Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In our society, breasts are considered sexual parts (because they are). We
tend to be more modest about displaying our sexual parts.
|
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 quoting
a religious text or bringing up a nebulous concept such as “decency” or
“morality”, I assert that the public display of one’s body is well within one’s
rights to do so.
-Orion
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Laws need to be based on something (...) 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. (...) In (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
