| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2008 01:39:18 AM |
| Object: |
Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
Weird happenings in Virginia.
---
Va. considers ban on genitalia displays
By BOB LEWIS, Associated Press WriterTue Jan 15, 5:14 PM ET
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror, but
decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber testicles might
be a bit much in Virginia.
State Del. Lionel Spruill introduced a bill Tuesday to ban displaying
replicas of human genitalia on vehicles, calling it a safety issue
because it could distract other drivers.
Under his measure, displaying the ornamentation on a motor vehicle would
be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $250.
He said the idea came from a constituent whose young daughter spotted an
example of the trail hitch adornment and asked her father to explain it.
"'I didn't know what to tell her,'" Spruill said the constituent told
him before Spruill vowed to stop such displays.
"I said, 'Sir, I'm going to be a laughingstock, but I'm going to do
it,'" he said.
The Virginia General Assembly has some experience with offbeat bills.
Three years ago, it drew widespread attention with an unsuccessful
effort to outlaw baggy pants worn so low they expose underwear.
Spruill, 61, said the indignity of the "droopy drawers" debate wouldn't
deter him. He said he won't hesitate to bring a set of $24.95 trailer
testicles with him for a legislative show-and-tell.
"I'm going to do it," Spruill told a handful of reporters after
Tuesday's House session adjourned. "I'm going to bring them out here and
show them to you till they tell me to stop."
---
http://tinyurl.com/2l9bea
--
John #1782
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
16 Jan 2008 11:02:31 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 01:35:48 AM |
|
|
In article
<ff38e780-2796-429f-8463-b13306f59228@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 01:57:13 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
Simple fact: If it's inappropriate to say it -- or show it
-- to your five y.o. daughter then it doesn't belong on
the back of a car.
And, yeah, there are people at the extremes -- those
who'd find just about anything offensive, or even nothing
at all offensive -- but there's plenty of room towards the
center for a consensus.
You know, that "silent" majority that thinks it's inapprorpriate
to say things like... like... "Hey, little girl, get your ***** over
here and look at my balls." THAT group shouldn't have a
problem with banning the display of reproductive organs &
swear words from the back of cars. Because, yeah,
everybody's five y.o. daughter on that street is going to be
seeing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 07:32:59 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c90dee37-d32a-4528-931a-5f8c9ba1cb55@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
Simple fact: If it's inappropriate to say it -- or show it
-- to your five y.o. daughter then it doesn't belong on
the back of a car.
In that case, every instance of visible male genitalia is inappropriate.
Do you want all male animals to be covered?
Dogs, horses and zoo animals, just in case a five y.o. girl catches sight of
them and asks "What's that, Daddy?"
My answer to a five year old girl would be "It's what boys have that makes
them different to girls."
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 11:33:20 PM |
|
|
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
In that case, every instance of visible male genitalia is
inappropriate.
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 05:30:54 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20f406a0-3e86-432a-8068-ff6ed85e1609@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
In that case, every instance of visible male genitalia is
inappropriate.
No.
Why are fake balls different from genuine doggy balls?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 08:23:54 PM |
|
|
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:OEakj.88$L73.46@newsfe1-
win.ntli.net:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20f406a0-3e86-432a-8068-ff6ed85e1609
@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
In that case, every instance of visible male genitalia is
inappropriate.
No.
Why are fake balls different from genuine doggy balls?
Doggy balls don't hang from trucks? =-]
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
"Whenever preachers appeal to hellfire as a way
of reinforcing injunctions, you can bet they have
failed to make a persuasive moral argument."
- James Carroll (Boston Globe)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 08:09:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:30:54 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20f406a0-3e86-432a-8068-ff6ed85e1609@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
In that case, every instance of visible male genitalia is
inappropriate.
No.
Why are fake balls different from genuine doggy balls?
People are hanging genuine doggy balls from their trailer hitches? Gross! (and
the thought of the dogs singing soprano is hard to take).
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 12:38:43 AM |
|
|
In article
<c90dee37-d32a-4528-931a-5f8c9ba1cb55@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
Simple fact: If it's inappropriate to say it -- or show it
-- to your five y.o. daughter then it doesn't belong on
the back of a car.
