[Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing

Wed Feb 9 02:48:28 PST 2005

As someone with a butt-crack, I must say that I oppose the elimination of 
butt-cracks. I don't know what I would do without it. I would be dealing 
with so much more crap without it.

I frankly don't understand all this fuss about body parts. I don't find the 
butt, breast, or any body part offensive. How far do you think humans would 
have gone without butt-cracks and breasts? First off, everyone has a butt 
crack, a safe assumption I hope, so it is NOT a "private part". In order for 
it to be a private part, not everyone can have one. Elbows, foreheads, and 
hands are not private parts,  everyone has one. Second, the breast is not a 
sexual organ. It serves the primary purpose of feeding babies.

We are so obsessed with our bodies we have children starving themselves and 
vomiting in the toilet to look like Twiggy. This is some messed up standards 
to be putting on children.

Finally, I just find it so ironic that the people that like to praise God 
and all his glory would be so ashamed of one of his greatest creations and 
want to cover it up.

Oh well. I guess we just have to accept the logical argument of Christian 
fundamentalists when they say, "If God wanted us to go without clothes we 
would have been born naked."

Good Day,

Donovan J Arnold

PS, I am all for banning assholes though.

>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
>To: "'Joan Opyr'" <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>,   "'Vision2020 Moscow'" 
><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>CC: "'Pat Kraut'" <pkraut at moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing
>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 00:55:22 -0800
>
>Ah, thank you, Auntie Establishment, for your ever-entertaining  words.
>
>However, I want to reassure you and Pat Kraut -- who I'm sure was aghast to 
>be
>included with the likes of us other "Intoleristas" and who abhors those 
>most
>unappealing butt-cracks (assuming that's part of what she refers to as 
>private
>parts -- Pat, please correct me if I'm wrong here) right along with us -- 
>that
>butt-cracks are ***illegal*** in Moscow.
>
>I kid you not!  The display -- intentional or not -- of butt-cracks in 
>Moscow
>has been illegal since 2002.  As far as I'm concerned, that was the *only*
>potentially positive aspect of Moscow Ordinance 2002-13, the so-called 
>"public
>nudity" ordinance that really was nothing more than an attempt to 
>criminalize
>female breasts.  Yes, yes, I know . . . there are some in our community who 
>fear
>that the revelation of female breasts will drive otherwise "faithful" males 
>into
>a sexual frenzy.  And, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to many here 
>that I
>find that argument pure hogwash -- men are just as capable as controlling 
>their
>instincts as females.  If I'm not driven to attack the (few) males with
>"irresistible" pecs, I'm willing to grant that the males in our community 
>are
>capable of the same self-control.
>
>(And, of course, that fails to take into account those with "alternative" 
>sexual
>preferences in our community.  But, since the law also failed to consider 
>that
>vital segment of our community, I'll leave that to others to address.)
>
>Yes, it's true:  butt-cracks are illegal in Moscow.  For those who doubt 
>me,
>please see:
>http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/citycode/TITLE10/chapter1.pdf
>Sec 1-16.
>
>Why, oh why, then, do I still have nightmares of butt-cracks???  Well, I'll 
>tell
>you:  it's because while there's a law on the books against such displays, 
>this
>seems to be a part of the law our "protectors" in blue haven't chosen to
>enforce.  Naturally -- God forbid we should glimpse a female breast, but 
>those
>most unattractive butt-cracks are *still* visible!  I know of a few women 
>who
>have been told that they are showing too much cleavage, but those most
>unattractive butt-cracks are still out there, tormenting us all.  This time 
>of
>year, I know it's hard to conceive, but I was subjected to all-too-many
>offensive butt-cracks before the weather turned frigid.  Heck -- I'm sorry 
>to
>tell you that even with the weather cold, I've continued to see 
>butt-cracks!
>
>Mind you, I've not seen a single objectionable display of female breasts.
>However, I continue to be tormented by offensive displays of butt-cracks.
>
>Can we all say "selective enforcement"?
>
>I guess I've been ignorant my entire life -- no one whose seen my breasts 
>has
>ever been compelled to mayhem or infidelity.  When the weather gets a bit 
>(OK, a
>whole lot) warmer, perhaps I should test the power of my breasts: do they 
>have
>the power to cause otherwise normal males (or females) to abandon values?
>Somehow, I doubt that would be the effect  ;-)
>
>But, why are we continuing to see those most unattractive butt-cracks???   
>I
>mean, there's a law against them!  Sheesh -- the only potential positive of 
>that
>repressive sexist (and unconstitutional) law, and we're still seeing
>butt-cracks?!?!?!
>
>Maybe I should break out my camera?  No, on second though, that would break 
>my
>camera!
>
>I ***urge*** all who continue to see those illegal butt-cracks in Moscow to 
