Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Here was one report I got from a Washington newspaper, I think
    
    -- The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that while erotic nude dancing is
    a form of expression entitled to a measure of protection under the
    First Amendment, states may ban it in the interest of ``protecting
    order and morality.'' The 5-4 decision upheld an Indiana public
    indecency law as applied to nude performances in a nightclub and adult
    bookstore in South Bend. The law requires female performers to wear at
    least pasties and a G-string. Three separate opinions supported the
    court's holding, with a concurring opinion by Justice Souter providing
    a decisive fifth vote.
       
 
    re: .0

>  Some of you have now got what some of you have been crying for --
>  The supreme okay for state-imposed censorship.  Hope you like it.
>  (You know who you are.)
    
    Although I have never "cried for" anything in the area of state-imposed
    censorship, I find the above really obnoxious in tone.  Are you seeking
    a discussion or an argument here?
    
    -Jody

    I saw .0 as bitter, not obnoxious.  This decision embitters me, too.  I
    don't particularly care for nude dancing, any more than I slaver over
    the Playboys of the world, but I am greatly disheartened to see that
    our Supreme Court has eradicated yet another of the freedoms so many
    men and women have died to preserve.  This is all, in my opinion, done
    in the name of our "Christian" morality, a laughable excuse given that
    the First Amendment prohibits government interference in religion.  But
    then it doesn't prohibit religious interference in government, does it?
    
    Grrrrrr.......
    
    -d

    Good point d!  Even though I personally feel that nude dancing, male or
    female is just one more way to objectify (is that a word?) the human
    body, I feel just as strongly that if someone wants to do it and/or
    watch it they should be allowed to.  After all our country is based on
    personal freedom of choice.  In relation to your note d, some of the
    religions teach that our bodies are something we should be ashamed of. 
    This ruling seems to continue to promote that sense of shame.
    
    Karen   

  -d's got the right tone.  Bitter.  It's a drum you've heard me beat
  before.  When you voted for Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, or Bush
  because you liked any aspect of their politics, you also signed
  up for their choice of Supreme Court nominees.  And here we are.

  But this time, it goes further.  It is a specific plank in some
  noters' platform that censorship is perfectly okay (although
  they only want to see works "they" object to censored).  So
  we're all going to participate in this grand experiment.  And
  when they get around to declaring "Our Bodies, Our Selves" an
  obscene work, you can remember that you heard it hear early,
  although certainly not first.

                                   Atlant

    The newsbroadcast I listened to pointed out that this decision
    could be used to ban stage shows like Hair, or movies like
    Dances with Wolves. One would presume it could also be used 
    to ban naturist activities.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie:

  Are you saying that this decision isn't/can't be "the camel's nose?"

                                   Atlant

    Atlant,
    
    No I'm saying the reverse, that it is the 'camel's nose'.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie:

> No I'm saying the reverse, that it is the 'camel's nose'.
    
  Okay, thanks.  (That's what I'm saying too! :-) )

                                   Atlant

    Could it really be used to ban naturist activities?  I thought it was
    for performances only.  Of course, you could always go nude on Federal
    land and the states can't do anything about it.
    
    And what if someone started a religion that included ritualized nude
    dancing?  Hmmmmm.....
    
    BTW What is the "camel's nose"?
    
    Mary
    

        re .-1,
        
>>    BTW What is the "camel's nose"?
        
        It's that part of the camel on the face below the eyes
        and above the mouth.
        
        Dan
        
        :-)
        
        p.s.  There's also the "proverbial" camel's nose. 
        Picture a tent in the desert.  The tent has no bottom,
        the floor inside being the desert sand.  The camel just
        slips its nose inside the tent, above the sand and under
        the fabric of the tent wall.  That's the first step down
        the (also proverbial) slippery slope.  If you don't do
        something soon the whole camel will be inside the tent.
        (One of the implicit cultural assumptions is that you
        don't want your camel inside your tent, you want it to
        stay outside.)  The analogy is that if you don't do
        something soon the whole Bill of Rights will be thrown
        out.  (One of the implicit cultural assumptions is that
        you want to keep [at least 90% of] the Bill of Rights.)

    re: (.10)
    >  ... that you want to keep [at least ninety percent of] the Bill of
    >  Rights.
    Hmmm.  Le'see here | Bill of Rights = 10 amendments
                       | 10A - (.9 * 10A) = 1 amendment.
    
