In defense of Breasts

["ben merkle" <benmerkle@moscow.com>]

Kroneman consoles Mrs. Harrell, assuring her that "Your breasts are not
there to make you feel ashamed of your body.  Why do we accept the exposure
of men's breasts but not women's?  If it weren't to say there was something
wrong with how women's breasts are?"
     To assert that covering something is done only because of a perceived
flaw is pretty ridiculous. For instance, I cover a good poker hand, I cover
my homebrew when it is fermenting, and I cover my kids at night. The need
for a woman to cover her breasts has nothing to do with it being shameful or
defective. It's the opposite. It's a reflection of value. But I forgot that
Marxists hate pedestals.
    The devaluing of breasts throughout this debate has not been from those
against toplessness. Those supporting toplessness have done all the work. We
have been told that a woman's breasts are no different than a man's. That's
not only ridiculous, but it's an insult. Ralph Nielson's recent letter to
the Editor indicated the same problem. He mentioned that when he saw topless
girls washing cars the only thing he thought of was clean cars. Now that's
an insult to breasts. God save us all from such a hollow, sexless world.
    One last question. What's with the lack of gumption? Why are you only
calling for toplessness? Are you ashamed of the rest of the human body? Why
require any covering at all? Come on, get some courage and call for full
nudity or explain why you don't have the courage of your convictions.

Sincerely,
Ben Merkle
or you can call me "Auntie Depressant"

ps. For those of you who are about to "google" me I'll save you some time.
My bio can be read at http://www.newstandrews.org/BMerkle.html and my kids
are Wilson's grandkids.