Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:18:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> 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
You may enjoy this:
Naked rambler completes his trek
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3420685.stm
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
