 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) 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.) —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) 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.) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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.) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm... Well, even if they were just motherhood totems, (URL) this> piece of sculpture apparently had other connotations. Those naughty, naughty prehistoric Germans! Dave! (20 years ago, 6-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | 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.) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) 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.) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Why Dave? Didn't you agree before that if no one was being harmed, the laws should not interfere? How would it harm you to happen upon a couple (or more, gasp!) having leisure sex in a park near your house? Chris (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll go with RAH's answer "because it scares the horses"... Other than that, no problem. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
