Skip to comments.Marion Square Sunbathing Burns Up Councilman
Posted on 04/25/2003 2:59:48 PM PDT by Big Steve
Marion Square sunbathing burns up councilman
Gilliard approaches police, C of C about deterring bikini display
BY JASON HARDIN
Of The Post and Courier Staff
It's Charleston's own version of "shock and awe:" scantily clad sunbathers soaking up the rays in Marion Square.
Ever since the city wrapped up its renovation of the popular downtown park, it has become a hot spot for bikini-wearing college students. On any fine day, dozens of students soak up rays, turning heads and even, apparently, stopping traffic.
One city councilman says the display is inappropriate in a place frequented by families and surrounded by churches. Councilman Wendell Gilliard says he is ready to take a stand, comparing the activity to the hot-selling "Girls Gone Wild" videos of college students in various stages of drunken undress.
"I've seen them pushing the limit. They have their breasts exposed, their ... rear end exposed, wearing a G-string bikini," he said. "This 'Girls Gone Wild'-type attitude has caught ahold all across the country. We don't want it to get to that point, but I'm sad to say I think it's at that point now."
Gilliard, who has led the city's effort to shut down a West Ashley adult video store, said he was disturbed by the sight of several sunbathers during a recent gospel music concert in the park. He added that they have caused other problems, including a recent traffic jam.
"Everybody thought something had happened, but these two guys in a truck were looking at the girls laying out on the lawn," he said.
Gilliard recently asked city police to look into whether the bikinis violate the city's indecent exposure ordinance, and he will meet with College of Charleston officials to ask them to deter students from sunbathing in the park.
It's not clear whether his efforts will lead anywhere. His comments drew little reaction from other council members at a recent Charleston City Council meeting, and Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr. said he doesn't agree that sunbathing is a problem.
For students lying in the sun Thursday afternoon, the idea of a crackdown on sunbathing went over like a third- degree burn. Most said no one would see anything there that couldn't be seen at the beach and that there's nothing wrong with seeing people in bathing suits anyway.
"Girls walk around in skimpy bathing suits. That's what they do here," said Shannon Malmstrom, stretched out in the grass with two friends, all wearing two-piece bathing suits.
Students say they come to the park to relax, hang out with friends and sometimes meet members of the opposite sex. Many don't have cars and don't have an easy way to get to the beach. Back on their campus, there are few spots where enough sun filters through the live oaks to make sunbathing worthwhile, they said.
Jennifer De La Cuesta said she doubted any kind of sunbathing ban would work.
"Do you know what kind of protests there would be? Everybody would be out here sunbathing," she said.
"Everybody would be naked!" joked Malmstrom.
Those with more clothes on agreed.
Sam Morgan, visiting Charleston from Virginia, said he saw no problem with students in bathing suits.
"If there were frolicking in the fountain, having a wet T-shirt contest, that would be something different," he said.
That idea seemed to sound all right to another park-goer, who declined to give his name.
"Let 'em go wild," he said. Dennis Brown, lounging in the park with his dog Schatzy, said Gilliard's idea smacks of government intrusion.
"If this person feels offended, then he should avert his gaze. But he simply has no right whatsoever to impinge on the rights of others," he said. "We still have one foot in the Victorian Age."
Brown said he likes to see women sunbathing.
"There's nothing wrong with it," he said. "I'm able to simply enjoy female beauty and not feel guilty about it. There's a big difference between enjoying and leering."
Not everyone disagreed with the Gilliard's idea.
The Rev. Carl Wiggins, pastor of the Chapel of the Holy Spirit in Ladson, said he wouldn't mind seeing a sunbather-free Marion Square.
"I'm here praying, and it's hard on a human being not to be distracted," he said.
Concerns about improper attire aren't new in Charleston. In recent years, some downtown residents have complained about sloppily dressed tourists, although no one has sought to ban them. For the most part, those complaints have centered more on questions of respect than outright indecency.
The city's indecent exposure ordinance states, "No person shall appear in any public place or property open to the public in state of nudity or otherwise make any indecent exposure of his or her person."
Gilliard said he does not necessarily want police to start attempting to enforce the ordinance against bikini-wearing sunbathers, although he does hope the college will attempt to restrain them.
