Re: Argonaut editorial

["Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>]

>I have found the discussion much more interesting than the topless car 
>wash, the ordinance, or the effort to have it repealed.  It is getting a 
>little old, though.
>
>Walter Steed

I agree, especially when you still won't answer my original questions:

"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. "
Why are breasts your concern, and not other parts of a women's body that may 
cause the same reaction you are concerned about?
I think we have a fundamental difference regarding the way women should be 
treated.  I'm not saying you disrespect women or treat women bad, just that 
we have a diffent notion on what that respect should entail.  I just don't 
understand why women have to have your restriction on showing even a portion 
of their breast.  What did they do to deserve that restriction?  What is the 
reasoning behind that?"

You may not think these question are important, but a law has been passed 
based from what I can tell on the above questions and that law has upset a 
lot of people.  If the questions are unanswerable, then the reason behind 
the law is bogus.
This law has no logical justification, and lack of answers and reasons makes 
it all the more apparant.
I think these questions are worth pondering by you.  If you do, perhaps you 
will see how stupid it is to criminalize breasts.
It looks to me that you are excepting cultural conditioning without thinking 
why that culture believes in such a way.
Or perhaps you have a reason why breasts should be criminalized.  You have 
been given many opportunities to explain the justification.  Here is one 
more...

Garrett Clevenger


>From: WMSteed@aol.com
>To: ltrwritr@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:20:15 EDT
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mc3-f37.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.236.172]) by 
>mc3-s10.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 19 
>Sep 2002 02:38:22 -0700
>Received: from whale2.fsr.net ([207.141.26.23]) by 
>mc3-f37.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 18 
>Sep 2002 09:29:06 -0700
>Received: from whale2.fsr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])by whale2.fsr.net 
>(8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8IFMqia075135;Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:22:52 
>-0700 (PDT)(envelope-from vision2020-request@moscow.com)
>Received: (from slist@localhost)by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id 
>g8IFMpOP075103;Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
>Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: whale2.fsr.net: slist set sender to 
>vision2020-request@moscow.com using -f
>Message-ID: <17c.e9086b9.2ab9f3af@aol.com>
>X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28
>Resent-Message-ID: <qWk-f.A.hSS.KpJi9@whale2.fsr.net>
>Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
>X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/3450
>X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>Return-Path: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2002 16:29:06.0979 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[8259D730:01C25F30]
>
>
>In a message dated 9/17/02 10:25:16 PM, ltrwritr@moscow.com writes:
>
><< I find your logic in determining that the equal rights portion of MER's
>response is false convoluted at best. >>
>
>I just thought equal rights meant just that.  Men and women, or women and 
>men
>if you prefer, equal.  Both shirted seems to be as equal to me as both
>topless.
>
><<When the abolitionists prior to the
>Civil War determined in their own hearts that all men were created equal,
>they didn't say, "well, in order not to rock the boat, why don't we go down
>south and become slaves so we will all be equal.".  Instead they struggled
>to bring the rights of the slave population to a par with that of the free
>white man.  Similarly, when the Civil Rights movement of the 60's became a
>cause that
>people paid attention to, Martin Luther King did not say that we should all
>move to the back of the bus, instead he tried to say that we should all sit
>or stand based on needs and courtesy, not the color of your skins.>>
>
>The arguments you make regarding slavery and the civil rights movement 
>don't
>work for me.  The argument against slavery was not for equality but that it
>was wrong and should not be allowed.  Period, end of story; no
>sensationalism, at least in their position, if not the war.  The argument 
>for
>the civil rights movement was that blacks deserved and wanted the freedoms
>others had. It was as simple as "I have a dream."
>
>If what you want is women to be allowed to be topless because men are, just
>say so.
>
><<its reassuring that you have found something that you find objectional 
>with
>this ordinance, namely the adopting of a city wide dress code.>>
>
>You are giving me credit for something I didn't say.  My post said, "you 
>have
>confirmed my belief that the "equal rights" position on this issue is not
>valid.  It has to do with either not wanting restrictions on female 
>clothing
>or a desire to go bare breasted."  I'm just looking for truth in 
>advertising.
>
>I have found the discussion much more interesting than the topless car 
>wash,
>the ordinance, or the effort to have it repealed.  It is getting a little
>old, though.
>
>Walter Steed




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