Well, it's been a crazy week here in Asheville. Since arriving on the scene of last Sunday's GoTopless rally I've doubled the number of exposed breasts I've ever seen, I've been accused of child sex abuse for the first time, and of being a pervert (not the first), and I've learned lots of interesting new words like "prurient" and "turgid."
In the wake of the rally (termed "Boobfest" by those of us in the press), Dr. Carl Mumpower has filed a complaint with the local DSS and the NC Attorney General, claiming that the rally constituted child sex abuse. Mumpower is self-described "ultra-conservative," a former Asheville City Councilman and candidate for US Congress. In the interest of full disclosure, Mumpower and I have known each other since I was one of his campaign photographers in 2008.
To draw more attention to his cause, Mumpower organized the "Asheville Rally to Protect Our Children from Abuse," held today in Pack Square.
Those of us in the press have dubbed this rally "AntiBoobfest." For clarity's sake, I'll be referring to those who support toplessness as "Boobers," and those who oppose it as "AntiBoobers." All clear? Great. Now a little back story.
When I heard the news of Mumpower's complaint, I literally thought it was a joke. I sent Carl a sarcastic text message, ribbing him for taking the bait. But Mumpower was not laughing. His allegations included not just the topless women, but the entire city of Asheville and anyone who was present. In fact, when we argued on Facebook he personally called me out: "If you were there ... and took no follow-up action, then you should be ashamed."
I was at a loss. I read all the local news, followed all the threads on Facebook. Nothing made sense. The media had reported before the rally that topless women were perfectly legal. They quoted Asheville police officers affirming that fact. How could Mumpower make such accusations? And why?
Friday morning I contacted Mumpower and asked him for an interview. He declined, saying that he didn't believe I was sincerely interested in the truth. Instead, he directed me to a story in that beacon of balanced journalism, World Net Daily. Out of frustration, I actually read it. Would you believe that World Net freakin Daily, of all places, cited the NC General Statutes to which Mumpower refers? I looked them up.
And, son of a bitch, he's right.*
The Law
North Carolina General Statute § 14‑190.13: Definitions for certain offenses concerning minors.
"(1) Harmful to Minors. – That quality of any material or performance that depicts sexually explicit nudity or sexual activity . . .
(6) Sexually Explicit Nudity. – The showing of:
a. Uncovered, or less than opaquely covered, human genitals, pubic area, or buttocks, or the nipple or any portion of the areola of the human female breast, except as provided in G.S. 14‑190.9(b); or
b. Covered human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. (1985, c. 703, s. 9; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1022, s. 2; 1993, c. 301, s. 2; 2008‑218, s. 1.)"
North Carolina General Statute § 14‑190.15. Disseminating harmful material to minors; exhibiting harmful performances to minors.
"(b) Exhibiting Harmful Performance. – A person commits the offense of exhibiting a harmful performance to a minor if, with or without consideration and knowing the character or content of the performance, he allows a minor to view a live performance that is harmful to minors."
*I am not a lawyer, and I recognize that there are "weasel words" (a Mumpower phrase) present in the laws. You should read them yourself at the links provided. It is my belief that Mumpower is factually correct, that the GoTopless rally violated the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Perhaps someone with more expertise can correct me. Regardless, local media should have at least quoted the general statutes.**
**To be fair, the Asheville Citizen-Times did publish the entire text of Mumpower's DSS complaint, and I'm told Matt Mittan gave airtime to the legalities as well, though I didn't personally hear it.
Carl Mumpower: The DarkTopo Interview
When I communicated to Mumpower that I was willing to concede the legal part of his argument (and badgered him with repeated texts and phone calls), he very kindly agreed to an email interview.
MC: Clearly, you are legally correct on this issue. It took quite a bit of digging for me to find the actual statutes to which your complaints refer: After arguing with you on Facebook and reading all the press from the local media, it was World Net Daily of all places that actually cited the NC law. Why aren't local mainstream media reporting these specifics?
