Mardi Gras flashing customs - lewdness or idiocy or what?

Remove all ads!

As the carnival is drawing to an end, one major outburst of the fun is yet underway. This is the (in)famous New Orleans style Mardi Gras.

Probably everyone knows what makes the Mardi Gras parades in New Orleans so different from other such events. This is not to say that the New Orleans one is the only place where this occurs, but it surely is the most known one. Locals will also protest that it is not a local tradition, but what can they say if pretty much everyone believes it is?

Here is a couple of links:

A local's point of view: http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/quartermardi.html#breasts

A visitor's account: http://robwalker.net/html_docs/mardigras.html

How it looks for the police (so no one would flame me, warning: there's a flasher flashing a policeman in the picture): http://www.thisistrue.com/carnival.html

Yet another visitor reflection: http://articles.student.com/travelarticle/mardigras

And another reflection which tends to contradict some of the earlier ones: http://slate.msn.com/id/101500/

Quite clearly, Mardi Gras is a post-French (post-)Catholic tradition, marking the end of the carnival period of feasting and having fun (from after Christmas to Ash Wednesday), with the final outburst just before the Ash Wednesday comes and the penitentiary period of lent begins.

Now, I can't know for sure, but it doesn't really seem probable that the whole flashing for beads could be an import. Even some of the locals' reflections, somewhere between the verses and somewhat reluctantly admit that indeed, there is a local root to that.

It's not just the porn business and prostitutes. It makes me wonder how women who take part in those celebrations can show their breasts to strangers or the general public or kiss strangers in exchange for beads - cheap plastic balls on a cord, and then consider themselves normal, decent and prudent ladies. In some of the pictures, you see crucifixes hanging down those bared chests.

One of such women went to the court when she discovered she was taped when baring herself in public. As follows:

Wasn't it her own choice? Whatever she did there, it was absolutely voluntary and totally public. In one of the articles I linked, there's a short mention of a girl who apparently bared her breasts for a coconut while she was there with her boyfriend, because she thought she had to do that.

Some guys actually take it for granted that their girlfriends will flash people. For example:

(no link because of questionnable material on that site)

So, what do you think about the whole thing?

[ February 08, 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'm guessing that the flashing wasn't part of the first celebrations. If someone does something in public like that, they risk public humiliation--especially if her breasts were very attractive. If I were there and flashed someone with a camera, those pictures wouldn't likely see the light of day (the gut isn't my best feature...).

She was there, chose to bare her breasts in public, and thus, has to live with the results.

 

Here it's the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, so I was thinking, WTF? when I read the reference to a girl's boyfriend. Anyways, IMO it should bbe legal for the pictures to be published AS LONG AS
a) Not on a pr0n site or in a pr0nographic publication
b) Not in a way deliberately designed to humiliate.
c) In a group. One person shouldn't be singled out.

 

I think it is a rather cute and quaint little tradition. A woman who gets upset when her flash get caught on tape should not flash at all though.

 

Ditto, joacqin. And besdies, the beads aren't just "cheap plastic balls on a string." The good ones are glass and very ornate. They're prized collectibles and can be quite valuable.

No, I don't know this from personal experience. New Orleans (and not necessarily Mardi Gras) is still on my list of "places to go before I die."

 

However, it is not allowed to use anyone for commercial purposes without their consent afaik. If the tape is aired or sold the agreement of those who are on it should of course be acquired.

 

@ joacqin - By that logic, a t.v. news broadcast be required to obtain permission from everyone in a crowd that is caught on film. I realize that there is a significant difference in the type of program that we are talking about here but I can't see it as being fair to make an exception for one type of program and not for another.

In my mind, if you decide to make a public exhibition of yourself then you better be willing to live with the public seeing you do it.

 

I thought about that, but by your logic you can film someone while doing a prank on them and then air it on candid camera for example. Is that legal? Filming a street with people walking by and then air that shouldnt be a problem but zooming in one guy and commenting on his hair and clothes and following him around recquires his assent to air. Or?

 

So it's perfectly normal to bare one's breasts in public to get those, or to kiss a stranger?

 

I don't know about Sweden, but there are no such restrictions here - a photo featuring a close up of me and one other person made the front page of the local paper once and I had no idea that it had been taken let alone having them obtain my permission to publish it. I wasn't doing anything potentially embarrasing in the photo but that doesn't change the fact that they had no obligation to obtain my approval because the photo was taken in a public setting.

