A New Twist

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

It has been occasionally hinted in this forum that those of us who oppose
this ordinance do so because we wish to ogle young women who have publicly
displayed their charms.  In response, I suggest that most who are against
this ordinance are so with the intent to treat both sexes the same.  That
is, females (and some males) should not be allowed to view the sexually
stimulating sight of nude male chests any more than males (and some females)
should be able to view sexually stimulating female chests.
Now I realize that some may disagree that nude male chests are sexually
stimulating to females (and some males), but ad agencies and marketers have
long supported this notion.  I offer two blatant pieces of supporting
evidence.  First I suggest you peruse any issue of Abercrombie and Fitch
catalog and second, simply walk the Romance novel section of any book store.
I simply suggest that both sexes should be required to wear shirts when
engaged in public activities.  Of course, those who support this ordinance
will want to continue to allow women the right to be sexually stimulated by
the public sight of nude male chests.


John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com