Ever been to Europe? San Francisco? Oregon? Amsterdam? Cape D'Agde?
California?
Public ****ity is tolerated over in those places. Maybe not in your niche
of
the woods.
Though I definitely think Good Dad really needs to take a reality check
about what he thinks about public ***.
--
Regards,
Dario Western
(61) 0437-428-859
Come and visit my sites at:
http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
http://theglamgod.spaces.live.com
"Zee" <jonZeee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1177841253.887776.179750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 29, 4:32 am, "centau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <centau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 7:10 pm, good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> > > freedom, whilst perhaps, no one owes you this right, all rights come
> > > from this basic right to freedom. Wearing no clothing is freedom of
> > > speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. It is just
> > > like wearing a Christian Cross, or a Jewish Star, a Nazi sign, or an
> > > Indian headdress. It is just like dressing like a Hari Krishna, or
> > > wearing the attire of the Ku Klux Klan.
> >
> > I agree people should be allowed to wear what they want when they
> > want. In this regards you can construct many simple examples without
> > even getting into the realm of ****ism. What if an employee wants to
> > wear a kilt to work? Or more specific than that, what if someone must
> > wear a particular article of clothing to comply with the guidelines of
> > their religion?
> >
> > I think the main "rule of law" restricting this now is the private
> > property mentioned below. Once an employer "owns" a building they can
> > set the rules for what both employees and visitors may wear. I doubt
> > any employer trains their employees on how to tactfully ask someone to
> > leave the premises and not return until they have dressed in a more
> > appropriate manner, and this is possibly because people are so
> > compliant. Generally if a person knows they are going to an office
> > they dress in "office casual", or if a person is going to court, they
> > dress in a manner that will be deemed as "respectful" and/or
> > appropriate for the setting.
> >
> > The only recent examples of non-conformance we have to appreciate are
> > the topfreedom demonstrations in public places such as those that
> > eventually led to the laws being revised in New York state.
> >
> > > We are more than ****ists, we are ***ualists.
> >
> > > ***ualists are like ****ists, except while they believe in the
freedom
> > > to go ****, they also believe in the freedom to have *** in public.
> > > People who condemn ***uality are bigots, intolerant of others
> > > lifestyles, religions, or methods of expression. Telling intolerant
> > > people to be tolerant is not the same as being intolerant. Freedom
> > > should prevail, and the law should follow freedom. i.e. it is not
the
> > > break any laws. The currently immoral statutory laws say ***ual
> > > activities are illegal everywhere I know of in public.
> >
> > Is the point of this to suggest if current laws regarding public
> > ****ity were revised then we would be on a "slippery slope" of sorts?
> >
> > I am guessing you might mean a scenario like this but, if I am wrong
> > then perhaps it should be interpreted as only my scenario:
> >
> > 1. Laws are revised to permit casual ****ity in public spaces.
> >
> > 2. Laws are revised to permit males to exhibit erections as long as
> > the associated behaviour is non-***ual, not aggressive towards
> > any, or not otherwise deemed as "lewd" conduct. (at some point a
> > tolerance of erections would have to be included in the law because
> > people complained about the first 10, 100, or 1,000 that were noticed)
> > -- the law is eventually amended to permit exhibitions of non-lewd
> > male arousal as natural.
> >
> > Amending of the law could and likely would stop at this level of
> > tolerance.
> >
> > Is tolerance something that can be legislated into practice? No, it
> > can be required by law or mandated, but only people will determine
> > when it truly becomes the standard. Just like "fair treatment"
> > regardless of race, religion or ***ual orientation; as we well know
> > there are places were homo***uality is not tolerated and can result in
> > a person being tormented or worse.