In terms of the practical joke t.v. programs - I rather imagine that they normally do ask permission to air their footage - it is only common decency to do so. So in terms of the Girls Gone Wild video I would say that if anything I would consider it rude for them to have not obtained permission to use the footage.

 

I am not sure about Sweden either, but as you say it is common decency to ask for permission.

When you were on the first page was it you who was the "main attraction" of the picture or did you just happen to stand in front of something or somewhere which was the main target so to speak? Close up, hmm, what was the following article about? The few times I have been in the local newspaper they have asked me before taking the picture. Arent there agreed upon moral codes for publishers and such?

 

I was doing volunteer community service type work at the time and they were doing an article on the event that I was working at. The photo was of the "look at the hard working volunteers helping out" type, so yes the two of us were clearly the subject of the photo.

 

I went to Marti Gras for the spring break of my senior year in college.

Yes, it was lewd and idiotic, it was also a helluva lot of fun.

That's the least of the depravity that goes on.

 

I know, but the rest isn't sort of accepted the way the flashing is.

 

I'm with Becky Lynn. I think she has every right to go to court. And, yes, this is even though she was acting in public.

First and foremost, she is the one person who has the right on anything depicting her - be it photo or video tape or painting or whatever. Who else should have that right? No one? Nah, can't be. C'mon, where are the conservatives protecting privacy in this matter? You decide where your likeness is displayed; no one else.

And, yes, even though it was a public display, I still think it is a matter of privacy. The argument runs as follows: a tape or picture taken in a certain moment displays just that. One point in time. You may be Becky Lynn, honest working woman, sensible girl, delicate and amiable. Who – at one point at time! – flashed her breasts in public. Out of a certain mood. A mood that may or may not be integral part of her personality. That may or may not grasp her again. For all we know it could have been a singular moment that will never return (and that is already regretted).
However, what do we perceive if we don’t know Becky Lynn (the sensitive girl)? We see a picture of her on TV or on the net that inflates that one moment, that small part of her totally out of proportion. We think “yeah, look at that fuddy-duddy gone wild! I bet she likes it hard, that hussy! Maybe her boy isn’t up to satisfying her needs, hnjahnjahnja…”
Do we want that? I don’t.

Mardi Gras is a special event. Something besides the usualness of the every day life. It should be left there. Don’t drag everything into the light of day – where would be the use of that? It’s not like Becky was promoting nudism and is astonished to find someone looking at her.

 

Here is my point, Darkthrone: women who flash their breasts in public or French-kiss strangers on the streets during Mardi Grass probably consider themselves perfectly decent normal women outside of it. As I pointed out, sometimes you see a crucifix hanging between those exposed breast of a woman who goes with the moment.

Is that decent or sensitive? There's no way to give a positive answer in fairness here. Is it an integral part of her personality? It must be. It's not like flashing is a common thing and a custom endorsed by the society.

Conservatives make a great deal of privacy laws. But conservatives first of all put forward responsibility for oneself. One is free to make choice but one shouldn't be bitching about the results. You exposed your slutty side in public? Fine. Just don't be surprised that no one will fall for your innocent girl crap anymore.

Things would be totally different if her top fell off, of course.

However, I agree with you on one: I think she should have a means of making them stop showing her on some conditions. It's still not right to bother the state and make it pay the costs of her stupidity, but if she really experiences embarrassment and regret, she should be allowed to have that photo banned. After all, those who took photos or tapes have no right to people's images, right? But no damages, compensation or otherwise, should be awarded for the whole thing unless they singled her out and distorted the truth about what happened (e.g. suggesting there was more but wasn't taped, or that she did that all the time, etc etc).

Look, I understand there's a need to move on after making a mistake. But the first step here is realising your mistake, owning to it and making a resolution not to repeat it.

Special event or not, people there do something immoral which is normally frowned upon even by themselves. Are people's morals so shallow and superficial that they need venting at least once a year? What point having morals then.

Don't know about you, guys, but if my daughter did that I wouldn't be happy, and I wouldn't say to my woman, "come, let's go to New Orleans, you can get some beads for flashing people, it's a quaint little tradition besides the usualness of the everyday life."

