Nipples, Social Isolation and Facebook: using shame to control women

Blog Insta 4 (2)
Washington Memorial, National Mall, Washington D.C. Summer 2015.


Shame is a feeling of social rejection and isolation, and almost nothing in human emotion can rival its power.

We are social creatures, we feel secure in groups, and when a group sets us outside its boundaries we feel vulnerable and exposed and terrified.

Lone zebras get eaten.

I walk bare-chested because I enjoy the feeling of freedom it gives me.  I started quietly walking bare-chested publicly two years ago.  The vast majority of my interactions with passersby were and remain neutral or positive, but there was a learning curve in those early walks.  A Washington D.C. police officer once stopped me and said, “It may be legal [to be bare-chested], but we’re going to arrest you anyway, because it’s unreasonable.”

He did not arrest me.  I had broken no law.  He was just trying to use his perceived power to shame me into conformity.

I have walked bare-chested confidently and peacefully all over the east coast of the United States and have a lot of conversations about the ancillary issues associated with normalized female bare-chestedness… social equality, legal equality, breastfeeding, body pride, sexual norms, gender identity, empowerment, etc.

But what has emerged to me as the most fundamental, most important issue is how society uses shame to control people. 

We all know the words.  Whore, slut, bitch, fat, ugly, sin.  Maybe you have had them used against you.  Maybe you have used them against others.  But let’s look closer at why people use shame and why the idea of women walking around immune to shame tactics is so terrifying to some people.

In many places in the United States it is perfectly legal for women to appear bare-chested and I don’t know anywhere that legally prohibits public breastfeeding.  These laws were created by a democratically-elected legislature overseen by a legitimate judiciary.  People who object to those laws have mechanisms (voting, activism, the courts) to express themselves.

Women also repeatedly report strong positive feelings after peacefully going bare-chested in public, at the beach, in a park, on a bike ride.  Yet even women who wish to still hesitate before going bare-chested and while it is certainly improving in places, some people still shame women who openly breastfeed or go for a walk bare-chested.  Why?

Well, as one of my blog commenters matter-of-factly pointed out in his own defense when I asked him why he was attempting to shame me into conforming to his expectations of “proper female modesty,” “shame is how I control people.”

And a light turned on for me.

It’s no revelation that people use shame to control people.  What did strike me for the first time is that people use shame as their last resort to maintain their own sense of security and feel that the order of their herd is at risk if whatever idea or behavior they are shaming takes root and becomes socially accepted.

Shame, in other words, is a bully tactic.  And bullies are fear biting dogs.

The United States is built on the premise that a legitimate democratic process will provide each of its citizens with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The means for guaranteeing these inalienable rights is to guarantee such fundamental rights as free speech (to a point), equality under the law and so on.  We also guarantee that no state or local government can make laws that limit these fundamental rights, anticipating that people insecure about equality will try to do so.

Enter shame. 

A legitimate process protects legal equality.  But asserting legal equality upsets the fundamental assumption that socially men are higher than women, a position to which many men and women adhere.  It’s all they’ve ever known.  Inequality is their social order.  Equality in concept is unnerving to them.  Equality in practice triggers a panic.  The change they’ve feared happening is happening.

Never mind that women breastfeeding or walking represent no actual threat.  Breasts can’t physically hurt anyone.  It’s the immunization to shame these behaviors represent that is the upheaval. 

Putting ourselves in the position of someone who has bet the farm on inequality as a form of social order, a woman openly breastfeeding, walking around bare-chested, etc, provides a strong visual image of a woman who has freed herself from shame, and if shame is how I control people, and if this woman is immune to my shame, I can’t control her.  I have lost control.  I am going to die.  Panic.  Fight.

Nor does it matter that neither the breastfeeding mother nor the woman taking her walk have any intention to harm the poor soul panicking.  It does not matter.  The act has triggered a mechanism that does not listen to logic.

Enter Facebook. 

This morning I awoke to five messages from women who had their Facebook accounts suspended last night for sharing my article, “I Can Feel Bare-Chestedness Normalizing,” which has a cover photo of me standing bare-chested in front of Georgetown University in Washington D.C.

