Re: Argonaut editorial

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

I'm not worked up by your questioning.  I have no problem being honest about 
my views regarding not only this specific ordinance, but also regarding the 
idea that a women's breasts should be criminalized.  I just want to know the 
reasons why people feel this ordinance is necessary.
I'm not demanding answers, but it seems only fair that those reasons should 
be made public.  After all, a law has been passed that makes it illegal for 
a women to show any portion of her breast and illegal for anybody to show 
any portion of the cleft between the buttocks.  And this applies to private 
property if it is in public view.  It is a stupid law, in my opinion, and I 
have heard no arguments why it is necessary.
I appreciate you coming clean, but you still did not answer my 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 women's body, should we 
require women to keep their skin covered?  Should we restrict women from 
showing their curves, lips and hair?  After all, 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 different 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?"

Regarding the carwash, it seems the best way to address that would be to 
write a law restricting sexually oriented businesses.  The fact is, anyone 
can still operate a topless carwash in Moscow if it is out of public view.  
Men still can operate a topless carwash in public view.
The carwash certainly had media attention.  It seems like that was what 
caused the uproar and the desire for the carwash to get more attention, thus 
they roamed around town.  The fact is, people attended the carwash, paid a 
donation and thus caused a demand for it.  They were just being 
entrapanurial.
Our campaign has nothing to do with the carwash.  Honestly, it is not that 
big of a deal for me, except the fact that it caused a knee-jerk reaction by 
the council.  Both the carwash and city council seem irresponsible in its 
operation.  If the carwash was the threat, then it seems like the council 
should have dealt with that, rather than sweeping a law throughout Moscow, 
effecting women minding their own business.
Moscow could have passed a lewd behaviour law, which would reflect the law 
our neighbors in Pullman have.
I don't see how breasts can be viewed as a threat like some people keep 
insisting.  Particularly even a portion of a breast, which is what this law 
now makes illegal with up to a $500 or 6 months in jail.
Indeed, I'd much rather put this to a public vote than wait for someone to 
challenge it in court.  I don't want my tax dollars going to defending this 
law.
Garrett Clevenger


>From: WMSteed@aol.com
>To: idahomer@hotmail.com, WMSteed@aol.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:35:42 EDT
>
>Garrett I find it interesting I've gotten you so worked up over my
>questioning of your varied statements on this issue that you demand to know
>my personal position.
>
>Am I for the ordinance exactly as written? No.  Am I for repealing the
>ordinance? No. Am I for an ordinance? Yes.  Should the present ordinance be
>modified? Probably; I do find your arguments re its ambiguity, selective
>enforcement and the pressure it puts on law enforcement to decide whether 
>or
>not it is being broken valid.
>
>In a message dated 9/19/02 10:04:38 AM, idahomer@hotmail.com writes:
>
><< It looks to me that you are excepting cultural conditioning without
>thinking
>why that culture believes in such a way. >>
>
>OK. I'll come clean.  I am "accepting" cultural conditioning because we do
>not live in Tahiti, for example, where, I understand, public toplessness is
>culturally accepted.  Even though this is, I believe, a liberal academic
>community, the uproar over the car wash has shown such toplessness is not
>generally accepted in Moscow.
>
>I have no interest in changing the cultural norm on this issue and believe
>that if women will not abide by such norm, they, unfortunately, have to be
>restrained by ordinance.  Laws are only created after the action they 
>address
>has previously occurred and has been deemed unacceptable by the community 
>law
>makers; in this case the elected city council.
>
>As quoted in the Obituary for Common Sense I posted recently on V2020,
>"Common Sense was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion and his 
>daughter,
>Responsibility.  I believe all this was brought about when Common Sense,
>Discretion and Responsibility were not used.
>
><<how stupid it is to criminalize breasts>>
>
>In my opinion this has nothing to do with breasts but with actions of a few
>which have threatened the many.  The council has acted accordingly and your
>efforts to have the ordinance revoked are the appropriate way to do that as
>well.  If you obtain enough signatures to get this to a public vote, and 
>mine
>will not be one of them, then the majority of those voting will then make 
>the
>final decision.
>
>Walter Steed






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