Susan objects to a law that requires women to keep a top on but does not require the same thing of men. “A law intended from the outset to be selectively enforced” will clearly in the minds of some lead to tyrannical despotism.
Since one of the things we have learned in this amusing imbroglio from our friends on the left is that their is no erotic difference between a man’s breasts and a woman’s (where are sex ed courses when you actually need them?), then it follows, as night follows day, that we can tolerate no law that assumes such a distinction. Consequently, I propose that we abolish all sexual harassment laws that assume that it might be more likely for a man to ogle or comment on or get handsy with one set of them rather than the other kind. And I, for one, intend to set a good example for everybody by not even hinting which set might now be considered in open season.
I can see it now — “Yer honor, I never thought to be harassin’ anybody. I jest thought I was jest horsing around with the guys. Why I didn’t even know she was a girl until the public defender told me!”
So visionaries, I would love to see some proposed language from you all for such a law that abolishes all distinctions. But because few appear to be on the payroll of that autocratic Boss Consistency, I am not holding my breath.
“Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.