Also, I personally don't want to see female breasts and male/female
genitals in public, especially since a child might see them.

By the way, speaking of children, there are some pro-pedophile movies
that are being shown in theaters now, such as MYSTERIOUS SKIN, KINSEY
and ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW. All three of these movies have
received critical raves from liberal critics who hate the religious
right's admonitions against pornography, homosexuality and same-sex
marriage. The move from acceptance of homosexuality to acceptance of
pedophilia, incest and bestiality is well under way from the religious
left and their cohorts, the Christophobic atheists and Communists.

Also, I personally don't want to see female breasts and male/female
genitals
in public, especially since a child might see them.

By the way, speaking of children, there are some pro-pedophile movies that
are being shown in theaters now, such as MYSTERIOUS SKIN, KINSEY and ME
AND
YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW. All three of these movies have received critical
raves from liberal critics who hate the religious right's admonitions
against pornography, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The move from
acceptance of homosexuality to acceptance of pedophilia, incest and
bestiality is well under way from the religious left and their cohorts,
the
Christophobic atheists and Communists.

"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:42C493B9.1F21F853@att.net...

Jenny6833A wrote:

John Baker wrote:

Actually, I think that taking "sexually explicit" photographs ...

I fail to understand what's "sexually explicit" about a photo of a body
part not engaged in sexual activity.

... without the
subject's knowledge or consent would fall under invasion of privacy.

In that

case, it's always been illegal.

No, only if there's a reasonable presumption of privacy. That
presumption does not apply in a public place.

There's a presumption that people wear clothes for a reason. Beneath your

clothes

is not a public place. If the picture taken would get someone arrested
for
indecent exposure, but the subject of the picture didn't expose
themselves
purposely, then I'd have to say that privacy was violated.

Of course, there are people who wear clothes that don't make any pretense

of

privacy. Or decency.


Glenn Arnold

Also, I personally don't want to see female breasts and male/female genitals
in public, especially since a child might see them.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:52:09 -0400, Glenn Arnold <oldnoah@att.net> wrote:

Jenny6833A wrote:

John Baker wrote:

Actually, I think that taking "sexually explicit" photographs ...

I fail to understand what's "sexually explicit" about a photo of a body
part not engaged in sexual activity.

... without the
subject's knowledge or consent would fall under invasion of privacy.
In that
case, it's always been illegal.

No, only if there's a reasonable presumption of privacy. That
presumption does not apply in a public place.

There's a presumption that people wear clothes for a reason. Beneath your
clothes
is not a public place. If the picture taken would get someone arrested for
indecent exposure, but the subject of the picture didn't expose themselves
purposely, then I'd have to say that privacy was violated.

Jenny's a fanatical nudist. In fact, I don't think I've ever read a post
by her
that doesn't at some point refer to nudity and/or the "evils" of wearing
clothes, whether it actually pertains to the topic of the thread or not.