Blog Georgetown landscape
Georgetown University, Washington D.C. December 2015. Who says global climate change isn’t real? 70 degrees on December 13? But it made for a nice normal walk… no negative interactions in three hours.


I don’t use Facebook myself because of its nipple censorship policy but my article has been floating around Facebook this month after a supporter posted and shared it.  I can see through my blog analytics when Facebook refers visitors and several times activity has spiked rapidly only to be cut off suddenly a few days later.  I’ve been waiting for Facebook to remove the article completely for some time now, especially after I found out the article was floating around with my “uncensored” photo attached.

I hate Facebook’s female nipple policy, but Facebook is a private company and can make its own rules.  There is no morality consideration in its policy.  Someone somewhere has a survey that says if we allow female nipples, we will lose money.  When market forces shift in such a way that it becomes good business for Facebook to allow photos with female nipples, it will do so.  So I don’t waste my time fighting Facebook directly.  Facebook doesn’t care about equality or health.  It just cares about profit.  Facebook is a follower, not a leader.  When society normalizes to female bare-chestedness Facebook will follow.  I get that.

But ponder what Facebook’s nipple policy says about shame.

Facebook has become what it is by making itself the medium of our conversations with basically everyone in our lives.  We talk to our friends, family and colleagues, we flirt, we read the news, we get school and Little League schedules, all through Facebook.  Facebook IS our herd now.

And when you violate a policy, what does it do?  It isolates you, puts you in time out.  It shames you before a group you have handed it to use against you.  It’s brilliant.

I very much appreciate all the people who have shared my article on Facebook.  I really can’t conceive how many times it has been shared, but more than 100,000 people from 150 countries have visited my blog this month from that article bouncing around Facebook alone.  Imagine how many people saw the thing for 100,000 people to have taken the time to click on it and read the article.  Prior to that, barely 10,000 had visited my blog in three months.

It would be nice if Facebook recognized that this many people sharing a thing is a de facto vote of their acceptance for that thing, and a handful of flags or complaints in the face of a sea of neutrality or positivity does not express the community’s will.  Until then, I will simply use this as an opportunity to point out this truth.

A woman immune to shame is a force.

A population of women immune to shame could change the world.

Let us use our power to make the world a better place for everyone.


50 thoughts on “Nipples, Social Isolation and Facebook: using shame to control women

  1. What I admire about you (one of many things) is the way you consider the desired result before taking action, as opposed to being reflexive or impulsive. And even more so, it’s clear that your motivation is to make the world a better place, instead of out of personal ego.

    Thank you for recognizing your own power, even when confronted with assumed power of others, be it the police who think you should be threatened with arrest for no reason other than to shame you into submission, or males who try to shame you for sake of control, or even other women who feel the need to confront you.

    As for me, I’ve only had two of the words used against me: ugly and sin. As you might well expect, they weren’t used about me being bare-chested. In the bare-chest world, my gender alone endows me with the right to be bare-chested. However, the stigma I endure is also because of my gender alone. Whatever offenses women have endured in a life at the hands of a man, any other man might be presumed capable of for the rest of her life.

    You’ve touched on a lot of topics here. Facebook is certainly… in need of reform. You’ve stated the case against that regime quite sufficiently well.

    I’m glad most of your experiences with the public are generally good. I certainly applaud you, and a tip of the hat to your fiance as well, Gingerbread. Thank you for your excellent blog posts and commentary about your endeavors and experiences. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Stephe: I think we all have that power. It gets buried under doubt and social pressures and expectations, but it’s in there. Actually that’s what draws me to bare-footing. Our bodies know what to do, how to be strong and function well. I like feeling that connection to my natural state. I talk a lot about females being shamed, but I know many men receive shaming too, and that it is just as harmful. Thank you for all the support and kind words. Keep in touch, please.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you for a powerful post. I would like to say more about shame and bodies and walking in public from a the perspective of a middle-aged woman, but for once words fail me. Just know I very much appreciate your courage, your strength, your persistence, and your calm. You will make a difference.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you. Likewise I appreciate you taking the time to read my article and to comment. When you do find words 😀 please feel free to share them either here in the comments or directly to me at As far as courage goes, I am looking ahead to a time when it requires no more courage for a woman to walk bare-chested than it does for a man. We are getting there in places. It’s exciting.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Interesting analysis, but Facebook isn’t the only company profiting from breast shame. Long before the Web the infant bottle formula industry was selling inferior and dangerous soybean formula, cow’s milk, etc. to mothers who were ashamed to breastfeed their babies even in the presence of other family members.

