Two girls, aged 17 and 18, have been banned from a church festival after they flashed their breasts to a ride operator so that they could stay on it longer. The operator gave the girls an extra twenty minutes on the ride.
Police were called following the incident, and the two girls have admitted to the lewd act. The incident, which occurred at the Our Lady of the Greenwood Catholic Church festival happened when most festivel goers had gone home.
Rev. Jonathan Meyer said that “It’s a shame these young women didn’t know the great gift and beauty they have as a woman. The body is sacred and holy. We should be sad for them.” No charges were filed.
if it's a catholic church then it should read "Father Jonathan Meyer", rather than "Reverend Jonathan Meyer". i realize the source says reverend, but that's ignorance on their part and should be changed regardless. catholics might use the word reverend, but as an adjective rather than a title (such as the Reverend Father Jonathan Meyer).
i disagree. these chicks obviously don't value their bodies enough. if they did they'd at least use them for something worthwhile. instead they flash them to get 20 more minutes on a ride? how lame! what's next, flashing the guy at costco for another mini hot dog sample? if they fully understood their gift perhaps they could pose for playboy and make millions.
or perhaps they could even become so confident in their beauty that they wouldn't consider the exploitation of their appearance to be desireable at all, and would start to rely more on that private school education they have.
Watch it guys, extremist Christians and Flower Power are all over these boards. They show no mercy. (I know i'll get flamed for this, but it really makes them look like more of an idiot than me). -np-
The body IS sacred and holy. Christianity flip-flopped on Pagan policies, just for the sake of flip-floping. If the body is so sacred and holy, why be ashamed of it? Why HIDE it? One could make the arguement, "to share it with someone special", and when it comes to sex, that's a valid arguement, but simply displaying the body, IMHO, is nothing to be ashamed of. The Bible even says, Original Sin is marked by our shame in being naked (and some believe that those not ashamed of being naked don't carry Original Sin). To show your naked body should not be degrading or shameful. It is shameful only to those that couldn't do the same, and degrading only to those that allow themselves to be taken advantage of for it (i.e. the ride operator).
The Pagans also believed the body was sacred and holy. It was for that very reason that so many Pagan rituals were highly sexual in nature. Prostitutes were like priestesses. Priestesses WERE prostitutes. They were WORSHIPPED for it. And why not? Back then, procreation was critical to our survival as a race, and at that time around 1 in 4 women died in labor. Was it not brave and honorable then, holy, to put your life on the line for the sake of a stranger and for your kind? It is for THAT very reason that while "inventing" Christianity, its makers made it deliberately anti-sexual.
hmm, what would your reaction be if your partner went naked or flashed someone in this day and age. I am not criticising or anything... i am just curios! =)
I think her clothes hide her beauty (she's quite modest), and I wouldn't mind if other people had a chance to see the beauty I get to see. That's the honest truth.
The act is harmless, its only the emotions or intentions behind it that can be a problem.
obviously maverick isn't that insecure (about his g/f) nor shameful of it (here nakedness)...
if they would have done that here they would have been well within there rights, hell they could've flashed cops and or simply same without a shirt or bra, women rarely utilize this right now that they actually have it, was more common when it was illegal to do so... women going topless in ontario is legal, has been for about a decade now.
i totally agree with your last sentence... problem is, these girls used their beauty (assuming they have a nice pair!)for something so cheap. Come on, an extra 20 minutes? personally i think it was a cheap stunt (and how did they know the guy won't get offended?)!)
@NicPre the religious association of a person should have no bearing on their argument. if the worst you can do is flame someone for being a christian or a hippy, while ignoring their argument, then it's not them who looks like the idiot.
@maverick7h "but simply displaying the body, IMHO, is nothing to be ashamed of"
christianity doesn't say nudity is shameful either. you ever seen the sistine chapel?
"To show your naked body should not be degrading or shameful."
it is not nudity that is shameful, it is the way in which that nudity is presented. these young girls are not simply walking around nude or posing for an artist. they are not taking a righteous stand to say that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of. what they are doing is betting on the fact that it is unacceptable, and getting excitement from that fact. i'm assuming these girls were raised in a non-pagan, post-constantine society with certain taboos placed on sexual exploitation. thus, for them to offer their sexuality in the brief way that they did, surely they too thought there was a level of sin involved. being nude on an album cover, as yoko and lennon did, requires strength of character in not being ashamed of your body. flashing a carnie, i think we can all admit, is hardly as noble an action. they are exploiting a random guy, and he is exploiting them. exploitation is never a good thing. i might also point out that pagan societies weren't the most sexually enlightened since child molestation was also widely acceptable before the oppressive christians came along. silly pagans.
People talk about this like breasts are a non-renewable resource. Flashing someone doesn't make them smaller, or uglier each time. Its not like they traded something valueable for something invaluable. They traded something, at no cost to themselves (well, except that they were banned). 20 minutes of riding for 2 seconds of flashing. Seems like a good return to me.
