Active Users:88 Time:23/10/2021 05:36:34 AM
She's a little extreme in some of her asides, but she does have a pt. Eyeless Myrddraal - 26/04/2004 03:31:05 PM

I sympathise slightly with the woman who isn't allowed to take her top off to keep cool, if she doesn't mind exposing a part of her body which many women would be embarrassed to expose. But then, one might equally say that much more stringent rules are applied to men when it comes to formal dress: woman can wear almost anything that looks reasonably smart and doesn't have gaudish designs on it, while men are excluded from the gathering if they don't have a dark suit, a tie, and polishable shoes. Besides, if she's too hot, she can always wear a bikini top.

I think the criterion on which the law rests is that it is illegal to display sexual organs in public. Breasts are sexual organs – if secondary ones, not primary – and thus fall under the jurisdiction of decency laws. Of course, laws about public exposure don't affect what pictures people may trade between each other in private, and so the nude-picture trade happens and is allowed to happen. But women are just as free to trade pictures of naked men if they want to – if they choose not to do so quite so much as men do, that's up to them, and shouldn't affect men's choices.

In addition, I think anyone who tries to tell a woman not to breast-feed in public is stupid and should bugger off. They don't have to look; and the baby's mouth covers the nipple anyway, so the law isn't broken. Most women prefer to do it somewhere quiet anyway – but if one doesn't, she shouldn't have to make her baby starve. Besides, the law is presumably about needless or unwarranted exposure of the breasts: this means that their primary function should not be restricted.

Yours, Tim .

You must chop down the tallest tree in the forest with... a herring!






View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
Political Exposure: The Breast - 26/04/2004 02:50:18 PM 235 Views
Umm... - 26/04/2004 02:56:28 PM 35 Views
**giggles** - 26/04/2004 03:02:20 PM 23 Views
Sheesh. - 26/04/2004 03:07:24 PM 28 Views
I think that the author takes the "right to breastfeed" for granted *NM* - 26/04/2004 03:11:13 PM 4 Views
Oh and btw... - 26/04/2004 04:53:16 PM 18 Views
Re: Oh and btw... - 26/04/2004 05:08:01 PM 15 Views
TAKE IT OFF! - 28/04/2004 02:19:25 PM 4 Views
Well - I don't at all agree with the reasoning - 26/04/2004 03:11:08 PM 27 Views
Re: Well - I don't at all agree with the reasoning - 26/04/2004 08:39:27 PM 6 Views
Re: Well - I don't at all agree with the reasoning - 27/04/2004 01:58:13 AM 5 Views
I like this. *NM* - 26/04/2004 03:22:00 PM 5 Views
Well then, just for you, - 26/04/2004 03:54:10 PM 19 Views
sweet!!! *NM* - 27/04/2004 01:43:48 AM 3 Views
- 27/04/2004 01:51:41 AM 7 Views
*calls police* - 28/04/2004 01:25:12 AM 3 Views
She's a little extreme in some of her asides, but she does have a pt. - 26/04/2004 03:31:05 PM 19 Views
This kind of diatribe sickens me almost as much as the Religious Right - 26/04/2004 03:40:43 PM 41 Views
Ooh, that's harsh. - 26/04/2004 03:52:46 PM 25 Views
Oh, it was entertaining, but in a 1960s Leftist way - 26/04/2004 04:59:46 PM 17 Views
*is improper* - 26/04/2004 04:38:11 PM 29 Views
Dont forget gay dance clubs - 26/04/2004 07:00:53 PM 14 Views
heh. and a story - 26/04/2004 04:40:34 PM 29 Views
Re: heh. and a story - 26/04/2004 04:44:38 PM 19 Views
Hahahahaha! - 27/04/2004 01:16:44 AM 7 Views
If women are indeed 53% of the populace, then let them vote. - 26/04/2004 07:04:05 PM 17 Views
Somehow, I don't think that - 26/04/2004 08:36:21 PM 11 Views
Think about what you're saying though. - 27/04/2004 01:41:31 PM 5 Views
This is possibly the worst argument for a good idea I've ever seen. - 27/04/2004 01:57:12 AM 12 Views