Minneapolis has seen terror — police brutality, violent riots, civic uproar.
Not to mention a flattening of the curve.
What could pump up the city?
Or at this point, is it a bust?
What big moves could take the The Mini Apple to a grapefruit-sized paradise? What could achieve a softer, more buoyant state?
How do they get a grip on despair and disparity?
In the thirst for righteousness, the Powers That Be have racked their brains.
BAZOOM: a cup of equality.
On Wednesday, the Minneapolis Park Board will vote to repeal a park rule preventing women from going topless in public.
According to Park Board Commissioner Chris Meyer, it’s time to ditch discrimination:
“The Park Board will have a vote to repeal its nudity ordinance on Wednesday. City and state laws will still apply. But the discriminatory language about female breasts will be eliminated.”
The Park Board will have a vote to repeal its nudity ordinance on Wednesday. City and state laws will still apply. But the discriminatory language about female breasts will be eliminated. pic.twitter.com/FNYtfYo4My
— Chris Meyer 🏳️🌈🌲🥑🚲🚊 (@chrisjohnmeyer) July 12, 2020
The way Chris sees it, there won’t be much impact:
“The only real impact of this change will be to eliminate the discriminatory language that targets female breasts.”
Right — what difference could it make?
To be clear, the parks are behind the times. As reported by KARE11:
Currently, Minneapolis city ordinance 385.160 allows women…to go topless on city streets, but the park board’s ordinance prevents this from happening in the city’s parks.
Minneapolis resident Barbara Donaghy believes progress is a good thing:
“I think it’s never bad to look at our laws that may be way outdated.”
Have breasts changed over time?
Either way, at least it’ll be good for the kids:
“It’s up to parents and kids to have conversations about that, that’s how we start to break down archaic thinking.”
Wednesday’s vote will be the first of three needed to repeal the ordinance. A final vote will take place in mid-August.
But before all you libertines get ready to pack it up and head to Minneapolis, I should make something clear — despite the parks’ potential bounce forward, there remains a bit of dangling restriction:
As it stands currently, a Minneapolis Park Board ordinance PB2-21 states no one 10 years or older is allowed to expose their genitals, pubic area, (or) buttocks…
Could that be next on the chopping block? For now, Chris is sticking up for what is sticking out.
And he’s not just doing it for the girls:
“I firmly believe the law should treat people equally regardless of gender. In spaces where men are allowed to go shirtless, women and transgender people should be able to as well. Inversely, in spaces where it would be inappropriate for women to expose their chests, it should be inappropriate for men as well. People should not be discriminated against just because heterosexual men have oversexualized them. Any argument that can be made against the exposure of a woman’s chest should apply just as strongly against the exposure of a man’s chest.”
Does he believe, therefore, that it’s the same non-violation to touch a woman’s chest as a man’s?
Either way, in the juggle of rights vs. rightfulness, I guess you have to weigh both sides heavily.
Still, it seems worth asking: Since reproductive-oriented sexuality is the most natural component to our existence, how could it ever be said that related instinctive sexual response is the product of something overdone?
Aw, I’m probably just overthinking it. In the name of reason, everyone just let your equality show. Amid fewer police to deal with any problems.
See more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.