Breasts at the Arboretum
I just heard! There is outrage at the Overland Park arboretum! Quick, shield the eyes of your youngsters. Was it a turtle that fell out of her shell without the appropriate undershirt on? No! Was it a mother bunny nursing her baby bunnies without the appropriate covering to hide herself from the public? No! Was it the female chipmunk that didn’t run fast enough from one rock to another exposing her naked self to innocent bystanders? No, it wasn’t even that.
It was breasts of the female, human species. Unlike nature that is uncovered, these breasts must be covered immediately! This according to people who are outraged that a statue in the statue garden at the Overland Park arboretum have been complaining about a statue that has exposed female breasts! Quick hide your eyes at natural body parts of the human species displayed in nature. The outrage, the horror, the damaged eyes of our innocent children….
If you haven’t Googled it yet, the statue is of a body of a female with breasts exposed holding a camera and it looks like she is taking a picture of her exposed breasts. Some of the outrage is around the “glorification” of taking photos of your naked body. I heard criticism around the fact that this is encouraging our young people to engage in this activity and “sext” these pictures.
Hold on people. Just hold the outrage for a quick sec. See, the camera in the statue is that, a camera. If kids are “sexting” I think they are using the iPhone that you, as parents, have provided for them. Not a camera. That is very old school. So shame on you parents, not the statue, for purchasing the devices that these kids are sexting on.
Second, I’m not a parenting expert or anything, but here is how I would deflect any glorification provided by the statue for sexting. “Suzy, if you think it’s cool to take a picture of your breasts and sext them to anyone, check out this statue. See, the statue doesn’t have a head. That’s what could happen to you if you sext. You could also turn to stone and end up for eternity standing in an arboretum with everyone looking at your boobies with no head.” Trust me; the thought of the public looking at my daughter’s breasts in a public place for eternity is enough to scare her to death. My child is mortified at the idea of changing in her bathing suit in a public locker room. Also, my daughter is pretty attached to her head.
Here is where the real outrage should be, me and my appropriately covered breasts were just at the Overland Park Arboretum last weekend and I wasn’t even aware this sculpture garden existed. I would have liked to see the sculptures. Instead I was busy looking at naked nature.
Chill out on the petitions and just enjoy the fact that your beautiful city of Overland Park has an amazing arboretum that is currently free to the public. Pack yourself a picnic lunch and, if you choose, stay away from the sculpture garden. There are many cities in America who would die to have what Overland Park has. Stop complaining and just enjoy it.
George Hunsucker
Northland
12 months agoAimee,
Where is your lib “tolerance” for people who don’t want thier children to see boobs or a penis???
I thought libs were all for all “views”… Oh, I forgot, it is only your “tolerance” that matters I guess……
Paul Rola
12 months agoBelieve the lady suggested that those who wish to shield their children from this statue, not go to the sculture garden… Sounds like a good conservative approach to me!
Robert Copher
12 months agoI don’t understand the “shield” approach to raising children. I’ve known people that would not let their kids play with other kids unless they were there to monitor. Children that are over-protected from the realities of life and other people suffer dramatically when released from the shield of their parents. The argument of “pretecting the kids” from this statue is IMO really just a lack of parental ability and an issue of the adults not the kids. They will see and interpret it as you see and interpret it to them. So, again IMO, the mother initiating a petition is acknowledging her own dimented view of the art and inability to explain it to her child. I’ve raised three kids and coached sports and I’ve seen kids that have been overprotected by their parents and they are at an extreme disadvantage socially when their parents leave.
I had three teenagers at one point and someone commented that I must be going crazy. My response was, NO, my role is to help them claim their independence not keep them from it.
Mark Hastert
12 months agoWhat would Venus say?
Kent Mueller
12 months agoAmie, one thing you said is very true. You are not a parenting expert. I can’t necessarily claim that title either, but let’s revue the examples you put forth.
