Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:46:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
<snip>
>
> Even if I concede that breast preoccupation is a result of cultural
> fetishism, it is the decision of the culture to consider them that way and
> therefore they {are} that way. Any behavior to the contrary is not normative
> for that culture. Perhaps it is different in other cultures, but how is that
> relevant?
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 much inappropriate. You have women exposing
their breasts in public places for one generation, and they will not have the
same sexual impact that they have in this age, just like ankles.
<snip>
> [JOHN]
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
