Archive for the ‘Women in Skimpy Clothes’ Category

Newer Entries »

Flesh! Oh, No! VIII

Wednesday, August 9th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! VIII

As this story came out, I had feelings of real ambivalence about whether-or-not to give a rat’s ass. Things other countries do, culturally…it’s pretty hard to get me all uppity & slobbery about those things, whatever they may be. I’m a live and let live type guy. Ultimately, my phobia about letting noteworthy items pass off into the ether, never to be seen again, uncaptured, unsketched, undocumented, won out. I decided I needed a quick write-up about it. The deciding factor, was that overseas or not, the decision described is just plain harebrained. We like to capture hairbrained decisions. We, here at The Blog Nobody Reads, like to explore the yawning chasm between the things people do, and the things that would make more sense. We make lists of such things; if we do that, and said lists are missing items like what you’ll read about below, it places unnecessary doubt on whatever else remains on the lists.

In the meantime, the story has lost its freshness, so news-junkies are advised to skip this one.

No swimsuits for Cambodia’s Miss Universe contenders
Mon Jul 31, 2:46 AM ET

PHNOM PENH (AFP) – Cambodia is to choose its first
Miss Universe contestant in more than a decade, but organizers have said that the qualifying competition would lack the customary swimsuit round.

Kem Tola, marketing manager for Planet Communication which will run the Miss Cambodia pageant, said the competition will begin next month and winners will be announced in October.

“We hold this event because we want to make our culture known worldwide,” Kem Tola told AFP.

But he said the competition’s co-organizers, the ministry of culture, had slapped a ban on the swimsuit section of the event in the interests of Cambodian culture.

Sim Sarak, a director-general of the ministry of culture, said the last Miss Cambodia contest in 1995 also went ahead without a swimsuit round.

“We are not that civilized yet but we want our culture to be a sustainable one,” he said, adding that no pageant had been held for 10 years because the government thought it was a waste of money.

The winning Miss Cambodia will receive about 1,000 dollars prize money and will likely be nominated to take part in next year’s Miss Universe contest, Kem Tola said.

Now, you see the source of my ambivalence. I really don’t care about the political influence of Cambodia’s Ministry of Culture, whether that is a formal influence like a constitutional-type thing, or whether it’s more of a mafioso-type influence involving bribery and blackmail and horse heads in beds. I don’t care. But the thing I have to keep reminding myself, is that it’s impossible to be “passionately apathetic” about something; to not care about something, means to not care about whether ensuing events cause you to someday care. There is difficulty in that for us all. Someday, maybe that would be a subject worth exploring.

But as members of the human race with a God-given gift for logic and intellect, whoever these people are in the Ministry of Culture — which, according to AFP and Yahoo! News, I guess isn’t even deserving of capital “M” and “C” letters — have sold out to something, I know not what. Look what they’re doing here. They’re having a national competition, carefully expunged of that oh-so-offensive swimsuit competition with the “unsustainable culture,” from which they will produce a winner. Said winner, who may or may not have the assets necessary to partake in a swimsuit competition, may then be nominated to partake in the worldwide Miss Universe pageant, where…well, do I really have to draw a flow chart?

You know, as a guy who appreciates good-lookin’ ladies in swimsuits, I can think of just a few things that are important for a female who wants to look good in one, and/or compete with other females in one. Not being a woman, I’m pretty sure my list falls short of the real story, but what’s on the list is stuff about which I’m pretty certain. I’ll bet you some good money if I were fortunate enough to interview a Miss Universe, or someone who actually competed there, the list would lengthen considerably.

All of which gives me cause to wonder. Could this decision be explained, by anybody, with some genuine passion? As opposed to an apathetic talking-head like Sim Sarak, simply mouthing the words because her paycheck depends on those words being mouthed? I suspect not, but what do I know.

Posted in Pinheads, Women in Skimpy Clothes | No Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! VI

Monday, June 26th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! VI

People like to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart, which discusses current events, and then injects a unique brand of humor into the process of reporting them. If those people were approached by someone who said “I’m pleased as punch that you like the Daily Show, but I’ve decided you should like it because of the news, not because of the jokes…and since I have authority in this matter, I’m going to enforce my decision by forcing John Stewart to not be funny anymore.” Those people would say screw you, I’ll watch the show for whatever reason I want to watch it. We’ll get you fired Mr. Authority Person, and if we can’t do that, we’ll probably stop watching.