CM: Our local media outlets are more devoted to entertainment and comfort than news and truth. It is not surprising that they would not report facts that would illuminate themselves as pawns and co-conspirators in sexually violating children.
MC: Legalities aside, do you truly feel that harm was done to children? Is this worth the time and attention you and the rest of Asheville are giving it?
CM: Very much so. It is moral cowardice to remain passive in the face of the child sexual abuse that was supported by our community last Sunday.
If an 8 year old who kisses a classmate on the cheek is a sex offender, why are stripteasers on a city fountain in front of children OK? If receiving an unsolicited text photo of a 15 year old's breasts can result in a lifetime label as a sex offender, why is it OK to hold a celebration where 15 year olds are supported in exposing their breasts to a group of frat boys taking pictures and yelling words of encouragement?
MC: To be clear, in your ideal world, would a woman baring her breasts be punishable under the law? Why?
CM: Breasts are for nourishing children - not harming them. We're not talking about discreet breast feeding - we're talking about public, sexually charged, and celebratory behavior in front of and with children. We're talking about city and police administration, media outlets, event organizers, participants, and parents ignoring the law. This is not about breasts, it's about child abuse - and a community that should be very ashamed of its complicity, complacency, and corruption in the face of such.
"It is not surprising that [local media] would not report facts that would illuminate themselves as pawns and co-conspirators in sexually violating children."
Anti-Boobfest
One thing about a Mumpower rally: It starts on time. I crossed Broadway into Pack Square at 2 p.m. sharp, and already the space was filling up with AntiBoobers and Boobers. It was easy to tell them apart: The AntiBoobers were mostly wearing suits and appeared to have come to the rally straight from church. The Boobers looked like regular Asheville folk. By that I mean . . . well, you know what I mean.
As a photographer, the scene was disappointing. Whether it was through cosmic appeal to the alien overlords or just plain luck, the Boobers' rally scored much better lighting conditions than AntiBoobfest. Full, dead-on sun in Pack Square. And, to make matters worse, there were no boobs in sight.
Mumpower took the stage and began speaking. I tried to wrestle the poor light into some sort of imagery, mostly typical protest fare.
After Mumpower's speech there were several prayers from various clergy. This is always an awkward situation for photographers. Do you shoot during the prayer and risk being thought of as a heathen, or do you stay respectfully still and risk being thought of as a bad photographer? Hell, if I'd wanted to stand through prayers in the hot sun, I'd shoot weddings.
Luckily, the choice was taken out of my hands when one of the Boobers decided to up the ante.
Immediately the AntiBoobers went into boob-control mode. Those that were praying kept their heads down, while one of the men in a suit took off his jacket and began chasing the Boober around wildly. Those with children did what they could to obscure the view. As I moved through the crowd I heard one woman mutter, "wicked, wicked."
While all that was going on, another topless Boober had approached from behind the podium and was sitting quietly in the shade. Rather than chase the first Boober, all the media guys clamored around the one that was sitting still and talking rationally.
Very quickly, Boober #1 and some of the AntiBoobers realized that they were no longer the center of attention. Boober #1 came and sat with Boober #2, interrupting the conversation to introduce herself. Her name, she said, was Mollie. Meanwhile, a contingent of AntiBoober ladies hesitantly approached the impromptu press conference.
The AntiBoober ladies began arguing with Mollie. I began to move toward the group, expecting to hear some discussion of morality or law. Instead, the AntiBoober in charge was saying, "If I looked like that, I'd keep my clothes on." Mollie countered this with, "Bitch, look at you. Get on a treadmill!"
Oh yes, she did.
What happened next resulted in the day's only arrest. The AntiBoober, seemingly for lack of a better comeback, accused Mollie of being a pagan. Mollie advised the AntiBoober that pagans went around naked. Did the AntiBoober really want to call her a pagan? Falling back on debate skills she must have learned in the middle school cafeteria, the AntiBoober asserted that yes, indeed, she did.
Where are folks like this when it's cold out and you're daring people to stick their tongues to flagpoles?
