Thursday, May 23, 2013
Facebook Connect
 
This Week's SFR Picks
 
— The Radness of King George
'Game of Thrones' mastermind George RR Martin talks childhood, popcorn and his latest acquisition
— The Canary in the Copper Mine (is dead)
How New Mexico's copper industry wrote its own rules
— Slaughterhorse-Five
The inner workings of NM’s first equine slaughterhouse
Guides Santa Fe Manual Restaurant Guide Best of Santa Fe Bar & Nightlife Summer Arts

Letter America: Dear Southwest Airlines

Letter America Dear Southwest Airlines, I’m writing to complain about the unfair way I was treated on a recent flight from San Francisco to Phoenix. ... More

May 20, 2013 By Robert Wilder Comments 5
 
 
 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / Opinion /  Zane's World
Opinion 10.06.2010 1 Comments

Zane's World

Discernibly Turgid

By Zane Fischer
Peters-Gallery Does the Gerald Peters Gallery have something in its pocket or is it just happy to see us?

I would like to know exactly how many hours of city staff, councilor and attorney time went into passing Santa Fe’s new indecent exposure ordinance. What did it cost us to create and approve this laughably useless legislation, notable only for its abuse potential by police officers looking for an excuse to hassle someone?


Sadly, it’s not easy to pin down the exact number but, suffice to say, any amount was too much.


From a city and mayor with a history of courageous actions—adopting green practices, saving the local college, taking strong stances on national issues—this sudden bout of Victorian heroism is, well, nakedly offensive.


Particularly sad is the inclusion of a passage that subjects fully dressed men to a fine in the event that someone observes them to be “discernibly turgid.” It recalls the not necessarily apocryphal tale of the boy in school who is dreamily thinking of the girl in front of him and is then called up to face the whole class. 


What if you’ve got a flashlight in your pocket? What if you’re walking to the doctor’s office with a case of non-ischemic priapism? What if you just have a happy little boner but you’re not using it to bother anyone?


Possibly more offensive is the segregation of men and women under the new law. Shirtless men are no problem, but woe betide the woman who bears a nipple because that’s just…what? Gross? Hot? Too much for the animal instinct to bear? It is a blatant formalization of the religious patriarchy that believes men can’t be blamed for what they do when women behave “inappropriately.”


But it’s not discrimination, according to Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez, whose pen tumescently scribed the new ordinance. He points out the similarities to laws in Pennsylvania and Indiana that have been upheld by the US Supreme Court. This is our litmus now: That’s the way they do it in Indiana?


What’s next? Hey, if it works in Pakistan…what’s the problem?


The same apparently goes for butts. If just a hint of juicy gluteus is exposed—be it female or male—there’s no telling what an otherwise good Christian might do.


We’re told that a petition signed by more than 1,000 people supported adopting the new ordinance. Those are heady numbers for a city councilor. But then it’s pretty easy to collect signatures with a little churchy fear-mongering, maybe leaving out the whole truth—Tea Party style.


When it comes down to it, saying a man may do one thing and a woman must do another is discriminatory. It’s hard to believe any clear-thinking individual could believe otherwise. What a clear-thinking individual can see is a case of legal ratification of one particular tribe’s custom at the expense of all others.


But, then, specific tribal customs have been known to prevail here. If you’d like to put a new fence around a property that’s been in your family for 200 years and it happens to be located in a historic district, there’s a good chance the H-board will make you jump through hoops. But if you happen to be the Gerald Peters Gallery and you just can’t do without adding 1,500 square feet to your already oversized building (at 32,000 square feet, I think it’s safe to call the Peters Gallery “discernibly turgid”) well, it’s a rubber stamp for you, my friend. 


But that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Historic preservation—as distinguished from the act of ensuring cultural and traditional continuity—is a hobby of the wealthy, and those in the club are the ones who benefit from the regs and rules. After all, there can be no real pretense to preserving neighborhood character when preferential treatment is given to the expansion of a building already so utterly engorged that it appears ready to either sink or float, depending on what you believe its walls are full of (I have my own guess).


Between fearing the butts of bicyclists and worshipping the fiefdoms of the wealthy, we’ve chosen the path of serfdom over independence, of prudence over possibility and of obedience over diversity. 


We all know what happens to serfs, right? Here we are, bent over—but still clothed—by the religious and the wealthy. Let’s just hope a cop strolls by and notes something discernibly turgid before we get truly reamed.

Follow Zane’s World on Twitter: @Zanes_World

 

Also in Opinion

Also from Zane Fischer

-->
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

Related Stories From Altweeklies.com

 

 

 
10.19.2010 at 10:28 | Reply |

In his recent column, Zane Fischer seems to want to link the idea that public nudity should not be sexist with the idea that the Historic Review Board is somehow remiss because it permits Gerald Peters to add an extra 5 percent of office space to his successful, competent, job-providing gallery.

 

Santa Fe is well served by a strong, articulate, international arts community of which Gerry Peters was a pioneer when Fischer was in grade school and, had Peters not made gutsy adult decisions to propagate that vision, it’s likely Zane and his art-fringe buddies would never have found Santa Fe, let alone a platform within it from which to launch their “discernibly turgid” boy-man rants.

 

They would have stayed in the Midwest and argued “cultural diversity” from their parents’ basements.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close