> >
> > Look what year of "hidden" (unobserved / unproclaimed) torment
> > allegedly caused the Virginia Tech shooter to do? Did he "snap" or
> > was he broken from the very start? (e.g. even before the first
> > occasion of torment)
> >
> > I could imagine someone eventually claiming the "right" to have *** in
> > public as a religious freedom, established under the provisions of
> > some NEW religion. At which time prohibiting *** in public would
> > become an infringement on a religious freedom, and the same (or a
> > similar) argument could be made by ****ists with regards to the
> > practice of ****ism. If the benefits of ****ism and body acceptance
> > rise to the level of "must be practiced daily" (observed as a ritual
> > to demonstrate dedication to the philosophy) then the practices of
> > ****ism COULD become a religion (similar to the practices of Judaism
for
> > Jewish people).
> >
> > Personally, I would not find two people having *** in public any more
> > disturbing than two dogs or horses "doing it". We know people do it.
> > As with the widespread practice of public ****ism, at some point the
> > sight of such behaviour would become unremarkable and people would
just
> > carry on about their business,
> >
> > What is more im****tant, making it to the bank before it closes or
> > stopping to watch two people engage in lovemaking in a city park? We
> > (someone) has to illustrate hypothetical scenarios before people can
> > judge for themselves which thing would take priority.
> >
> > At the mall:
> > "Gee honey, there's a ****d couple coming out of the mall."
> > "Yeah, so?"
> >
> > On the way to traffic court:
> > "I'm sorry Sir, you will at least have to put on this robe before
> > entering the courthouse."
> >
> > > While you have an unalienable right to wear what you want and do
what
> > > you want in public, on private property there can be dress codes,
and
> > > codes of conduct. What private property owners should not
> > > discriminate against are things a person can not change such as
race,
> > > handicap, or in some cases, political and religious ideologies. The
> >
> > The difficulty in this is people go from public property to private
> > property and back and forth daily, so changing clothes or removing
> > them becomes a logistical nightmare. Dressing before you walk into an
> > office and undressing when you walk out onto the street could get a
> > little "old" real quick.
> >
> > Stopping on the sidewalk to undress after walking out of Wal*_art
> > could cause a backup at the exit door.
> >
> > > We are pro-gawkers. We know there is nothing to see, and believe
> > > everyone should gawk away. If someone is beautiful, how is it wrong
to
> > > be staring at them? Gawkers should join the ****d party. We are
> > > exhibitionists and voyeurs. But really, it's no big deal. For after
> > > the initial novelty wears off there's nothing to stare at (or
exhibit)
> > > but beauty. You might stare at a beautiful sunset or a beautiful
woman
> > > - it isn't wrong. Staring at someone because they're **** is just
> >
> > I think this is somewhat true. The writer is, in my opinion, trying
> > to illustrate the fact that a persons (true) motivations for wanting
> > to see or be seen can never be EXACTLY known. Someone could easily be
> > a voyeur without letting on to anyone they enjoy watching **** people,
> > unless their thinking is combined with a lewd act in public. If
> > someone simply looks and remembers a scene and then engages in the
> > lewd behaviour at some later time, who will ever know? Can you
"blame"
> > someone for that? If so I imagine there are millions of men
> > committing offences using the memories of pretty women in bikinis they
> > saw in the past.
> >
> > Likewise, the "practice"of exhibitionism could be a partial reason why
> > someone might choose to go ****. They could be 80% committed to the
> > ideology of ****ism as established by majority opinion and 20%
> > exhibitionist. Again, in this case only their overall conduct will
> > reveal their true motivation and allow others to form opinions of them
> > as participants in the lifestyle.
> >
> > They could still be cited for lewd behaviour if conduct unbecoming of
a
> > ****ist is exhibited.
> >
> > Acceptance of anything only evolves in phases over time, but
> > eventually we are accepting of more then the previous generation.
> > Religious rights. Women's rights. Minority rights. Homo***ual
> > lifestyle conduct (not yet a right). Women's rights again
> > (topfreedom). And what else can we add?
>
> the present generation does appear to be less acceptable of being ****
> than the last ones.......I call it the swinging of the pendulum that
> started going the opposite direction after the *** revolution ended in
> the eighties and stds and aids became a factor in illicit ...out side
> of marriage...***....total ****ity and open *** in public is not even
> on the horizon of things that will be acceptable by law in the next
> 100 years....jz
>
|