The APD officers on scene swooped in and very politely arrested Mollie for indecent exposure. AntiBoober lady began recounting the events of five seconds ago while Mollie began yelling about her Miranda rights.
Boober #2, whose name I would have gotten if I were actually paid to do stuff like this, was still very calmly talking to the press. A Boober in a mock burqa quietly held a sign to the rear of the stage while the AntiBoobers kept praying.
It was interesting that both sides introduced religion into what had been a legal dispute. The pagan accusations and the BurqaBoober heightened the tension in a way that Mollie had not. And it should be noted that until the actual rally, Mumpower had not broached the subject of how God feels about boobs. My guess is that the theological ingredients were added by AntiBoobfest's co-organizer Chad Nesbitt.
Nesbitt is the former chairman of the Buncombe GOP and the man behind the activist group Carolina Stompers. I regret that I have little to report about Nesbitt's speech, because I was too busy taking pictures of naked women. Such is life.
After the prayers were finished, the AntiBoobers mounted up and marched to city hall. And without being unkind, I must say that it was quite a feat for some of the elderly AntiBoobers. In fact, most of the Boobers went home rather than take the two-hundred yard trek, and by the time we reached the business end of the park, there were only two of them left: Boober #2 and a male companion, also topless.
Can I Get a Witness?
On the steps of city hall the AntiBoobers restated their complaints, held some long and emotional prayers, and then the rally was brought to a close. The Boobers were still present, standing quietly with everyone else. Now that the rally was over, though, the AntiBoobers began to interact with them personally, and the argument shifted almost exclusively to religion.
Both Boobers were wearing the Raelian swastika/Star of David emblem on chains around their necks. I confirmed with the male (whose name I actually did ask for, but who declined to be identified) that they were indeed Raelians, and that they believe that Earth and human-kind is the result of a science experiment initiated by an alien race. They also believe in nudity and secular humanism.
"It's a pretty tall tale, I know," said the Boober. "But so is the story of Adam and Eve."
Now, if you think that perhaps I didn't take these rallies seriously enough, you'd be right. I will admit some significant personal indifference to the actual issues, and a lot of interest in the dynamics between an alien cult and Asheville's vocal far-right minority.
One by one, the churched-up AntiBoobers began witnessing to the female Boober, and there transpired several tense but polite conversations about the origin of man and what God expects from him. "Hot damn," I thought, "this is going to be good."
But, to my utter disappointment, nothing happened. I wanted to see hair-pulling, eye-gouging, boob-bruising altercations, and what I got was a bunch of bible thumpers and alien whackos that got together and acted like civilized people. Where's the fun in that?
The protesters talked with the topless girl, and not a single voice was raised in anger. One woman even exchanged "I Love You's" with the Boober before we all went home.
And this struck me: From Carl Mumpower walking around with a pocket full of pencils trying to get folks to sign his petition, to the Boober who loves all humans, to the elderly lady that is willing to stand in the hot sun and witness to those who she thinks need her help the most . . . all of these people mean what they say.
And so do I. Here at DarkTopo the truth is the prejudice. I recuse myself from any opinion on this issue except that the whole thing is ridiculous and dead serious at the same time. It doesn't matter what something looks like, or how we feel about it--the only thing that matters is what is. On that, local media failed us.
Everyone will cheer for their favorite team and get caught up in the moralities involved. And that's fine. But if the people we hold responsible for informing us of the actual underlying firmament of things won't do their jobs, where does that leave us? How long will our debates stay civil?
I heard a lot of scripture today. I'll leave you with the last two verses of the Book of Judges. People often use them to vilify anarchy. I've always thought they describe human nature:
"And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance. In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
28 August 2011
Anti-Boobfest, the Law, and the Mumpower Interview
WARNING: Post contains nudity, prayer, free speech, and other things that make life good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Fantastic.
Another great essay, Max. I guess the whole debate boils down to whether what went on at Boobfest was sexual in nature. From the interviews given in the YouTube videos Carl Mumpower has reposted, the Boobers clearly think it wasn't (or didn't intend it to be), and those in Carl Mumpower's camp clearly think it was. Have you found any clear criteria that would help make the distinction? Or is it all contingent on intent and personal opinion?