I have pretty leftish policies on some social issues, but my heart is conservative on this one: stupidity is not an excuse and people should pay for it. Joyous indecent revelry is not a legitimate interest and by no means a circumstance speaking in your favour if you want to avoid the consequences. I'm all in favour of moving on and allowing people to get over it, but judicial pardon requirse confession, religious atonement requires confession, why make it special for other situations? Made a mistake, learn the lesson. Shielding people from their mistakes won't teach them anything.

 

I understand your point. Of course the decency of showing one's breats in public is questionable. If not altogether non-existent. Depends on your moral code. I don't want to call that morality into question, hence I chose to comment on the other side of the matter which, I feel, is quite a seperate issue.

Responsibility: I think that Becky Gritzke is acting in a responsible way. She is taking care of her interests and uses the tools the state is providing her to this end. This is nowhere near bitching about the results or crying out for mummy. If this was, every lawsuit would be (because one couldn't take care of matters for oneself but had to rely on the power of the state).

Stupidity: Maybe there has been a misjudgement on her side. But: since when does the law have to include a stupidity factor for crimes? A theft is a theft, regardless of anyone being careless with his purse or not. The state has to protect it's subjects even if they are stupid. And if her top just fell off: wouldn't this be even more stupid? To not make sure your top is fastened when you go out on the streets?

Now, if someone wanted to sue her for indecent behavior - yes, then it would be totally different if her top fell off. But not in this case - where the issue is whether she had this coming because she was acting in public or not.

And the main reason for this is that there are different shades of "public". As soon as you are not alone one might argue that you are in public. A party at your friend's place: private or public? And if a stranger is there amongst your friends? Still private? OK, how about two strangers? Or six? Hm, difficult. How about a friend-to-stranger-ratio of one-to-five? Public now?

What I'm trying to get at is: yes, Becky was "in public". But it was not a concert in the Royal Albert Hall, nor was it in the metro driving to work. It was a special place with other (for lack of a better term) selected people - all sharing the same mood, all being participants, all having something in common: being there at that time.

Taking pictures of her and making them available for the whole world to see is neglecting this. Is ripping it out of the context. Now there's a new publicity, an audiance that wasn't participating and that was not the intended addressee of Becky Lynn's delicious breasts. This is why I am in favor of her case.

But I'm not unrealistic or worldly innocent. She misjudged the situation, obviously. Still, if a misjudgement leads to a violation of your rights - well, you are free to correct this. No one is to tell you "shut up, you've only got to blame yourself".

"Made a mistake, learn the lesson" would be appropriate even if we were talking about rape. "Yeah, she made a mistake with all that looking cute and going out on friday night all alone. Hope she learned her lesson!" This is wrong.

 

To be frank, their brothers get to be recruited to the Swiss Guard, if they do it in Lucerne. And there is no reproach to be made. Things like that our traditional and old and you get the "freedom of fools". You can say and do things, that normally are forbidden, on those special days. No matter where you go, from Germany to Italy, those festivities are "wild". And there is no shadow of doubt, that they are catholic.

The other issue is the way those things get sold out. That's not good. It shouldn't be sold as touristic event. Well, of course it should. But as a hole. The bands are part of it, the costumes are part of it and the speeches are part of it, not only the booze and the boobs.

You are immoral to think you could judge. It's not your culture and it's not your say and it's not your business. Frankly, it's not even your religion (well sort of not). Your just a foreigner. And if you're in rome, do as the romans. And if it wouldn't be immorally sold as porn, you never would have been led on the immoral path and would have judged other people just because they don't have the exact cumstoms like in your neighbourhood.

And I bet that the woman in question wins the court battle. The rule is, that if are presented as part of a crowd, it's legalt to publish without permission. It's even legal if only one person walks down a square. It's legal because it shows a "public" event, a person walking down a square in this or that city. But it becomes illegal to print a picture without permission, when the person as person is presented. It's the difference between A and THAT. There is no need for permission to publish a picture of A naked woman lying on a beach. But showing a picture of THAT naked woman, needs a permission. (This of course not if the naked woman is the duchess of Y or a famous actress).

And it to me to be clear, that they don't publish a picture of A woman in New Orleans showing what's under her top, but THAT woman's private parts.

