Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:21:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
467 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
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.
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
