Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:18:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/sa.html
Ahh Canada, where you can walk around topless, if you’re female and you so
choose (k, that’s Ontario only right now, but as yet I have seen no
evidence of women excercising that legal right), where you can have on
your person under 15 grams of wacky tobacky without it being a capital
offence, and where you can get married to someone of the same sex...
Though the last two may not last too long in Martins regime... we shall
see what transpires there...
But overall, those wacky Canadians, with their liberal laws and all!!
God love ‘em!
|
I’m curious. What do you think about the concept of “decency”?
|
Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn’t it be so? Larry?
|
Laws need to be based on something
|
Then why not my morality? What makes yours so much better? That’s my point.
| |
| |
| |
Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless.
|
Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some
sort of “absolute freedom” concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be
failing. It was probably in those never-ending discussions whether your
country was “freer” than others.
|
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.
|
Exactly *which* freedom of yours was abused by Janet Jackson’s bare breast?
| |
| |
| |
| |
As an aside, in Europe you probably couldn’t go a block without seeing
some marquee or billboard without seeing an advert with a topless model
selling something... what is it about North America? It was a breast!
And it, so I’m told, for I didn’t TiVo it and do a frame by frame
peek-see, had a ‘pastie’ over the nipple!!
|
You obviously don’t have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent
people.
|
Subjective. How exactly do you link breasts and decency?
|
In our society, breasts are considered sexual parts (because they are).
|
I find ponytails sexy. Is hair a sexual part? Every body part is as sexual as
your mind wants it to be. Again, subjective.
| |
We
tend to be more modest about displaying our sexual parts.
|
Hey, I’m not saying I go around stark naked, that I’d like to do it, or that I
wouldn’t feel ashamed to do so myself; all I claim is that someone else’s nudity
isn’t directly related to me or my feelings. What *objective* harm does it cause
to onlookers?
| |
| |
We’re mammals after
all, so pretending breasts aren’t there is kind of bliss, isn’t it?
|
Don’t follow you there.
|
Mammal comes from Mamma, which is latin for breast. The fact that in latin
languages the word is synonym of “mother” isn’t a coincidence.
| |
| |
What is it with breasts and children?
Don’t breasts exist *primarily* for them?
|
No. Ask any women who got hers “augmented”.
|
After having met miss Lola Ferrari in Trafalgar Square, my oppinion of implants
was greatly downgraded... But anyway, I stick to my argument. If a woman chooses
to have her breasts augmented for whatever purpose, that doesn’t deny their
fundamental nature. Which is feeding babies their milk.
| |
| |
Why would a child be shocked to watch a breast on tv if he’s probably
already been fed thru one? IMO it’s hypocrytical to ake breasts a “taboo”
for children, and then making those the center of teenager boys’ dreams.
Come on! Do you honestly think a child gets shocked from watching breasts,
or is it from the parents’ overreaction to it?
|
You are denying the innate sexual response men have to viewing women’s
breasts. They aren’t the center of teenager boys’ dreams for nothing.
|
Speak for yourself. I could go on in detail about what makes me turn my head in
the street, but then again that’s not the point; suffice to say breasts do not
top the list. So, yet again, subjective.
| |
| |
My experience from numerous summers tells me kids tend to accept topless
women far easier than their parents... who go on and on about how vile
“those women” are, but keep peeping.
|
Because thankfully they haven’t been sexualized by the society yet, or have
arrived there on their own in puberty.
|
EXACTLY! The key is letting them get there on their own, not force-feed nor hide
stuff. If they have doubts, they ask, we answer. Simple.
| |
| |
I guess I’ll just go back to my public funded tv and watch breasts in every
other commercial. After all, it’s taxpayer-subsidized immorality - I demand
my right to it!
|
Publically funded television-- what a waste of money....
|
What are you complaining about? As far as I know it’s broadcast worldwide, so
you can watch all the breasts you want on me...
:-P
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
