[Vision2020] Bowling for Boxers or Boobies?

Garrett Clevenger onewildearth@hotmail.com
Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:33:25 -0800

Howdy, y'all,

What happens when you put a boxer from Logos in a ring with a topfree woman?

According to Douglas Wilson and his followers (who lobbied Moscow's City 
Council to pass a sexist and unconstitutional law that we taxpayers are 
going to have to spend our money defending in court when it is challenged 
and who was then quoted in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News saying he has no 
interest in taking part in politics) bare boobs are more dangerous.  So I 
imagine the woman would be the victor in this instance.

Topfree women are not neccessarily sexual, but in my head, even if they 
were, sex is better than violence. After all, did not Jesus say to love your 
neighbor? That may not mean sex, but it certainly does not mean violence.

Perhaps if these boys weren't busy bashing each other's heads, they would be 
able to think clearly and realize that testosterone does not have to be 
relieved through aggression. Even Bonobo chimps, the most peaceful chimp 
tribe on our planet, know this. 

Maybe we could get clarification from these folks as to why being tempted by 
a bare chested women is more of a threat than being tempted to act 

Which really is a bigger threat to our society?

No offense to those who choose to box (I really don't care) but this 
hypocrisy seems rather odd.  How do you reconcile this?

Maybe we should be glad that Moscow has it's own gladiators.  They are 
probably pretty aggressive and thus good boxers considering their sexual 
repression.  I'm sure they are providing great entertainment to the guys in 
charge of this school.

I just hope Douglas isn't developing a batallion of boxers to defend himself 
from the angry women who realize he was responsible for passing a law that 
suppresses their rights:)


Garrett Clevenger


"What are we doing to our each other?!:("

Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online