Topless Duchess No More

(See yesterday’s blog “Topless Duchess” as this is an update to that story.)

The French court ruled today in favor of the Prince and Duchess against the French gossip magazine. The magazine is ordered to pay 2,000 euros in damages and face a possible fine of 10,000 euros per day for not turning over the pictures and files, etc. to the lawyers or representatives of the royal couple. The magazine is further banned from republishing or selling the photos at the risk of a 100,000 euro fine.

From The Telegraph today:

The ruling cited article 9 of the civil code that states that “any person, whatever his fame, his present or future functions, has the right to the respect of his private life and image.”
The photos were taken from a public road several hundred metres from the private residence where the couple were staying. The court agreed that the couple “could legitimately suppose (the residence) was sheltered from prying eyes” and that the violation of their privacy was “particularly intrusive”.
It described the magazine’s use of the photos as a “brutal exhibition” of their intimacy.

Meanwhile Prince William and Duchess Kate continue their Far East & South Pacific tour.

from The Huffington Post

from The London Evening Standard

Topless Duchess

British Prince William & his wife, Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) have gone to court—well, their lawyers have—in France to ask that recent topless pictures of the Duchess be prevented from further use. And they’re suing for damages, apparently calling the publication a “grotesque” invasion of privacy. 

The pictures were published in the French gossip magazine Closer, and can be found online. 

My feeling is this: she was sunbathing topless on a balcony which was viewable from some publically accessible place—granted, the photographer seems to have used a significantly high-power zoom lens—so they shouldn’t be so insanely outraged that these pictures have come out. If you’re that concerned about the public being aware that you do, in fact, have breasts and nipples, then you should always keep them securely covered up when near cameras and when outside or near any windows or mirrors that might be in line of sight of windows. 

Seriously, this is just about preserving the traditional, uptight, “proper” image of the British Royal family, which is an outdated institution in my opinion. To pretend that these are not people, but rather iconic demi-gods who’d never engage in any untoward behaviour is just craziness. It perpetuates an unrealistic ideal of behaviour which could, in time, contribute to unhealthy or perhaps more extreme behaviours by members of the royal family. Pushing down impulsive feelings, by saying “we can’t behave this way or that way, doesn’t make those impulses go away. They just get channeled into other areas, and it all comes out somehow, somewhere, at some time. 

Come on, that’s just PSYCH 101.

The Telegraph, the online version of The Daily Telegraph (a 150+ year old conservative British newspaper), published this video & article, in which the young royal couple visited the Solomon Islands...

...where topless native women in traditional dress greeted them:

Fun at airports (2)

This man, John Brennan

(not to be confused with John O. Brennan, the chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama), was arrested this spring after he stripped at an airport.

In frustration over the increasingly invasive security procedures, he took off all his clothes at the Portland International Airport.

Last week he went to court. His defense was that his nakedness was a protest and, as such, was a type of legally protected free speech. Apparently the judge agreed. He was found not guilty of indecent exposure. 

I say this: if they just went ahead and had everybody strip naked and ride airplanes naked, maybe they wouldn’t worry so much about concealed weapons.

NPR article

Fun at airports (1)

Okay, I don’t know why this is news. But... 

A few weeks ago this guy was stopped and frisked by a TSA (Transportation Security Administration—part of the Dept. Of Homeland Security—you know, airport security) employee. (Or are they TSA agents? That sounds more sinister. Anyway...) 

That’s clearly not news. But, this guy was Jonah Falcon. 

Jonah holds the world record for having the longest penis. It’s not in the Guinness Book of World Records because they supposedly don’t record such things. 

(Do they actually still publish a book?) 

Well, he was stopped and frisked at San Francisco International Airport due to the suspicious bulge in his pants. His “suspicious bulge” is supposedly around 9 inches or 23 cm when flaccid and 13.5 inches or 34 cm when erect. 

It’s hard (no pun intended) to find decent pictures of Jonah’s penis online. But here’s are some: 

Supposedly him. This one was from
some random penis thread, so who knows?

