[MD] Intellect battles the (topless) barbarians

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Of course, it's easy to see why you wouldn't want to answer the question. 

[Arlo]
You really crack me up sometimes. But this is typical of the radio talk-show
tactics you love to play. I'm used to it. I'll answer your question, again, but
let's back up and review all the things you're evading, after being asked four
times already.

You said its a victory for intellect in defeating the degenerate activing of
wearing veils.

Muslim men forbid women from exposing their faces because they find it "sexually
provocative".
Christian men forbid women from exposing their breasts because they find it
"sexually provocative".

Why is one "degenerate" but the other "moral"?

In both cases, the men of the culture require women to conceal a part of their
bodies these men find "sexual". You've alluded to the belief that breasts are
"naturally sexual" (meaning our sexual proclivities are normal) but faces are
not (meaning their sexual proclivites are abnormal). You've tried to make this,
in your usual rhetorical way, a war of Intellect versus society in the case of
veils, but society versus biology in the case of breasts.

And yet, if Christian men are morally allowed to forbid women from exposing
their breasts, why are Muslim men not morally allowed to forbid women from
exposing parts of their bodies they find sexual? Indeed, if Muslim men find
women's faces as arousing as American men find women's breasts, wouldn't both
laws be equally valid under the "social over biological" paradigm?

In this case, your are manipulating the MOQ to advance one social pattern over
another. OUR sexual proclivities are righteous and moral, THEIRS are degenerate
and immoral. OUR society has a right to pass laws based on what turn American
men on, THEIR society has no right to do the same.

Any way you look at it, its pathetic abuse of the MOQ. Hence, as I'm sure is
evident, you're desperate need to turn the conversation away from this and onto
some absurd track of whether or not Arlo finds public nudity immoral. The
answer, no. Nor do I find it moral. Its a "mu" question. What I find immoral is
the objectification of the female body, indeed of the male body too, and the
obsession with "sex" some read into everything. Intellect should free us from
these immature hangups. That we find "offense" at seeing a topless woman is
sexually pathological. That we find nudity to be "indecent" is sexually
pathological. We should no more, following intellect, be offended by a nude
sunbather than by a nude painting, or by a nude statue. Furthermore, what I
find immoral is when a woman in either culture is forced to do something she
does not want to do to placate the immature sexual hangups of men. If a woman
chooses to go topless or veil-less she should not end up in jail because a man
finds it dirty.

So, now, in utter futility, I ask again...

Why is it "moral" for American men to forbid women from exposing their breasts
in public based on these same men finding breasts "sexually provocative", but
its not moral for Muslim to do the same with other body parts?

I don't expect an answer.