People like to listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s radio show for a number of reasons. Some of them like to hear Dr. Laura’s words of wisdom, some like to gather dirt on Dr. Laura so they can bash her somewhere else, and other people just like to listen to stories of airheaded sluts cheating on their boyfriends and husbands. If Dr. Laura were to come on the radio and say “I’m glad you’re all tuning in, but I’ve decided you shouldn’t be tuning in to take prurient delight in these stories, so I’m going to get rid of them.” People would stop listening, of course. Just before they tuned out, they would bear a lot of rage, and probably express it, at the attempt to control their very preferences.

People like to listen to the President of the United States give speeches. Some like to hear what the President has to say so they can make up their minds on whether to support his initiatives; others simply wait for the President to screw up on pronouncing something, so they can make fun of him. Consider what would happen if a radio/television network announced “We know some of you are tuning in just to add on to your lists of ‘Bushisms,’ and we don’t want to give you any ammunition, so just know in advance that if the President makes an embarrassing slip-up we’ll bleep it out with the benefit of our ten-second delay. But we think you should still tune in, and listen for the reasons we think you should be listening.” Gawd, can you imagine the backlash that would take place then. The backlash…and the futility.

Well, Wimbledon has figured out people like to watch tennis matches just to watch good games of tennis…and to look at good-lookin’ women in skimpy outfits. What was just a silly hypothetical, in the above three recitations, is reality in this fourth one, according to this brief snipped from The Sun.

KILLJOY tennis chiefs have outlawed skimpy outfits at this year�s Wimbledon, which starts today.

They want spectators to keep their eye on the ball, not on the athletic figures of the gorgeous female players.

So they have issued a strict new dress code banning gear deemed too sexy or low-cut.

That means a bevy of babes must cover up. What a glaring fault � especially when you check the form of stars like former champ Maria Sharapova.

The Sun has put a prohibition on using their images without licensing, so I got the above graphic from somewhere else. Hope that’s okay, The Sun does not own Wimbledon so far as I know.

Awhile ago I said something about the European mindset, and this mostly-European tendency to make rules about things without regard to whether those rules can be expected to be effective. The author of a not-very-readable comment, appeared to take offense, although I’m not sure about this. Well…this is a great example of what I’m talking about. What is going on in your head when you tell someone “come on over, bring the kids, watch our tennis matches…but only for the reasons we think you should be watching them.”

It’s enough to make you want to throw tea in the harbor all over again.

Here is what I want to see before we get too much farther into the summer “Fire Women For Wearing Bikinis” season. Let’s get a woman, dressing modestly, who fainted…then maybe another one, maybe a couple more. Three total. Add to this, some ruminations on global warming, and about how this is the hottest year ever recorded in human history. Somewhere, someone is willing to say so, I’m sure. Then, let’s get some egghead college professor who makes a living being quoted, to add a sound bite about how women are feeling intimidated by social pressures to wear more clothes, and running into a disproportionate number of health problems because of it during this hottest-year-on-record. Like dehydration, and fainting.

In other words, let’s get the public-policy goo-gooders to feed on their own. Our egghead propeller-beanie clipboard-and-white-coat goo-gooders are forcing women to wear more clothes, and our global-warming propeller-beanie goo-gooders and our female-health-malady and unfair-cultural-pressures propeller-beanie goo-gooders say it’s high time something was done about it.

I’d pay money to see that.

Like I’ve said many a time before…we are all here, because a lusty man thought a woman’s body looked good. Red-blooded straight guys who like to look at young ladies in skimpy outfits, are doing the Lord’s Work. If anybody’s looking for an apology, don’t look here.

Posted in Pinheads, Women in Skimpy Clothes | No Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! V

Saturday, June 24th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No! V

It’s a little too long and windy to become a “Thing I Know” but it’s still something I know, and know very well. When the subject of young ladies in skimpy outfits comes up, very few of the things anybody says on the subject, make any sense whatsoever. There’s something about this time of year, wherein young female teachers and young female bank managers start getting fired for wearing bikinis. Well, it just happened again.

