[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Craig]
The closest we've gotten is during the hightlight of women's liberation 
when they went sans bra.

[Arlo]
In the actual article Platt references, the woman is only demanding that 
girls under the age of 15 be forbidden from wearing a veil, because "By 
putting a veil on a girl you are immediately saying to the outside world 
that she is sexually mature and has to be covered."

If that is a champion for the "intellectual level", how does that differ 
from "By putting a top on a girl you are immediately saying to the outside 
world that she is sexually mature and has to be covered"? Shouldn't the 
same intellectual level victory then say that girls under the age of 15 be 
forbidden from wearing (for example) bathing suits that cover their 
breasts, because we don't want to say to the outside world that she is 
sexually mature?

What this will all boil down to, is that "Platt's Pappy told him that girls 
chests are sexual but their faces are not". Despite the fact that both are 
only made sexual by culture. Men have faces, and men have chests (with 
nipples they are allowed to parade in public). Why are the same features on 
a girl "sexual" in either case? It is a matter of one cultural (social 
level) pattern of sexuality versus another. In both cases, its a matter of 
men covering up parts of women's bodies they find "sexual". Shouldn't women 
be able to decide for themselves what parts of their bodies they want to 
cover, and what parts they don't? You see, I'm not arguing for veils, I'm 
arguing for choice. If a woman wants to wear a veil or wear a shirt, all 
power to them. But if they don't, who are men who sexify their body parts 
to tell them what should be covered and what should not? Or, conversely, if 
Muslim men are as turned on by faces as American men are by breasts, 
shouldn't they too have the right to force women to cover up what they find 
provocative? Or, is it only immoral when it opposes Platt's personal sexual 
proclivities?