Providing an iphone is the problem? So, take the iphone away and there is no sexting problem? Get real. Cameras aren’t used for sexting because iphones are used for that purpose? I guess we can take away the phones and the younger generation won’t think about using their cameras.
Pointing out the statue has no head would stop youth from taking pictures? Really? Do you also tell your children that alcohol tastes really, really awful?
She could turn to stone? Ohhhhhhhh, I get it, that is where you went to the absurd.
Amie, this isn’t about “boobies”. It’s not really even about parenting skills, which has to do with setting boundaries. It’s about adults setting boundaries for ourselves. There used to be something called appropriateness. It is a legitimate discussion to debate the relative merits of having nude sculptures in public places.
But that is not what this is about. This is about public dollars providing a sculpture in a public place that depicts to many what most consider a serious problem for our youth. That is what this is about.
Too many times we adults push boundaries for the purpose of, well, to push boundaries. It always makes eminent sense to push the boundary out just a little further. Increments by the inch don’t add up to anything, do they? As we adults focus on doing things simply because we can do them, we ignore the flotsam and jetsam created by the ever expanding definition of appropriate.
Suzanne Conaway
12 months agoAimee, I don’t think bare breasts are inherently bad. But, having not seen the sculpture, I think it sounds pretty silly.
However, lots of people didn’t like the ‘Modern Communications” statue that was in front of the City’s Information Technoly building (tie over the eyes, fingers in the ears, shoe in the mouth), but I loved it.
Keep up the good work.
PS Did you read my abortion article?
Fellow Voice,
Suzy
Phil Cardarella
12 months agoDear Horrified Persons:
If you object to the physical structure of the human body,I suggest that you file your complaints with the Maker who designed the product.
There is nothing worng with individual modesty — but there is something seriously wrong with treating the human body as something shocking. Of course, most of us should avoid public nakedness for aesthetic reasons — but teaching children that they should be ashamed of the bodies they have — as somehow inherently immoral or disgusting? That’s both sick and sacriligious.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 4 weeks agoEarth to Phil. Not wanting to expose youth to a statue depicting a young female taking a picture of her own nude form is not objecting to the physical structure of the human body. It’s about not portraying sexting as a whimsical activity.
While some may bemoan the nudity, that really isn’t the point here. Yes, I know the artist has said that the meaning of the piece is actually opposite of the sexting interpretation. But if so many people miss the valid and good point of the artist and see sexting by a young person, then isn’t that “artist error”? An artist is someone who has a gift to deliver a message through a medium. Obviously, this artist failed miserably to deliver the intended message. Isn’t that an example of art that has failed?
Jack Gates
11 months, 4 weeks agoHey Kent. Give Phil a break, huh?
I mean, have you SEEN Kathryn? You’d feel the same way if you were married to that. A little charity can go a long way. Lets try and practice some. Meanwhile, I’m off to the Arboretum to check this statue out for myself. Right after I can find someone to help me over appraise my home for a tax write off. LOLOL
Kent Mueller
11 months, 4 weeks agoSorry, Jack, but even though we may feel the same about the statue (but maybe not, I’m not sure) I don’t tolerate anyone speaking about another individual like you did. Going personal has no place in the discussion. The left does that enough, the right doesn’t have to join in in that crap.
Jack Gates
11 months, 4 weeks agoSorry Kent. I stand by what I said. It wasn’t personal; not any more personal than any of the other posts from Philly I’ve read.
I call a spade a spade. There are no Queensbury Rules here.
It’s a WAR pal! These guys ain’t your friends, they are your ENEMY. Your attitude will be perceived as a weakness. Are you weak? I hope not, because the day will come where the only discussion will be whether they will bury you or leave your corpse to rot.
Man up!
Kent Mueller
11 months, 4 weeks agoJack, you are as bad as many of the liberals. Please don’t sully conservatism with the remarks you made. That has always been the job of the liberals.