From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,sci.med,talk.atheism,talk.abortion, alt.society.anarchy Subject: Re: going without clothing is normal natural, positive and healthy!!! (The Horrid UNDERSIDE) Date: 8 Jul 2004 20:12:40 -0700 Message-ID: <79cf0a8.0407081912.6e277a0a@posting.google.com> "descartes58" <descartes58@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Tz7Hc.7847$fg1.2833@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... > WOW!!! > you covered one hell'uve a lot of ground!! when it comes to sex and nudity > this nation is highly divided over the subject along primarily religious > lines.. different denominations think differently about the subject ok?? and > that's not bad its GOOD! > I don't think any of us want a national standard for sex and nudity. In fact > most of us want the government out of the subject of sex and nudity all > together COMMENT: But in fact we in the USA, we sort of DO have national standards for nudity. Some are set by the FCC. For example, the Feds want to fine CBS much money, because LaToya Jackson showed one full breast, with the nipple covered by a pastie. Let us get down to what that means. We know TV has shown to upper side of breasts forever. And the outer sides. And the cleavage/decolatage. We covered the nipple. What's left? Answer: only the *underside* of the breast. That's LaToya's specific sin and criminal act. Besides the nipple, one cannot by law show the underside of the female breast on American TV. As David Gerrold has commented, perhaps the FCC officially believes that moss grows there. Who knows? In any event, it is to be presumed that if the eyes of any adolescents are exposed to the mind-melting site of the underside of the female breast, their brains will be permanently damaged, and they will begin to want to take drugs and have sex and do really BAD things. The entire moral fabric of society will begin to decay. Medusa could be no worse. But, the sight of the topside of the breast does not have this effect. Now, all rational people really must get the fundie Christians and the FCC and the Bushies and all the rest of the people who were outraged by the underside of one of LaToya's breasts, to explain to the rest of us, exactly HOW this "underside effect" operates to undermine all human ethical sensibilities. I mean, scientifically. Presumably, the effect of the sight of the inferior aspect of a human mammary, on the psychology of young and susceptable persons is bad enough to fine giant corporations lots of money, and even send people to jail if they persist in exposing the public's eyes to this forbidden area of skin. So, inquiring minds want to know about this strange interaction. The alternative is that the FCC and many other Americans, are simply nuts. Like, insane. Gee, I hope that's not it. No, you say? They and we're are not nuts? So, okay: you people who support the status quo: please explain it for us. Ready, set, go. SBH From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) Newsgroups: soc.rights.human,sci.med,talk.atheism,talk.abortion, alt.society.anarchy Subject: Re: going without clothing is normal natural, positive and healthy!!! (The Horrid UNDERSIDE) Date: 10 Jul 2004 13:29:56 -0700 Message-ID: <79cf0a8.0407101229.1cd6314d@posting.google.com> wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message news:<_boHc.559$sM1.0@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>... > Um, Steve, that was *Janet* Jackson, and she was wearing a metallic > nipple shield that covered some of the areola but the nipple itself > showed through. Yep, Janet it was. I guess my fingers just automatically type LaToya when it comes to Jackson clan breasts. There's a sunburst or flameburst metallic thingy over the areola and nipple area, and if you can see the actual nipple under there, then you have a way better HDTV and TIVO system than I do. And if you got the closeup of this pic off the internet, does that really count? That's the internet, not national TV. You'll note the difference. Believe it or not, it's possible to see even more of a women's anatomy using the internet, than this. I'd like to use this space to answer the person who said the breast picture as erotic because it was meant to be-- i.e. shown in an erotic context. That's not an answer and you all know it. "In olden times a glimpse of stocking Was looked on as something shocking But now god knows, Anything goes." The answer to how to keep young men from having spontaneous orgasms as the sight of a woman's naked ankles or calves, is to make them such a common sight that nobody cares anymore. Otherwise, you get Burkas and Sharia and the kinds of craziness you see in Islam. This is not good. When every night the group that's smart is in- truding in nudist parties in Studios Anything goes. SBH |