    The world’s largest producer of breastmilk substitutes Nestlè has been the subject of an international boycott for years (link not allowed). The many tricks used by formula companies to shame mothers and sell formula are described in Gabrielle Palmer’s book “The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business.” (3rd ed. Pinter and Martin, 2009)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, there are deep tendrils in the profit machine of shaming women. Facebook came up because several women contacted me yesterday to say they had their accounts suspended for sharing my article. Cosmetics, plastic surgery, magazines, popular music, gamergate… it will take us awhile to undo this, but we have to keep at it. Thanks again. Be well.


  4. Great post and you are 100% correct when it comes to Facebook.

    Another thing I hate about FB is if you share even the slightest bit of nudity everybody is quick to report you. I once shared a nude photo of me behind a ladder (you couldn’t see my privates) and it got reported within 2 mins of me posting it. I was surprised when FB didn’t remove it though.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you. I find it interesting that so far it seems women sharing my photo were reported/flagged by their social groups but men sharing the same photo don’t seem to have been flagged yet, at least no men have told me they were suspended. It’s just an interesting thing to ponder, that social groups might be quicker to report women for posting photos with female nipples than they would be reporting men for posting photos with female nipples. A ponderable…


      1. I have posted many photos of top free women and have not been called out. I believe that someone has to object to my posting for Facebook to take action. Keep up the great work!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. An interesting experiment would be to create two Facebook profiles, one labeled male, the other female, and populate them both with identical content. Then post a photo of a bare-chested female. See which gets reported first.

    I would do this from entirely different IP addresses, just in case the robots check for that sort of thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi,

    I’m one of the fortunate women that was put on a 24 hour ban from Facebook yesterday and when I say fortunate, I truly mean it. The past 24+ hours have been amazing.

    My focus in the world is metaphysical and I love to look at energy and the collective consciousness, what we are working on and how it shows up in our lives.

    Being banned gave me the opportunity to look at the ‘why’ behind our society’s problems with breasts when seen as forms of empowerment or as signs of nurturing and nourishment and the information is very powerful.

    I wrote quite a long post about it and also talk about the prevalent energies the exist within the Facebook construct.

    I am so grateful to you for your strength and for your personal empowerment. You have ignited another landslide in our non-acceptance of seeing breasts as something bad or something to be ashamed of, or to repress. I believe that with each collective ‘no’ to suppression and repression we heal and grow as beings; that with each collective ‘no’ or ‘yes’ we move forward in creating a more balanced world.

    This is my post: I Was Banned From Facebook for 24 Hours for Posting Nudity

    Thank you!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for your spirit and strength. To acknowledge bullying and mistreatment is one thing; to then decide how you are going to have it affect you is something else. The T’ai Chi practitioner’s response to aggressive energy is to redirect it in the way the practitioner desires. Even a brick wall will fall once it has reached its capacity for blows. We are strongest when we do not allow the hits to land at all and we are able to move our opponent sometimes without their knowledge. We all have the power, and it feels to me as if we as a people are waking up to this fact. The world is changing and moving towards acceptance and equality. If it were not, there would be no voices opposing it because there would be nothing to scare them into making their fears known.

      I loved your post and the fact that you shared your journey with all of us! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Funny ol’ world…

      Love and Light

      Liked by 2 people

  7. As usual a most thoughtful post. I enjoy your thoughtful and original reflections with Facebook being our herd being one of those I particularly like. I commend your courage and clear eyed deconstruction of the oppressive nature of what you are resisting. Hopefully more people will come to see this, and while this is not the most pressing issue facing the world it IS an issue and should we manage to achieve true equality amongst all genders the world will be a MUCH better place. Thanks again. Don


  8. I do think it’s exhibitionism, because you only do it where you will be seen, and potentially elicit negative reaction, even if it’s only a raised eyebrow and muttered words. Like people making out in the park. It’s a show.

