To the Editor:
Re “Shirtless Bodies in Pointless War” (editorial, Aug. 22):
I attended the High School of Performing Arts from 1956 to 1960 when it was in the Times Square area. I remember the seediness, the pornographic sex shops, the X-rated movie houses and the pimps standing in doorways. I applaud city officials for making the area safer and more tourist-friendly.
Recently I attended a Broadway show in the Times Square area and was taken aback by the throngs milling around on the pedestrian plaza taking endless selfies with half-naked women. While I am not a prude and don’t begrudge New York its tourist trade, it became an effort to get where I was going.
It seems the sexual incivility of the past has been replaced by a different sexual distraction, albeit less offensive. Some might argue that sex is a part of the Times Square mystique and that the women are legally within their rights (which they are), but isn’t it possible for Times Square to still be the “crossroads of the world” without such distractions?
BETTIJANE GARSON
White Plains
To the Editor:
Thanks to the Times editorial board and Michael Kimmelman’s Critic’s Notebook (“A Case for Nurturing Plazas in Times Square,” Aug. 22) for hard-hitting critiques of the frothing over bare breasts in Times Square. I’ve been enjoying the free-for-all atmosphere of Times Square since college days, more than 50 years ago. It’s one of the demonstrations of the city’s ability to handle diversity of all sorts. Freedom of speech surely includes freedom of dress.
PETER D’ERRICO
Leverett, Mass.
Note from KBJ: Interesting that the woman (Bettijane) doesn't like the display of breasts, but that the man (Peter) does.
