 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) So we pass laws to lower the hemline back to ankles? There should be a difference between sex and, well, not sex. And this issue of toplessness falls on the non-sex side, or at least it should, for there are societies today that have no (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Please. "Naked"??? He wore shoes and socks! Give me a real Naked Trekker, not this pitiful pretender! JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive my values (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Ugh! Can we please keep the conversation to humans? Chris ;-) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Then why not my morality? What makes yours so much better? That's my point. (...) Exactly *which* freedom of yours was abused by Janet Jackson's bare breast? (...) I find ponytails sexy. Is hair a sexual part? Every body part is as sexual as (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Correct, the bar will be raised, as it was from ankles to breasts. Next will be the sexualization of our youth (which has already begun). What all of this amounts to is the decay of civility-- an amoral route to anarchy. JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: <snip lots of weel thgouht out and implemented stuff> (...) Wow Chris, that's a whole different slant that I hadn't considered. Nicely done. To continue the discussion with maybe a specific (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
Ack...I'm being seized by old, bad habits. (...) There shouldn't need to be a law permitting it...such permission is granted by nature. Only the restriction of such default freedom requires laws. (...) Really? (...) Ayup! (...) It's funny that I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) There are two basic thrusts that I'll take with this. First, and what I expect to me more convincing/interesting to the "pro-spank" or "parents' rights" crowd, is that it produces long-term deleterious motivational effects. It seems that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
(...) Wow! Not only in Canada, eh? Pity (1) Dave K 1-going for humour here (2), not that i think it's a bad decision--I'm in full support. 2-those that don't get the joke, eh, it's not worth explaining but Red Rose tea commercials factor in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Insofar as at one time the female ankle was considered sexual 'cause that was the part that was 'always covered up'. Making laws based on this type of sexual arousing 'finnikyness' seems very (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) That piece by Morris has been widely questioned as relying too heavily post-hoc reasoning based on pre-determined gender roles, but I still enjoy a lot of his work. I don't doubt that breasts have been long-time symbols of fertility and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Indeed! The last thing the "ruling class" wants is for the "masses" to be kept informed by a good independent public sector broadcaster. Far better that they get their "infotainment" from Fox! Scott A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) You may enjoy this: Naked rambler completes his trek (URL) A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) Hear! Hear!! (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) We're just touching on every topic now, aren't we? Publically funded television is a wonderful thing. Never *ever* get rid of it. My local PBS station (local even though it's in a differnt (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
|
(...) Well then that's a differnet kettle of fish, isn't it? Sex, in mono-or partner form, is different than, well, what we're talking about here. There are laws about being 'sexual' in public, which falls outside the purview of the laws we're (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has just clarified it's ruling. Nothing short of full marriage rights for same sex couples is acceptable under the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest constitution in the world. (URL) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I'm thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to conclude (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
