At Least the Bikini Fugitive (Probably) Wasn't Doing it Just for the Attention

At Least the Bikini Fugitive (Probably) Wasn’t Doing it Just for the Attention

It has always been true that some people will do anything to get attention — and not just good attention, as any parent, teacher or reality television viewer can attest.

Not all attention-getting stunts are created equal, of course. Some are done to raise awareness of a worthy cause or draw attention to a wrong that needs to be righted. Others are a function of crass commercialism and testing of the old adage, “all publicity is good publicity.”

And then there are the people who probably never intended to become the object of attention, but find themselves under the microscope — and/or going viral on social media — without ever intending to be there.

In her latest post, Calico looks at a couple recent incidents, contrasting a contrived attempt to generate buzz by controversy with an apparently spontaneous act in which a clearly buzzed person generated controversy.

Who was behind these contrasting bits of viral media? Whatever happened to streaking for streaking sake? Did anyone involved hit himself in the head with nunchaku? Find out in Calico’s new post, “At Least the Bikini Fugitive (Probably) Wasn’t Doing it Just for the Attention.”

by Calico Rudasill, Sssh.com award-winning adult feature films

Read on…

More and more these days, it seems like people will do just about anything to get attention. This isn’t always a bad thing (although, sometimes it is a very bad thing), as sometimes outlandish people are wonderfully amusing and/or parlay their 15 minutes of fame into a real career in entertainment.

Some publicity ploys are just lame, however – like the recent Super Bowl “streaker” who turned out to be not some kooky exhibitionist rebel, but just some guy getting paid to promote Vitaly Zdorovetskiy’s porn site.

Oh Sure, Focus on the Bikini. Why are Flannels Never Held Accountable?

Say what you will about the unidentified woman who recently took police on a slow-speed chase from near LAX to Redondo Beach, you must admit it’s unlikely she did it just for the attention – despite the fact she did it while wearing a bright pink bikini.

This didn’t stop people in the media from focusing on the bikini, of course. I mean, just look at that headline: “Woman in pink bikini leads police on bizarre slow-speed pursuit.” 

Granted, the report does accurately state she was also wearing a flannel shirt – but clearly the media regards the flannel as less important, since we get no additional description of it. It’s not a “blue and gray checked flannel shirt,” or a “flannel shirt that, frankly, looks a bit too large for her” or “flannel shirt possibly stolen from a lumberjack who might, at this very moment, be lying in the LAX parking lot, mortally wounded and flannel-shirtless,” it’s just a “flannel shirt.”

And what, pray tell, made this a “bizarre” slow-speed chase? Are all slow=speed chases bizarre? Is that something established by the precedent set in the landmark 1994 Los Angeles moving violation case, Cowlings v. Half the Goddam LAPD? Would it have been less bizarre if she had been wearing a pantsuit?

While I applaud the police for declining to name the suspect following her arrest, I do think they could have shown her the respect of at least bestowing upon her a suitably catchy nickname. Seeing as how the “Bikini Bandit” is already taken (and wouldn’t work here, since this woman didn’t rob anyone, so far as I’m aware), how about the “Bikini Fugitive”? Although, I suppose now that she’s been apprehended, she’s not really a “fugitive” anymore, is she? This will require more thought.

Whatever Happened to Streaking, Anyway?

Back to streaking for a moment – I’m just old enough to remember when streaking was a thing – and I mean a real, legit ‘fad’ kind of a thing. Hell, at one point, apparently there were college rankings for streaking, kind of like the Top 25 in college football, except probably more objective and well-reasoned.

Just how 1970s was streaking, you ask? This paragraph from the American Heritage article I linked to above says a lot:

“Even a beleaguered President Nixon got in on the act. When asked about the gray hairs on his temple, the President replied, ‘They call that streaking’—generally conceded to be his best one-liner since ‘I am not a crook.’ Comedians and cartoonists across the nation picked up on the theme of presidential streaking, with the phrase cover-up figuring prominently in most cases. Literary scholars recalled Bob Dylan’s prescient line from ‘It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)’: ‘Even the President of the United States must some times have to stand naked.’”

Wow. A thread formed by streaking that connects Richard Nixon to Bob Dylan – that’s powerfully 1970s, right there. 

You know what else was very 70s about the streaking trend? It didn’t last.

“A month and a half after the Academy Awards incident, Dr. Joyce Brothers explained streaking’s sudden demise by saying, ‘The challenge of finding new and unusual ways to streak was no longer there.’”

I’d say it’s a shame, but let’s face it: If that Bob Dylan line about a president standing naked is ever to come to literal fruition, it’s probably for the best that it didn’t come to pass during the Trump Administration.

Looking for more offbeat adult entertainment?  Check out Wasteland.com – Click Here