Posts Tagged ‘Mick Jagger’

Reuters reports that two topless women painted with the slogans “Olympic shame” and “No Sharia” protested in front of London’s City Hall on Thursday to draw attention to what they called “bloody Islamist regimes” taking part in the Olympics.

They were members of Ukrainian women’s rights group Femen, which has staged numerous topless protests across Europe, including at the Euro 2012 soccer tournament in Poland and Ukraine where their concern was prostitution in host cities.

“The regimes are fascists of our time, they treat women like third-class citizens,” said protester Reza Moradi, without specifying any countries. “This is what we object to, this is what they are protesting against.”

Smeared with fake blood and wearing floral wreaths on their heads, the two topless women ran around the entrance of City Hall in central London for around 10 minutes chased by a third protester before being covered up and led away in handcuffs by police officers. A spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had no immediate comment.

This is not apparently not offensive.

This is not apparently not offensive.

Even this is apparently not offensive.

This is offensive. Hell, yes it is. But not for the reasons the police used.

So my question is this. Why were they led away by police officers? What law were they breaking? Why is it legal to go topless on a beach, but not outside City Hall? (Had it been New York, it would have been legal, by the way: see below.)

Most importantly, would they have been led away if they had been men, topless? Would they have been breaking any law?

After all, topless men – often with bodies that really shouldn’t see the light of day – are very common at British football matches, and in British parks, and so on.

So why is it an arrestable offence for a woman to be topless, and a man not?

Why is a woman’s body offensive, and a man’s not? Is it because female breasts are somehow “dirty”?

Why is it a furore if Janet Jackson reveals a nipple (still covered) or Madonna, but not if Mick Jagger does it?

Is it because female breasts are an erogenous zone? So it’s really all about our paranoia about matters sexual, yes? But surely that is not reason enough, as I know plenty of men who consider their own nipples to be erogenous too.

I think I have made my point. Or points, if you get my meaning.

Nipples? Tits? Get over ’em, already.