    Which amendment [personal right] are YOU willing to sacrifice?
    What if others prefer (a) different one(s)?
    If
    	we allow any right to be abridged?
        How long will it be 
             before none of us have any rights left?
    
    Endif
    	[dale]
    

        re .11,
        
        I didn't want to offend anyone by suggesting they
        supported the second amendment.
        
        Dan

    I thought we had given uup about 10% of each of the amendments already.
    A little here a little there, pretty soon they get 'em all.
    
    ed

    
    I must say that I agree with you all.  The Supreme Court's decisions
    lately have been appalling.  (excuse the spelling.)  How about that
    decision where a hispanic man was being tried for X and the star
    witness spoke only Spanish.  There were two prospecitive jurors who
    spoke  Spanish as a first language but also spoke English.  These
    jurors were asked if they could totally ignore the witness' first hand
    testimony and only take into account the court's translation of it.
    When they said "no", they couldn't ignore the Spanish testimowould
    they were disqualified as jurors based on the fact that they 
    be dealing with different evidence than the English speaking jurors.
    What ever happened to a jury of peers?
    
    I'm afraid to see what rights we'll all lose in our lifeti.
    
    Rachael Barlow
    I wish some qualified Libertarians would run for President

>    Although I have never "cried for" anything in the area of state-imposed
>    censorship, I find the above really obnoxious in tone.  Are you seeking
>    a discussion or an argument here?

 I read it as "I told you so. Nanny nanny boo boo!"

>    And what if someone started a religion that included ritualized nude
>    dancing?  Hmmmmm.....

Nice try, but the Supremes have already pretty much said that if your
religion isn't Judaeo-Christian enough, then it is entitled to less
protection than current "name-brand" religions.  That's why, f'rinstance,
the Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana (even though it's part of their
ceremony), or members of the Native American Church can't use peyote
(except maybe on Indian reservations; i'm not sure...).

On the other hand, back during Prohibition, the Jews and Christians
won exemptions so they could continue to use wine in their services.

To paraphrase Orwell, in this country some religions are more equal
than others...

--jim

    
    RE: .16 Jim
    
    Interesting piece of info about the Prohibition times Jim.  Thanks.
    
    Carole

	I think that we'd be hard pressed to come up with two
	rights "guaranteed" by the the Bill of Rights that haven't
	been infringed upon... And I blame the left more than
	the right...

					Tom_K

Re: Nude stage plays, etc.

Justice David Souter agreed with the majority that a state ban on nude dancing
was legal. Souter did write a dissenting note that nudity as part of a play or
performance was legal.

Does that mean that you can dance nude if you're following a script? (Just
don't ad lib.)

Is it legal if the dancers wear transparent pasties and g-strings? "Pasties" 
and "g-strings" sound more obscene than totally nudity.

Presumably you can legally look at breasts as long as a "pasty" is pasted over
the nipple. Can women breast feed in public in Indiana without wearing a pasty?

It is still a disgusting and appalling decision. Long live free speech!

Bruce

    
>	I think that we'd be hard pressed to come up with two
>	rights "guaranteed" by the the Bill of Rights that haven't
>	been infringed upon... And I blame the left more than
>	the right...

>					Tom_K
    
    I find that extremely and distastefully hypocritical, Tom, considering
    you're openly anti-women rights (abortion specifically) in this file.
    
    As for me, Tom, I am above stooping to labels made up for "blame"
    purposes like "left" and "right", and for applying blame to nameless,
    faceless made-up entities such as these.
    
    I *am* very much willing to place direct blame on Ronald Reagan for
    appointing these court "justices", as he was directly responsible for
    these decisions.
    

re .20

>    I find that extremely and distastefully hypocritical, Tom, considering
>    you're openly anti-women rights (abortion specifically) in this file.

	I am not anti-women rights. Please refrain from saying false things
	about me.
				Thank you.

					Tom_K

    Then you support women's right to freedom of choice?
    
    BJ

	Choice of what?

		Tom_K

    You know exactly what I mean.
    
    BJ

Tom_K, do you support the position that a woman has the right to decide
for herself whether she will continue to carry a fetus to term?  A
simple yes or no will suffice.

-d

Abortion, abortion rights, etc., have their own topic(s).  Let's see if
we can return this one to discussion of the Supreme Court's decision
that the human body is a filthy thing suitable for being washed instead
of admired.

-d

    
    re: .26
    
    I second the motion
    
    Please take all discussion of abortion and fetal rights to the abortion
    topic.
    
