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