Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:03:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
327 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/sa.html
Ahh Canada, where you can walk around topless, if you’re female and you so
choose (k, that’s Ontario only right now, but as yet I have seen no evidence
of women excercising that legal right), where you can have on your person
under 15 grams of wacky tobacky without it being a capital offence, and
where you can get married to someone of the same sex...
Though the last two may not last too long in Martins regime... we shall see
what transpires there...
But overall, those wacky Canadians, with their liberal laws and all!!
God love ‘em!
|
I’m curious. What do you think about the concept of “decency”?
|
Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn’t it be so? Larry?
|
Laws need to be based on something
| |
| |
Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless.
|
Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some
sort of “absolute freedom” concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be
failing. It was probably in those never-ending discussions whether your
country was “freer” than others.
|
Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don’t have “absolute
freedom” in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren’t willing to
respect others freedoms, the concept is moot.
| |
| |
| |
As an aside, in Europe you probably couldn’t go a block without seeing some
marquee or billboard without seeing an advert with a topless model selling
something... what is it about North America? It was a breast! And it, so
I’m told, for I didn’t TiVo it and do a frame by frame peek-see, had a
‘pastie’ over the nipple!!
|
You obviously don’t have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent
people.
|
Subjective. How exactly do you link breasts and decency?
|
In our society, breasts are considered sexual parts (because they are). We tend
to be more modest about displaying our sexual parts.
| |
We’re mammals after
all, so pretending breasts aren’t there is kind of bliss, isn’t it?
|
Don’t follow you there.
| |
What is it with breasts and children?
Don’t breasts exist *primarily* for them?
|
No. Ask any women who got hers “augmented”.
| |
Why would a child be shocked to watch a breast on tv if he’s probably already
been fed thru one? IMO it’s hypocrytical to ake breasts a “taboo” for
children, and then making those the center of teenager boys’ dreams. Come on!
Do you honestly think a child gets shocked from watching breasts, or is it
from the parents’ overreaction to it?
|
You are denying the innate sexual response men have to viewing women’s
breasts. They aren’t the center of teenager boys’ dreams for nothing.
| |
My experience from numerous summers tells me kids tend to accept topless women
far easier than their parents... who go on and on about how vile “those women”
are, but keep peeping.
|
Because thankfully they haven’t been sexualized by the society yet, or have
arrived there on their own in puberty.
| |
I guess I’ll just go back to my public funded tv and watch breasts in every
other commercial. After all, it’s taxpayer-subsidized immorality - I demand my
right to it!
|
Publically funded television-- what a waste of money....
JOHN
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Yes. When they are necessary. You haven't proven the case that this particular law (banning public nudity) is *necessary* yet, though. If a law isn't protecting the rights of citizens from being infringed, it is not necessary. (not every law (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Well, they're sexual parts because we've fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more "sexual parts" than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) We tend (...) Hmm, always? Does that mean that breastfeeding is sex? Hmm, I guess there are some prudes in the world that would like to prevent kids from breastfeeding. Certainly there are those who think it's wrong to do so in public. Of (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn't it be so? Larry? (...) Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some sort of "absolute freedom" concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be failing. It (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
