RE: Argonaut editorial

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

David:

The women advertised the carwash as "XXX"   It was advertised, in my mind, 
to imply sexuality.   A women baring her chest in not necesarily sexual.  It 
is the context that is.
We currently have no sexually oriented business  laws in Moscow.  You could 
operate a topfree carwash in your backyard if it were private.
Garrett Clevenger


>From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
>To: "'Muscovites for Equal Rights'" 
><idahomer@hotmail.com>,<vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: Argonaut editorial
>Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:49:43 -0700
>
>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




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com