Excellent post.
Alexa: To me, there is no doubt that female toplessness in front of children is "sexually explicit nudity" as defined by NC law. The question is can it be mitigated by saying the average person would not find it offensive, or that it has political or artistic value. I think either of those things is enough to beat it in court, but at the same time I can't imagine that the real intent of the law is to allow female toplessness in front of minors.
your coverage of both events was the most honest & interesting perspective i have read. i am left a bit confused by the revelation that topless women constitute child abuse. as it is legal to be topless in asheville, if i have my son with me & there is a topless woman in public, who is charged? the topless woman for not taking into consideration that a child may be in the same public space, or me for not checking for topless women prior to taking my son to a public place? this is a serious question, not a joke. i would've never taken my son to the topless rally, nor would i have gone on my own. i was not surprised in the least that the "protest" degenerated the way that it did. but if women are going to start exercising their "right" to walk around town topless, i want to know if that means asheville is now off-limits to my 5 year old.
i thought since you listened to mumpower today, you may know the answer to this.
thank you either way.
Barbie, I am not a lawyer. Nor did I really listen to Mumpower today (I was taking pictures). But my understanding of the law is that you would NOT be in violation if you were with your son and ran into a topless woman. In fact, I believe the law makes an exception for parents (ie: parents can show their kids movies with bare breasts without violating the law).
As a lifelong resident of Buncombe County, I enjoyed a beautiful Fall day...I washed my car, walked the dog, talked with my family and generally enjoyed what is in my opinion the most wonderful time of the year. I didn't give one second of thought to professional Politicians who waste their energies dictating morality to a small group of women who have decided that going topless in the name of Rael has anything to do with gender equality...you suckers wasted a beautiful Sunday.
Shane - Don't wear out that wrist patting yourself on the back
Must a nursing Mom keep those breast hidden while nursing?
I remember learning the word "turgid" in a biology class I took in college. Suddenly, the name of George C. Scott's character in "Dr. Strangelove" made sense.
I thank you for hard work and great photojournalism. In a way, I feel that the law's are incorrect also not allowing women not to have the choice to walk around without a shirt. Weren't we given free will for a reason? The body can be beautiful, and I emphasize the word, CAN... As long as woman doesn't flaunt it like a whore, why not let them dress as they want? The men do....
From a "French" education I am still amazed to read people assert that showing boobs is somewhat dangerous for children. There is nothing more natural than boobs. Just travel to Black Africa! Or go to North Mediterranean beaches: no child or "minor" is offended to see topless women. How could they?!
I'm seriously trying to figure out why bare female breast are considered sexually explicit nudity? Breasts bare or clithed are not sexual until people use them sexually; until them they are simply body parts; eyes, ears, nose, arms, hands, breasts, legs, feet, toes.
I also noticed that the only children I saw at the rally were the children of the "anti-boobers". So I'm sitting here wondering if these parents and people REALLY believed what they are preaching...why the heck did they expose these children to something that they think it so incredibly wrong? .... To me THAT is much more offensive than someone who truly feels that what they are doing is none sexual. Those people who truly feel that any exposed female breast is sexual were the ones who purposely exposed their children to an event knowing there would be bare female breasts... Those are the ones guilty of the "child abuse" they are claiming on others.
"To me, there is no doubt that female toplessness in front of children is "sexually explicit nudity" as defined by NC law."
I'm genuinely confused by how this can be if there are nudist colonies and resorts legally operating in North Carolina. This one, for example, advertises itself as "a family oriented nudist resort with activities for the entire family."
http://www.whisperingpinesnudistresort.com/
(Warning: contains pictures of its residents au naturale further down the page.)
Excellent work. Who needs TV and movies.. Love the final opposing pix, especially all the pencils. Am I the only one seeing a phallic metaphor?
thank you max. : ) i appreciate your taking the time to answer my question. and thank you again for your time and effort on these stories. i hope they help people understand what is really going on with this issue, rather than getting their information from either side of an exceedingly slanted viewpoint.
