In a recent posting, I commented on the arrest of a woman in Florida for bearing her breasts in public.

To me it seemed ridiculous that while men were allowed to wander around with their torso exposed, women however were not.

The replies were interesting, one of the most pertinent being, look, if every woman or man had the figures of Hollywood idols, there'd be little objection to torso nudity.

However, most people do not possess these figures, and bare flesh can be quit revoltng, especially where corpulence or age or both has overcome muscle tone and reduced the bodies of both sexes to purrulent white flab.

Cover up everyone was the message, not just women!

But how far should we cover up people?

Legs carry sexual connotations as do chests.

The Victorians were so prudish that they used to put cloth over shapely piano legs, and some Muslims prefer women to wear the burkha of which there are varying degrees of cover up, the most extreme of which includes a Dumas like iron mask.

On the beach, should me wear a sor of brassiere?

Especially podgy lager louts that often have bigger breasts than some women do.

Should men and women wear some sort of covering leggings?

After all, legs taper up to the unmentionables.

Bu surely all this would do would be to displace the sexuality to those parts that can be exposed.

Victorian men were said to swoon at the sight of a shapely ankle.

Should all skirts be regulated to stop below the knees perhaps?

What about necklines?

Where does a decent dress code for both men and women start and stop?

Who defines what is decent and who decided in Florida that the exposing of womens breasts were an illegal act?

On the lighter side of things, if breasts are illegal, we would have to of course have to take them into custody, photograph and nipple print them.

What if breasts, acting out of their own volition, accidentally peek out?

I suppose a faior judge could recognise this possibility and return the breasts to their owner, but under a restraining order.

And enforced brassiere wearing for repeat offenders.

yechydda,


Comments
on Mar 18, 2004
I thing of a series of improvment:

all girls should undergo plastic surgery
everbody should be naked
free condom
free use of cctv to record yourself
dressed people should be sent to jail
on Mar 18, 2004
I think this post really speaks to a tone of cultural relativism. When women were socially prohibited from revealing much skin, risque' was no where near what it is today. Seeing breasts in mainstream media is not extremely shocking, but janet jackson shows a nipple and we have an uproar. Just like Maxim magazine isn't "porn" yet many of the models are completely naked....yet we see no nipples, and certainly no pubic hair.....it's like false advertising! That's not what the real woman looks like. They've got nipples, body hair, and all the cool little imperfections that make me feel better about my own.
on Mar 19, 2004
Suspeckted,

Yes, nipplegate was hilarious. I was amazed at the outrage, and then people wanting to lower the age limits on the film the Passion so that children could watch pornographic violence,

Weird.

Women in magazines are air-brushed and waxed so that they resemble a shop window figure than a real woman.

What happened to women is now happening to men, all those beefy hunks without a hair and perfect abs and chests.

Me, I'm a seven stone weakling.

And proud of it.

yechydda,