[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Case]

[Arlo]
But now we have a new tangent. Society is morally correct in forcibly
covering people who are ugly and would repulse others. I assume that's
Platt's view of the MOQ. Yours?

[Case]
You folks are taking this whole deal about nudity way too seriously. I was
not and find it astounding to hear an intellectual argument batted back over
what I said. With regards to your statement above though, since society is
what determines morality then I would have to say yes. If you ask me would I
like living in such a society or if living in one would I seek to change it
well, No I would not and yes I would.

[Arlo]
Exactly. But let me ask this, since I bet its ignored elsewhere.

If its moral for men to force women to wear tops (let's say at the beach)
because they find the sight of women's breasts either "sexually provocative"
(or in the case above "potentially ugly"), why is also not moral to pass the
same law about men's chests, since I assume "shirtless men" can either be as
much a turn on for women (or a similar ugly revulsion)?

Would you support a law that would force American shore goers to wear shirts
or full-piece bathing suits because women may either be "aroused" or
"repulsed" otherwise? 

[Case]
As I said above morality is determined by social consensus and occasionally
codified into law. But in the western world local standard prevail for the
most part. If the people in my community feel strongly enough about a moral
position to bring the force of local law enforcement into the picture I
would say it is in my personal best interest to comply with the law. But I
don't think men are really able to force women to do much of anything at
least not for long. As the adage goes "you have to sleep sometime." Just ask
John Wayne Bobbitt.

[Arlo]
Let's look into this. My hypothesis is that its origins are primarily
property-based, or a religions view that sexuality is "indecent", followed
by the concealment of parts considered "sexual" (and hence "indecent"). I
would suspect that bottoms (thinking about tribal loin cloths) originated
out of recognition of health concerns, the spreading of bodily fluids, or
concealing potential odors.

[Case]
I don't know why clothing is universal but I suspect it has some
evolutionary significance and the "reasons" for it are as diverse as the
cultures that employ it. Certainly health concerns are a likely candidate
but clothing is also as much a feature of matriarchal societies as paternal
ones.

[Arlo]
If you are saying, like Platt and Ham, that Muslims be forbidden from
wearing veils because it goes against "local custom", should a Hasidic Jew
be forbidden from wearing a kippot, or a Hare Krishna from wearing his robe,
or a Hindu woman from displaying a Bindi if these customs are not the "local
customs"?

[Case]
No, nor am I aware of anywhere where this is happening but then I have not
been paying attention, as I said. If you were to ask should dress codes be
enforced in the work place, I would grudgingly say yes and that might cause
religious problems for some. But that is an employer's choice. If you ask me
should the people of Iraq be prevented from dressing or undressing however
they see fit I would say they should be allow to set whatever standards they
like in their own country.

[Arlo]
Or like Ham, to you propose that only people we are afraid of, or customs
that make us "anxious" be forbidden? What if Bindi's make a community
anxious? Then do they have the right to outlaw them?

[Case]
Does a society have a right to set standards of behavior and penalties for
non-compliance? Of course it does.

[Arlo]
In my younger, nihilistic days, when I worked for the complete destruction
of mankind and the abolition of civilization, I did the punk thing. Mohawk.
The whole nine yards. I'm sure I made the civilized, proper gentry
"anxious", and I got mainly strange looks. But it was my choice. So much for
American freedom. 

[Case]
What I liked about America was its tolerance for deviation. I am really
sorry to see how much it is threatened these days. But on the other hand I
am constantly disappointed in my fellow man's shear lack of taste. I would
not propose banning tattoo parlors but this modern trend toward self
mutilation is sad. The idea that the body should be respected as a temple of
the Lord is a good one however you set about rationalizing it. 

But notice how even among "non-conformist" punks and Goths and hippies and
you name it, standards of conformity in dress and practice creep in. It
reminds me of a class in high school where people were going around the room
describing themselves and saying things like, "I am a unique individual."
After about the tenth person says something along those lines you get the
feeling that, "I am a unique individual, just like everybody else."

[Arlo]
Hey, just think, if we all had to wear the SAME UNIFORMS, how less anxious
everyone would be! There'd be no one forced to deal with having to look at
someone who dressed in a different way! Ham would be completely at ease
walking down the street, knowing that no faces could be concealed. No one
would have to see strange Krishas in robes, or Hindis with Bindis. All that
threatening strange stuff of "other cultures" would be right out. Maybe this
is the route the MOQ takes us?....

[Case]
I actually do support uniforms in public schools where too often dress
becomes a diversion and a means of social stratification. If what we want to
emphasize is personal, artistic and intellectual development and merit then
a bit less focus on outward appearance might be a good thing.

As for where the MoQ takes us... it seems to spin us round in circles.