RE: Argonaut editorial

["David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>]

Garrett:

Some opponents of the ordinance say that topless issue, as such, is not
about sex, and you say:

                snip: I don't see how breasts can be viewed as a threat like
some people keep insisting.  snip

Given that how can you suggest:

snip:
                 Regarding the carwash, it seems the best way to address
that would be to
                 write a law restricting sexually oriented businesses.
snip

If it's ok to go topless and ok to wash cars, and being topless is not (as
such) a sexual issue, or a threat, then why exactly would you suggest we
restrict such carwashes?  Do non-sexual breasts become sexual when washing
cars?  Wouldn't topless women have rights too, vis-à-vis non-sexual
businesses.

Further, if being topless is ok, why is to ok stop *any* otherwise lawful
behavior, such as waiting tables or dancing, while topless? The use of
zoning, nuisance, and lewdness laws (while perhaps necessary in their own
place) to stop such endeavors seems to me to be a more intrusive and
arbitrary use of government power, given the fact that toplessness itself
would be ok.

I have to wonder if  the council took the approach you suggest whether
people would be up in arms at the arbitrary regulation of an otherwise
non-sexual business.  I think it would be more consistent of MER, after
getting rid of this ordinance, to lobby for the *removal* of such
restrictions on such non-sexually oriented topless businesses.

I'm not arguing one way or the other on the city's right, or responsibility,
to restrict such businesses. But  I see no consistency in your suggestion to
restrict such public topless businesses, as sexual, while otherwise arguing
for public toplessness.


David Douglas