RE: A New Twist

["Mike Lawyer" <mike_l@moscow.com>]

Dan,

 

Isn’t this the case with most laws? According to your logic the law against murder, for instance, ought to be taken off the books. It would seem that common sense ought to tell us that you shouldn’t go around killing your neighbors and friends.

 

My contention is that the problem is more than just a problem of common sense. While it is true that common sense should and in most cases does keep us from doing dopey things, people, by nature have a desire to be as bad as they can be. We are all like little boys whose father tells them to sit in the pickup truck by the cab (because the tail gate has fallen off), but they think it would be cool to sit as close to the edge as they can without falling out.

 

We want to be as bad as we are allowed to be, common sense or not, as long as we don’t go too far and get labeled as criminals in our society. The result is that because the bubble is slowly pushed out of shape (with everyone denying the changes) society as a whole gets more and more immoral and indecent.

 

So, women open car washes wearing no clothes. My guess is that the point isn’t that they have no common sense (I think they got over that long before they opened that car wash), they wanted to push the envelope of what is socially decent and pure. I also think that most of the people writing in want to push that line as well. They want to sit as close to the edge of the truck bed as they can without actually falling out.

 

In the case of women baring those parts of their anatomy that ought to be covered, you’re correct, it ought to be common sense that they not do it, but obviously recent events show that either those women have no common sense or it is something else (evil hearts?). In either case, whether we have no common sense or we are pushing the limits of morality and decency, we need laws to limit the destruction of our culture. The fact that we need a silly law just shows how badly our society has slipped. We’ve fallen off the truck bed and won’t admit that we’re being dragged down the street.

 

Mike Lawyer

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Carscallen [mailto:predator75@moscow.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:20 AM
To: John Danahy; Vision2020
Subject: 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