Topless Protest Was So Good Until It Brought Up Aliens

Photo via

So I’m browsing through LA Weekly, and I stumble across a blurb about a group called GoTopless, and their recent parade about Venice, CA with tatas blowing in the wind in order to “help women ‘perceive their breasts as noble, natural parts of their anatomy.’”

Woot! I thought to myself. I love embracing breasts! (Wait…) But seriously — I love body love, and I totally agree with the idea that women should be allowed to go topless when and where they choose.

But then I made the mistake of continuing to read, and here is what I found: “GoTopless, according to the Website, was founded by the Raelian Movement. They believe extraterrestrial scientists created life on Earth.”

And indeed, a quick jump over to the GoTopless website revealed that their belief that men and women should have equal rights to bare their chests stems not exactly from a sense of equality, but from a sense of the infallible planning of aliens:

The Raelian philosophy maintains that life on Earth was the result of scientific creation by an advanced, extraterrestrial human civilization, the Elohim, mistaken for gods in the Bible.

“They created us scientifically in their image through genetic engineering,” Gary said. “So how can a body, a masterpiece, be perceived with shame?

I mean, does it really have to be that complicated? Can’t we have equal rights to get the girls (and boys) out without bringing aliens into the equation? It certainly seems like an unnecessary step. Not to mention the fact that honestly — and I hate to be a naysayer here — it dicredits the organization a little bit. Just a little.

Share This Post:
    • Judy

      I don’t really see how their belief in aliens is somehow more discrediting than if they had said that some other infallible being was responsible for their creation (and thus lack of shame). Unnecessary, yes, but I don’t think the same comment would be made if their beliefs met your standards for religion.


      Civil rights movements come with all sorts of spirituality attached maybe because spirituality begets standing up for human rights. Martin Luther King was a perfect example. People of many different religious beliefs including atheists embraced his activism. The Raelian Movement is no exception. Its philosophy advocates that humans were created scientifically by an extraterrestrial race named Elohim (the biblical Hebrew word for “god” in the Bible). That is why Raelians are so adamant about ridding our societies of laws that render humans shameful of their bodies. We were created in the image of our creators the Elohim, we physically resemble them and each part of our being is their masterpiece, breast included! Please join us for Gotopless Day Aug 21, whatever your spirituality maybe so we can all enjoy our common, constitutional topless freedom.

    • wonderhussy

      Morality codes have everything to do with religion. I’d prefer a totally secular topfreedom protest…one that doesn’t mention Jebus, Buddha or aliens.

      Fair or unfair, it DOES discredit the movement to be associated with Raelians. I too was totally disappointed when I got to the bottom of and saw that wackiness…booo!

    • Dick Wilcox

      Topless women in public? Oh yes, the idea looks GREAT on paper. However, in the real world, things would be very different.

      (First I will be practical.) If toplessness is made legal in America the only women you will see topless are women you do not want to see topless. This happened in Canada about 13 years ago when a judge agreed that it was totally sexist for men to be able to go without shirt while women couldn’t. After that the only women you saw topless publicly were the illegal street hookers walking around in the bad parts of Montreal. Women had the choice to bare their chests, and opted not to.

      (Second I will be Realistic.) If toplessness is made legal in America the only women you will see topless are women you do not want to see topless. Let’s face facts people. If it became legal for women to bare their breasts in public you would not see women who look like Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, a young Jennifer Connelly, (you all get the idea) in Central Park walking her dog with her fine, young, firm boobs hanging out for all to see. Hot women with good boobs do not show them off for free or for no benefit to them. No the women who WILL show off what they have will be the women who look like Rosie O’Donnell, Queen Latiffia, and a present day Jennifer Connelly. Oddly enough these women will stand there, nipples int he breeze, complaining that they are being objectified.

      (Third I will be controversial.) If toplessness is made legal in America would there be a minimum age requirement of 18 or 21? You do not hear the women who demand they be able to be like men and go without shirts in public addressing the issue of teenage girls doing the same thing. Who reading this thinks it would be a very good idea to have a group of girls, ages 13 to 17, playing topless volleyball on the Jersey Shore? This is an example of where you will have to decide which is more important, the protection of children or the protection the rights of women.

    • wade long

      Yall are judgmental. you think women only women who are ugly are going to expose their breasts? you think it’s about only getting to see the hot ones? You think there’s a question about the credibility about a cause because they believe in aliens? Do you know where humanity comes from? The fact is that we live in a culture where we think everyone should be equal, but we’re not. Women and men have separate bathrooms, and day-to-day clothes are a woman’s burka. you can’t show your nipples, I can show mine, neither of us can show our dongs. And yes, welcome to the future, some girls have dongs. How far you want to take this? Seriously, I think if we lived in a nudist culture, people would protest by wearing clothes. Some people just rebel, or merely cry out for attention. Like the girl wandering around New York topless. This around a million people, men included, who are not.