In Florida, the US, there was a protest last week against legislation that makes topless women a criminal act.

Although 1000 women were expected on the march, only 50 actually turned up and were greatly outnumbered by the thousands of, largely male, curious spectators.

Only one of the protestors, the organiser Liz Book, actually removed her top.

She was promptly arrested.

In the US displaying ones chest is a crime for women, but not for men.

Now this is a curious state of affairs, because the male chest is as much a sexual attraction for women as the female chest is for men.

Faces, chests, legs and bums are all part and parcel of sexual attraction.

In Britain, breast feeding in public is frowned upon, special rooms are provided for women to feed their babies.

Why?

What is so distressing about seeing a woman doing the most natural thing in the world, feeding her baby?

In most parts of the world, women walk around with their breasts exposed, suckle their young and nobody bats an eyelid.

Why is an ordinary, functional part of a woman¡¯s anatomy treated in such a singular and perverse manner?

One only has to see the reaction to Janet Jackson¡¯s barely exposed breast to realize that there is something seriously wrong with Western culture.

And the same people that protest against a woman¡¯s bare chest are also those that seek to get the viewing certificate for Gibson¡¯s pornographically violent Passion lowered so that their little children can see it.

Violence is okay, but nudity is not.

What sorts of values are these?

yechydda,