Re: What we really need are laws against erotic retardation.

["Frederick R. Cunningham" <frc@moscow.com>]

 To what sexual harrassment laws that "assume it might be more likely for a man
to ogle..."  do you refer, Doug? As far as I know, it's illegal for a woman to
keep touching my chest after I ask her to stop. And I'm not sure any sex ed
course influences its pupils on which parts of the body are more or less erotic
than others.  It seems that different individuals are attracted to their own
list of body parts that may differ from another's list, and I doubt the
suggestion of a sex ed course would make me or anyone else lean toward say,
butts instead of breasts.  It's a personal thing.  I'm not well versed in
scripture, but I don't think the bible would talk about the erotic nature of
certain body parts varying by sex, either (let me know if I'm wrong).  I'm sure
all of us would agree (from the left or the right) that much of America's
diverse culture and our media and advertising sectors exploit the eroticism of
female breasts much more than male pecs.  However, I believe that the point
behind a lack of erotic difference in the chests of both sexes is that a woman
may or may not find your bare chest just as sexually arousing  (or offensive)
as you may or may not receive the same stimulation from hers. This is where the
discriminatory nature of Moscow's new law is centered.  If women's breasts are
to be covered under the assumption that they are more sexual than other body
parts, then we have to include men's nipples too.

Salutations,
Fred.


Douglas wrote:

> Dear visionaries,
>
> "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.