#Nude bike
riding discussed in #Santa Fe.
Talking
about “laughingstocks,” I laughed even more with the front page coverage of the
City Council’s deliberations the next day.
There was a rather large picture of a woman standing before somewhat
bored Council members. She was wearing
what looked like a tiny, flowered bikini bottom (or panties) and a torn black
robe that covered her from shoulders to just below her belly button. The caption said she was asking which was
more frightening –- the bathing suit or her scary costume.
I
doubt that this is a question worth pondering.
Her body was just about fine enough so that looking at it didn’t
frighten me much at all. The partial
witches’ costume was a minor thing consisting of a torn cape with a long,
dangling length of fabric – I have seen more frightening styles pictured in the
New York Times during Fashion Week or, for that matter, almost any time
pictures from fashion shows get in any newspaper.
It
was truly frightening that the newspaper saw fit to publish her picture above
the fold.
The
newspaper reported that, by a 6 – 0 vote, the City Council strengthened the
town’s public obscenity ordinance, with two Councilors who opposed changing the
law staying conveniently home, where I presume nudity was legal. The new law, it was reported, largely mirrors
Albuquerque’s ordinance, which caused the World Naked Bike Ride to take a hike
to Santa Fe in the first place.
The
new law bans men or women from exposing their buttocks or genitalia. It says nothing about the new Japanese craze
for wearing skirts that seem to expose buttocks, but which are artfully painted
clothe to resemble the forbidden areas.
The
second headline on the front page story did note that Indecency Ordinance makes exception for women breast-feeding their
children. Specifically women. Nothing, I presume, about men breast-feeding
their children. A sharp copy person
might have taken out “women” from that headline and saved a little ink.
One
witness suggested that city councilors work on discouraging crime rather than
discouraging nudity, which seemed like a logical suggestion. After saying that the human body was
beautiful, the witness added, “I’m a little sorry I missed the buff-looking
bicyclists that rode by, but maybe that’s because I’m an old woman.”
Alas,
life often has missed, and apparently never-to-be-repeated, opportunities. With the passage of the “improved” ordinance,
she may never get a chance to see those buff bare bicyclists ride by again.
Another
witness asked if the ordinance would apply to his 14-month-old daughter, who
enjoys pulling up her shirt and showing off her tummy because she “thinks it’s
funny.” If she goes to jail, who
changes her diaper?
A
witness in favor of the toughened ordinance remembered, “All my life, Santa Fe
has been the City of the Holy Faith. Of
recent times, it’s sad to say that we’re not the same city we were. We are the City Different…”
I
had two reactions: was he sure that there were no Catholics on the naked bike
ride? And I thought City Different
referred to the city’s tan adobe architecture rather than the arrival of those
with different or no religion. Kind of
makes a fellow like me feel unwelcome and too different.
No comments:
Post a Comment