    And you only do it if you’re small breasted and young and relatively fit.

    Men walking bare-chested are not welcome either.

    Did you know that animals “shame” too, for the survival of the herd or pack. The alpha animals would soon hurt you if you did not conform, or forbid your enclusion.

    Just some of my thoughts.


    1. Hi Janet: Thank you for visiting my blog and commenting, and for your civil tone. I started to reply to your comment and realized I was writing an article, so for my thoughts on exhibitionism, please see Topfreedom, Exhibitionism and Intent. As for women only going bare-chested if they have a certain body type or meet a certain standard, this is not true. Women of all ages, races and body types are going bare-chested around the country. As for men walking bare-chested being not welcome, do you mean that you don’t welcome that behavior either? That’s fine, and I always appreciate when people apply their standards to all genders equally. But I also wonder if you have ever told a bare-chested man he was an exhibitionist or putting on a show by walking bare-chested? Having a feeling and expressing that feeling are different things. Even people who don’t particularly feel comfortable with bare-chested men rarely if ever voice that feeling or apply a negative stimulus. And finally as for animals shaming each other, yes, I agree completely. Herds absolutely isolate anomalies. They fear death. Imagine what would happen to a herd if every zebra just wandered off doing it’s own thing. But 1) female breasts are not hungry lions and 2) I think we can do better than animals. The great freedom experiment of Western democracies is to ensure that herds do not quash individual freedoms. Given that we allow men the freedom to go bare-chested, we should allow women the same. Equality is more important than the temporary discomfort of the herd. Thank you again for your time and for writing to me. Feel free to continue the conversation. Be well.


    2. Janet, exhibitionism is in the eye of the beholder, it’s not an exact science: “This is exhibitionism, and that isn’t” etc. Psycho-mystics are still debating Freud’s “theory” of exhibitionism of 100 years ago. Calling someone an exhibitionist is merely shaming them with a negative label.

      I’m a man who takes my shirt off when it’s sunny out to get some free vitamin D. I don’t care whether people are around or not, except that I’ve been told to put my shirt back on “to respect public decorum.” Maybe that’s appropriate criticism in a Muslim culture.

      A woman should have the same freedom men do, and other people should mind their own business whether the top-free person is male or female. Women, especially, should deliberately protest traditional breast shame by going top-free where adults and children will see them. Little girls need models of breast pride to avoid growing up sexually dysfunctional.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. There isn’t really much to add to what you wrote because you are right on target. Shaming has been used for centuries to control and modify the behavior of people. Society has used shame to drive conformity to follow what they deem as “accepted behavior.” Nudity was acceptable for millennia until the fall of the Roman Empire and still persisted in art into the Middle Ages. Shaming and conformity were tools in the arsenal to create an “acceptable and proper” society. Nudity was equated with sex with religion used as the medium. That behavior continued through the Victorian Era into the Modern Era yet most of the sexual norms have been thrown out the window. Still nudity or toplessness is taboo. You’d think that in this age of twerking and celebrity sex tapes that something as normal and natural as the nude human form would be acceptable. It is no wonder that our children are confused.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Hi there…I kind of skipped through the video, but is it fair to say that a majority of people basically ignored you? I’m working on a few pieces about this, particularly breastfeeding in public and will try to link to your article/blog. Very interesting, thanks for posting it 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re quite welcome. Thank you for taking the time to watch. Yes, you are correct. I post these long unedited videos to show the non-reactions of the people who see me. Let me know when you have your piece finished. Be well…


  11. You said that you do this so people get used to seeing bare breasts, so, essentially desensitization is what you are trying to attain.

    My question is, what happens after folks accept bare breast, your next step may be to walk totally naked in public until people accept that. Next will be men wanting to walk naked……and then it will public sex……and on and on it goes.

