[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Horse,

I hope you don't mind a few interjections.

[Platt previously]
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?

[Horse had then asked]
As this is certainly the case you should be applauding the total covering 
of womens bodies and faces as per the full body cover that some Moslem 
women adopt

[Arlo]
I noticed Platt had excised this from his latest reply, and I think its 
important to bring this up again. There have been, for the record, several 
attempts to justify the forced concealment of the female body by American 
standards, and at the same time to condemn the forced concealment of the 
female body by Muslim standards. The underlying premise, as stated in his 
initial post, is that OUR way of doing things is INTELLECT driven, and 
their way of doing things is SOCIAL driven. And there is little logic to 
the reasoning or conclusions in either case.

If, as I assume Platt insinuates above, society has the moral right to 
conceal the female breast based on the fear of rape, why does it lack the 
same moral right to conceal legs, arms or faces? There is the continued 
advancement that the sexuality of the breast is somehow "objectively 
sexually", and that concealing the breast is INTELLECTUAL but concealing 
any other body part (such as legs, arms or faces) is SOCIAL, and hence as 
he called it "degenerate".

[Platt also now states]
The question is do Moslem women freely adopt hiding their faces or is it 
forced upon them by  a non-intellectual theology.

[Arlo]
Well, if this is your revised position, I think we are now in agreement on 
the veiling issue. The moral question is, of course, choice. Forcing a 
woman to conceal her face, or forcing her to expose it BY LAW is immoral.

It is also good for us to confront our own laws, and see, as Case suggests, 
what it is they are trying to accomplish. There is no justification to laws 
forbidding women from going topless that are based in anything but sexual 
immaturity and/or property-guided views of women.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that cover women's 
body parts that men find sexual", then we must ask why society also is not 
morally justified in passing laws that force men to conceal body parts 
women find sexual.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that cover women's 
body parts out of fear that men may rape her", then we must ask why society 
is also not morally justified in passing laws that conceal other body parts 
to even more lessen the chance of rape.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that force the 
exposure of faces because we must see faces", then we must ask if we would 
also forbid, by law, a severely disfigured individual from wearing a 
mask/veil if they were uncomfortable about their appearance.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that forbid 
veiling based on demanding conforming behavior", then we must ask why 
society is also not justified in outlawing kippots or bindis, or mohawks or 
dreadlocks.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in forcing a greater deal 
of conformity from people who scare us", then we must wonder when "we" will 
become the source of fear as well.

To the "bottomlessness" and "public fornication" issues, one can answer 
with real, legitimate health concerns over transmission of bodily fluids, 
germs and the like. If we consider a dress code in a restaurant, or on the 
bus, or in any number of social situations, we can address these with 
gender-equality based on health, and not on male sexual prudery or archaic 
property-rights over women.

[Horse had asked]
Would you consider banning violence on TV and don't you consider the 
portrayal of violence to be more harmful than nudity and sex.

[Platt replied]
Applying your "harm" test, I see no reason to ban violence from TV provided 
actors are not harmed, children and animals are not involved,  etc.

[Arlo]
I assume then that Platt supports the unbanning of pornography of TV for 
the same reasons? Or will he make the argument that pornography is harmful, 
but violence is not?