[Leica] what we talk about when we talk about women

["Joseph Codispoti" <joecodi@clearsightusa.com>]

From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>


> I have a somewhat different take on this - while I agree with everything
> Kyle has said, I think even he may be missing the point that the seemingly
> endless string of puerile comments about the photo are demeaning and
> objectifying women in general, and not just Colleen. It really has a great
> deal less to do about political correctness than it does to do about ones
> view of women, and one's view of appropriate public dialogue. Presumably
any
> healthy, normal, man, finds attractive female breasts attractive. And, as
> Kyle noted, sitting on a back porch in Wyoming drinking whatever and
> bullshitting one might well revert on occasion to adolescent banter and
> nonsense. But this is a public forum - and a forum to which a number of
> women contribute. So I would suggest that if, for instance, one would be
> uncomfortable walking up to Tina Manley and saying, "Hey, Tina, whatcha
> think of that rack on Colleen," you might reconsider the appropriateness
of
> the remarks being made on the list.
>
> B. D.
> Virtually never one to be accused of either prudery, or excessive good
taste





There is no question that what is normal, humorous, or harmless to one, may
be objectionable or offensive to another.
Therefore decency and decorum dictate that limits be adhered to so as not to
offend those so sensitive that the conversation must exclude religion,
politics, sex, criticism, etc. How boring!

There are religions that consider drinking, lipstick, sex, cinema, and many
other main-stream subjects - including medicine - strict taboo. Are we to
abstain from talking about those subjects?

Yes, the LUG is about Leica, photography and helping one another. But there
are those overly prudish individuals who would like to censor, restrict, and
control the tone of the LUG.

As for Tina, on occasion she too has made certain pronouncements that have
surprised me. I was pleased to read such from her not because they were
titillating, but because she revealed herself  to be a modern, open minded,
and "part of the club" woman. Above all she revealed not to be constrained
by the thought that her innocuous remarks might raise the eyebrows of more
inhibited individuals.

At this point I am going to hang myself and add what I had refrained from
posting yesterday:


Double Entendres
I have always wondered why certain subjects are to be avoided at all costs,
to the point that there are laws against their being practiced.
The major ones are drinking of alcoholic beverages, beach nudity, and frank
talk about body parts.

Several years ago while in the Air Force, I was being transferred from Texas
to S. Carolina, from the frying pan into the fire, so to speak (sorry fellow
Texans and Carolinians).
It was hot at the Newark airport where I had to wait for a connecting
flight. I was thirsty and could taste a cold, frothy beer cooling my throat.
I entered the airport bar and asked for a beer. I was in uniform. The
bartender looked at me and asked how old I was. Not being familiar with blue
laws and such, I thought that the man was being fatherly and was interested
in me as a soldier.
"19", I said with pride. To which the bartender replied: "Come back when you
are 21".

I was crushed. In Europe no one ever questioned my age or my ability to
drink in moderation and drinking is considered a normal social endeavor with
no sinister agendas or complications.
But here I was, old enough to die in the defense of the country but not old
enough to quench my thirst with a beer.

The US has to be one of the very few countries where women must cover
themselves completely when breast feeding lest others be offended (or
aroused). In most other countries breast feeding is not considered an evil
or distasteful undertaking to be hidden from others with a discrete towel .
On all continents, all the beaches have an unspoken policy of  optional
bikini top - and no one pays attention to those who do not were one.

It seems to me that when governments, religions, or social customs dictate
certain strict adherence to morality, the opposite effect is achieved
because of the "prohibited fruit" syndrome.
the Alcohol Prohibition of the 20s and 30s (and the underground it created
leading to its demise) is one very good example of this phenomenon. An other
is the pervasive prurient interest so pervasive in TV shows, and sex crimes
that are reported daily in the media.

A pregnant woman has "swallowed a melon seed". The "stork brings babies".
And countless other euphemisms that are aimed at "protecting" sensitive
young minds, only to be shattered behind the barn by other kids a little
wiser but just as misinformed.



Yesterday someone wrote: "Children are not harmed by the truth, unless they
have been
lied to before learning it."

That is one the most profound "one liners" I have ever read.


My intention here is NOT to start an endless (and useless) debate, but would
like to see some intelligent discourse on the social forces that make these
subjects (and others) the "prohibited fruit".

Joseph Codispoti
San Luis Obispo, CA








- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html