A New Orleans artist who began working as a teacher in Lafayette after Hurricane Katrina filed a free speech lawsuit Thursday against the Lafayette Parish School Board, alleging she was unjustly fired because of adult-oriented art on her Web site.

Heather Weathers, whose Web site features images of partial nudity and declares that her art “addresses stereotypes and taboos about women�s bodies,” is seeking unspecified damages in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

According to the lawsuit, Weathers had been teaching at Comeaux High School one week when Principal Joseph Craig told her that parents had brought the Web site to his attention.

Craig “then informed Weathers that she could not continue to teach at Comeaux or any other Lafayette Parish school,: according to the lawsuit.
:
Weathers is active in the New Orleans art scene and has previously worked in New Orleans and New York as an art teacher.
:
Work exhibited on her Web site spans from performance art, to sculpture, photography, painting and video.

One performance piece detailed on the Web site involves her donning a bikini fashioned out of meat, a statement on objectification of women.

Now, what I get a kick out of, here, is the kind of thing that makes Erica Chevillar look much better — ahem, I mean, the merits of the case — than Heather Weathers. Let’s review.

Erica Chevillar posed for the website of something called the “National Bikini Team” under a pseudonym, one “Erica Lee.” Heather Weathers could have done the same. It’s not that “Heather Weathers” is a terribly unique name, although it somewhat is, but it’s a thoroughly memorable name. That some busybody parent would come to notice the naked chick wearing the meat, was one and the same with the precious bubbins’ schoolteacher, was just a matter of time. It would be a cause for concern if such a thing never happened.

Heather Weathers runs the website, or at the very least, is responsible for some of the content and arrangement of same. The diligence with which she has restricted the naughty portions to the over-eighteen set, has been called into question. This issue doesn’t pertain to Ms. Chevillar.

The irony is not lost on me, that the intellectually vapid tidbits tumbling out of Weathers’ mouth, dealing with “objectification of women,” are identical in verbiage to the talking points of people who so regularly stir up trouble about women in bikinis presented where excessive bare flesh is thought to be inappropriate. This is a case of the prudish feeding on their own. Although I would like Ms. Weathers to ultimately prevail, I’m torn on the issue because she’s made it clear she’s an activist for the very people who are trying to cover her up. In effect, she’s teetering on the brink of becoming a martyr for the opposing side.

Last but not least, there is the question of time. Erica Chevillar’s pictures were taken before she became a schoolteacher — at least, that’s what she’s said, and nobody to my knowledge has taken the trouble to contradict her. The summary of Weathers’ case is that she’s taken the time and energy, on her own, to put up a provocative website, in her own name, while simultaneously subjecting herself to the rigorous inspection awaiting any schoolteacher by the parent community. Even if she were to emerge legally victorious in the conflict, by engaging so much of the initiative to cause that conflict to arise in the first place, she’s opened the quality of her judgment to legitimate question. The same doesn’t apply to Chevillar.

And as a straight male, I freely confess it means something to me that Chevillar looks much better. I like her curves.

Legally, I think there’s enough fresh meat (har!) involved in Weathers’ termination, that it will probably stand. Personally, I’m inclined to side, as always, with the right of good-lookin’ women to bare their bodies if they choose to, and I’m not going to be pleased with the precedent when Weathers’ is, after all’s said & done, thrown to the dogs. But I do hope the “Cover ‘Em Up” brigade takes note when it comes to pass — this is not a victory for them, as the head on the pike came off the shoulders of one amongst their own.

The lesson here is that when some of us lose freedom, even the freedom to wear a bikini, the loss of freedom hurts all of us. Each and every single one of us. Er…not that I’m anxious to see men wear bikinis. But, you know, the principle stands.

Update: There is an article here about Chevillar and Sheri Doub, the bank manager referenced in the first paragraph. It appears in some kind of atheist column and tries to tie religion into the whole thing.

Whatever, dude. I believe in God, I think people who don’t are just plain nuts, and as far as I’m concerned women can wear bathing suits whenever they want to. Within reason. I’ll just look over the ones I like and ignore the ones I don’t.

Straight men looking at good-looking women in skimpy clothes, are doing The Lord’s work. We are all here because somewhere, a guy thought a woman’s body looked good.