    -Jody
    

    In .18, TomK made a sweeping generalization that directly ties
    into the discussion at hand.  I believe that turning the abortion
    topic into a general "rights" topic won't satisfy the moderators
    any better.  But if there is going to be a place for a more general
    discussion of rights, then by all means, please move this and the
    other replies (maybe there already is one?)
    
    re .21:
    Don't you remember writing this?
    
            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB700:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 49.149       Abortion Concerns (*read .0 BEFORE replying*)       149 of 250
TOMK::KRUPINSKI "C, where it started."                8 lines  23-MAY-1991 16:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Great news!

	If the Federal Government is paying the bill, you gotta follow 
	the rules. If you want free speech, do it on your own time,
	not the governments.


				Tom_K
    

	Yes. So?

			Tom_K (trying to abide the moderators wishes)

    re: 5
    
    Actually, the ruling is so vague that what it really means from a
    Constitutional law perspective is that every attempt by a federal
    prosecutor to apply this ruling as means of upholding a local law will
    have to go through the federal court system because no federal district
    or appeals judge in her/his right mind would apply it as precedent.
    
    that does not, however, keep the local prosecutors from having a field
    day...it depends on where you are. In Massachusetts, they can't do
    diddly-sqaut becasue the State Constitution is more permissive than the
    Federal (scary thought...since when are our rights supposed to
    priviledges of proximity anyway?)
    
    re: general thread.  It is important to note that throughout history
    none of our rights have ever been completely absolute, even speech acts
    have been curbed in the name of "the common good"  It's that age-old
    dichotomy left in the Constitution between the Libertarian and the
    Athoritarian philosophies that has kept us on our toes for over 200
    years.  Neither philosophy has absolute dominion over the truth of our
    government.  Keeping them from imploding is another story all together.
    
    What makes last week's ruling so different, is it is the first attack
    on what is considered artistic expression to succeed to recent court
    history.  Even though some speech acts have never been afforded full
    protection, artistic expression has been one of our most jealously
    guarded forms of speech.  What the court did amounted to opening the
    door for Jesse Helmes and his ilk just when we managed to get their
    feet out of the doorjam.
    
    Nudity in film, photography, theatre, sculpture, painting, etc.  are
    all in potential danger even if it is unlikely that widespread banning
    will take place.  Instead of celebrating the human form, the Court has
    told our state and loal governments that they have they ability to
    decide upon a standard of public "morality" whatever the hell that
    means.  The government may make legit arguments to keep our lives safe
    and hence we have police forces and firefighters.  But are they now
    going to try to keep our *minds* safe?  Well, considering what's
    happening in my life right now, I'll take my safe mind to go, please. 
    And could you put that it a cardboard box instead of styrofome?
    
    And one last observation:  did anyone else catch Ray Flynn *drooling*
    when he heard about the case decision?  Sheez, what a fright!
    
    -daneil

    
    ...whose nudity are we talking about? I see that the title here says
    girls (and boys); but are we in fact talking about both sexes' nudity,
    or female nudity?
    
    Dorian 

    Dorian,
    
    The suit was applied to nude female dancers.  I guess this means the
    female body is a nasty thing which must be covered up.  Back into your
    chador's 
    
    sMeg

    I think it would have to apply to both sexes.  It would be hard to
    argue that a law could apply only to female nude dancing and not to
    male nude dancing.  Such a law could be easily chalenged as sex
    discrimination.
    
    But do the men have to wear pasties? :-)
    
    Mary

But, Mary, the ERA did *not* pass.  The clear implication to be drawn
from that fact is that, at least in the collective eyes of the States,
discrimination based on the sex of the individual is legal.  As, in
fact, it demonstrably is.  Common standards of "public decency" do not
forbid men to walk about topless, yet women are prohibited form that
activity.  No, I'm not being sarcastic. Sexism still has a very solid
basis in American law.

-d

    re .12
    
    Dan,
    
    You need not worry about offending *me* by suggesting I support the
    second amendment. I do, wholeheartedly, just as I do numbers 1 and
    3-10.
    
    Mike
    

	Considering how skewed the movie ratings are w.r.t. male genitals, and
I believe that many of the 'obscenity' laws have similar skews, I believe that
male nude dancing would certainly fall under this category...

					--D

    
    
    good...great...glad to hear it...
    
    the moral standards of this country have seriously deteriorated since
    the 60's and we're certainly paying for it with increased rape, 
    teen pregnancy, and AIDS. 
    
