![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Go read.
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," the Los Angeles Times quoted Liana Johnsson as saying. "This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law," Johnsson told the newspaper.
Perfectly true. *gives Johnsson a cookie*
"We already have too many sexual assaults in society. If the state encourages women to show their breasts to men and boys at public beaches and parks, inappropriate treatment of women and girls will only worsen."
Allowing something isn't the same as encouraging it. Furthermore, I doubt that demystifying the breast would increase assult. Even if it did, so what? The solution isn't to ask women to go out in burqas (which is where this creepy troll logic eventually leads), it's to deal with people who sexually assult women.
There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families."
1. What innocence?
2. Come to think of it, what could be more innocent than the human form?
3. WTF? Nothing here goes against my ideas of a decent society. In fact, it seems more supportive of children and families since it'd lessen legal complaints against breastfeeding.
Thomasson said he would not be surprised to "see this crazy bill introduced by a Democrat politician and supported by many Democrat colleagues" -- and he is urging Californians to "call your state legislators right away to flood them with opposition.""
I've got friends in California. PLEASE, call your state legislators.
Allowing nude [sic] sunbathing at public parks and beaches will ruin family outings and promote a terrible role model for children," he concluded.
Okay, this calls for a poll.
[Poll #427407]
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," the Los Angeles Times quoted Liana Johnsson as saying. "This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law," Johnsson told the newspaper.
Perfectly true. *gives Johnsson a cookie*
"We already have too many sexual assaults in society. If the state encourages women to show their breasts to men and boys at public beaches and parks, inappropriate treatment of women and girls will only worsen."
Allowing something isn't the same as encouraging it. Furthermore, I doubt that demystifying the breast would increase assult. Even if it did, so what? The solution isn't to ask women to go out in burqas (which is where this creepy troll logic eventually leads), it's to deal with people who sexually assult women.
There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families."
1. What innocence?
2. Come to think of it, what could be more innocent than the human form?
3. WTF? Nothing here goes against my ideas of a decent society. In fact, it seems more supportive of children and families since it'd lessen legal complaints against breastfeeding.
Thomasson said he would not be surprised to "see this crazy bill introduced by a Democrat politician and supported by many Democrat colleagues" -- and he is urging Californians to "call your state legislators right away to flood them with opposition.""
I've got friends in California. PLEASE, call your state legislators.
Allowing nude [sic] sunbathing at public parks and beaches will ruin family outings and promote a terrible role model for children," he concluded.
Okay, this calls for a poll.
[Poll #427407]
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 11:12 pm (UTC)Actually, I don't know enough about it. Let's say that I approve of the sentiment, but I don't know enough about the actual text of the proposed amendment to make a fair judgment.
I do like to argue, and even though I'm quite aware that arguing with you on this topic is about as useless as banging my head against a wall, I'm going to do it anyway. :)
Ditto, ditto. Those arguments can be the best, because, honestly, once you convince somebody of your view, where do you go from there? But they can also be the worst, if you inadvertantly stumble upon a sensitive topic for somebody. Ask me about the whole auryanne debacle sometime....
But I'm going to try to present my argument from an entirely secular point of view.
That's good, because I'm not religious, and refuse to have conversations with people who try to prove things religiously. I can't be civil during those, and then I feel bad for insulting people's beliefs. And I *always* end up doing that, even though I generally think that religion is a good thing, so long as you don't use it as an excuse for bad things (for example, bombing things).
(Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure if you're going to agree to this, but let's assume you do.)
I don't believe in the draft anyway, but if I did, I'd say it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The mother who stays at home to take care of the kids should be exempt, as should the single father, as should the *father* who stays at home with the kids while the mom works, or the aunt who's the primary caregiver while both parents are essentially out of the picture and just send checks. All these situations happen. Of course, the system won't let the sensible course prevail, I *know* that, but that's the *best* course.
Don't you think such schools should be allowed, at least if they're private schools, for those people who want that, and believe in that?
We're straying very far off-topic here. I'm interested in where this is going, but I suspect that it's just a little late to be having this discussion.
(And yes, I think they should be options. However, studies on this issue are divided, they don't unambiguously point in one direction or another.)
Would you really feel comfortable walking around on a beach with no top on?
I'm a D cup, and I hate the feeling of skin on skin. I am so *physically* uncomfortable with my breasts touching my chest (as well as my legs touching each other, or my bare arms being crossed) that I really can't judge how *psychologically* uncomfortable I'd be. However, if you're curious, various people in the world have seen my breast in a nonsexual manner. This includes my brother-in-law, my sometimes-foster sister, and quite probably her current boyfriend. This doesn't faze me much.
Don't you think you'd attract extra stares if you did?
Depends on where I am, doesn't it? And it also depends on how many people do this. Were it legalized, it'd probably become more common, until there *were* no extra stares. At any rate, I don't especially care if people stare at me. Well. That's not true, I care if I notice, but I don't usually notice.
Is it really such a difficult stretch to consider that some women feel uncomfortable allowing their sons to view what they consider to be nudity?
No doubt. Some people also feel uncomfortable around half-naked guys (that's topless) and watching women breastfeeding. This doesn't mean that society gives their opinions much merit - after all, if they don't like it, they don't have to be there.
The concept of outlawing discrination can be taken too far.
You're starting to head down that slippery slope. You're too smart for this, I'm not even tackling the comment.
Or should the American government have rather said, well, we don't have enough volunteers, we'll just have to sit around and watch millions of people being tortured and murdered?
You're now completely offtopic, but I'll answer it anyway. I will grudingly agree to the idea of a draft as a last ditch resort. To me, that means "when we ourselves are threatened".
Continued....
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 11:27 pm (UTC)