What we really need are laws against erotic retardation.
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: What we really need are laws against erotic retardation.
- From: Douglas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:30:31 -0700
- Cc: email@example.com
- Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <-c8be.A._ZP.MEIN9@whale2.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: email@example.com
"A law intended from the outset to be selectively enforced" -- will clearly
in the minds of some lead to tyrannical despotism.
Since one of the things we have learned in this amusing imbroglio from our
friends on the left is that their is no erotic difference between a man's
breasts and a woman's (where are sex ed courses when you need them?), then
it follows, as night follows day, that we can tolerate no law that assumes
such a distinction. Consequently, I propose that we abolish all sexual
harassment laws that assume that it might be more likely for a man to ogle
or comment on or get handsy with one set of them rather than the other
kind. And I, for one, intend to set a good example for everybody by not
even hinting which set might now be considered in open season.
I can see it now -- "Yer honor. I never thought to be harassin' anybody. I
thought I was jest horsing around with the guys. Why I didn't even know she
was a girl until the public defender told me!"
So visionaries, I would love to see some proposed language from you all for
such a law. But because few appear to be on the payroll of that autocratic
Boss Consistency, I am not holding my breath.
Back to TOC