 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —David Koudys
| | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) Why Dave? Didn't you agree before that if no one was being harmed, the laws should not interfere? How would it harm you to happen upon a couple (or more, gasp!) having leisure sex in a park near your house? Chris (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) I'll go with RAH's answer "because it scares the horses"... Other than that, no problem. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