    Jesus said ” if you look at a woman to lust after her, you have committed adultery in your heart”

    You know as well as I know that bare breasts are going to cause many men to lust, and will eventually awaken sexual predators to justify their wrong behavior because they were “tempted”

    I pray for you that you come to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and learn that, their is a reason humans cover themselves after the fall in the garden.


    1. Hi John: thank you for writing your comment in a civil tone. It’s important to have these conversations calmly. As for what’s next, my goal is establishing social and legal equality. The current situation allows men to go bare-chested in public. Women should have the same freedom. I am not looking beyond that. There is no reason to consider the female breast as analogous to the genitals, so the slippery slope fears some people express don’t stand up. Some men want to walk around naked now, as do some women. Allowing bare-chested equality is not going to create nudism. Nudism already exists. That is a different conversation because the standard of covering anus and genitals exists for all genders. Moving that standard is a social question, not a constitutional one. And then as far as your next concern, public sex, sex and nudity are not inextricably linked. In the US we have created a strong connection, through ill conceived prohibitions, commercialized sex and pornography, that nudity equals sex. It does not. A legal system is a collection of drawn lines, but they must be drawn equally for all.

      The next part of your comment troubles me though. Yes, I do understand that female breasts may cause some people to feel aroused. Guess what? Male chests cause people to feel aroused. Hands, hair, foreign accents, kind eyes, all of these things cause people to feel sexually aroused. We navigate them everyday without creating unequal rules. The responsibility for one’s behavior while aroused rests with the aroused person. Period. There is no instigation excuse for rapes or sexual assaults. Victims are not to blame if a person cannot or chooses not to control their behavior. The fact that criminals exist is no excuse to treat a class of potential victims differently under the law or to expect different behaviors from them. Rapists own the entire crime. And as I have said many times, making false claims of rape is just as catastrophic a crime as rape is. We must hold criminals responsible for their crimes an teach boys and men to control their behavior. Placing any amount of responsibility for a rape on the victim excuses the crime in some part. That’s wrong.

      As far as invoking Jesus, I remind you Christians go bare-chested all over the world. Europeans have been going bare-chested for generations. And the bigger point, we don’t all live under the Bible in the United States. We do all live under the Constitution. One set of rules for everyone. Equality.

      Again, thank you for visiting and considering topfreedom and gender equality. I know everyone will not agree, but I do appreciate it when we can express ourselves respectfully and with civility. Thank you. Be well.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Frankly I don’t mind going down the “slippery slope” to support of full nudity. The “incrementalist” approach has been used for the last five decades to make things socially acceptable that once were taboo and even illegal. It is only fair to start with normalizing the viewing of women’s breasts so people realize that there is no sexual component to it, and that men can be responsible for their own behavior.

        I get rather perturbed when I read comments from people like John invoking the Bible to support his shaming. I have read many theological scholarly works that support and normalize being nude including topless. Religion has been/is being used to control society and populations for centuries. They’ve misappropriated the word of God to suit their own mores. I consider myself pretty religious and I have read a fair amount on the topic including different interpretations of the parable about the Garden of Eden. I cannot reach the same conclusion as John about the top-free movement being against God’s word.

        I know I’m mincing words here but I take issue at the term “gender equality.” I prefer that genders be treated equally, because there are many differences in gender that I frankly appreciate.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. John, Gingerbread has made it clear many times that her aim is primarily to achieve gender equality and nothing more. However, I can see no logical argument (as distinct from religious dogma) against J.S.Mill’s contention that everyone should be free to do whatever they like providing it does not significantly harm anyone else. To me that means just what you suggest Gingerbread’s campaign may lead to – total public nudity by men and women and public sex, not as exhibitionism but simply because it is natural and should not even arouse any particular interest or comment – just like every other species of animal, and just as it was for humans before religious zealots, encouraged by politicians, began to condemn it as a means of social control somewhere around 1,500 years ago.


      1. The point that is being missed is the moral issue. Adam and Eve were nude together in the garden……until they rebelled and sin entered the world. Clothing has been used ever since that time. Exposing breasts in public is wring because it WILL lead men to lust towards a woman. Sorry, that is a fact, Jesus said” whoever looks at at a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her in his heart” unrepented adultery will lead to God’s judgement, and end one in hell.