Posted in Tree Huggers, Women in Skimpy Clothes | No Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! IV

Saturday, June 3rd, 2006

As this blog has observed repeatedly — there’s something kind of strange about people nowadays. Two subjects they just can’t handle in any way, which you can tell by the steady stream of crap that comes out of their mouths when the subjects come up, are these: Terrorist attacks and young ladies in skimpy clothes. Someone who’s just gotten done flinging spittle around the room, pontificating about how a freakin’ hurricane is President Bush’s fault, will act like a terrorist attack is…nobody’s fault. Or, maybe that’s Bush’s fault, too. Or it’s just something that happens from time to time, not a big deal, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning, so don’t worry about it. And certainly, nobody actually went out of their way to get the terrorist attack done. It just happened. Boom, oopsie, move on.

Regarding the young ladies who aren’t wearing a lot of clothes, I strongly suspect that the ones over age eighteen who look decent, aren’t really bothering anyone — it appears we’re stuck in some kind of mode where everybody is pretending to be offended on behalf of everybody else. That certainly does seem to be the case here, in which the male kitchen workers at an all-female Oxford College dorm, are supposed to be “upset” that the student body is showing a little too much, ya know, student body. At beakfast. The male kitchen workers. Article makes mention of the unsettled reaction of the poor blokes, and it’s more than a little strange that the article mentions no blokes, at all, by name or by quote, whatsoever.

Students of St Hilda’s college at Oxford University have been ordered to dress properly for breakfast. Some were arriving for their morning cup of tea wearing the naughtiest of nightgowns. Or pyjamas that left little to the imagination. They claimed that with no men in the all-female halls of residence, there was no need for decorum.

But the kitchen staff – particularly the handful of men among them – hardly knew where to look.

Revealing nightwear best left to the boudoir has now been banned.

The order to cover up has not gone down well with students, however, who claim breakfasting in their nightclothes is one of the privileges of studying at an all-girls college. Arielle Goodley, a 20-year-old English literature and psychology student, received a written warning for wearing a lacy nightie and skimpy dressing gown after the ban was imposed.
:
“They are claiming that it makes the young male serving staff uncomfortable, but we know that’s not true. Whenever we’ve asked the men themselves, they say it doesn’t bother them at all. In reality it’s the older women working there who seem to be making a fuss.”

This is abuse of authority plain and simple. There is no ambiguity going on at all — the Dean, Dr. Amanda Cooper-Sarkar, is order, and the hottie, Arielle Goodley, is chaos. Order, and chaos. Yet the thinking individual must tie his brain up into knots in order to take the ravings of “order” at face-value. The men are upset? The men don’t “know where to look?” What kind of men are these?

Arielle, who is chaos, on the other hand makes perfect sense. A bunch of bitter middle-aged old biddies are passing out new rules and blaming their rigidity and insecurity on the men. Who hasn’t seen that before? I normally side against college kids who want to start mini-revolutions the first time they bump up against rules they don’t want to follow…and I’m inclined to continue that informal policy here. But as far as what’s going on, Ms. Goodley’s comments are perfectly rational, and achieve perfect comportation with my own experiences about such things. As far as what’s going on, I have no reason not to believe each and every word that comes out of her mouth.

Especially that part about asking the guys if it’s okay, and being told hell yes!

Now sometimes, it’s only logical to create new rules in certain situations demanding greater coverage and modesty. This may be one of those times. But when that comes to pass, why, oh why, can’t people just put together one or two sentences that are honest & make sense, and use them? Why do they have to spin so much crap?

And what is up with these cranky women with degrees and hyphenated last names? It seems they are disproportionately represented in these teapot-tempests. Jealousy? You’d think the hyphenated female authorities would at least put some effort into making it look like something else.

Posted in Bush Derangement Syndrome, Women in Skimpy Clothes | No Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! III

Friday, May 26th, 2006

There is a substantial amount of interest in the story of Sheri Doub, the former Vice President for Citizen’s Tri-County Bank of Chattanooga, TN, who was fired after she modeled a bathing suit in some local charity newspaper or something. She’s suing the bank for half a million dollars plus back pay.

Curiously, at this point I do not have a copy of the actual picture, nor do I have the vaguest conception of what the picture looks like, nor do I have any picture of Ms. Doub in any swimsuit or in any pose, nor do I know of anyone who can get any such thing.