Of course, he’s had offers to do porn, but he has so far declined. And obviously there are people who’d pay to see his penis. But apparently he just doesn’t do many naked pics. I guess he did a few when he was younger. 

He probably wants to be known as more than just “the guy with the biggest dick”. 

I can totally appreciate that. ‘Cause I too don’t want to be known just as “the guy with a huge penis”. 

Oh wait...I’m not. 

Ah, right. I don’t want to be known as just “the naked blog guy”. 

Here’s the Huffington Post article which alerted me to this guy and this story:

Huffingtonpost.com

That, by the way, led me to another article that contained a slideshow of “naked crime”—people who were arrested while naked, or in at least one case, for being naked in his yard. But it pissed me off that this was paired with a slideshow of “Potty Issues”—crimes having something to do with a person urinating or defecating or farting or having drugs in one’s ass. It bothers me that they’d make that connection, like somehow being naked is like taking a shit. 

Michigan Vagina 2 (update)

So, if you don’t know about the recent “Vagina” controversy in Michigan, just google it, or see my post from a few days ago. 

So here’s what’s new:

Last night a reading of The Vagina Monologues took place on the steps of the Michigan Statehouse. Performers included several female Democratic  state lawmakers and Eve Ensler (author of The Vagina Monologues).

Michigan State Rep. Lisa Brown

Eve Ensler

Huffington Post article 

I said it then, and I still say it now: Vagina, vagina, vagina!

Or, to misquote Patrick Henry, “Give me vagina, or give me death!”

Zombie attack! (Naked in the News 3—update)

The other day I wrote about a naked dude eating anothernaked dude’s face. Here’s some more info.

the attacker: Rudy Eugene

the victim: Ronald Poppo

Here are links to a couple of GRAPHIC pictures:

the crime scene, including the dead attacker

the victim after the attack

(It’s kinda gross, but no worse than stuff you’d see in a horror film.)

The attacker was known to have had anger issues and to have been violent. He also was seen sometimes in the area where the attack happened and was described as “frequently confused”.

He is suspected to have been on something called “bath salts”. 

It’s not Epson salts like you’d put in your bath. It’s likely methylenedioxypyrovalerone, although it could be something else.

It’s a relatively new drug, and therefore not illegal in most states. They’re even sold in some stores. (I’d never heard of it.) Apparently there’s no way to test for this. But the attacker’s behavior of stripping and being violent, strong, and out of control. Her was shot 4 times at, I would assume, fairly close range before he died. People using “bath salts” have been described as having “superhuman strength”. And it seems to raise the body temperature to the point, in extreme cases, of cooking the internal organs. 

The drug is a “recreational” or “party” drug. It’s inhaled or snorted, and it’s cheaper than cocaine. It induces hypothermia, paranoia, hallucinations, and agitation. There’s at least one other instance in which someone using this drug tried to bite somebody else.

Okay, so...you people with your crazy drugs are dangerous. It’s one thing to endanger your own life, but if you’re attacking other innocent people, then it’s wrong. Cut it out.

Sources:

KFI AM 640 talk radio

abc news

socialmediaseo.net

WebMD

Naked in the News (3)

Another crazy, likely drugged-up, naked person, made the news. Here’s what I’ve gotten from perusing a few articles.

Apparently yesterday 2 naked men were seen near a busy street. A cop came by and stopped and found one of the naked men EATING the other man’s face. The cop warned him to stop, but the naked face-eating guy growled at the cop and kept eating. So the cop shot and killed him. Drug use is suspected.

I’ve got 2 things to say about this.

1. Crazy people: stop doing your crazy stuff while naked; you’re giving naked people a bad name.

2. Cops: it’s 2012 now; isn’t there some non-lethal way to deal with crazy, face-eating people?

Miami Herald

BBC news

Naked in the News (2)

A friend of mine posted this on the facebook this morning:

She commented “check out dude with the sandwich!”

It’s true, at about 2’05” there’s a guy lending a hand while still holding onto his hamburger. 

Weird.

