THE HARM IS IN FACT RELATIVE:OBJECTIVE? Re: Ban Display of Lips and Tongues

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

EEVans et. al.

It appears my main point has been missed.  So I will "flesh out" my position 
and repeat it several different ways at the risk of tiresome redundancy.  
First I would like to emphasize a point I make again later on, that in this 
analysis of public display of erotic parts of the body, I am comparing the 
simple display of a female breast not engaged in any sexual contact with 
anyone, to the flamboyant erotic thrills of public french kissing between 
couples, which I have seen numerous times on the streets of Moscow.  I am 
not seriously advocating banning french kissing, merely using the example to 
illustrate a point.

I am not claiming to assert any "objective" standards.  I merely point out 
that if the goal of this nudity ordinance is to prevent harm via the 
exposure in public of erotic areas of the female or male body, then 
certainly the lips and tongue, being areas of the body that are most 
certainly involved in erotic pleasure for most everyone, with an intensity 
that is often just as erotic or more so than breasts are, should also be 
restricted in their public display.  I pointed out that in Islamic societies 
they follow this logic in some manner when they veil the faces of women, so 
why aren't you advocating this practice here in Moscow?  It isn't because of 
your particular relativistic cultural norms, is it?  Or are you asserting 
that you have ultimate objective standards that determine what parts of the 
body are acceptable for public display across all cultures and religions for 
everyone on the planet?  This discussion is one sided if you will not reveal 
the details of your position, whatever it is!

If you approve of the nudity ordinance just passed, I again assert that 
according to the logic of the ordinance, you should also advocate that 
female (and male?) lips and tongues should be covered in public.  And 
furthermore, I assert that the reason no one is going to pass such an 
ordinance here in Moscow is that our particular relativistic cultural norms 
have led us as a culture to become accustomed to seeing women's faces in 
public, in all their undeniable erotic splendor, and not find this 
scandalous or indecent enough to outlaw.

Back to the topless female issue, it is a fact there are western cultures 
(others have listed the locations of these cultures) where there are no laws 
against the display of the female breast in public parks and beaches etc.  
These societies, which are predominately Christian, if this makes a 
difference in this argument, have not descended into a crisis because of 
this relativistic cultural practice that they accept.  Does the vaunted Ten 
Commandments of Christian ethics ban the display of the female breast?

It seems that the "harm" that it is claimed is being done by allowing public 
display of the female breast does not exist in other reasonable and 
civilized cultures, where there is not such a taboo on the display of the 
female breast as we have here in the USA.  Therefore the harm is not an 
absolute across cultures, and is therefore related to a subjective 
conditioned perception in the minds of certain people who have been 
conditioned to see harm in the simple display of a female breast.

I should point out that we are only talking about a breast being displayed 
in public, not being engaged in sexual contact with anyone.  Whereas in my 
example of lips and tongues in public, we have people engaged in actual 
sexual arousal and contact in full public display, yet where is the outcry 
for an ordinance to stop this public erotic extravaganza?!  Again I assert 
this is just because of our culture having become accustomed to these kinds 
of erotic public displays.  I for one have found myself far more embarrassed 
by the lascivious french kissing of a couple on the street than I ever have 
by the sight of a topless women just strolling along, or washing a car, for 
that matter.  Someone has a peculiar and sad notion of "erotic" to find 
watching a women washing a car topless to be a significant erotic 
experience.  But now that I think of how erotized cars have become in 
American culture, an attitude I find laughable, perhaps it makes sense, but 
again from a very relativistic cultural viewpoint.

Ted

>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Objective Standards: Re: Ban Display of Lips and Tongues on 
>Females
>Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:26:57 GMT
>
>Ted Wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > So what say ye?
>
>Your analysis on what consitutes erotic body parts for most folks, and your
>conclusion of what we should or should not do about covering them, is a 
>fine
>example of a relativistic cultural norm. Is this the objective standard we
>should apply? The personal opinion of a particular fellow in Moscow Idaho, 
>on a
>rainy July Friday, in the year 2002?
>
>-Ed Evans
>
><snip>
> > >From: eevans@moscow.com
> > >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: Re: Ban Display of  Lips and Tongues on Females! Bring the 
>Veil to
> > >Moscow.
> > >Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:25:08 GMT
> > >
> > >Ted Wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > > > What is clear is that we are just legislating relativistic cultural
> > >norms.
> > > > Some societies do not ban public display of the female breast, and 
>are
> > >just
> > > > as civilized and reasonable, maybe more so in some cases, than 
>Moscow,
> > > > Idaho.  We are not following objective standards about display of 
>erotic
> > > > parts of the female or male body.
> > >
> > >Who defines these objective standards?
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >-Ed Evans
> > >
> > ><snip>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx