Re: City Council on Public Nudity

[Don Kaag <dkaag@turbonet.com>]

Pam:

Speaking as someone who has spent almost 9 years living in places like 
Europe, Japan and the Pacific Rim, I have often been amused, bemused and 
embarrassed by most Americans' incredible self-conscious  antipathy to 
the human body and its public display.

We Americans look like bumpkin country jakes to most of the civilized 
world because of our antiquated blue laws and our Puritan distaste for 
the public display what is supposed to be the acme of God's handiwork.  
I have followed with bemusement the hooraw over the topless car wash and 
its byplay on Vision 2020 and in the local newspaper.  And then the City 
Council, falling into an unpurposely laid trap, actually passed its 
anti-breast ordinance, which I am told is more stringent than Idaho 
Falls' and Pocatello's!  What a joke.

Has the Council ever considered the concept of "benevolent neglect"?  
Left  alone, even with the "worst" of intentions (Although I salute them 
for figuring out an innovative way to make the rent payment in lean 
financial times.), the ladies operating the topless car wash would have 
packed it in when cold weather hit and the issue would have receded into 
obscurity.  Now the Council, in its infinite shortsightedness, has 
created a "cause celebe" for the liberal (and, I suspect, also the 
common-sense element of both political persuasions...) of Moscow's 
population.  Just wait until the college population returns and gets 
wind of this fiasco.  We have been parodied in the regional and the 
national press.  So much for the laid-back ambience of a university 
town.  Break out the blue stockings.

And now, questioned about the ordnance making bikini tops illegal 
apparel, the Council simply states that the local police will not arrest 
women and girls wearing bikini tops, regardless of the wording of the 
new law.  Yippee skippy---yet another local law left unenforced at 
police discretion.  Concerned about the long-term ill effects of teenage 
smoking, I once asked the local constables why they didn't enforce 
underage smoking laws.  The reply was that they chose not to because 
they had more important things to do, and it was a "too-hard".  I 
pointed out to them that the Legislature and local government bodies got 
to pass laws which the law enforcement authorities swore an oath to 
uphold, and that if the solons wanted the law unenforced, they would 
rescind it.  I got a blank stare.

As someone who has taught U.S. Government, and has tried to inculcate a 
respect for law, and tried to explain the validity of the body politic 
passing curtailments of individual liberties for the public good as part 
of the social contract, I would be hard put to it to explain this latest 
fiasco.

Who is injured by a topless car wash?  Juvenile boys?  Most of them 
don't have cars, and those that do generally wash them themselves.  If 
they want to look at wet, comely, maidens in very scanty apparel, they 
have but to pony up the $4.50 to hit the local swimming hole, which is 
cheaper than the car wash, and you can also use the water slide.  Have 
you looked at the internet lately?  Pruriency abounds.  And how does the 
local City Council presume to rule on the simple display of the upper 
portion of the female human body being lewd or obscene?

This has gone from amusing to pathetic.

Regards,

Don Kaag

On Monday, July 15, 2002, at 11:11 PM, Pam Palmer wrote:

> Visionaries-
>
> For those of you who missed the City Council meeting tonight, the 
> Council
> passed (5-1) a new ordinance defining public nudity.  If there are any 
> typos
> in the following, perhaps a City Council member will post the official
> ordinance, along with the ten "Whereas" statements that precede Section 
> 1.
>
> This afternoon, at the Administrative Committee meeting, when it was 
> pointed
> out that this new ordinance would make many bikini tops illegal to wear 
> in
> public, the Chairman of the committee said something like:  "Why would a
> police officer write a ticket to someone who has on a bikini top?"
>
> There should be news coverage of the Council's decision on KLEW-TV, as 
> well
> as several area newspapers that were at the Council meeting.
>
> Pam Palmer
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
> MOSCOW, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS:
>
> SECTION 1:  That Moscow City Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 16 be, 
> and
> the same is hereby amended as follows:
>
> Sec. 1-16.   Public Nudity.
>
>
> A.  Definitions:
>
> 1. "Pubescent or postpubescent female breast."  This shall include the
> entire breast once a female begins puberty and continuing throughout her
> adult life, but shall not include any portion of breast cleavage.
>
> 2. "Breast cleavage."  The middle depression or furrow between 
> pubescent or
> postpubescent female breasts.  The nipple, the entire areola, and the 
> area
> contiguous to the areola including the cleft between the breast and the 
> body
> below the areola which extends upward toward the arm or underarm is not
> considered cleavage and is meant to be covered by an opaque covering.
>
> 3. "Opaque."  Material which is not transparent or translucent.  Body 
> paint,
> body dyes, tattoos, liquid latex whether wet or dried, and similar
> substances shall not be considered opaque covering.
>
> B.  No person shall willfully expose to view or fail to cover 
> completely and
> opaquely any portion of such person's anus, cleft of the buttocks, 
> genitals,
> and the pubescent or postpubescent female breast on or in any public 
> place
> open to public view.
>
> C.  Exposure of any portion of a female's breast while she is in the 
> act of
> breastfeeding a baby is not a violation of this Section.
>
> D.  This Section shall not apply to a person who is prepubescent.
>