The Author writes: "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" more than just a few of us "whiny sensitive" people are offended by the stench.

Unfortunately, this form of 'bumper sticker wisdom' does not justify stopping the usage of perfume, etc. If a person chooses to wear six gallons of CK One, then it is his right as an American to do so. Same goes for those 'naturalists' who refuse to wear deodorant. Are both of those people offending the olfactory senses of most others? Yes, probably. However, just because you do not like something, doesn't mean an individual should have to stop doing it in public. I, for one, do not like the fact that some people are so starved for positive attention that they feel the need to pierce their tongue, nose, lip, etc. I think they look asinine, and you might even go as far to say that they 'offend my visual senses'. But could I possibly expect them to remove the baubles and bangles from their face? According to your argument, since their right to express themselves ends at my being offended by it, then I would be perfectly justified in asking said angst-filled person to please limit the number of times they perforate their body. However, this is a ridiculous notion, and would be rejected by most reasonable people.

Let's say you own an expensive restaurant, and you find that paying customers are offended from the 'stench' of a particular person who has wandered in off the street. As a business owner, you have a right to ask that person to leave, as he is interfering with the course of your business (even if that particular person is also a paying customer. Business owners in the private sector reserve the right to refuse business to anyone they want. Businesses whose stock is traded publicly must adhere to another set of rules altogether, yet they are more concerned with the equitable treatment of all races, religions, and genders. Rarely do such enterprises make an issue out of someone's particular fragrance). However, once you walk outside that restaurant, you no longer have any right to complain. Your little 't-shirt phrase' doesn't apply at all in this case, as swinging ones arm may cause significant damage to another if in fact he comes in contact with another person. However, no significant damage can be caused to another person if I am wearing a little too much Drakkar Noir. Except of course that you may find yourself a little uncomfortable or inconvenienced. And in response to the other author representing your side of the argument (albeit using actual facts and reason), after reading through the various citations he/she used for her argument, I remain unconvinced. There doesn't seem to be any valid research which supports the claim that 'synthetic scents' cause any significant damage to humans.

One of the problems in this country is that every single person who has a grievance against an inconvenience, thinks they should have the right to have that problem rectified so that they, as an individual can feel comfortable. This argument is akin to the sudden emergence en masse of the people with allergies to peanuts and other nuts. If you, as an individual, are allergic to peanuts, then you, as an individual should not eat peanuts. But don't ask me to give up my PB&J sandwich because it somehow affects you. It works exactly the same way with those who are 'offended' by cologne. If, for some reason, you are 'allergic' to my Polo Sport, then, by all means, get as far away from me as you possibly can. Believe me, you'd be doing us both a favor.


-- Charlie Cates