Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This reminds me of a book I once read, anyone out there read "Thy Neighbours Wife" by Gay Talese? Karina - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Codispoti" <joecodi@clearsightusa.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:37 AM Subject: [Leica] what we talk about when we talk about women > 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 > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html