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

Re: Argonaut editorial



In answer to Walter Steed regarding applying this law to men: No.  I choose 
not to limit other's freedoms in order to conform to your prudish views on 
women.

I ask you in return:  Since bare breasts seem to be offensive because of 
sexual concerns, knowing that men can be turned on by other bare parts of a 
womens body, should we require women to keep their skin covered?  Should we 
restrict women from showing their curves, lips and hair?  Afterall, even her 
laugh can make men feel sexual.  Perhaps we should prevent women from 
dancing, too.

If we were to pass a law to restrict men and women, than it becomes no 
longer an equal rights issue, it becomes a human rights issue.  I for one 
don't want to live in a represive society that can't handle people 
expressing themselves in such harmless ways.
Besides, it is not just an equal rights issue.  It is a money issue when 
someone decides to challenge the law and our city decides to defend it in 
court, wasting our tax dollars on a silly law that will more than likely be 
overturned.  It is also cruel and unusual punishment issue.  Up to $500 or 6 
months in jail for showing a portion of her breast?  That is stupid!  It is 
also a power issue, standing up to men who insist that women stay covered 
and not empower themselves by expressing their womenhood.  Not lastly, it is 
a common sense issue: We now have a law that bans plumber's butt.  I really 
feel safe now!

It is plain to see why this law was crafted the way it was:  To steer the 
dress code of Moscow.  Some people are offended by current trends in fasion, 
and now we have a law to restrict said fasion.
I don't think it is the governments duty to dictate our dress code.  There 
are plenty of community's that have a dress code.  Go join one if you can't 
handle the current fasion in Moscow.

We can be like John Ashcroft who as our US Attorny General has chosen to 
cover Lady Liberty's bare breast.  In my opinion, that is ridiculous and 
should be offensive to what Lady Liberty represents.  Life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness.

Garrett Clevenger




>From: WMSteed@aol.com
>To: thansen@moscow.com|, thansen@moscow.com, dougwils@moscow.com,   
>vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:25:48 -0400
>
>In a message dated Sat, 14 Sep 2002 11:07:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>thansen@moscow.com writes:
>
> > would you support an ordinance that required both
> > > males and females to keep their shirts on?
>
><<No>>
>
>Then your argument that this is an equal rights issue doesn't pass muster 
>if your only interest is in allowing women to go topless.
>
>Walter Steed




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




Back to TOC