People are mad about this. Maybe not on this board, but she’ll receive death and rape threats because of this. I guarantee it. She absolutely stood up to the status-quo, and made a statement.
Different strokes…
She didn’t stand up to anything and the Catholic Church has all the power of a barking Chihuahua.
So which is it, was it provocative because of indecent exposure or not? If Fred Phelps walked around with a dummy with a dildo stuck in it’s ass and the words “fags fucked themselves in the ass with aids” would it be:
A: art
B: free Speech
C: an insult to gay people
I’m going with C with my example. In her case what she did wrong was insult a billion people and call it art.
Maybe it’s like the definition of obscenity: I may not know what it is but I’ll know it when I see it. 
Have you ever heard a joke that went just a little “too far”? Remember how the audience reacted at the Academy Awards when Seth MacFarlane said, “I would argue that the actor who got most inside Lincoln’s head was John Wilkes Booth.” Went over like a lead balloon. 150 years later and it still was offensive.
Or when Obama was being self-deprecating about his poor bowling performance and he said, “It’s like the Special Olympics or something." Trying to be funny he pushed it over the edge.
Or when you are in an argument and one of you says something that pushes the other person over the edge. “You’re just like your mother.” “I can’t believe I married you.” YMMV.
In the case of this protester the combination of all the factors worked to a perfect storm of offensiveness to some Catholics. Sure, not all were offended and are at this moment Googling for pictures to fulfill their Rule 34 fantasies. But some just considered her out of line.
What Miss Elizabeth said. The Catholic Church has the power of 1.2 billion members worldwide.
Yes, it was provacative because it was what we call “indecent” exposure.
It’s a nude person. I get that by contemporary standards it’s considered obscene, but on a more philosophical level I don’t see it. I’m sure there have been many civilizations throughout history that accepted nudity more readily than we do. Perhaps, that it is a bit of a hijack, but I don’t mind running with it.
I don’t think those analogies are fair either. Abe Lincoln was a hero. Special Olympians do no harm. The Catholic Church deserves all the ridicule they get.
Standing up to the status quo is not standing up to “the church.”
Of whom exactly two, one aging bishop and one shrill far right ideologue, have actually voiced an opinion on the topic.
More people will, I am sure, but certainly no great percentage of the 1.2 billion; she is hardly in any danger from the church.
I have no doubt she will be well known in the city of Pittsburgh and her reputation forever questioned thanks to the immortality of the internet. Thankfully, I’m sure atheist organizations will take her in.
Can we still “sexually shame” men? I mean, if a guy handed out condoms in a parade half-dressed like the pope with his wiener out and pubes shaved in a cross, can we ridicule? I’m still just trying to figure out what’s acceptable around here and what isn’t. I haven’t gotten a definitive word.
I’m not a mod, so I don’t know about it as far as the rules of this board. I meant my comment in a more general “things decent people do” way. I’d say more, but I think it’s a hijack, and should be in ATMB.
For the record, I don’t sexually shame men either.
Don’t get me wrong: I love nudity! The female form is a thing of beauty. This woman being naked in public would be titillating but would violate the public indecency laws (some places could have handled her being topless but she’s gotta cover her nether regions).
As I’ve said before ridicule is OK. But can we have a little decorum? Should people protesting Merkel’s financial policies for the EU dress as stormtroopers (Nazi, not Star Wars, of course)? Would people stand by and say, “That’s OK,” if someone actually did the blackface as I posited?
The Catholic Church, for all its flaws, is revered by many of its followers with as much respect and dignity as some people give to Lincoln, Special Olympics, Obama and Harry Potter (seriously, I’ve known people who get pissed when they hear about fanfic of Harry and Ron hooking up). To go out of your way to offend people doesn’t make you “edgy” or “controversial”. It makes you look like an ass.
If he’s got the right dimensions and a good groomer he can make a pretty impressive ferula.