The arguement here is that a girl that would do something like this doesn't value herself, and by being the type of person that would never do this sort of thing, you must value yourself more than that girl. Its good to value yourself. However, some may not place value in the same places as others, and that's fine. Everybody has a right to an opinion. What matters most is how you feel about YOURSELF. And, after all, flashing somebody doesn't damage your health, like say, smoking or drinking or drugs, so you can't say conclusively that it is degrading to your body.
My guess is that they ASKED the guy if he would give them more time in exchange for the flashing. Its not like the girls are psycic, and they just randomly flashed him, and he was just like "ha, I'll give you an extra twenty minutes for that", and they knew it would happen all along. They probably worked it out first. So in this case, the chance of the guy being offended is probably a non-issue.
If I was at a theme park, and I wanted to go on a roller-coaster or something again without waiting in the hour-long line, I'd flash people all day in exchange for skipping the line. That is, if society tolerated it.
If I'm not mistaken, child molestation was a part of society in Pagan times, not part of the religion itself. It was almost a world-wide thing, a sign of status. It wasn't cool, that's for sure. But you have to consider the views of society back then. Molestation means "unwelcomed sexual advance", and as sick as we see it to be now, there is a chance the children saw nothing wrong. Its just impossible for us to be in the minds of people from so long ago. Also consider that, while sexual activity with a person who hasn't even begun to sexually mature is definitely wrong, defiant of nature, back then women were often expected to (and they expected to) start having sex and having babies as soon as they were physically capable, which could be as young as 11 or so. We consider this a serious crime now, but it was not unnatural back then. Nature permitted it, and society encouraged it, so it was not "molestation". I'm not saying molestation didn't occur, it did, particularly of the homosexual kind, but rather that these are two different issues that need to be looked at seperately, and apart from religion.
I do understand your comment about "they were wrong because they thought it to be wrong and did it only BECAUSE they thought it to be wrong". And you're completely right. And that's bad.
My arguement is only that it is not wrong if the individual doesn't feel like it is wrong; also, society has been conditioned to believe it is wrong (Christianity at work), hence, society tends to assume that everyone else shares the same view of its wrongfulness. I am only trying to say that that may not be true. You can't know for sure, unless you ask the girls.
"If I was at a theme park, and I wanted to go on a roller-coaster or something again without waiting in the hour-long line, I'd flash people all day in exchange for skipping the line. That is, if society tolerated it." Please tell me that your profile is wrong and you are a female?! otherwise i don't thinku will ever get your ride if big guy doesn't enjoy your flashing!! ;) J/K!
No, I am a guy, and completely straight. I'm not saying I like to flash people, I'm just saying, if I WERE in that situation, say if I was female or the ride attendant liked that sort of thing, or whatever, I wouldn't mind doing it. I'm completely confident with myself and my sexuality. Why should it be any different for men and women anyway? Naked is naked :-P.
@manil - one big thing I forgot to mention.
"child molestation was also widely acceptable before the oppressive christians came along"
yeah, and after that it was practiced much more exclusively and secretly by Christian clergy. GG.
@walter3ca "Get a grip people. They are just TITS!"
i don't know if that pun was intentional, but good job.
@maverick7h "Molestation means 'unwelcomed sexual advance', and as sick as we see it to be now, there is a chance the children saw nothing wrong."
there was a cycle of child and female exploitation back then that you seem to be defending due to cultural attitudes. any defense of molestation based on culture is a case for moral relativism. likewise, i could say female circumscision is fine and dandy because it's a cultural practice.
"My arguement is only that it is not wrong if the individual doesn't feel like it is wrong; also, society has been conditioned to believe it is wrong (Christianity at work).."
you're contradicting yourself. you blaim sexual repression on christianity, a religion. yet, you defend the pagan religion from being associated with sexual exploitation, stating it's part of the culture instead. christianity comes from a desert region, and all desert cultures have strict guidlines of behavior. why do you consider sexual repression to be religious in nature and sexual exploitation to be cultural? the only difference you seem to offer is that the enlightened pagans are associated with one and the oppressive christians associated with the other.
in short, i'd love to live in a world were i could see a nice pair without it meaning anymore than that. unfortunately, we live in a world where women are viewed as sex objects, and most of that blaim is to place on women themselves for enabling it. the women i know who have a confident hold on who they are do not flash random people for attention. take a look into the past of any woman who claims to be liberated by doing so and more than likely you'll find that she was sexually exploited before. my argument is not a religious plee for chastity, i am merely presenting the truth of our society. in an ideal world i too wish things could be as you see them to be.
People are much more cool about stuff like that over here... though the conservative element is increasing, basically because of the media covering stories of sexual predators.... the beaches are slowly becoming booby-free. :(