But my comment was this: “Why can't the naked people be more coherent, and responsible?”

Seriously, those folks give us reasonable naked people a bad name.

News-type stories about naked people always have some drugged or drunk person...or somebody loudly protesting something.

Why does there have to be an excuse? 

Hell, I’d rather go naked. 

Period. 

Well, assuming it’s not too cold. 

Actually, even then I might rather go naked, but it’s just too uncomfortable.

I guess you can also find coverage of the sensationalized nipple slip or celeb caught sunbathing nude sort of things. But that’s not exactly news; it’s more something else...maybe info-perv-tainment.

Wouldn’t that be a great human interest story on the evening news? A normal naked person. No big issue they’re trying to raise awareness about.

“And here’s this person. He or she happens to be naked. So...you’re naked. What’s that like?”

“Oh, it’s pretty much the norm. If it’s warm enough, I’m probably naked or semi-naked. You know. It’s not a big deal, really.”

“Hm. Interesting. I notice that you’re not staggering around, or yelling, or speaking incoherently. Surely you must have some horrid injustice you protesting.”

“Um, no. I mean, there certainly are injustices in the world. But that’s got nothing to do with my being naked.”

“No? An important issue to awareness about?”

“No, I’m just naked. I suppose that’s an issue. But I’m not on a mission here. Just...hanging out.”

“And there you have it. ‘Just hanging out.’ Back to you in the studio.”

Naked woman in horse

A friend of mine posted this on my facebook wall, thinking I might be interested. I was.

Seattle Weekly article ...with pictures

An “aspiring model” (she has a profile on some modeling site) in Portland, Oregon, along with a friend, bought an old horse, killed it, gutted and skinned it, and took some pictures of her inside the carcass. Later they ate the horse.

Okay, so you may think, "Ew." Yeah, I thought that too, but mostly I thought it’s just odd. The police investigated, but it seems that no laws were broken. She posted the pics online, and then claimed to have “no idea why people care.” Apparently she wanted to “be one with the animal” and was inspired by Star Wars.

Yay, Star Wars! But I don't think she's a huge fan or anything.
I think, as she is an “aspiring model”, (her model profile) that she’s just hoping to jumpstart her modeling career.

Well, of course, lots of people are outraged. The comments on the article fall into the 3 typical categories of comments on anything surprising &/or unusual:

1. This is sick and twisted; we hate her; she’s a horrible, horrible person OR she so ca-ra-zee.
2. What about all the other animals that are routinely slaughtered for us to eat? (This response on some other topic could be “what about all the starving people...the uninsured...victims of abuse...global warming...whatever”.)
3. OMG, she’s HOT, I wanna hit dat.

Comments on others people’s comments also fall into those same categories, with one additional group: your so dum sombody should get rid of you to; often followed by another comment pointing out the ironic misspellings, lack of punctuation and other grammatical errors. Yes, poor writing bothers me, and I occasional stifle my own grammar-nazi impulse. Because just calling someone stupid or pointing out grammar issues does not really add anything truly useful to the discussion. 

Probably my favorite comment, one which I might’ve made if I were paying more attention when I first skimmed though the article, was to point out a mistake in the Star Wars reference.

"I am so disgusted! This article is SO WRONG!
Han Solo did not use HIS light saber.  He used Luke's.  Get your story straight!"

Sci-fi nerds are hilarious, and yes, I mean me too.

“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hm?”

Nude House

If you regularly read (& by “read” I mean read, not just look at pictures) this blog you may’ve read before that I’ve come to the point where ideas aren’t coming so easily.

So I occasionally look online for news or other ideas that might pertain to this blog. Well, I found something today. It’s not new news, but it’s certainly new to me and perhaps to you as well.

There's an office in Syndey, Australia where everyone is naked all day. It's a requirement. They hire naturists. It’s on their website. Prospective employees know this before their (naked) interview.

Here's a video from aolnews.

Now, I think the idea is great. It’s a place where naturists can be themselves at work. Awesome.

Here’s an article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

If were inclined to work in an office, and I lived in Sydney, then I’d certainly consider applying.

