Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to NUDITY AND SEX , NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER ONE
nudity
it has been natural in the past to all societies.
there are still hunter-gatherer (compare to Genesis 2) societies that go around naked.
many more cultures have accepted nakedness until they were colonized by prudish Europeans, who had a phobia toward nakedness and sex anyway.
I believe that a lot of sexual deviancy results from the restrictive mores of prudish and phobic "Christian" and other types.
It's like the one time our senior English class had this man from the WCTU (teetotalers) speak to us. He defined a potential alcoholic as someone who has at least one drink (12 oz beer, 1 oz whisky) a day. He (remember he was against drinking) that Italians and Jews have the greatest incidence of potential alcoholics, but the least of actual alcoholics.
This shows that cultures that accept alcohol consumption are less likely to have alcoholics and drunks than those that look upon it as an evil, as does much of American Society.
I compare this to sexual mores -- the more restrictive, the more deviants we are likely to have.
But there is decorum -- discretion. There are times when nudity is inappropriate -- when it breaks the law, of course -- but at other public times -- even a man going bare chested -- there is such a thing as respecting others.
Many moderns would like to think that people in the past thought just like they do, even when the facts contradict them. We can take any period in history and discover that sexual mores were not as strict as many would have liked them to be.
I mentioned the poem TO HIS COY MISTRESS, by Andrew Marvell, a Puritan. This poem does not at appear to reflect our common impression of the Puritans. So what do we make of it? Do we try to wrestle with the item in order to make it fit what some of us thought the Puritans might have been, or do we accept that their views were not what the views of some us are?
Nothing in the Bible condemns nakedness. Adam and Eve thought nakedness was inappropriate, not YHVH.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 3, 2004 at 2:22 PM
| link to this | reply
jackie
Yeah, but I do not think I would be able to get my wife to go to one. She is very insecure about her body.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 2, 2004 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Ive always wanted to go to a nude beach
would you go to one?
posted by
calmcantey75
on November 2, 2004 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
LOL! Scriber...
I can go along with that. I wouldn't want to be topless without a good foundation, that's for sure!!
ltlmac70
posted by
superflymom119
on November 2, 2004 at 1:02 PM
| link to this | reply
ltlmac70--i'm with you, good foundation is important when going topless, or
whatever. Actually, I prefer women to be half-assed dressed, at least, less distracting.
posted by
scriber
on November 2, 2004 at 12:59 PM
| link to this | reply
ltlmac70
Thank You very much
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 2, 2004 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
See Kooka that's what I meant...
I agreed with you up to the point about women walking around topless if they wanted. That, to me, would be too much desensitization. But, as I said before, you're well spoken on your opinions and I can see your point of view has a logical foundation. Our foundations come from different perspectives...I guess.
ltlmac70
posted by
superflymom119
on November 2, 2004 at 12:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Itlmac70
I was not saying that sex and nudity should be part of the normal public life. There are times and places where it is just not appreciate, obviously sex more so than nudity. I am not very concerned with my sons seeing naked people. The whole Janet Jackson thing was a joke to me. It was one little breast that really did not look very impressive to me. Most people I know have seen a naked breast, so one shown in the rather unflattering way Janet's was really seemed like nothing. I would support the idea that women could walk around topless if they so desired. My main point was that the taboos cause more harm than good and we need to loosen up on it all.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 2, 2004 at 12:05 PM
| link to this | reply
scriber, ltlmac70
For some really strange reason Reaganesque makes her replies to me here. it makes it a little hard to follow what her replies are to and it is obviously confusing to others.
So Reaganesque, I have to ask you to not make comments that do not concern the post. I am very good about going to other's blogs and checking to see if any reply had been made to my comments there. It makes it hard for me to be able to follow up on the debate when I can not see what you are replying to. So please make sure any comments tits with the subject of the post they are put in. That is just common courtesy.
I am going to go ahead and try to reply to you in the correct posts that they belong in, and I guess I'll have to cut and paste your replies so I do not confuse others.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 2, 2004 at 11:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Can I just say this...
WHAT THE...?!? I'm totally confused!! What'd I miss?!?
BTW...I don't necessarily agree with all you've said here, but I can respect the logic behind your opinions. I think being desensitized to public displays of sex and nudity isn't necessarily a good thing...especially relative to intimacy and relationships...good post anyway.
ltlmac70
posted by
superflymom119
on November 2, 2004 at 11:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Hey, is this post about nudity and sex or not; get the fuck out of politics
posted by
scriber
on November 2, 2004 at 11:16 AM
| link to this | reply
It also could have been a joke
haha, wait a minute... Kerry knows how to make a joke???
posted by
Reaganesque
on November 2, 2004 at 11:09 AM
| link to this | reply
...
Firstly, there is no evidence to support the claim that Bush was a “coke head", and you know it. However, even if it were a fact you could support, it was still an inappropriate comment to make about the president.
Secondly, the Bush girls have gotten in trouble for underage drinking once, from what I remember. I fail to see how the fact that Jenna Bush tried to order a beer before she was 21 means she has bad morals. But that’s just a matter of opinion. Aside from that, once again, even if the Bush twins did have bad morals (which I think is ridiculous) it was a tacky comment to make-- and you know that, had it been said about Kerry's daughters, you would think othsay the same.
Your argument regarding Alexandra Kerry is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Drinking before you’re 21 is immoral, but wearing a see-through dress is A-OK because, after all, it’s common in Cannes! Think about the absurdity of that statement. Using your logic, I could easily argue that drinking beer in Texas, when you're underage, is pretty common too.
You obviously believe in moral relativism. Dressing like a slut is ok, as long as it's accepted by those around you. Sorry, but I don't base moral values on what's ok and not ok with everyone else around me. Morals are standards you hold to, regardless of whether you're at a film festival or a dinner. I wouldn't wear a see-through dress at Cannes or anywhere else because I have enough decency to cover up my breasts before leaving the house. I wonder if you would make the same illogical argument if your daughter showed up half naked somewhere and claimed it was ok because it’s “acceptable” there lol.
Ps. Of course I’m scared that John Kerry will win the election. What’s your point?
posted by
Reaganesque
on November 2, 2004 at 11:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Reaganesque
I have no clue what you are talking about.
This post had nothing to do with the election.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 2, 2004 at 6:32 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm sure that's true
... but September has also significantly changed the demographics i.e. New Jersey becoming a swing-state
posted by
Reaganesque
on November 2, 2004 at 6:19 AM
| link to this | reply