    Glad to hear the silent majority is being heard and spoken for!
    
    Put on those clothes, Madonna....!
    
    C.
    

    READ MY LIPS!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    		RAPE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALS!
    
    		RAPE IS NOT A SEX CRIME!
    
    		RAPE IS A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!
    
    
    E Grace

Much as I disapprove of this decision, I think it overemphasizes its importance
to call it "the camel's nose".  The camel is half way in the tent, always has
been, and it is a constant struggle to keep it at bay.

If I were king, I would abolish all obscenity laws.  I believe they are
fundamentally at odds with the operation of a free society.  But we have
obscenity laws, and always have, and they are enforced in spite of their
contradicting the first amendment.  And if I were to prioritize which obscenity
laws are most dangerous to the operation of a free society, prohibition of nude
dancing would be low on my list.  It is difficult to identify any benefit to
society that nude dancing as an entertainment form provides.  And a good case
can be made that it probably does actual damage to its patron's attitudes
towards women.

So yes, this is a significant battle in the fight for freedom lost.  Our
society became much more "liberal" about such things in the fifties and sixties
and the pendulum is now swinging the other way.  We should be disappointed and
should prepare for more fights and more disappointments in the years to come. 
But as battles go, I can't think of one I'd rather lose.

    Re: 38
    
    Thank you E....It needed to be said.
    
      -HA

    RE: .37
    
    on the same tone as .38:
    
    WHAT DOES IMMORALITY HAVE TO DO WITH AIDS?????
    
    ACT UP for your LIFE!!!
    
    -d.

	I wouldn't put it so much as "immorality" as much as changes in
	moral standards and ways of living. One doesn't need to be
	judgmental to recognize that, in general, each pattern of living
	has benefits, as well as associated costs. 

	For example, the "stay a virgin until you are married/man is the 
	breadwinner/woman stays home and takes care of the home and 
	children" "morality" that was held up as a standard for many years 
	has the advantages of reduced opportunities for the spread of 
	sexually transmitted diseases, and generally good child care, but 
	has a number of unacceptable costs including reduced occupational 
	opportunities.

	Similarly, the "Sex outside of marriage/both partners work outside the
	home" "morality", has the advantages of allowing greater fulfillment
	in peoples lives, but has costs, such as as increased risk of 
	transmission of sexually transmitted disease.

	Certainly, I am not suggesting that the above are the only choices,
	nor that one of the above "moralities" will or will not be optimal 
	for some people. Society is still trying to determine what the optimal 
	"morality" is (most benefits, fewer (more tolerable?) costs), and 
	will continue to do so, probably for as long as people live together.
	
	In addition, people will continue to search for ways to allow multiple 
	"moralities" to co-exist with a minimum of conflict, since, while 
	it is possible that one "morality" will be optimal for most people,
	it is almost a certainty that it will not be optimal for all people.

	What we do need to recognize is that changes to moral standards
	generally have associated costs, usually unanticipated. Failure
	to look at these costs square in the face is as bad as being
	intolerant. 

					Tom_K

    Quite often, the only change in "morality" is that things that have
    been happening for years finally get talked about honestly.
    
    
    E Grace

...that too often the "moral" standards of people I have never met and
never will meet come in conflict with my standards.  It is not part of
fundamentalist religious people's philosophy to live and let live.
Fundamentalists of whatever color seem to find it incumbent on them to
ensure that others obey the fundamentalists' religious strictures while
they themselves refuse even to consider the others' position.  This is
the "I know what's best for you" school.  My mother probably knew what
was best for me when I was a child, but I'm not a child anymore, and
she does not know what is best for me.  Or for you.  And you, and you.
Yet here we are, forced to get our legislators to pass laws affirming
the freedoms that the Americn Founding Fathers tried to grant us but
which the "mommies" of the world would deny us.

-d

    Being a virgin until you are married is a lot of crap to me...
    What happens if you get a divorce and want to re-marry?? Become
    a born-again virgin? "morality" is a hot button with me...
    
