[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

See below. It's nice to have Arlo on record as favoring women going topless
in public if they so choose. I wonder if by his same higher intellectualism he
has no objection to their going bottomless, too. If not, why not? After all,
Arlo has no sexual proclivities; it's just culture that makes a woman's body
sexual. And, of course, all cultures are morally equal. We shouldn't judge them.


> [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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/