And, yeah, there are people at the extremes -- those
who'd find just about anything offensive, or even nothing
at all offensive -- but there's plenty of room towards the
center for a consensus.
You know, that "silent" majority that thinks it's inapprorpriate
to say things like... like... "Hey, little girl, get your ***** over
here and look at my balls." THAT group shouldn't have a
problem with banning the display of reproductive organs &
swear words from the back of cars. Because, yeah,
everybody's five y.o. daughter on that street is going to be
seeing it.
I would never have something like that on my car myself. I grew up in a
generation when certain words or things weren't supposed be said or
shown in public or in 'polite company'. I know it's a bit hypocritical
and a bit of a double standard, but that's the way I am. Having said
that, I'm not in favor of limiting anybody's speech or expression, but I
still believe that some things are in good taste and some in bad taste.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 12:57:02 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Having said that, I'm not in favor of limiting anybody's
speech or expression,
I'd say that there's a huge difference between limiting
someone's speech and telling them they don't have
an unlimited right to offend.
Like I said, everything on the back of your car is being
shown to -- or said to -- every five y.o. girl on that
street. And if it would take nothing short of a law to keep
you from displaying genitals & swear words back there,
It's long been established that "The constitution is not
a suicide pack." To this I will add that neither is it a
license to be an *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
19 Jan 2008 02:50:47 AM |
|
|
In article
<4d7cfb71-1340-4a6b-b944-b6122fd52dad@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Having said that, I'm not in favor of limiting anybody's
speech or expression,
I'd say that there's a huge difference between limiting
someone's speech and telling them they don't have
an unlimited right to offend.
Like I said, everything on the back of your car is being
shown to -- or said to -- every five y.o. girl on that
street. And if it would take nothing short of a law to keep
you from displaying genitals & swear words back there,
It's long been established that "The constitution is not
a suicide pack." To this I will add that neither is it a
license to be an *****.
I see the problem as once you begin limiting one form of expression,
where do you stop? If I knew someone who had such a display, I would
tell him that I thought it was tasteless and that it reflected poorly on
him. If enough people cared to do so, if the person in question had a
brain or aa bit of feeling he/she would maybe stop.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
19 Jan 2008 06:29:21 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I see the problem as once you begin limiting one form
of expression,
If you'v got small children, please give me some warning
before going near any restaurant I'm in. Because I am
DEFINITELY in favor of limiting MANY forms of expression.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 01:14:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:57:02 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Having said that, I'm not in favor of limiting anybody's
speech or expression,
I'd say that there's a huge difference between limiting
someone's speech and telling them they don't have
an unlimited right to offend.
Like I said, everything on the back of your car is being
shown to -- or said to -- every five y.o. girl on that
street. And if it would take nothing short of a law to keep
you from displaying genitals & swear words back there,
It's long been established that "The constitution is not
a suicide pack." To this I will add that neither is it a
license to be an *****.
But clearly, it IS a license to be an *****, else the whole business environment, the media's
conduct, etc., etc. ad nauseam would be unlawful violations of the "no assholes" provisions.
It's hard to see how the one area of life that should be strictly caged is 'things we don't
want kids to know until they're married', esPECially in a culture where it's all but hangable
to want to remove gun-worship and imported ways of beating people up from prime time tv.
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 01:23:53 PM |
|
|
Apostate <godless.bast...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
But clearly, it IS a license to be an *****, else the
whole business environment, the media's conduct, etc.,
etc. ad nauseam would be unlawful violations of the
"no assholes" provisions.
....every night I turn on my TV, and watch as the constitutional
rights of citizens are raped...
Seriously, there is no constitutional issue here. There is no
"constitutional right" so say "*****" or "*****" or even to show
a guy's hairy ball bag.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 08:44:05 AM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 2:57=A0am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
=A0johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
Simple fact: =A0If it's inappropriate to say it -- or show it
-- =A0to your five y.o. daughter then it doesn't belong on
the back of a car.