For those confused about the law, you have just as much experience with legal matters as I. As I cited in the post, the law clearly states that exposed breasts are considered "sexually explicit nudity." That is not my personal opinion, it's a quote from the NC general statute.
As for how nudist orgs can operate without violating that law, I would imagine it would have to do with § 14‑190.15, part C, item 4, which provides that "harmful material," including sexually explicit nudity, can be exhibited to minors if parental consent is given prior to the exhibition. Same way kids get into R rated movies.
@Tom...I guess you are new here...welcome and thanks for the cutting sarcasm...I guess I should go to next weeks, counter, counter protest! Thanks for setting me straight there guy!
I understood that it IS legal to go topless in public and that is why the rally was allowed in the first place and why police did not arrest anyone at the rally. But now there is the law about minors. So, does this mean it's legal for men and women to be topless in public but that if there are any children in public (which seems hard to predict or control) that women have to put their tops back on? Does anyone know where to find the first law that does allow public toplessness? And then does anyone know why we have two laws that contradict themselves and has a case ever been brought to resolve the contradiction in court?
I have been around and seen a lot of "topless" women in various countries and settings, one gets used to it and it's no big deal. It becomes clear the whole notion that it is harmful to children is nonsense, as is teaching children that bare female breasts are inherently sexual and thus "taboo", and anyone doing so is someone with low morals. Try telling people in cultures where children routinely are exposed to bare female chests that it is harmful, they will laugh in your face.
The photo of the man trying to force his will on the woman by covering her with the jacket doesn't get any respect from me. Likewise, Carl Mumpower and his misguided cohorts need to look beyond their narrow minded viewpoints, and then go find something of importance to spend their time and efforts on that would be of actual benefit to mankind, instead of something oppressive like they are doing now. The nonsense taught by these kinds of people is what is harmful to children in regards to bare breasts.
Hey Max, what if a minor sees this page and the photos.. is that a violation of the GS also?
Unfortunately Max, I've also had a professional encounter with Carl Mumpower some years ago, and know him very well. You are assigning way to much sincerity to the guy. He's an arrogant opportunist who just wants to further his conservative political street cred.
Sorry, but that is just the way it is. He condemns "name calling" then does it himself. He places himself in positions of authority, then doesn't want to take responsiblity for actually doing anything constructive.
You are a certifiable nut! Your life has absolutely no meaning, and your failure to take anything in life seriously will ultimately mean your life was meaningless.
"He's an arrogant opportunist who just wants to further his ... street cred."
Me too. Maybe that's why we get along.
"Your life has absolutely no meaning, and your failure to take anything in life seriously will ultimately mean your life was meaningless."
Get on a treadmill.
"Hey Max, what if a minor sees this page and the photos.. is that a violation of the GS also?"
§ 14‑190.13, part 1, item C: To be considered harmful, the material must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Same clause that allows minors to view pictures of the Sistine Chapel. As to questions about the law, I'm afraid I can be of no further use unless the answer also allows me to compare myself to Michelangelo.
This was inspired, as you reported the truth you experienced. It gives me hope, that in spite of our individual isolation and differneces, we truly love other in the deepest sense.
Great synopsis...we the people, no matter the digressions, love each other. Loved how you followed the trail...looking for another story. There is lots to be said for prayer.
I am amazed at all of the legal questions. If nudity is legal why cover up the boobs on TV at WLOS and the vagina on these pictures here. Oh there are other rules I guess. My real question is where does it stop. Why at the waist. Why not just go all the way.
After all it is any way you like and if you don't you get told to leave or not be there.
Boober#2 is Livienne Love, the Raelian who organized the topless "protest". Here is a video by a local historian and author.
WLOS - What's Behind Go Topless
http://www.wlos.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wlos_vid_5298.shtml
A local historian and author says the Go Topless demonstration last week in Asheville was not about feminism. Poet Laureate Laura Hope-Gill says the women who took off their tops were part of a movement to raise awareness of Raelism, a strange worldwide movement led by a man who believes he's learned the secrets of life from Aliens.