        The fact that this is an agenda being “forced” on the public, shows the agenda of desentisizing the public to be able to accept total nudity next. Then sex in public is what we will see next, and on and on we go spiralling into sexually immorality and depravity and begging God’s further judgement on this land.

        The Bible has a LOT to say about sexual purity and the penalties from a Holy, righteous creator for those who rebel against his moral absolutes.

        And walking around with breast and nipples in public, which the VAST majority of men find sexually stimulation, is not going to desensitized men’s lustful human nature, it will only cause men to lust more, thus putting their minds in a dangerous battle ground for sexual purity, a sexual purity that the Lord Jesus Christ demands.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hello: Thank you for visiting and commenting. My response to critics who cite the Bible to assert that X or Y is wrong is to simply remind them that we do not all live under the Bible, but we DO all live under the U.S. Constitution, presuming the critic is American. People who live under one set of religious rules or another do so by choice, and the fact that so many different churches and denominations exist is evidence that even Christians cannot agree on what those rules should be. So I believe that people are certainly allowed to choose a set of religious rules to live under, but those rules only apply to the other people who have also chosen to live under those rules. We are a world and a country of diverse religious belief and non-belief, so secular law that applies to all must reflect a foundational set of values that guarantee certain freedoms and equality. For example, if a religion makes a rule that women cannot hold positions of leadership, and the people of that religion agree, then that rule applies to that group of people and their organizations. But that group cannot then step outside their group and say, so over here we’ve made this rule against female leaders so that means women can’t be judges. The thing I think some Christians forget, perhaps because they live their lives surrounded by people who think like them, perhaps because they so deeply wish they could live under purely Biblical law, is that Christianity may not always be the majority religion in a place, even in the United States. A town in Michigan just elected its first Muslim city council. Now that Muslims are in power there, should they begin their city council meetings by leading the people of the city in Muslim prayer? The reason the founding fathers separated church law and state law was precisely to allow for a common set of rules all could live under regardless of religious belief, and probably to avoid the inevitable violence and despotism that would occur if whatever religious group in power at any given time could make the laws for everyone (witness what happens in basically every other part of the world where religion and state are not separated.) You seem to be saying in your comment that the Bible is a higher law than the U.S. Constitution, and you have a right to FEEL that way, but it does not make it actually so. The highest law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, and it guarantees certain freedoms and equality to all. And if and when Christianity becomes outnumbered, and when another religion is trying to assert that its religious text is the highest law of the land, Christians will be reminding us all of that everyday. I appreciate your time. Be well.


          1. The folks who wrote the Constitituon would disagree with exposed breasted as being constitutionally acceptable, because they held Gods standard higher, so, yes, the Biblical principles are higher than the Constitution, though you may “feel” that they are not.
            The biblical principles apply to every people in every nation, it is whether they wish to obey or not.

            To be clear, constitutional freedom is not absolute freedom,(even freedom has to be limited) a rereading of the founders thoughts and writings will clarify this for you, and go further in history to read the Mayflower Compact, which laid the foundation in which the founders built on that has allowed you to enjoy the freedom that was given to you by brave men and the blood of patriots to secure your freedom of expression and speech.
            In many nations, walking down a public street will get you arrested, in Muslim countries…….arrested and most likely killed.

            I am guessing you dislike the concept of self defense with a firearm, and the concept of private gun ownership…..PER THE CONSTITUTION?


            1. The brilliance of the founders is that despite their strong religious convictions, in the presence of their devout belief, they recognized the need to separate religion from governance and somehow crafted a system that allows people to practice their religions without those religions being imposed on the the people who don’t follow those religions through the laws of the land. I understand there are limits to “freedom” but there should never be a limit or exception to equality. Men were not allowed to go bare-chested in England, because it violated Christian senses of morality, modesty and propriety. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that men in the U.S. began rebelling against that and going bare-chested. So not too long ago Christian morality was opposed to men going bare-chested. Have you ever expressed this level of anger at a bare-chested man, or is it just women that you feel are violating the Bible? Surely the Bible’s standards aren’t so easily moved that a mere 80 years of social normalization means that standard no longer exists…