[ February 08, 2005, 17:53: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I meant a mistake related to doing something actively rather than making oneself vulnerable. If a girl wears revealing or hugging clothes and gets assaulted, it's much different from herself removing her top and being photographed in or after the process. In exposing herself, she meant to be seen. It wasn't even a by-result, but the very reason why she did that. When a girl wears too skimpy or too tight clothing, she means to attract males sexually, but not necessarily to interact with any volunteer. If she becomes the object of indecent remarks and proposals, she has herself to blame, but the road to rape is still long yet, as the rapist needs to break through physical resistance unless he has a lethal ranged weapon.

As for using the tools of the state... well, she does have the legal right to do that, sure. The problem is, she flashes strangers in public and tax payers pay for the taping suit.

As for stupidity, I still think more stupidity is required to bare one's breasts in front of hundreds of strangers than to fail to fix one's top properly. When it comes to answering for one's stupidity before the poetic justice of life, the flashing stupidity seems to be more relevant than the poor fixing stupidity. After all, the latter is negligence (of a very stupid kind, but still), while the former is pro-active stupidity.

As for misjudgement... I don't know. Perhaps she misjudged her act of partial stripping, perhaps she simply didn't take into consideration the possibility of being taped. But it's much much easier to allege silent consent to be taped than to allege that someone who is careless with his purse doesn't really want it.

As for the running to mum factor, well, you're right in saying that demanding the tape to be banned by the court doesn't totally rely on it. But I think that any compensation or punitive damages would. If the porn guys have made any money on the tape, she should be given her share of the profit. And I would agree that it should be increased for lack of express consent and pay pre-arrangement.

Don't you think that what she did with that money would show how much of a normally decent girl who made a single mistake she were? In a symbolic way, it would decide if she wanted her role as a porn actress or not. Giving the money to charity would say not. Spending the money as if it were a normal wage would say yes.

Edit:

That they are Catholic there may be no doubt. But that means being Catholic the way Kerry is.

The festivities are "wild", but they are human-made. Religion-based morals tend to have a degree of divine institution. Not even the Pope can exempt you from divinely instituted moral rules in Catholicism before you do something (if every single priest can absolve you afterwards).

The problem is, where divine institution ends and where human-made morals begin. In Catholicism, the case with sex is pretty clear. It isn't believed that Jesus was speaking within the reality of 1st century Iudaea and Israel, but in more general terms. I agree that kissing is not yet sex, but it belongs in the attraction/relationship area and thus kissing a stranger (other than on the hand or cheek in some societies) with whom one isn't considering a relationship is questionnable. Nudity is more complicated, but the purpose is related to sexual attraction and thus touches on the tenets relating to relationships.

I'm not going to shake the Bible at people in the sauna or on the nudist beach, but flashing in public doesn't have any functional purpose, not even a trivial one like avoiding tan lines.

I'm not judging individuals, either. It's God's job. But the act feels wrong to me and gives me creeps. Something is wrong about it, and we aren't talking 18th century Polynesian natives.

The culture isn't far from my own and my business or my say is irrelevant. I have no say as to whether abortion should be legal because I'm not a legislator and it's not my personal business because I'm not a parent. So what, should I stay away from forming an opinion of the act?

It's not about the exact same customs as in my neighbourhood. It's about the basic consistency between what one speaks and what one does and what one thinks. Perhaps I don't have a PhD in logics, but logical thinking and comparing things you see or hear is not rocket science.

[ February 08, 2005, 18:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Logic lies in the eye of the beholder. No, the problem is, there is the institution of "freedom of fools". It's named "fasnacht" where I come from ant it literally means "fool's night". No sins, laws are are out of place. No closing time in bars, it's allowed to play music at 4 a.m. and so on. Equally, one is allowed to say things under a mask, that wouldn't be decent or allowed any other time of the year. And that all without the interference of the church. The point being, no one doubts the complete legimacy of the whole procedure.

Point being, there is no inconstincency. As the whole thing is under the explicit premise, to do be allowed to do, what your are not normally. That's the whole point of it. The days where everything goes. And this all with the approval of the church. So, there is absolutely no inconsistency and one can continue with being and feeling decent again afterwards. Indecent behaviour without remorse or consequenses is explicitly allowed. Think of it as a singularity. In a singularity, normal rules don't apply.

Moral outrage is completly out of place, as all moral rules (or at least a lot) are offically repealled for a clear defined amount of time. Fools can't be guilty.

(Under the premise, that the rules of New-Orleans don't differ to much from the rules of west-central-Europe).

And I wonder now, how do you intend to argue around the "jester's licence" ?