I know you people clicking on my site from a Google search are here to locate exactly that thing, and I’m sorry you have to navigate away from here empty-handed. By the way, welcome. And here is a follow-up news story with a little more detail, so it won’t be a completely wasted trip for you. You’re welcome.

Sheri Doub modeled this swimsuit for an article that appeared in the Times Free Press last May. The two piece suit came from Proffitt’s, but the department store says it did NOT pay her to model it. Doub says she agreed to the spread for the paper as a favor, and thought nothing of it. But on the day the fashion piece came out in the paper, she lost her job as bank manager at the Tri-County bank on Signal Mountain.

Sheri Doub I WAS ASKED TO COLLECT MY BELONGINGS AND I WAS ESCORTED OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND ASKED TO RETURN THE KEYS. I WAS VERY EMOTIONAL, CRYING WHEN I LEFT.

Bank president Ann Smith wrote in this letter she wanted Doub’s resignation immediately. Smith wrote “The clothing or lack that you were modeling has caused great embarrassment to our organization. Doub says bank CEO Glenn Barker told her maybe she should pursue a career in modeling.

Sheri Doub I WAS DEVASTATED, I WAS IN SHOCK. DISBELIEF. I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT BECAUSE I HAD WORKED FOR THEM FOR FIVE AND A HALF YEARS AND HAD DONE A GREAT JOB.

She filed this suit seeking 500 thousand dollars in damages. The bank responded this afternoon, reading from a prepared statement but answering no questions.

Ann Smith Citizen’s Tri Counties Bank IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT MS. DOUB’S CLAIMS ARE MORE SENSATIONAL THAN FACTUAL, THE BANK STRONGLY BELIEVES WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, WE WILL BE VINDICATED.

In its termination letter, the bank cites outside employment as a violation, but Doub says she received no compensation for this piece in any way.

Sheri Doub I WANT IT TO BE MADE KNOWN THAT IT IS NOT RIGHT TO DO THAT TO SOMEONE AND TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY HOPE WOULD BE THEIR CAREER FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

Ann Smith THAT DECISION WAS A CULMINATING EVENT THAT CAME IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BANK HAVING PRIOR ISSUES WITH HER JUDGMENT AND PERFORMANCE AS A BRANCH MANAGER.

Sheri Doub tells John, if a man did the same thing she did, she does not think he would’ve been fired.

That last line is very important, according to those more familiar with the law than me. An at-will employee may be dismissed for any reason, but discrimination is a big no-no. Ms. Doub is unlikely to win out in this thing because until a male employee of the bank poses in a thong, and is untouched by any termination or warning or reprimand, this is speculation.

You know what I’m thinking, though? Watch this one. Because she happens to be right; Women in skimpy clothing, bring out all kinds of irrationality in people, which men can’t bring out regardless of what they wear even if they want to. And I’m sorry Ms. Bank President Ann Smith, but there’s a challenge involved in giving this a luster of rationality. It doesn’t make sense when all’s said and done. Sheri Doub poses in a bikini for no money; Sheri Doub does her gardening in a bikini; Sheri Doub spends the afternoon at the lake in a bikini. What’s the difference amongst those three?

I mean yes there are some differences, but it’s difficult to argue that any of them are meaningful. Or that a man would be treated the same way for doing the same thing. Er…in swim trunks, that is, not a bikini.

Posted in Women in Skimpy Clothes | 2 Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No! II

Tuesday, May 16th, 2006

Just half-an-hour ago I commented that

…if the human brain is indeed like one of nature’s most perfect computers, then there are two themes of discourse that act like powerful electromagnets and get all that information-processing all bollywonkers and screwed-up in a great big hurry. Those two themes of discourse have to do with girls and young ladies in skimpy outfits, and terrorist attacks, specifically the attacks of 9/11.

There is a tendency, when an even fairly intelligent and reasonable commentator offers his or her views on these two subjects, to emit a powerful and perpetual stream of pure doots.

Today’s example of lunacy about ladies in skimpy outfits, well, I’ll get to that in another post.

This is that other post. It should be noted that, between terrorist attacks and ladies in skimpy outfits, the latter has a slightly stronger tendency to pull crap out of people’s mouths, and if I were to pass on this example, I don’t imagine I’d have to wait long for another.

