vision2020
Re: A New Twist
I agree with this in that males should also cover up in public. I've said it
before in this forum, I was raised that modesty runs both ways, male and
female and covering your body is a respect for it , not a shameful thing.
Covering ones self in public should be done with or without an ordinance to
force it.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Danahy <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
To: Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:27 PM
Subject: A New Twist
> 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
>
>
Back to TOC