              I don’t believe there exists anything in the Bible declaring women’s breasts forbidden, by the way. Adam and Eve covered their nakedness, but it doesn’t define what nakedness is. Many cultures simply consider that to be the genitals of all genders. Some in this particular culture consider female nakedness to include breasts, some do not. Not long ago, legs and arms constituted female nudity. It’s a shifting line. I think the idea of female bare-chestedness induces anxiety of this level not so much because the Bible says it’s wrong, but because it is challenging the idea that men are the only ones who decide what is wrong. That’s a power shift and it’s scary, I understand that.

              As far as your comment about brave men fighting for freedom, are you under the impression that men are the only ones who have fought for our freedom?

              And as far as gun ownership, however that relates, you would be wrong, actually. I own a gun for protection and support the right of people to own firearms for self-defense, responsibly. This is not a gun ownership blog and I am not an expert, nor claim to be, on gun rights. You can take the conversation there but I won’t follow it. I’m not sure what your comment about being killed walking down the street in a Muslim country is intended to communicate. I didn’t espouse that we become a Muslim country. I said we are a secular country in which the non-religious laws of the land, i.e. fundamentally the Constitution, should and do outrank any religious law, which do not apply to all, but only to those who subscribe to that religion.

              And yes, I do very much appreciate the sacrifices of those who have lost their lives to protect my freedom and speech. How is it disrespectful to then actually USE that freedom and speech? I’ve never understood the offense people feel when others actually use that free speech so dearly won to actually say something. If we don’t say these things, isn’t that the ultimate disrespect to the sacrifice? That would mean they died in vain. They would have died to protect something no one uses. We owe it to those who have died for freedom to protect freedom with speech and action.


              1. Thank you for your response.
                I am not for inequality, just commenting on the differences a man and womans anatomy and how that is perceived. You may not like that our culture is more antagonistic towards bare nipples, but, nevertheless, that’s where we are, and in this culture, bare nipples are considered sensual and sexual.
                You seem confused about my comments regarding Islam and its punishment of bare chested woman. You commented about what is happening in Michigan was my basis. Islam is gaining more influence in government in MI, and when it finally gets enough influence, it will try to impose a form of sharia, and this is, as you stated so well, is what the founders warned against and tried to guard against. When sharia has its influence here in America, then you will long for the “good ole days” when Christians would speak out against the bare nipples in public, as sharia law will deal with bare chested woman, amongst other things Islam hates, according to Islamic law, which has and will replace Constitutional law.

                You seem to despise the concept of moral absolutes and what is morally right. The Constitution is the law of the land in civil manners, but, no one wants to talk about moral absolutes and who or what constitutes the guidelines ,standards or principles (law if you will) that determine what is right and wrong. You cannot look to another culture as a guideline, as some cultures think it is good and legal to murder homosexuals. (See mentality behind Orlando gay club shooting)

                If morality is realative than so is truth and then we would chant the mantra “do what thou wilt” so embraced today in this culture.

                If men got to go naked in public, I am assuming you would want the exact right? If men are called to go fight on the front lines of a battlefield, I assume you would want that same right?

                It seems your cause, is to show equality with men’s rights, because men can go shirtless. I have counseled sex addicts for over a year now and can tell you without hesitation, that bare breasts entice men into sensual and sexual thoughts. And even though the woman said that a muscular chest on a man attracted them, and was pleasing to look at, it did not have the same sexual influence over a man viewing an attractive pair of bare female breasts. This by the way, is not only in American culture

                If you study the original languages in which Bible was written, you will see that Adam & Eve were literally naked, both in a physical and spiritual sense after the fall, the verbiage and context in original language points to the sensual parts of their bodies being covered.

                I am glad you are pro 2nd amendment, I mistakenly assumed that because many of your videos, pictures are taken in areas that are antagonistic towards gun ownership, that you may have been, I apologize for that.


  12. I was just banned, for the second time, for posting a picture of a woman who did not have a shirt or blouse on. This is what my post said: Ah, the internets. I wanted some photos that express my hatred of Flash, and look what i get. Try it, google: I hate flash. Weird. of course, i recognize this picture…i use to live there.

