[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

> Platt Holden wrote:
> > Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm not uncomfortable in the presence
> > of exposed genitals in public. But I know many people who would be,
> > including my wife. And I'll wager if there was poll taken of a sizeable
> > sample of the world's population, the vast majority would consider public
> > nudity offensive, too. Otherwise we would see a lot more public nudity
> > than we do. Do you agree?
> 
> I think you're probably correct but all you seem to be saying here is that
> many cultures have a taboo against nudity and that, as most people go along
> with the mores of their culture, they would support that which they are
> expected to support!

Maybe so. But I think it's in the survival interest of an individual to go 
along with the mores of their culture. It's not simply a matter of  
irrational acceptance as you suggest.  

> But how come all of a sudden you seem to be supporting
> the will of the majority and eschewing the wish of the individual. Would
> you accept this sort of reasoning in other areas as well?

I'm sure you agree that individual liberty doesn't mean license to do 
whatever you feel like doing anytime and anyplace you get the urge. With 
freedom comes responsibility. Right?

> I think the more
> important question is why would people find public nudity offensive and
> even more importantly why would mere offense be a reason to ban public
> nudity.

We ban a lot of things because we find them offensive, laws against
peeping Toms, for example.

> There's all sorts of practices, ideas and attitudes that I find
> offensive but as long as no-one is being physically harmed or having
> something forced on them i can't see that this is a good justification for
> prohibition.

Agree. I'm offended a hundred times a day by the liberal bias of the 
media, but I can't justify forcing them off the air. However, I think 
society is justified in prohibiting broadcasts of  pornography over the 
public airwaves. Don't you? 

>   > Again, apologies if I misled you. I don't assume public nudity leads to
> > public fornication. I asked the question to determine where you would >
> draw the line. If public nudity is OK, how about public fornication? If >
> not, why not. Would it make you uncomfortable? Or  would prefer to avoid >
> the question? :-)
> 
> I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't see where the link is
> made or why you should get from one to the other in any society that has a
> healthy attitude towards the body and its various bits.

As I said, the question is a legitimate. It's about about drawing lines,
something morality is very much concerned with. Otherwise, anything goes.

> To answer your
> question about public fornication I would say that I'm not in favour of it,
> as I really don't fancy stepping over copulating couples in the middle of
> the high street, but I wouldn't necessarily ban it outright. I also doubt
> it would be necessary to ban it outright unless it could be shown that, as
> per Arlo's comments on health reasons, there was some _physical_ reason to
> do so. OK Platt, even though it isn't relevant to the conversation, I've
> taken the time and trouble to answer your question. So how about answering
> Arlo's question:

Your answer is "I'm not in favor of it, but I wouldn't ban it" So would  
you vote to rescind laws prohibiting public fornication?  

[Arlo's question]
> "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?"

Arlo's question makes several unsubstantiated assumptions. 1) men forbid 
women from exposing their breasts in public, and 2) Muslim men find the 
female face sexually provocative. So his question is like, "Have you  
stopped beating your wife?" When he provides valid evidence for his  
assumptions, I'll respond. 

[snip]
 
> > To coin a cliche, you're entitled to your opinion. But, I hope you
> > noticed in Khaled's post that he suggests the head scarf is a "religious
> > declaration,." a far cry from Arlo's unsubtantiated assertion that the
> > cover is a response to Muslim mem's sexual fascination with women's
> > faces. That assertion is becoming increasingly bizarre.
> 
> There appears to be an amount of controversy about this. The Qu'ran does
> make reference to the subject: "... and let them cast their veils over
> their bosoms and not reveal their adornments save to their husbands."
> 
> Whether this is a religious declaration or not it would seem to make 
> reference to covering up parts of the body in order to prevent arousal of
> others - OK to get the husband going though. There are other historical
> references to the hijab and a good scout around the 'net can give you a bit
> more background. The impression I get though is that women are encouraged
> to cover themselves in order that men are not aroused. This type of
> attitude also seems to crop up in other religions so the theme is a general
> one and not particular to Islam. So Arlo's statement in the question is not
> unreasonable as far as I can see. Of course you can continue to duck the
> question if you wish - that's your choice.

I disagree. But, if the practice of women covering themselves so men will 
not be sexually aroused is universal as you suggest, it would appear it's
human nature for men to react in a randy manner to the naked female form, 
reason enough for society to impose prohibitions. Rape is prevalent enough 
without further encouragement don't you think? 

Regards,
Platt