And, yeah, there are people at the extremes -- those
who'd find just about anything offensive, or even nothing
at all offensive -- but there's plenty of room towards the
center for a consensus.
You know, that "silent" majority that thinks it's inapprorpriate
to say things like... like... "Hey, little girl, get your ***** over
here and look at my balls." THAT group shouldn't have a
problem with banning the display of reproductive organs &
swear words from the back of cars. Because, yeah,
everybody's five y.o. daughter on that street is going to be
seeing it.
So?, If you are old enough to understand the words, then you are old
enough not to suddenly "corrupted" by them. Just because something is
rude, does not mean it should be a point of law.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 03:53:00 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E07A2C.23354816012008@news.giganews.com...
In article
<ff38e780-2796-429f-8463-b13306f59228@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
How 'bout fuzzy ones?
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
That reminds me. I saw a license plate today that
had a number ending in 666. Obviously, it didn't
bother the car's owner.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
<Snicker.>
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 12:32:49 AM |
|
|
In article <3sadnYbYUOntuBLanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-E07A2C.23354816012008@news.giganews.com...
In article
<ff38e780-2796-429f-8463-b13306f59228@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
How 'bout fuzzy ones?
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
That reminds me. I saw a license plate today that
had a number ending in 666. Obviously, it didn't
bother the car's owner.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I agree. The rubber 'balls' would be distracting.
<Snicker.>
Heh!
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 10:26:58 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake testicles. You
have no right not to be offended.
I think people are far too uptight about sex and anatomy. It will not harm
children to see nudity (real or fake), it really won't. I would say the
world would be much better off in dropping that taboo. What *will* harm
children is continually implanting the idea that parts of their bodies
are "dirty" and shouldn't been seen at all costs. That's where we get the
idea that nudity is bad in the first place. Uptight children become
uptight adults.
Visit a nudist colony sometime... with your kids. It'll do you (and them)
good.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 02:21:22 PM |
|
|
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake
testicles.
*Yawn*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 03:43:14 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake
testicles.
*Yawn*
You are the one who brought in that analogy. Saying "yawn" doesn't support
its usage. I honestly do not see how it applies. What right of yours is
being violated if you or your children see a pair of fake testicles, or
real breasts for that matter (making an assumption here)?
I think you have the right to be offended, of course, but that's where it
ends, unless you can come up with a good reason to limit my freedoms.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 03:48:32 PM |
|
|
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
You are the one who brought in that analogy.
And you're the one who either didn't understand it, or
intentionally launched into obfuscation.
Either way, I'm not biting...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 04:30:43 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
You are the one who brought in that analogy.
And you're the one who either didn't understand it, or
intentionally launched into obfuscation.
I understand the classic usage of the sentence. However, in the context you
used it I do not see how it applies, because I cannot see anything
corresponds to your "chin".
Either way, I'm not biting...
I'm not trying to get you to "bite" anything. If you don't want to defend
your statement, that's OK. As I said, you should have valid reasons before
you try to limit my freedoms (I see none).
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 11:34:51 PM |
|
|
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
And you're the one who either didn't understand it, or
intentionally launched into obfuscation.
I understand the classic usage of the sentence.
So it was intentional. Well, glad I didn't waste my time...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 06:38:29 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
And you're the one who either didn't understand it, or
intentionally launched into obfuscation.
I understand the classic usage of the sentence.
So it was intentional.
Ok, my turn: *Yawn*. I see you snipped everything where I explained why my
questions were valid and not "obfuscation".
Well, glad I didn't waste my time...
No, you did. Why bother posting an opinion to a discussion forum if you do
not intend to defend or discuss it?
One last time: what right of yours is violated if you or your daughter sees
a pair of fake testicles or profanity? If you cannot answer that simple
question, I must conclude that your analogy does not, in fact, apply, and
you have no real reason to limit freedoms.
I'm not holding my breath, but if you do decide to answer me in a real way,
I will post my followup questions as well:
What about showing breasts?
What about profanity with a political message?
What about nudity with a political message?
How does seeing a pair of animal testicles differ from seeing human
testicles?
