vision2020
Re: A New Twist
I'm not against
the ordinance because I want to see "nekkid ladies", nor am I against it because
I think men should be equally forced to cover their chests.
I'm against it
because it's a silly waste of time (on both sides). I also figure if
Ladies were meant to go topless all the time, they wouldn't make one-piece
swimsuits and bikinis the way they do.
All it takes is
a little common sense.
If everyone
would have ignored the publicity-seekers in the first place, nobody would even
be talking about it now. Let's all just take a deep breath and give it a
rest.
----- Original Message -----
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