Hope-Gill says she began questioning the motives of the demonstrators from the beginning when they claimed it was about equal rights for women. She says never in the history of the feminist movement has this been part of their platform and it never will be. Hope-Gill says "Rael," who's real name is Claude Vorilhon, is using women and their breasts to draw attention to his movement known as "Raelism."
Opponents have criticized the city for allowing the event, claiming it was obscene and abused children that were present on the city's street. The Rael Movement website contains information about the Go Topless events, including Ashevilles.
Wow I feel like I was there. Thanks for some great reporting.
I tried to leave a post that had 3,892 characters and I got the "You HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters" Please note that I konw the total number cause I went to lettercount.com in order to make sure
Therefore my intention is to leave a total of 3 post this one and the 3,892 characters divided into 2 post so that maybe it will function correctly I would hope that you are able to edit them together (once you verify that it is indeed under the limit)
What a sad little world this is. Mumpower may have good intentions but his efforts would be better served elsewhere (such as Getting To Catch A Predator) programs back in action and to get rid of the REAL danger to kids... Showing breast or child molesters... I think the child molesters need the attention more..
If after every last child molester in the world (or at least in the United States is locked up he still wants to argue about if breast are evil or not
For the record I live in Asheville (Born and Raised)
I think that he should remember at least three things
1)God created each and everyone of us.
2)Even after the fall of man we are born naked (versus covered with an access area for reporduction.
3)Adam and Eve were put here first and they were both naked...
Now saying that here comes the point
Toplessnss is supposed to be wrong.
So what if everything had gone "right" and the apple had never been eaten?
Does that mean every person on earth would have sexually abused a child due to exposing them to breast or worse?
I personally believe that unless the woman were fondling their breast in public, they were not being "Sexual" and since it specifies "Sexually Explicit" key word sexually (having or relating to sex) it's an invalid argument in the first place.
Since that voids the whole "sexually Explicit Nature bit.
Also you said to quote you directly "I would imagine it would have to do with § 14‑190.15, part C, item 4, which provides that "harmful material," including sexually explicit nudity, can be exhibited to minors if parental consent is given prior to the exhibition. Same way kids get into R rated movies."
Then the fact that "The Topless Rally" was advertised, even on TV (through the news) as well as in the Mountain Express, Day's Prior to the day it happened would be considered preknowlage which in turn if the kids where brought somewhere with the preknowlage that breast would be present the parents are in effect giving "Consent" for the kids to see the breast.
I mean honestly everyone is blaming the women who showed their breast but no one says anything about the parents who with notice took the kids there anyway?
Now even if they didn't know it was going to happen the second they saw the first girl starting to take their shirt off they could have taken their child and left.
So again by them staying they gave "Consent" it seems no different to me then if you see the warning on TV "This Program may contain language or images unsuitable for children" and you continued watching said show while the children where in the room.
I mean if I see a woman going as if to take off their shirt in the middle of a crowd I'm not thinking hey it must be a girl in a bathing suit, I'm thinking they must know something I don't and breast have to be involved.
To carry this into a more "Normal" setting if you were in a movie theater with your child (and you had a problem with just breast) and you saw a woman reach down toward the bottom of their shirt what are YOU going to do? Sit there and let what happens happen or remove them from the movie?
Also in almost ALL states it is legal for breast to be exposed for the purpose of breast feeding. But if exposing breast is abusive shouldn't that be illegal I mean if your on a bus and a mother has to breast feed, and you have a child she's just abused your child and hers
Let's face it til the age of puberty most children that see breast are only curious about them (what they are, why they look like that, not thinking perverted thoughts) so to them they are not sexual in the least it's once they hit puberty that they start thinking thoughts like that.
As a closing statement I'd like to leave you with this thought though. Once Black men where not considered equal they were treated different just because of how their skin looks since men have the ability (I kid you not) to also produce milk doesn't that mean we are doing it yet again just because of how a females skin looks?
Post a Comment