Posts
Yakima, Washington (The Weekly Vice) -- The Yakima, Washington City Council is looking to "crack" down on thong underwear - hoping to curb the bounty of buttocks that seem to have pervaded civilized society.
With the increasing presence of bikini-clad coffee stand baristas, whale tale thongs, see through clothing and bra-free pokies, the city of Yakima hopes to pull the britches back up on "buttock cleavage."
The Yakima City Council approved minor changes to the city's indecent exposure ordinance Tuesday which prohibits see-through apparel and G-strings in public. The ordinance aims to outlaw what it has gently referred to as "cleavage of the buttocks."
The vote was passed by a margin of 5-2, using language it hopes will resist legal challenges.
A violation of the ordinance will now be adjudicated as a misdemeanor, subject to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. If a person exposes his/her buttocks to a person under 14 years of age, the violation becomes a gross misdemeanor punishable with up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Meanwhile, a parodox is emerging that has both dynamics of nudity traveling in opposite directions.
While some segments of society are increasingly clamping down on nudity - other forms of nudity are becoming more mainstream.
Take the Transportation Safety Administration's use of 'body scanners' which allow airport security personnel to see through clothing.
Introduced as a "voluntary alternative" to invasive pat downs during the secondary screening process, the TSA has now reversed course. Months ago it began testing millimeter-wave scanners that are designed to peek under the skirt of every passenger who would normally be required to pass through a metal detector.
According to TSA acting chief technology officer, Robin Kane, the department plans to use body scan screening devices INSTEAD of metal detectors at some 19 airports nationwide.
The plan is now that all passengers will "go through the whole-body imager instead of walk through metal detectors," Kane said.
The Weekly Vice Opinion:
While this article is not written to gripe, complain or fuss about how our society views nudity - it is interesting to note how our government responds to the naked bum when politics become involved.
In the two cases above - I think most people are far more opposed to being violated personally via a full-body scan as opposed to seeing an occasional thong at a bikini barista coffee stand.
Either way, it's another example of how voters are progressively losing a say in how their culture is shaped.
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://www.theweeklyvice.com
Have a great news article to share? Please share it in our new forums!
Join the discussion. Click comments link below and fire away!
12 comments:
yes because our government apprently has nothing more important to do than fine and jail people(wasting more tax money) over a pair of underwear. wtf is this world coming to? do people still get fined there for going commando?
These idiots were the same people who who made camel toes famous in the 70's and 80's.
Now that they're too old to compete for said "buttocks", they want to banish all reminders of their existence.
I dont think you reported this accurately.You reported the city has "banned thongs".That gave the impression of if you wore a thong at all that they could fine or arrest you.
I thought wow you can't do that but then when i read the article i found out that they had actually banned thongs being exposed in public ie:through sheer clothing and not banned people wearing thongs altogether.
I think this is a fair law.The difference is with the scanners the person is choosing that voluntarily whereas if i put on a thong and a sheer dress then people will be forced to see that whether "they like it or not"-theres nothing voluntary about it at all.
I like and have a nice bottom, but in life you have to be considerate of other people and understand that that might affect some people negatively and/or make them uncomfortable so just dressing like this gives those other people no choice in the matter and its like your selfishly saying "i'm going to do whatever i want, bad luck how it affects you,scr@w you" etc so that's not being considerate to others.
If you really want to go without clothes you can always go to a nudist colony or a clothing optional spa-that way there you can be as nude as you want but wont have a chance that it's affecting someone else negatively,making them uncomfortable or forcing your opinions onto them etc.
I could kinda understand it if it were just banning thongs when visible through clothing, but I get the impression it would include thongs that are exposed when wearing low-rider jeans and such. If this is the case, what about all these years we've been exposed to the plumber cracks and sagging? How is it fair to prohibit these things in women and not men? Will they be facing a fine and jail time if a child chances to see their naked hairy behind?
Also, iwinc, in the article, it is stating that in some places (with the body scans) it won't be a choice, subject yourself to a body scan or don't recieve the benfit of TSA's services. That, to me is a clear violation of a person's right. My mother is a devout Christian, she doesn't wear pants, she won't wear a bathing suit when there are men other than her husband present. I don't believe she would be able to bring herself to allow someone to see her in such a manner. It feels almost tantamount to a pubic strip search without cause for suspicion.
IDK, it's a topsy-turvy world we're living in.
iwink, the wording of the law indeed states that g-strings are prohibited in public. It doesn't go into great detail about defining what that means.