    I swear, this fear of breasts is so bizarre and unreasonable. We see women objectified and put out there sexually constantly, but if you just act natural, and dare to be yourself, just like any other human in the desert, whoa. Lookout.

    Thanks for your insight.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Your lack of knowledge of Islam shows for ignorance to the dangers of allowing Islam control in government here. Read your history, the US dealt with Islam early in its history.

    I also encourage you to learn what Islam teaches in quaran and Hadith and how a FAIRHFUL. Muslim is to act towards an infidel.
    While you are at it, you could read about the different “houses” in Islam and how those affect the society of an infiltrated nation. Finally, you should learn about sharia, and how that works when Islam gains enough influence in society.

    Sharia law trumps constitutional law, and if-when that occurs, you would be murdered immediately by FAITHFULNESS Muslims for walking topless in public


    1. Deep breath, Paul. Here is an article about the Muslim majority city council in Michigan. It exists. I didn’t make it exist. I wasn’t there campaigning for it. I’m simply reporting to you that it exists, and that it could exist in other places, and that perhaps if you pondered the fact that the reason you feel the Bible should officially usurp the constitution is because Christians are a majority population in this country, that if you ponder the fact that this might not always be so, or at least not in all places in the country, you might then ponder the value of having a secular rule of law, that does not prioritize any religion. Because that religion being prioritized might not be the one you subscribe to. I’m not saying we should use one religion over another. I’m saying our laws should reflect the fundamental values of freedom and equality, and that no religion, not Christianity, nor Islam, should get to tell us differently. Equality, period. I reject inequality under the name of any religion.


      1. I never denied it existed, in fact I most likely knew about it before you.
        The point I am trying convey to you, is WHEN Islam is the majority, your freedom to go topless without encouraging violence against you, will be eliminated.
        You seem to think that the principles of the God who created me and you and everything else that is seen and unseen, is somehow subject to the law of the land. It is not. Gods principles are above mans and are the absolutes for what is right and wrong according to HIS laws and precepts. After all, we are the created creatures. I love the Constitution, but to say because it is the law of the land, that Biblical principles are subject to it, is preposterous.

        The foundation of laws of this land were based on the Bible. In fact, this nation was founded on Judeo/Christian principles in many of the legal and political aspects.

        So, yes, I am guilty as charged, I believe the Constitution is subject to Gods principles of justice and morality, and the 1st Amendment was never meant to allow “do what thou wilt”


        1. I’m not sure what your beef is with me about the Muslim piece. I don’t want to live in a country governed by Muslim law, or any religious law. For the record I have several Muslim friends who support what I am doing. But I rather prefer the freedoms of a secular nation. As far as arguing that God’s law outranks the first amendment, maybe in the celestial sense, but I don’t think you will get very far with that argument in the federal court system. The beauty of our nation is you are free to try. As am I. And as to your contention (which I have heard from other Christian men) that bare-chested women will distract men from Jesus, I think that says more about a man’s devotion or lack thereof to Jesus than the sinful nature of the breasts he is holding up as the excuse for why he has become distracted from Jesus. If all it takes is the sight of breasts to get a man to turn away from Jesus, that doesn’t speak well to that man’s proclaimed devotion. And if the only way to get people to pay attention to Jesus is to eliminate all other distractions, it’s a false devotion. As soon as something better comes along those folks will be gone. So how about you continue to share your love of Jesus with others, but allow people the right to believe or not believe as they see fit? And to recognize we can worship a beautiful and mysterious God in many ways, up to and including the celebration of these gifted bodies we were borne into.


          1. Fair enough. Please learn more about Islam though, the difference between your friends who don’t have a problem with what you do, and faithful muslims(not radical) but faithful.

            I leave you with the words of Christ:
            “I am the way the Truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me”
            ” unless someone be born again, they will not inherit the kingdom of God”
            ” He who has the Son, has life…he who does not have the Son, does not have life, but, the wrath of God abides on him”

            Take care of yourself, wishing you safety and health!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s