If the fake testicles were modeled on a dog's, would that be banned as well?
I'm trying to determine your reasoning, not trying to make you "bite", or
other nefarious purpose.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 12:19:47 PM |
|
|
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
=A0I see you snipped everything
Yeah, and your totally freudian response is precious.
You already admitted that you were obfiscating, and
I told you that I'm not biting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 05:58:43 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
I see you snipped everything
Yeah, and your totally freudian response is precious.
How... lame.
You already admitted that you were obfiscating,
I did no such thing. You'd rather lie than simply discuss this?
and
I told you that I'm not biting.
Meaning: you cannot support in any way your opinion that "certain things"
should be banned.
Good bye.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 03:57:07 PM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 4:43=A0pm, Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
=A0Perfect Islam <perfectIs...@notreal.org> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake
testicles.
*Yawn*
You are the one who brought in that analogy. =A0Saying "yawn" doesn't supp=
ort
its usage. =A0I honestly do not see how it applies. =A0What right of yours=
is
being violated if you or your children see a pair of fake testicles, or
real breasts for that matter (making an assumption here)?
I think you have the right to be offended, of course, but that's where it
ends, unless you can come up with a good reason to limit my freedoms.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 11:18:55 AM |
|
|
"Perfect Islam" <perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote in message
news:478f824b$0$4936$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
JTEM wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake testicles.
You
have no right not to be offended.
I think people are far too uptight about sex and anatomy. It will not
harm
children to see nudity (real or fake), it really won't. I would say the
world would be much better off in dropping that taboo. What *will* harm
children is continually implanting the idea that parts of their bodies
are "dirty" and shouldn't been seen at all costs. That's where we get the
idea that nudity is bad in the first place. Uptight children become
uptight adults.
Visit a nudist colony sometime... with your kids. It'll do you (and them)
good.
Not necessarily. My parents took my brother and I to a nude beach when we
were in Greece and I can honestly say that it didn't do me any good. I'm
not uptight about nudity, but I saw an awful lot that I did NOT need to see
;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfect Islam" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
17 Jan 2008 01:02:33 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Perfect Islam" <perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote in message
news:478f824b$0$4936$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
JTEM wrote:
johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Weird happenings in Virginia.
Really?
It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror,
but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber
testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
Um.... errrrr.... I agree with them.
Heck, I'd also ban profanity on bumper stickers.
You know what they say; "The rights of your fist end where
the rights of my chin begin."
I don't see how a punch in the face can be compared to fake testicles.
You have no right not to be offended.
I think people are far too uptight about sex and anatomy. It will not
harm
children to see nudity (real or fake), it really won't. I would say the
world would be much better off in dropping that taboo. What *will* harm
children is continually implanting the idea that parts of their bodies
are "dirty" and shouldn't been seen at all costs. That's where we get the
idea that nudity is bad in the first place. Uptight children become
uptight adults.
Visit a nudist colony sometime... with your kids. It'll do you (and
them) good.
Not necessarily. My parents took my brother and I to a nude beach when we
were in Greece and I can honestly say that it didn't do me any good. I'm
not uptight about nudity, but I saw an awful lot that I did NOT need to
see ;)
I don't know, sounds like it prepared you for the real world (and real
people)! :)
Is Tony Lawrence still around these parts? I think he and his family were
nudists.
--
Perfect Islam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Va. considers ban on genitalia displays |
18 Jan 2008 08:15:41 AM |
|
|
"Perfect Islam" <perfectIslam@notreal.org> wrote in message
news:478fa6c5$0$4968$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
snip
Not necessarily. My parents took my brother and I to a nude beach when
we
were in Greece and I can honestly say that it didn't do me any good. I'm
not uptight about nudity, but I saw an awful lot that I did NOT need to
see ;)
I don't know, sounds like it prepared you for the real world (and real
people)! :)
Um, I'm not sure how seeing my parents (and a whole lot of other people)
naked prepared me for "the real world", but whatevah ;)
Is Tony Lawrence still around these parts? I think he and his family were
nudists.
Sorry, don't know who that is.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
