Expanding on my notion of our perfect utopia, I reprint herewith my remarks from that other forum, edited for clarity. The occasion for the remarks herewith was the insistence by a young 20-something feminist that women should be allowed to go topless, all the time, without either legal or social censure, or the oppressive male gaze, etc., because men can.
Men tend to be valued for their productivity and if such productivity gets them all overheated then taking their shirts off such as to air out their glistening muscles with or without benefit of chest hair, just slightly moistened by their perspiration, the scent of which, strengthened by the heat, wafts freely into the air, driving some people–not to name any names—to the vapors—then it shall remain legal, under certain circumstances.
However, susceptible voyeurs are advised not to operate any heavy machinery immediately after viewing and smelling such an apparition.
Meanwhile, if women were to walk topless down the street there might be a boom in the auto body repair industry; so ‘yes’ to all toplessness, for the economy!
This pissed her off so much that she started insulting me. Since there is no way that I can respond in kind to such a sweet young thing without being accused of being an old witch (the shoe fits you say?) I backed down and thereby other forum members piped in, and otherwise friendly banter resumed, albeit said young feminist had already flounced.
So I thought I’d heat things up a bit:
I think men should be allowed to expose their testicles in public. Just because women can’t expose their ovaries doesn’t meant that men should be bared from a healthful activity. Those guys don’t like to be kept too warm!
Airing out one’s balls is a fundamental right.
This led another commenter to imagine that I meant that men should expose the entire apparatus, which, was his way, I’m sure, of attempting, once again, to engage me in fantasy role play of his own castration fetish (which I abhor). I was therefore compelled to clarify my position:
My point, if I have one, was to expose (ahem) the fundamental right of men to air out their testicles–not dicks. Dicks are a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
This conjured up another commenter who got where I was going, but also wanted to makes sure that I knew that the social rules against nudity were religion-based and therefore religion is a big meanie. My response:
There’s no reason to forbid testicle exposure albeit to expose one’s testicles in public is not a very good idea. Of course, exposing one’s breasts in public is an extremely good idea, because young women tell me so. Young women are so much smarter than I am and they’ll just keep right on getting smarter, until they reach my age, upon which point they will be idiots just like me. Something to look forward to.
Religions are the basis of social rules that allow for a particular population to preserve that population including culture. One important way to preserve a culture is to try to tamp down the notion that every little girl deserves her own baby. Given that babies provide huge social perks, but more babies is not better, anything one can do to persuade little girls to keep sexuality in check tends to result in fewer marginal babies [I remain in debt to this blog post: http://blog.jim.com/culture/sex-and-natural-law/]. In order to persuade little girls not to do what they want to do when in fact little girls tend to have the whole of society jumping to fulfill their every need, there needs to be an easily repeatable rule that doesn’t require a whole lot of complex language, that can easily be obeyed, and that basically uses both the carrot and the stick approach: Religion. However every good idea gone hog wild tends to have a backlash. Persons who are particularly angry (and that’s a feeling) at religion, tend to come up with the notion that logic and science will make everyone smarter and better behaved. Since that doesn’t work, government must be enlarged to insist that logic and science will make everyone smarter and better behaved, insisting louder and louder until the “carrot” is gone and all that’s left is “the stick”—in the here and now of course.
Power hungry little girls then all get jobs in government, where they can enjoy absolute power to make everyone else do what they want them to do and not what they don’t want them to do. And to that end, they are now the people who define what is “logic” and what is “science”.
As for everyone else other than little girls going naked, that would probably work out just fine however imagine the tantrums from all the little girls!
Second point, whereas the notion of separating religion from state is a good one, it doesn’t much account for plurality of belief systems particularly in a climate where all belief systems are being degraded that do not adhere to the majority belief system, which pretends it isn’t a religion, when what it is is justification for an enlarged state, led by little girls, who know everything, because they are just that smart. However, separating “religion” from “state” is only necessary when you have an enlarged state. At the microcosm level, like minds tend to live together and people who live together tend to adopt the same values, and together they can decide the mechanism of how to keep all the little girls from getting together and demanding the right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. Apparently, telling them that they’re the smartest population of all is not considered a religion.
Imagine my surprise when Ogle, I mean Booble, I mean Google, came up with a method to disseminate the rules of “true facts”:
THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free “news” stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.
So far, when one enters the search term, “Caprizchka” in Google, one arrives at this very un-truthy website that you, Dear Reader, are reading now. Perhaps not for long.