Re: Moscow 2002-13: A Parent's Concerns / Questions

[WMSteed@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/16/02 9:09:27 PM, sslund@moscow.com writes:

<< How would the officer determine that there was, in fact, a violation
without determining where the top of the areola is on a specific
individual? >>

1.  Assuming your above scenario would happen, I don't see the difference in 
the  problem between "minor daughters" and older, mature women.

2.  I thought the ordinance as adopted didn't relate to the areola anymore 
but to what part of the postpubesent breast was exposed, which 
should/could/would be the same regardless of whether the female in question 
is 15 or 45.

3.  <<whether a female child is subject to this ordinance depends on whether 
or not she's begun menstruating.>>  Not as I understand it.  The 
determination of ordinance applicability, I believe, is "pubescent" which my 
dictionary defines as. "arriving at puberty" which is further defined as 
"when secondary sex characteristics develop," I presume that would be 
actually having breasts.

4.  I would suggest all your "significant number of parents" who have 
concerns attend the next council meeting, fill the room and ask your 
questions of the council.  Perhaps bringing daughters in the outfits you 
think would cause such inspections would help make your point.

5.  <<Even if one doesn't care about the needless potential harm that could 
be done to our daughters, then one should care about this issue>> Do you 
really believe the police, regardless of the ordinance, are going to ticket 
anyone who is not almost or totally topless?  Officers, in their discretion, 
rarely write speed limit violation tickets until a car is several mph over a 
posted limit.  

Walter Steed