vision2020
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

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 -----
From: John Danahy
To: Vision2020
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