[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
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

[Arlo]
Apparently Platt is unable to answer the challenges to his so-called 
"intellectual victory" and so resorts to the usual games of rhetoric.

So, I repeat.

Platt has called this a victory for intellect over society, "intellect is 
challenging the degenerate demand that women wear veils."

Muslim men demand women wear veils because their faces are sexually 
provocative.
Platt demands women wear tops because their breasts are sexually provocative.

When the Muslim enacts a law to conceal parts of womens' bodies he finds 
"sexual", Platt considers it "degenerate".
When Christian men enact a law to conceal parts of womens' bodies they find 
"sexual", Platt considers it "moral".

Why is it "degenerate" to demand women wear veils?
Why isn't it "degenerate" to demand women wear tops?

Women's faces are sexually provocative to the Muslim.
Women's breasts are sexually provocative to the Christian.

In the actual article, the Swedish minister said, "By putting a top on a 
girl [under 15] you are immediately saying to the outside world that she is 
sexually mature and has to be covered."

Is this also not what is being done by "putting a swimsuit top on a girl 
[under 15]"?

As I said before, Platt is hardly championing "intellect over society", but 
merely arguing that HIS cultural norms (social level views) of sexuality 
are "right", while everyone else's is "wrong".

Both faces are breasts are made "sexual" by culture. Neither are ipso facto so.

If its moral for American men to demand women cover their breasts because 
they are otherwise "aroused", then why is it not moral for Muslim men to 
demand the same?

Platt attempts ridicule by suggesting I'd favor optional full nudity in 
public. I'm indifferent to it. I am not ashamed or otherwise morally 
indignant about the human body. Its beautiful and natural. If people want 
to be naked on the streets, why should the obvious sexual immaturity of 
those offended by the human body have the right to say otherwise? Be 
careful how you answer, it applies to veils as well.

[Platt]
it's just culture that makes a woman's body sexual. And, of course, all 
cultures are morally equal. We shouldn't judge them.

[Arlo]
What makes a woman's breasts "naturally" sexual, but her face "not 
naturally" sexual? Why is it "moral" to demand that women should have the 
right to expose their faces, but "immoral" to suggest they have a right to 
expose their breasts?

If we wield the MOQ to judge other cultures, we should be prepared when 
that same judgement reflects immorality in our own culture. Oops, I forgot. 
America is Wholly Moral and Pure, Perfect Beyond Criticism. OUR views of 
sexuality are moral and just, everyone else's are vile and degenerate. Its 
stupid for some to consider the face "sexual", while the smart people know 
that it is, in fact, the breast that is sexual. As with the hypocritical 
appeal to "Judeo-Christian" morals, the hypocrisy is glaringly painful.