vision2020
Re: Topless Gratitude
Shouldn't they love each other, not possess each other like objects.
And, maybe this issue isn't that a woman is making her breast available
for other's enjoyment. Maybe its just not covering her body up when she
doesn't see a need to. Is that what you do when you go shirtless? Are
you providing some sort of service for the enjoyment of others? Should
you be charging then for people to look? Why do you assume then that a
woman is going topless for the pleasure of others and not her own?
By not concealing them by cloth, she does not give up her breasts as
"public (viewing) property." She still retains full and unalienable
rights as "owner and possessor" of her breasts.
This entire email is all about how a man responds or should respond to a
woman, or more speacifically to her breasts. "Now any man who thinks the
breast is a wonderful and marvelous thing, as all God-fearing men ought,
should want to give them their due....When breasts are free for the
taking, touching or watching of any man, then they are no longer possessed
by any one man." But a womans breasts are not the concern of any man
unless under that direct supervision and expressed permission of the
woman. No man ever possesses any woman's breasts.
Same with any man. He is not any woman's possession. We are humans and
people deserving of equal treatment if all aspects of life, not objects to
be possessed.
This line of thinking, of people being possessions, is what leads "to
concubines, rape, lip-plates, or any other exploitation you please," not
hidden breasts.
Another offensive statement I find quite ethnocentric and racist is the
"the barbarism of pure tribal life" statement. Who are you to determine
the barbarism of any way of life?
Daniel
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Nate Wilson wrote:
> Joan, Melissa, et al,
> Having taken the pot-shot I will now provide the apparently needed
> explanation. As you have already pointed out, my pop’s name is Wilson,
> so feel free to delete now. When a woman yanks her shirt we are told
> that the she is expressing her freedom and equality. But what she is
> actually doing is making her ‘nekkid’ breasts available to anyone who
> happens to enjoy them and has the time to stop by. She is not liberated
> from oppression or raised to equality; her breasts are merely made
> public (viewing) property. Now any man who thinks the breast is a
> wonderful and marvelous thing, as all God-fearing men ought, should want
> to give them their due. In other words, he should want to treasure them.
> And treasures, if appreciated, won’t be passed around.
> Beauty in union between man and woman comes in possession. She
> possesses him, and he her. But when mutual possession disappears we
> enter the barbarism of pure tribal life, and the beauty of the breast is
> trampled, along with many other things, underfoot. When breasts are free
> for the taking, touching or watching of any man, then they are no longer
> possessed by any one man. They are instead possessed by men generally.
> Which is to say that women generally are then possessed by men
> generally, and no men are possessed by women in return. This of course
> wanders down the path to concubines, rape, lip-plates, or any other
> exploitation you please. It’s like taking a beautiful garden path and
> putting all of it in the street by the corner of A and Asbury.
> Of course all many people will see here are the words ‘women’ and
> ‘possession’ and all their hackles will go up, red flags will fly. But
> the key here is that men be possessed. It’s no good if only the woman is
> kept. If the man and woman are mutually possessed then glorious
> civilizations arise. If only the woman, or women are possessed, then the
> male bee self-destructively flits from flower to flower, car wash to car
> wash, woman to woman, and all we get as a culture is neat diseases and
> single mothers. Which, oddly enough, is what we have.
> Moral of the story: public bathrooms are the dirtiest.
>
> Nate
>
Back to TOC