Now that doesn't mean you can't roam around your house in a thong. It doesn't mean you can't wear a thong under a skirt - so long as your skirt doesn't blow up.
It basically attacks the visibility of thongs - in a generalized way. Which also gives latitude to police.
If you walk around your house in a thong, yet a kid sees you through your window, they may be able to arrest you.
The phrase "public" doesn't always mean a public place.... It means viewable to the public as well.
Now as to your other point.
The TSA ORIGINALLY developed the body-scan technology with the promise that it would be an optional thing.
As I mentioned, this is no longer the case. 19 airports will have these machines instead of metal detectors - and if you want to get on an airplane, you will be required to walk through one.
No choice in the matter.
I'll bring up another issue. Look at the body-scan image above.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the image clearly shows something as subtle as a collar bone, yet the woman's vagina and nipples magically dissappear?
I think that image was photoshopped for public consumption.
I think these machines are far more revealing than the TSA wants to admit.
I can even see the impression of a belly button - yet no nipples or vagina? Pretty invasive if you ask me.
My whole point of comparing the two situations is to not pass judgement. Personally, I don't want to see anyones underwear.
The idea was to compare and reflect. I leave the article in a question, so you can make the decision for yourself.
To Laura T.
I agree with you about if your thong shows accidently when you've got low rider jeans on etc that it would'nt be fair to fine people and i really hope thats not what they mean/what they'd be doing.It should only be for seethrough clothing because like you said it wouldn't be fair to punish people/women for what happens accidently & what about plumbers buttcracks-although i do think they should be outlawed(just joking lol)
Seriously though the law should only be for intentionally wearing seethrough clothes,doing it to get more business to your outdoor store etc not if its by accident or showing above your jeans etc because then where would they draw the line-eg:you could get fined for accidently tucking your skirt into your undies etc
I also wasn't aware that the body scans were to be mandatory in some areas in which case i agree with you that it is a clear violation of a persons rights.
I think the comparison is a valid one. TSA employees aren't some high ranking security official who's morals or impeccable. Some of them are sleezeballs who will ultimately use it to gawk. I also don't believe that photo fairly represents what these machines can see. I bet they took hundreds of scans before deciding which image they'd release to the public.
To Danny Vice-
i agree that a law like that if they have ambiguous wording could be open for misuse and abuse.They should make that law to state very clearly the difference between intentional and accidental and that only the former to be against the law and not the latter.If they just say "no thongs visible in public"then anyone could be arrested for anything like have thong peeking over jeans or wind blowing up skirt like you mentioned, in which case that wouldn't be fair and they would be missing the point/intention of why they had made that law in the first place.
Also if a child is looking in someones window they're the ones that shouldn't be doing that so anything they are exposed to as a result is their "bad luck" for lack of better words sorry.
Regarding the scanner-i don't know what they are saying to the public regarding them- whether they are saying breast/genitals would be visible or not because i'm from Australia not U.S but i also agree if the scanners can show clear image of collarbone then they could also show clear image of vagina etc.
Are they saying to the public that they don't see that to get more public acceptance?
I highly doubt that they wouldn't see those areas-which machine would be able to show a stomach for example but not show genitals?A machines not partial,it doesn't know the difference.
It's an old trick.
Throw a frog into boiling water, it jumps out. Throw a frog into cold water and slowely heat it up and the frog burns to death.
I think the TSA has played a game of gradually implimenting this program by first stating it would be optional - and after the press coverage subsided, reversing course to making it mandatory.
So I don't put it past them to release photos that are slightly altered to supress outrage.
Nipples are pretty prominent features - not to mention male genetalia. Here in the US nudity far less accepted than it is in Australia. So yes, I think those fine features have been purposely left out, covered up, or altered to avoid outrage.
Eventually this technology will go overseas I think. After all the whole catalist of the program is to combat terrorist. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes standard in International aiports across the world.
Yakima, Washington looks like a fun place (sarcasm)
if you are a breast man in reality you are an ass man....(throws that in)
anyway, the TSA is worried about terrorist with bombs up their bumhole...so, ladies..and guys...remove that butt plug before going to the airport, alright?
Yakima has made national news with this one.
To be honest I am not a big fan of thongs poking out, but to pass a law against it is just stupid.
Next will be the no skirts above the knee law.
I hope no other Wasington cities adopt this law.
That first pic is definately fake; I've seen it years ago on snopes and a few other websites
Post a Comment