> I don't think laws are necessarily indicative of public interest, though. In > the U.S., it seems as if the laws on sexual freedom & portrayals are lessening > but the public is increasing its self-censorship. In U.S. television, for > instance, you're technically allowed to show a lot more sex & nudity in > primetime than most shows actually do (with the notable exception of NYPD BLUE) > because that's what they think the public wants for that medium. It's also > perfectly legal for women to walk around topless in New York City (thanks to a > gender-equity ruling a couple of years ago) but you still don't see anyone > doing that, even at the beach. And kids are *asking* for dress codes at > school. It seems like a de-escalation of open sexuality and expressiveness > (exactly the opposite of what's happening with violence). > > Molly Olsen > [log in to unmask] > (and Norwegian by descent) I get the feeling that women not taking advantage of the topless law is less a matter of self censorship than it is a lack of interest in dealing with the situation of revealing one's breasts in a place like New York City. I think that people who have been raised to equate nakedness with sex and vulnerability can not be expected to feel comfortable with public nudity just because a law nominally allowing it has been passed paul ryersbach ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]