>call
>our "protectors"!  Report all sightings -- I'm serious:  had sufficient
>attention been paid to those offensive butt-cracks, then they'd be as 
>scarce as
>the female breasts that were determined to be so detrimental to "our" 
>community.
>Funny -- while female breasts were viewed to be "harmful" to our community, 
>the
>disappearance of same hasn't helped anything, has it?
>
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>-Edmund Burke
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] 
>On
>Behalf Of Joan Opyr
>Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:04 PM
>To: Vision2020 Moscow
>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Well, It ain't plumbing
>
>As is well-known from Auntie Establishment's biography (as posted on my
>website), I find the public display of butt-cracks an egregious offense to 
>good
>taste, good looks, and good social order.  I'm not bothered, however, by 
>the
>display of underwear.  Show your boxer shorts all you like!  Let's get a 
>glimpse
>of that Victoria's Secret brassiere!  Underwear is great!  Underwear is 
>good!
>Even when it's displayed as outerwear.  To this, I say, so what?  No doubt 
>when
>that Republican coot in Virginia sits down, the tops of his cheap, black 
>nylon
>socks are on full display to all and sundry, as is a two-inch stretch of 
>the
>blinding white leg above.  I know these sanctimonious Southern gent-types 
>and
>their proclivity for wearing ill-fitting polyester trousers; I grew up with
>them, and I blame them in part for my poor eyesight.  I was blinded at an 
>early
>age by the gratuitous summertime display of their lily-white legs in 
>paisley
>Bermuda shorts.
>
>No, I don't mind underwear.  What I don't want to see are:
>
>1) Your butt-crack.
>2) Your pot-belly.
>3) Your long nasal hairs.
>4) Any long hairs that might be protruding from your ears.  And,
>5) You balding men out there who are unable to love yourselves as you are.  
>Get
>thee to a therapist and then to a good hairdresser.  Why?  Because I don't 
>want
>to see your long, fooling-no-one, thick-tendril comb-overs anymore.  Just 
>stop
>it.  Do what the smart gay men do -- get all of your remaining hair cut 
>very,
>very short.  This has the queer (if you'll excuse the expression) effect of
>making you look like you have more hair, not less.  No kidding.
>
>So, no, Dave, I won't be generating a petition in Idaho re: underwear.
>Unfortunately, I despair of ever being able to enact any of my various
>prejudices into law.  Butt-cracks will continue to smile at me vertically 
>from
>low-cut jeans; pot-bellied men will take off their shirts in the summer 
>heat.
>Nose hairs will sprout from nostrils like kudzu from a Southern ditch.  And 
>bald
>men will continue to let the hair grow over (and out of) their ears until 
>it
>turns into squid-like tentacles that they can pull over their naked scalps 
>and
>plaster into place with God-knows-what kind of terrifying hair paste.
>
>Why, why, why?!  Only God and Vitalis know the answer.
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.auntie-establishment.com
>
>
>	----- Original Message -----
>	From: David M. Budge
>	Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:05 PM
>	To: Vision2020 Moscow; Joan Opyr
>	Subject: Well, It ain't plumbing
>
>	...but it's a start.
>
>	Joan,
>
>	Time to start a petition?
>
>	Dave Budge
>
>
>	Underwear Police? Virginians May Be Fined For Low-Cut Pants
>
>
>	People Would Face $50 Fine
>
>	POSTED: 7:14 am EST February 8, 2005
>	RICHMOND, Va. -- A Norfolk, Va., legislator says the droopy-drawers bill
>may be his legacy.
>
>   SURVEY
>Should a state have the right to fine people whose underwear show above 
>their
>pants?
>Yes, it's indecent.
>No, that would be a violation of Americans' freedoms.
>No, it would be too difficult to enforce. Who decides what's indecent?
>
>Results <http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#>  | Disclaimer
><http://www.wnbc.com/print/4174793/detail.html#>
>	The Virginia House of Delegates has tentatively approved a bill to crack
>down on people who wear low-riding pants.
>________________________________
>
>
>		Discussion:Fined For Low-Cut Pants?
><http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=ny&Forum=79&Topic=11533>
>
>________________________________
>
>	Freshman Norfolk Delegate Algie Howell Jr. introduced the bill at the
>urging of constituents who are offended by the exposed underwear.
>
>
>	Howell said, "That's why they're called undergarments. They're supposed
>to be worn under something else." Delegates approved a measure that would 
>allow
>police to assess a $50 fine on anyone who exposes their below-waist 
>underpants
>in a "lewd or indecent manner." Howell said that since he introduced it 
>last
>month, he's been deluged with calls and e-mails about the issue, mostly
>positive. Howell told The Virginian-Pilot that he kept hearing from 
>customers in
>his barber shop that something needed to be done about young people who 
>wear
>their pants around their knees, exposing their underwear. When a House
>subcommittee took up the matter, the response was sympathetic yet skeptical
>because of legal issues. It's going to the House floor for a vote.
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