy Bush!




That's how you deal with crazy people. You firmly tell them that the shit in their heads is their shit, and they have to own it.


At the very least, before inviting others into the private regions of your head, you should pick up the trash and do the laundry. There's a perfect example of that right here.



People who behave like that in public should be treated in the same way as a five year old who has yet to learn that public masturbation is inappropriate.

Renegade Evolution quotes the crazy in full, and mistakenly attempts to respond to the crazy as if she were talking to a rational person who was attacking her for sane, if malicious reasons. A mistake, I fear. I have a stock t-shirt for just such occasions.

While it may have worth citing as a textbook example of disastrously flawed rhetoric or to feature as an example of what happens when you roll a double zero on your critical thinking skill table, one only had to read three paragraphs down to realize that any deeper consideration would be entirely misplaced.

The signers of the letter say they are “members of the academic community.” The media quickly converted that into “50 professors.” In fact, quite a few are not full-time professors or administrators at these institutions; rather, some are adjunct faculty, graduate students, or retired. At least one signer seems to be an undergraduate.

You see, the nutball letter states that these persons who claim to be "members of the academic community" are, indeed, members of the academic community, precisely as they claimed. Citing that media has failed to correctly cite their credentials is not a valid criticism of the credentials they claim, if anything, it more firmly establishes their proper credentials - as representing the entire range of the academic community, that is to say, people who's primary qualification is to think about stuff and derive useful insights that may advise others who may, though no fault of their own, have less time to devote to such matters.

Such as, Margaret Brooks and Donna M. Huges of Citizens Against Trafficking the co-authors of the above paragraph.

See, having established that they cannot think, one may cease to be concerned with what they think regarding any appareant mutual concerns, because any response amounts to Pissing on the Crazy Bush.

Any discussion of any topic of any importance (say, human trafficking and slavery) will be degraded into incoherence by dealing with the sort of people who insist on their right to be heard because of what the insects in their heads tell them is Too Important To Be Ignored.

This advice does not merely apply to such people speaking out against you. It's far more humiliating to have such people thinking they have a place in your "posse."

It's like hearing "Chemtrails" in conversation - it's a signal to switch to meaningless small talk. Trust me, they will not notice the difference, and you won't feel the need to crotch-punch them, so it's a win-win.


Some things are so awesomely, majestically, comprehensively stupid as to be worthy of standing alone in all their awful majesty. I understand why Ren takes this nasty little screed personally, but she's mistaken in doing so.

It's not that I'm saying that she should "understand" their position. She shouldn't even try. You don't encourage people to rationalize a phobic response. You either accept it or you do not, and that reaction depends entirely upon whether the irrational spasms pose any danger.

Likewise, as a responsible person, you cope with your phobia or you do not, and arrange your life accordingly. A phobic has no reasonable expectation that people should accommodate their irrational fears, much less enable them in oppressing the people they are phobic about.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Well, then, stop DOING that!"

I may squish a spider in order to keep my wife's brains from leaking out of her head. I will not harm a person because she reacts to them in the same way; I'll take her to the mental health clinic. We both understand that distinction, and she would do the same for/to me. There is a limit to which reasonable people expect their irrationality to be accommodated.

Sane public policy cannot possibly accommodate all irrational fears and phobias, nor may it advantage personality disorders over civility and long persist. Government, along with every other human activity, cannot sacrifice outcome in the name of process.

Bring facts, bring reason, bring a coherent argument with, you know, facts and stuff, or stay home.

From this elitist bastard's perspective, you may just as well. I'm not going to waste precious, publicly funded photons on arguing with crazy.

(Should I forget, do feel free to remind me.)
Permalink to full story.

The Dreamwalkers Webcomix Universe

You probably know about Webcomix, and if you do, you probably already know about Drunkduck.com, which justly brags that it hosts more than 1500 webcomics. Heck, people who host their own comics on their own url MIRROR them on DD (as it's lovingly abbreviated), simply for all the luscious traffic and the benefits of community.

Well, I happen to have two comics underway that you might be interested in. It should come as no surprise that "23" and "Dreamwalkers" are entirely concerned with sex. Sex, and power. Sex, power, and what happens if you try and navigate between the two without a functional ethical compass.

As it happens, the "Dreamwalkers" universe is loosely based on personal shamanic experiences, with a whole bunch of the estoteric lore I've picked up over the years, levened with a hearty appreciation for BDSM and fetish illustrations. Further than that, well, that would spoil the story.

Dreamwalkers is frankly adult, while 23 shoots for a "mature" rating, while being more precisely called a "graphic novel."

I think you will enjoy them.

Permalink to full story.