    REK
    
    Yeah, I'm back reading to see where this file has evolved....

re .43

	E Grace,

	I don't know, I think that the talking is an acknowledgment of the
	change, no doubt the things were done, but were considered "immoral",	
	but now are no longer considered so...


re .44,
	Dick,

	Also consider those who feel that the actions of others may have
	an impact on what happens to them. For example, a person who 
	believes that my doing X will cause God to destroy the world
	will likely have great incentive for dissuading me from doing X.
	I see this as different from the "I know what is best for you"
	view, which, of course, also exists.

re .45
	REK,

	That's simply another example of the costs associated with a 
	particular "morality". I didn't pretend to enumerate all of them!

						Tom_K

    While there may not be a perfect moral standards, too many parents 
    seem to have said, "To heck with it, I won't teach my children _any_ 
    moral standards." These kids are not indoctrinated in _any_ system 
    of ethics which says "Hurting others is wrong."
    
    People need a system of ethics. Even if the system of ethics is
    imperfect, it beats heck out of having neighbors with _no_ code
    of ethics whatsoever.

    That was my point, Tom.  The fact that people don't talk about things
    does not mean that they aren't *doing* them.  So, have a person's
    morals changed because once s/he did things clandestinely, and now is
    honest about them?  Are you saying it is more moral to lie?
    
    E Grace

Re: .46

Dissuading me from doing X is not the same as forcibly prohibiting me
from doing it.  Suppose I think going to the movies will cause God to
destroy the world - do I have the right to make movie viewing illegal?
I think not.  I have the right to tell others my views, but that is the
sum total of it.  My fist ends at your nose.

Re: .47

Of course people ened a system of ethics.  But passing laws to make
others abide by your view of ethical/moral behavior is not the same
as teaching your children to behave ethically/morally.  Failure to
teach one's children how to behave in a manner that does not injure
others is reprehensible.

-d

re .48

	E Grace,

	 I agree with you that talking about things is a change, and often 
	an important one, but I believe that changes in underlying behavior
	are probably greater. I'm sorry. But to answer the questions,
	I think that changing from doing something clandestinely to doing
	it openly could be because of a change in morals, but it could also
	be for other reasons. And not saying something may be questionable
	from a moral standpoint, but doing so is not lying.

re .49

	-d,

	 I agree completely with what you say. My point was that recognizing
	and understanding where a view is coming from is important, is not 
	the same as agreeing with it or condoning it. To use your scenario,
	you have the right to advocate for making movie watching illegal,
	and I may or may not concur, but, especially if I don't concur,
	my knowing and understanding why you want to make movie watching 
	illegal will be helpful in interacting with you with a minimum
	of friction.

						Tom_K

Re: .50

Tom_K, I'm not sure I *do* have the *moral* right to advocate making
moviewatching illegal.  The legal right  isn't the moral right.  It is
the legal right that is giving me the willies at the moment.

Also, in re: your comments to E, not saying something can most surely
be lying.  It's called lying by omission.  Not saying I'm married when
an attractive women becomes interested in me is an example of lying by
omission.

-d

    Tom,
    
    My comments were directed to your entry .42.  What I was saying is that
    this:
    
	>For example, the "stay a virgin until you are married/man is the 
	>breadwinner/woman stays home and takes care of the home and 
	>children" "morality" ...
    
    may well have been the admitted standard, but that *this*: 
    
    	>Similarly, the "Sex outside of marriage/both partners work outside the
	>home" "morality",
    
    was being done just as much.  It just wasn't talked about.
    
    E Grace

	-d 

	You do have the right to advocate (at least in theory). It's number 
	on on the Bill of Rights.

	E Grace.

	I'll agree it was done, but not any where near as much as today.
	Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree...
	
					Tom_K

    Tom,
    
    you have no way of knowing that 'it was done' 'not any where near as
    much as today' all you know is that people talk about 'it' more
    now.
    
    The two don't correlate at all.
    
    BJ

	I thought that it was an established fact that the numbers of women 
	working outside the home went up drastically during and after WWII.
	If this is not the case, then you are correct.

						Tom_K

    Tom_K
    
    But what happened just before WWII was not in any way some sort
    of norm.
    
    For generations women worked in the family business, or on farms,
    or as serving women. The number of women who were free to just
    stay home and do no more than basic house hold chores and child
    raising throughout all of history is a very very small percent.
    
    We are looking to an 'ideal' that existed for only a few generations
    at the most, and even then only for the well off.
    