Riley said he does not agree there is a problem.
"It's spring, and warm days after a cold, gray, dreary winter ... attract sunbathers," he said. "Frankly, I feel that it's a very positive thing that Marion Square, beautifully restored ... is attractive to our citizenry."
Police Maj. Herb Whetsell said officers would have a difficult time trying to enforce an ordinance against sunbathers, although public nudity is another thing entirely.
"If a person is standing out there peeing on the sidewalk, yeah, we'll lock them up," he said.
Figuring out what kind of swimsuit should be considered indecent would be difficult, he said.
"The problem is, the Supreme Court has been trying to figure out for 30 or 40 years what indecent exposure is. So how's a cop going to figure it out? he said. "It is unenforceable ordinance. That's something you just don't want touch."
Simply telling me that the city of Charleston has the right to pass a law against bikinis does not address my point. You have merely circled back and restated your position and ignored all of my arguments. It is true that a law can be passed. It doesn't address my suggestion that your priorities are in the wrong place though, nor does it address whether it is right to pass such a law.
I support your right to be intolerant of anything you wish, so stop with the stupid and overly reactive assumptions already. I'm not whining about your thoughts on girls in bikinis, so get over it already and take a moment to understand the discussion taking place.
Had you merely expressed disgust or displeasure at the activity in the park, I would not have responded. I would have respected and agreed with your position even. Surprise!
You are so ready to fire off a rapid defense of your position that you can't take a moment to understand what it is you said that is being objected too. Thus, you toss out your wholly incorrect assumptions about "my ilk" and end up looking more like a fool than you did with your original position.
My objection is not to your position on the matter. It is your proposed solution. You prefer to be fast and loose with legislation and government solutions to every minor thing that disturbs your fragile sensitivities. You see government and the law as a tool to impose your moral beliefs on others.
This is where I disagree with you. This does NOT tell you anything about where I stand on specific issues of morality. Your assumptions about what I believe in this regard are completely incorrect. You can be "intolerant" all you want. Frankly, you and I probably agree more on what is right and wrong than we disagree. Where we part is how to deal with those things we don't like.
I will leave you with my previous suggestion, since a discussion about the valid purpose of government is beyond you: Get a grip, "dearie" It is a girl in a bikini. Your priorities are in the wrong place. Unwind your bunched up panties and think about it for a moment, before you continue with your stupid and incorrect assumptions about me "and my ilk."
Would you accept a bikini-clad woman shopping in your supermarket?
... in a restaurant?
... on the floor of the Senate?
... on a public bus?
... in an office building?
... in church
or any other place where it is appropriate to be more formally dressed.
Perhaps downtown Charleston is not an appropriate place for bikini wear. There are lots of nearby beaches where it would be appropriate.
Is that absurd red herring to be taken as your rational approach to 'discussion'?
I addressed YOUR red herring and you turn around and suggest that I am using a red herring. Ludicrous! Look up the word, and then look at our exchange. I pointed out in my last post that your argument regarding the city's ability to pass a law (YOUR red herring effort to ignore my prior post about the legitemate use of government) has nothing to do with the real point. You ignored my argument with that silly insert. You haven't addressed my argument yet.
If you think this is an issue over bikinis...
You should truly be ashamed of yourself here. I made the point repeatedly, and in a variety of ways, that the big picture is not about bikinis and that you should temper your desire to send in the police state to end sunbathing.
You kept the focus of YOUR argument on morality. My suggestion to you was that your focus was on the wrong thing and that the bigger picture was the legitemate use of government. Your rebuttal was that the city can pass a law if it wants, your Red Herring which didn't address my point.
Rather than address the bigger issue I raised, you chose to accuse me of being morally depraved for not feeling that sunbathers were an important issue, having a need or desire for skin, being more debaucherous than Dems, being PC and whining about your whining about bikinis, etc.
The discussion is about your desire to use totalitarianism as a method to create a model society, and my assertion that it leads to just the opposite. You have continued to refuse to address the primary topic while instead choosing to presume the whole time what my moral status is or political leanings are.
For you, the discussion has continued to be about bikinis.
Don't project your own failings onto me, and don't dismiss the discussion by accusing me of engaging in the very tactics you have attempted to employ. That is what Dems do when their arguments fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.