Sheri Doub of Chattanooga is suing her former employer, Citizen’s Tri-County Bank, for half-a-million. The issue is wrongful termination, the bank having fired her from her position as vice-president and branch manager, after she appeared in a local swimsuit calendar. Wearing a swimsuit. Oh, the horror!

The article [in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, May 6, 2005] apparently gave her name and information about the swimsuit, but revealed nothing about her job or her employer. Nevertheless, Doub said management approached her the same day the photo appeared and fired her.

She was told that she ought to consider a career in modelling because her career in banking was over.

I have linked to the Canadian article about this, because it seems to be the best write-up about it. No pictures yet, dammit. There are two other prominent sources describing this incident here and here. Meanwhile, I defy anyone, anywhere, to string together some words and sentences describing for me, in a compelling, convincing way — how can the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of Citizen’s Tri-County Bank be impacted by Ms. Doub’s wearing of a swimsuit in a year-old photograph? In any way whatsoever?

I’m not taking issue with the idea that the bank has a right to fire her. Of course they do. Undoubtedly, this is why Ms. Doub has said “if a man did the same thing, Tri-County bank wouldn’t fire him.” In many states, a little whispering about discrimination is about the only thing that can undermine a business entity’s ability to make decisions about its own personnel. Outside the perimeter of “discrimination” issues, she probably has no case.

The bank likely has the right to let her go. Just like I have the right to notice what they did, ponder what a nonsensical decision it is, and criticize them for it. Oh no, they won’t be hurt by it, but they wouldn’t have been hurt by ignoring the whole thing, either. Assholes.

Just last week I was able to write up about 25-year-old teacher Erica Chevillar who was embroiled in a huge bubbling stewpot of trouble over her old swimsuit photos, which had come to the attention of some anonymous troublemaking parent. In her case, it appears the photos were taken years before her teaching career ever started.

Something is in the air. We appear to be suffering from an epidemic.

Thing I Know #55. Aside from providing one of life’s simple pleasures, young ladies in skimpy outfits are wonderful whackjob detectors. Anyone objecting to their presence or their attire, is someone I don’t want to know. I can think of several reasons for this objection and none of them are the least bit healthy, helpful or benevolent.

Posted in Poisoning Individuality and Reason, Women in Skimpy Clothes | No Comments »

Flesh! Oh, No!

Thursday, May 11th, 2006

Flesh! Oh, No!

One of the leitmotifs of this blog, which has not yet been worded concisely enough to make it into the list of Things I Know, is the observation that there are exactly two subjects about which people will, with great frequency, comment stupidly. That is to say, there are two subjects which invite silly, nonsensical comments, from LARGE segments of the population, notably people who take great pride in thinking out what they’re saying. These two subjects draw half-assed, surreal, other-worldly, and wholly unworkable views like barbeque sauce draws bees. Usually-intelligent people will pontificate about these two subjects, and the steady stream of crap dribbling out of their mouths, is just a wonder to behold.

Those two subjects are these: 1) The September 11 attacks, and the ensuing War on Terror; and 2) girls and young women in skimpy outfits.

As I noted in FAQ Question #11, I am in a state of perpetual and complete uncertainty as to what these two subjects have to do with each other. There must be a link somewhere, but I don’t know what it is. Nevertheless, people have a tendency to behave as if the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, came spontaneously like some kind of freak weather phenomenon, to be blamed on nobody…except perhaps the President and some of America’s foreign policy. Nobody actually did them. And as for the ladies in skimpy outfits, well — the sky is the limit as to what people can say. They can say there’s nothing wrong with a nine-year-old dressing like a whore — or they can say there is something wrong with that, but what’s wrong with it has nothing to do with bad taste, the problem is she’ll cause “eating disorders” in other nine-year-olds. See what I mean? Common sense eludes just about everyone; it’s a steady, unbroken, pure stream of doots. Very little of what anybody says, makes any sense.

I’ve commented on it here and here and here and here and here and here.

Well, now a 25-year-old teacher is in trouble for pictures she had taken during her college days. Erica Chevillar has been caught. There’s pictures on the “innernets” of her posing in skimpy bikinis.

Chevillar, using the name Erica Lee, appears in outfits ranging from cleavage-baring jackets to skimpy bikinis in about two-dozen photos.

