vision2020
Re: Argonaut editorial
Garrett,
If it is only the intention that makes something a public problem, are you
saying that you would be more comfortable with the Moscow PD running around
town measuring "intentions" rather than cleavage?
Ben Merkle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
To: <ddouglas@pacsim.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:17 PM
Subject: RE: Argonaut editorial
> 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
>
Back to TOC