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

["Karina Klaas" <shutterbug@iinet.net.au>]

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