    Bonnie

    Tom_K,
    
    We're at odds over *what* right I have to advocate my position.  I
    agree willingly that I have the legal right to advocate banning cinema
    - but I do not agree that I have the *moral* right to do that.  In some
    states I have the legal right - indeed the obligation - to report you
    and your bed partner to the authorities as criminals if I should by
    happenstance learn that you are engaging (privately) in any form of
    sexual encounter other than man/woman genital intercourse in the
    Missionary position.  Does that make my reporting you the moral thing?
    I rather think not, yet the laws that require such a report are
    advocated by the same people whose advocacy got Ronald Reagan and
    George Bush elected and, in turn, David Souter et al. appointed to the
    US Supreme Court.  Legal v. moral - what a conumdrum!
    
    -d

    In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. (paraphrased, but close)
    
    "We have a moral obligation to obey just laws; conversely, we have a
    moral obligation to disobey unjust laws."
    
    D!

	Bonnie,

	Take another look at .42, and you'll find that I said "for a number of 
	years", which you seem to be concurring with. I'm in complete agreement 
	with your statement in .56. I think were all pretty much in violent 
	agreement, just miscommunicating!

	-d,

	Isn't who is advocating a particular position irrelevant to the
	positions "goodness"? If Charles Manson says "the sky is blue",
	we might be more inclined to get independent verification, but
	I don't think we immediately say, "no, it isn't, because Charles
	Manson said it, it must be wrong"...

						Tom_K

    um, Tom
    
    I think you were replying to E Grace not me, (not that I mind
    being confused with the HUG Goddess of America if not the
    world and the Universe) ;-)
    
    Bonnie

	Bonnie,

	No, I was responding to your .56...

				Tom_K

    Then, Tom, as long as the stay at home mother working father
    is not held up as some sort of universal ideal, then we
    are in agreement on that point.
    
    BJ

	I did say that I believe it *was* held up as an ideal
	(especially during the '50s). I did not say I subscribed
	to that view (I don't).

					Tom_K

    re .38   E Grace
    
    �RAPE IS NOT A SEX CRIME!
    �    
    �RAPE IS A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!
    
    
    I must disagree with this. I know it's what is commonly said, but
    it's JUST NOT TRUE. If you read the reports from psychologists they
    will tell you that rape in the traditional sense is primarily an
    act of control. They will not say there is no sexual element, or
    even that violence is a facet (control does not equate to violence).
    
    To claim there is no element of sexuality is foolhardy. Date rapes
    are almost entirely a result of sexual excitement BEFORE any control
    comes into play.
    
    Enough said.
    
                                      L.J.

    L.J. sex is the medium for the violence of rape, the same way deadly
    force is the medium for murder.
    
    What makes rape so different is the fact that because a supposedly
    sexual act (read "supposedly" as meaning this ain't exactly
    love-making) is central to the violation, society has given it a
    similar stigma that surrounds almost all sexual contact that isn't in
    the missionary position between 2 partners for life...
    
    Rape is a crime about someone trying to take away what is most
    fundamentally yours:  the control of your body.  But it is not about
    sex any more than a murder is "about" a pistol.
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /

    RE: changing "morals"
    
    The parents of people my age (now in their 60's, 70', and 80's) were
    doing the very same stuff in the very same places as today's
    teen-agers. (That's why "just say no" doesn't work - never has, never
    will.)
    
    One big difference is that the young women who become pregnant are no
    longer treated like pariahs, forced to "disappear" for months at a
    time, and not talk about where they were. We actually made a start in
    treating these young women like human beings. Apparently, this has come
    to the notice of those who Have Problems reconciling the word "woman"
    with the term "human being". 
    
    Someone has apparently noticed that women are gaining contol of their
    bodies. Oops. 
    
    So now we can't dance nude in public. For money. Men's money. I view
    this in somewhat the same light as I view prostitution. The "problem"
    is not so much in women "displaying" their bodies, or selling their
    "sexual favors". The problem is that men have to *pay* for it. 
    
    There are certainly other issues, here. But somehow, control of women's
    bodies seems to be right up there at the top of the list. And
    unfortunately, with the Supreme Court going the way it is, we'd better
    get used to it, gurrrls.  
    
    --DE
    (Dawn_who_has_practically_no_time_to_keep_up_with_notes_these_days)
    

    
    whats so new about men having to pay for it?
    
    few men are so pretty that they'd get it for free....
    

    Er...I didn't say that men paying was new.  
    
    I *implied* that women controlling their own bodies was new. Which
    it is.
    
    
    Women doing it for free has nothing to do with male attractiveness. You
    don't really need to be attractive - you just need to have the
    situational power. 
    
    --DE