Salacious February Part Three. De minimus non curat lex

Maybe there is something wrong with February?

One of the things addressed in this blog before is that we live in an odd era when basic nature has completely escaped large sections of the American population and crossed over into social make believe and, of course, litigation.

It's truly stupid in all sorts of ways.

It's mostly stupid because its ignores nature.

And it shouldn't work.  Court's shouldn't imagine that they can change reality but recently, well perhaps for some time, we've had some jurists who apparently take their ideas of nature from Vanderpump Rules or some other such nonscientific prattle.

And the Federal, yes the Federal District Court, in Colorado has given us a spectacular example of this in the case of FREE THE NIPPLE – FORT COLLINS, an unincorporated association, BRITTIANY (sic) HOAGLAND, and SAMANTHA SIX, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO.

Here's what's up with that.

Free the Nipple is a moronic organization that imagines that women are repressed and oppressed because the societal norm in every society in the world, except for those in blistering hot regions of the planet, because they are not allowed to bare their breasts.  They believe that if women run around topless men will become disinterested in boobs and quit treating women like toys and social Utopia will be reached.

This is dumb. 

The societal norm exists, as psychologist have long known, because men are fascinated with the female body form.  Yes, breasts in mammals exist for breast feeding, as Judge R. Brook Jackson, but in human beings its very well established that's not the only purpose they serve. Indeed the amount of a mammal's breast required for that is tiny.  Female human beings have huge breasts compared to other mammals, and they're huge all the the time, rather than only when engorged like other mammals. There's another reason, other than breast feeding, for that. 

And sex is that reason.

This is well known amongst those scientists who study that particular mammal, the human being.   Apparently scientific knowledge is lacking amongst the delusional nitwits of Free The Nipple and it apparently doesn't make an appearance in Judge R. Brook Jackson's court either, the latter being a really sad commentary on the state of scientific education of members of the bar.

Anyhow humans have the largest degree of sexual dimorphism of any mammal.  Male apes and female apes differ, but not like men and women do.  Same with chimpanzees.  We might share something like 90% of our DNA with chimps, but the area of sexual dimorphism, we're not even ballpark close to them.  Women have a much different form than men, and that has a deep seated evolutionary origin.  According to those who have studied it the reason is that there's an extremely strong psychological bonding aspect of human psychology between men and women who have sex. So strong, in fact, that it strongly arises the very first time a couple engages in it and they never really escape it thereafter.  And, to add to that, unlike nearly every other mammal, humans are interested, with males much more interested, all the time and irrespective of fertility.

Breasts are part of that process.

Way back in our evolution, we're told, men because attracted to women who had big breasts.  The reasons are somewhat debated, but the attraction factor is not.  It's universal.

It's not due in any part to cultural factors, except to the extent to which size is oddly regarded differently by different cultures.   Some cultures favor bigger boobs than some others.  But boobs are universally admired by men.  And that includes those men, for example, in the bush in Namibia were the women don't wear shirts.  Indeed, anthropologists have noted, for whatever reason, that in those regions of Africa where women don't wear shirts there's a physical trend, big surprise here, towards bigger boobs.  Apparently seeing all those breasts hasn't dampened interest in them, and has focused, instead, towards bigger sets.  Additionally, while the reason for it is debated, it's well established in the English speaking world that over the last several decades female breast size has been increasing enormously.  The cause is debated and really unknown, but at least one potential factor in that is the often decried impact of Playboy magazine and its fellow travelers which portrayed only women with a highly idealized, to men, body form.  With pornography now extremely common and all over the net, at least one potential reason for the increase in female breast size isn't that men who are now flooded with mammary images are growing tired and acclimated to them but, rather, adopting what they've seen as what they want, and so now the species is self selecting for larger breasts.

In other words, in a world that's gone from rear view but fully clothed images of Betty Grable seeming shocking, to one in which Kate Upton barely covered by anything is not, but where Kate's nearly bare appearance inspires searches for the fully bare one, where on earth does Judge Jackson  get his views that not only is some real constitutional issue to be found here, but that he's only adjusting perception rather than dealing with biology?

Which, by the way, would also explain the enormous increase in surgery in this area aimed at women who don't have them.

All of which is why Free the Nipple is an organization that, essentially, will get women stared at and treated even more like toys.  A better name for it would be Free the Male Libido or Enslave the Concubine.

Fort Collins, I'd note, is a college town.  Even though college towns tend to be reservoirs of the socially stupid, I doubt a lot of women are going to stop wearing shirts there.  Indeed, most of the men do, most of the time, but some are no doubt going to stop.  My prediction is that they're going to get stared at a lot by young men.  And that's the most cheery prediction I can make.  To the extent that there's drinking and viewing, there's going to be worse, inevitably.

Secondly, this is amazingly stupid as there's really no reason for this to bet the subject of a court' order, let alone a temporary injunction.  The judge, R. Brook Jackson, amongst his rulings, stated the following:

Similarly, I find the balance of injuries weighs strongly in plaintiffs’ favor. As discussed above, any time the government denies a person a constitutional right or protection, that person’s injury is serious.  See, e.g., Elrod , 427 U.S. at 373. By comparison, the injury to defendant is minimal. Defendant contends that many inhabitants of Fort Collins do not approve of allowing topless females in public. See ECF No. 19 at 29–30. 

Acknowledging that for many people  prohibiting females to be topless in public remains a significant issue of personal morality, I find that such concerns are outweighed by the constitutional rights of others. See 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.2 (“[W]hen plaintiff is claiming the loss of a constitutional right, courts commonly rule that even a temporary loss outweighs any harm to defendant and that a preliminary injunction should issue[.]”).

Oh bull. R. Brooke, seriously?  A temporary injunction.

Even as a matter of temporary injunctions, was the threat of "injury" to the plaintiffs so high that a temporary injunction needed to be imposed in February?  

Have you been to the Rockies in February?

Only an idiot runs around sans shirt in February in this region.

Be that as it may, the entire concept that the Constitution really weighs in here is frankly absurd.  No, rather than an application of the Constitution, an application of the doctrine of de minimus not curat lex would be better.

That doctrine holds that the law does not concern itself with trifles.  And this is one.  

Or it isn't.  

We've already reached the point where things are so messed up in this area that young women have gone from being respected, to liberated at least economically, back to objects.  The conversion of young females from dignity to concubines seems well on its way. Getting their shirts off in public isn't going to stop that, it's going to accelerate it. Men will still like boobs, and now they won't need Playboy or the Internet to view them. Getting  them in bed, by expectation or pressure, isn't far behind.

And what about R. Brook Jackson?  I've never heard of him, but he did practice in a well known law firm for 26 years before becoming a Colorado state judge.  President Obama appointed him to the Federal bench.  He's about age 70.

Do you suppose he told his female partners to take of their shirts and relax?  How about women who appear in his court now, can they appear in court topless?

Let's hope so, otherwise that would suggest that what's good for Fort Collins (which won't be) is somehow not good for the courtroom. And that would be, well, unequal.

Better turn the heat up in that courthouse Judge Jackson.