I checked out the company’s website. It’s called “Nude House”.

They do computer software and sales. Their main program allows you to attach to a picture all kinds of "pop-up" info: text, links, other pictures, whatever. It seems legit.

But there’s a problem. Or two.

Problem #1: There are a few pictures on the company website. Okay, it makes sense that a company would have office environment pictures.
The pictures do not seem to have the attached pop-up info, which I would think they should, that being the company's major product. But you can “click to enlarge” the photos. There are three pictures, and they’re all pictures of women. Here are links:

2 women at computers—one is on the phone, the other appears to be typing

“One of the salesgirls getting dressed after work”

...and here’s the biggest part of problem one (don’t say I didn’t warn you):

“One of the girls to be interviewed with her lovely demonstration photo”

What the fuck!!!???
That is not "naturism". Clearly, that's porn.

As far as I can tell, the “demonstration photo” is something all applicants have to submit along with their CV. But if this is non-sexual naturism, then why is that kind of photo on their site? And why is it all women in the pictures?

Problem #2: According to the website, women don’t come in to work during their period. Okay, if everyone is really cool with nudity and bodies and all that jazz, then why do women have to stay home from work while having their period? It strikes me as a very Old Testament policy. Why not say when you’re having your period, you can wear panties? Apparently that would go against the all nude, all the time policy. 

If it's something else, any experienced naturists out there want to explain that to me?

So, as I said, I think the idea is great. I'm a little suspicious about the execution.
I'm also a little suspicious of this dude and his sort of creepy photo:

Nude House founder, Chris Taylor

In the news: NYC artist & public body-painting

Artist can paint nude models only after dark

(Reuters article)

So, this artist—Andy Golub—was arrested for painting nude models in public in New York City. New York State law allows public nudity by people “entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment".

You can be naked if you’re “entertaining”, but not just because you like it? Well, whatever.

The court is allowing the artist and his model to go free, and the charges will be dropped in 6 months if they are not arrested again. He’ll be allowed to paint bare breasts any time, but during the day the models have to at least wear “g-strings”.

I’m not sure whether or not this is a good thing for public nudity proponents. It’s half-way good for artistic expression, in that he can paint mostly nude people, but a little bad that he has to wait until dark to paint fully nude people.

But on the bad side (for public nudists) is that the court is upholding a distinction: some nude is good and some nude is bad. Just being naked is bad, but naked entertainment is okay.

As is often the case, I don’t quite understand. 

Towel, please

There’s a pending ordinance in San Francisco about public nudity. It’s okay to be nude in public there. Lewd conduct (clothed or not) is not okay, but just not having clothes on is fine. (No pants-less erections allowed.)

The ordinance calls for people to place a towel or something between their bottoms and public seating. It also bans nudity in restaurants.

Here’s an article about it:

LA Times article

I’m not so sure about the restaurant issue. My first thought is, sure let the naked people in. But... if you're out at a decent restaurant (all carefully clothed) and some naked folk come in and sit near you, you can't simply leave (without paying the bill) or get up and move. 

So I guess it should be left to individual restaurant owners to decide if they want naked people. I guess they could put up a sign. Of course that would probably lead to a whole civil rights kinda of thing. And I don't think nudity really hurts anyone. In fact, it's probably healthy.

But the towel thing...yeah, that’s just completely reasonable. And if it’s seen as an issue, then sure, pass that law.

I’ve never been to a nudist resort or retreat or whatever they call it, but I’ve read a little about it. And it seems that carrying a towel to sit on is not just common practice, it’s one of the rules.

I’ve probably mentioned that before—that I’ve not been— but I’d be up for it.

(Not up... You know what I mean).

So, who’s in? I’m ready.

Yeah, just like an old pro.

Okay, who am I kidding? 

Nobody “in the know” would think he’s an “old pro”. Just look at the guy. No fanny pack. Where’s he gonna keep his wallet & keys, not to mention the spf-really-high-number sunblock you know he needs for that sad, pale, white skin.