West Boca Raton High Principal Fran Giblin said he learned about the photos Wednesday after a parent complained. He turned the matter over to the district’s professional standards department, which handles investigations of noncriminal matters.

“I would certainly hope that we set the highest standards for our students,” Giblin said. “If this in fact is true, it’s a concern. A big concern.”

The district has only a general policy that requires teachers to behave “morally and ethically,” school district spokesman Nat Harrington said.

Okay, I can see something in this. I’ve looked at some of the pictures — and then, of course, I looked again and again and again just to make sure I was getting extremely offended. I will say there are one or two “sleazy underthings” types of pictures in there. A little heat for the district? Yeah, I can see that.

Nobody’s saying she used school resources to take the pictures.

Nobody’s saying she firmly established a link between her identity as a school teacher, and her identity as a model in the pictures. Nobody is saying she made any attempt to draw attention to herself in this way.

Nobody is even sticking their neck on a block, and contradicting Chevillar’s statement about “college days”…which, I’m gathering, means nobody’s stepping up and saying these pictures were taken during a time even close to her teaching career. In effect, this is equivalent to Raquel Welch getting a teaching job, and then getting in trouble when one of the superintendents finds out about One Million Years B.C.

Let’s explore the realm of dispute a little here. I’m taking it as a given, that everyone everywhere would agree, had Erica Chevillar been at her home in a skimpy bikini and paraded around in public view — maybe, walk out of the pool area, and go water some tulip bulbs in her front lawn — this wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, get her in trouble with the district.

Ah, but there are photos. Okay, so if Chevillar wandered around to her front lawn, and someone took a picture of her and circulated it…this wouldn’t get her in trouble either.

Ah, but she posed. Okay, so if she watered her tulips and her neighbor said “hey, can I take a picture of you” and she said “sure!” and the pictures went flying around…this still wouldn’t get her in trouble. Right? Am I right?

Ah, but she posed in what we call “butt floss” in some of these pictures, deliberately making her buttocks prominent as she did so. There are other photos where, while the product iself is not “topless,” the pose definitely is — something magically obscures those all-offensive nipples. Hmmm. Is this a departure from behaving “morally and ethically”? Some would say so.

All fine and good, then. If so, let someone step out of the shadows of anonymity, and so state. You shouldn’t be able to get someone in trouble, for behaving immorally and unethically — for wearing butt floss — without stating, over some kind of virtual signature belonging to you, that it’s immoral and unethical to wear butt floss. That’s my beef.

These aren’t R-rated shots. For all practical and not-so-practical purposes, these are bikini shots.

But more on-topic from where I sit, these are once-upon-a-time shots.

Yeah, I suppose it’s the district’s decision, not mine. But one thing about that. If once-upon-a-time bikini shots are defined as something outside of good behavior, “morally and ethically,” so that the violation can be made “a big concern” — ex poste facto — who is saying so, besides Principal Giblin? Who is this parent who complained?

I’m not saying the anonymous nature of the complaining parent means the photos never existed, since obviously, they did and they do. But there’s something terribly wrong about this, when you can say “this offends me” and bring some pretty harsh consequences on someone, without even saying who you are, let alone why it offends you.

Yes, having bikini pictures of you floating around on the net isn’t the greatest thing in the world, when you’re a teacher. But Chevillar didn’t pose for the pictures when she was a teacher, it appears she posed for them years before. Contrasted to that, I don’t see what being an advocate for the angst & agitation of busybody parents, who are outspoken enough to be offended, but way too shy to say who they are — has to do with being a principal. And Fran Gevlin, it would appear, is doing that very thing right friggin’ now.

He’d have a lot more sympathy out of me if I saw some evidence — just a tiny scintilla of evidence, not an overwhelming amount — that these pictures caused a real discipline problem. I could see how maybe they could. But from what I gather from this article, it’s all theoretical, inspired by the ravings of one, solitary, anonymous parent, whose intentions could be…anything. How that might be a much bigger problem than some once-upon-a-time bikini shots, should be obvious.

Update 5/12/06: The teacher will not be facing any firing, suspension, or any other form of discipline because a school district ruling yesterday held that she “didn’t violate any school rules or laws.”

Well, duh.

Posted in The Evil Men Do, Women in Skimpy Clothes | 1 Comment »

Newer Entries »