Seriously, though, it would still be offensive. It’s not the nudity or the condoms or the papal garb. It’s the combination. Ammonia is a good cleaner. Bleach is a good cleaner. The combination is going to cause trouble.
The vast, vast majority of which know nothing about this and the slim, slight few who do largely don’t care. Or certainly don’t care enough to do anything more than cluck their tongue.
CMKeller Read the post I made after the one you commented on. I admitted that I had forgotten about the pornography used in the work.
So what if it’s offensive? AFAIK The whole purpose of first ammendment free speech protections is to protect unpopular and offensive speech. I support the Westboro Church’s right to be loud, annoying assholes. I support the KKK and Aryan Nation’s right to march and protest in public. I certainly don’t agree with what they say. But, we all have a vested interest in their having a right to say it.
This is going round and round. I understand the whole "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I had to explain it to some Swiss and Italian friends using the examples of WBC and the Nazis marching on Skokie. They were floored that we would permit that kind of speech and behavior. I told them that if you stop one kind of “offensive” speech then you start the slippery slope of shutting down some other group: anti-abortionists, anti-war, whatever. When the war protesters were relegated to specific protest zones I was royally ticked. They could couch in safety terms that the protesters might have attacked Bush but the reality is they were trying to control dissent.
My point is just because you are legally entitled to be an asshole doesn’t mean you have to do it. Abortion protesters have the right to march in front of Planned Parenthood but yelling at the women as they go in and out is assholish. OWS members had every right to march and protest in front of the corporate headquarters. Showing up at the CEO’s house and trashing the parks just makes them assholes.
Do people forget the works of Ghandi or King? Peaceful, respectful. Sure, they got killed for it but you get the idea.
I get that you are personally offended by this, but I am not sure why you think that means that people who aren’t you should agree that it’s “assholish”. Confusing, yes. Ineffectual, sure. But assholish? It’s totally innocuous. This action is as non-violent and non-destructive as anything Martin Luther King ever did, and it’s directed at an institution that really is a force for ill in the world and deserves more sanctions than an entire army of pantsless college students could ever impose on it.
About 2 million people in the city of Pittsburgh are well aware of it. I agree most will do nothing but talk about it. Something that I am happy to see happen as the church doesn’t have much moral ground to stand on these days.
Maybe what she did wasn’t the best way to go about it, but wearing a bikini bottom would’ve been dumb. If you’re going to make the statement, a bikini bottom sure takes the bite out of it.
Seems like pretty damn great reasons to attack them. You don’t consider it OK to attack them over this? How bad do they have to be to deserve attacking? I’ll say a big FUCK YOU to the Catholic Church.
You know, Slypork has said, repeatedly, that he would not criminalize or stop this protest. He just finds it classless. I disagree, but it’s a valid opinion to have. I think this is verging on a pile on, and it would be nice if we backed up a bit.
Seriously? She’s trying to convince people that the Catholic church is ridiculous to not support birth control. That’s why you ridicule things–to convince people that something is ridiculous.
If she were just wanting to make a snarky joke, she would not have risked freaking prison time. She has a political cause and believes she is supporting it by doing this. That’s the entire point of political activism.
Plus, that’s the only redeeming quality of what she did. If she’s not trying to convince people, then she’s just being an asshole or an attention whore. Sure, there are times when being an asshole is justified, but not just for your own amusement.
Do you think that, without the political statement, there would be absolutely anyone defending her? Even your stated support is based on her political message and the fact that you agree with it.
And I would like to point out that I agree with him, at least on the legal issue. Laws against nudity are stupid. And if it weren’t for the laws, I wouldn’t really care if the school didn’t stop it (although I would support them if they did for PR reasons).
I would stop this protest, but only because I think she’s doing more harm than good. She’s just convincing those on the fence that people who support birth control really are depraved assholes.
It’s not because I don’t think she has a right to be classless for her political cause. It’s just that her protest is stupid.