Mazdaspeedgirl
Resident Autocrosser
- :
- 99 10AE MX-5 | 2016.5 CX-5 GT
(rofl2) Simpson's reference!uclap5 said:
What's the big deal about nipples?
- Thread starter pingdum
- Start date
1st MP3 in NH said:
Tell that to John Ashcroft(see refrence to Justice staute above) I'm sure he finds fault with the Sistine Chapel.
You're making my point again, if the parents didn't make such a big deal out of it all, the kids would hardly notice. It's only because the parents are all running around screaming that the kids sit up and think "Hey there's something really cool and forbidden going on here, I wanna see."
Let's not even get into the discussion of whether or not The Super Bowl teaches lessons that I want kids to learn anyway.
Actually, we live in a society with ever decreasing levels of promiscuous and violent behavior, no matter what Dr. Laura or the evening news tells you.
So our entire society and media should be based on what a 5 yr old can handle. I'm sorry, but I find that a bit extreme.
Last edited:
A simple tip, don't clearly reveal an assumption in a debate. You have no clue or proof of ashcroft finding fualt with the Chapel. More over ashcroft is utterly irrelavent. No one is even considering his opinon here. Its irrelavent.pingdum said:
No again you are ignoring all points that aren't your own. Parents need to yell at the top of there lungs at top this BS. There was no warning about this at all not is there with 90% of the inappropriate crap children get exposed to yet everyone blaims parents for not doing there jobs. bulls*** opions, lack of resposibilty by public figure and the general feeling that anyone can just do what ever they like and to hell with everyone else is utterly destroying this country.The simple truth is a parent can not raise a child alone today. There is too much outside interference. We are all resposible for our actions and there effects on others.pingdum said:
You have no problem with graphic sexual acts yet a simple physical competition is so repulsive to you. Food ball players are grown men that have trained for half a decade to compete with one another in a test of will and strength. Not to vilently rip each other up. That is why much of the NFL rule book is designed to protect the players and why they where protective padding. Being competitive with physical contact is not violence. Nor is a shild looking up to someone with the determination of a football player and the drive to make there one dream as a child come true? In comparison did Janet dream about exposing herself on National TV to aid her dead career? Of coarse not, shes another pathetic sell out trying to use contraversy and parents desire to protect there children, to cash in.pingdum said:
Horse s***. Violent actions and sexual irresposibilty are ever growing. Sure violence is lowing in the worst of areas becuase of outright attack by law enforcement yet it simply expends outward to other areas.pingdum said:
Of coarse you do, becuase you have no desire to hold yorself resposible for the impact of your actions on others. You'd rather pretend a sport and those trying to protect their children are the enemys that are scewing young minds to ill deeds. YOu used and example of cheerleeders causing young women to think that they are only the object of sex, yet there is nothing directly sexual about cheerleding. What about the 3500 radio shows that only have women on to strip down and fake orgasim? Or a singer that mimics a gang bang on stage and wheres increasingly less to keep the publics eye? These are far more impacting. Take Britney and Cristina as an example. They went form somewaht decent to OUT RIGHT ******* ****** faster then my STi can get to 60. Is it becuase of sexual liberation? Hell no, its becuase they want to make a bucjk and they have no other concept about how to draw attention. This is much a problem with many young women. This society tells them they are nothing without men wanting to have sex with them. s*** like Janet Jacksons actions is only a single example of this.pingdum said:
The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a great example of exactly the opposite. It depicts the beuaty of the human form with both men and women as created by there god and with love for each other and not olny a sexual desire. Even sex has been utterrly cheapend to nothing more then masturbation by far to many people that can't realize there is not only a very big difference between sex and making love but that they feel they are the same. Sex as a unifying act of a man and a women that totaly combine in body mind and soul can not be matched by scattered ass. Also in that act there is bueaty in the action of promiscous and random sex (as is alto often mimic and shown) there is valgarity! Children Can't see the difference here. However in one example the women is nothing but a cheap ***** and the man a coward of resposibilty. In the other there is worth, purpose and beauty.
pingdum said:
YOu do realize all the dancing they were doing was a mimic sex act and one not suitable for children, don't you?
You have no concept of sexuality yet alone the stance to question anothers.
Also to say such a thing you must assume that I would take offense to being considered gay as you would. I don't.
Again you have totaly missed the point that nudety is not the relevent issue here. Its amazing just how much you ignore to sustain your viewpoint with out having to engage in a rational debate.
1st MP3 in NH said:
I admit, I didn't see the show. Football or stupid disco pop stars are not my idea of entertaintment, but I do know that no one is complaining about the dancing or the show, just the nipple. I imagine it was no worse than a Broadway show.
Where did you get the idea that I would be offended by being thought gay? I said just the opposite. And trust me, I have very much experience and knowledge in all concepts of sexuality. I have seen and done things that would make both of your heads spin.
You're off on your own tangent. I started this thread because I was berated for posting an avatar that had a nipple in it in a very non-sexual way. And also for posting nipples in the hot girl thread, which I guess is supposed to be non-sexual.
(dunno)What am I ignoring. You are making stuff up that is not even part of this discussion. Althogh I appreciate a healthy debate.
Last edited:
COntext, again context. Not one person has said there is anything wrong with a nipple only that it was wrong that it was shown in that contect and without warning. Yet you continue to debate.pingdum said:
You assumed I would be, which means impart you are. However you question Nate secuality all to well tells me how well you listen to those your arguing with. What do you have to say to Nates respose. You questioned his sexuality becuase he thought it improper to show a penise on TV, you basicly said it was becuase he was afraid of gays or being gay. Now what logic do you have?pingdum said:
Its becuase you did it for much the same reason that she originaly flashed. Is it really so hard to fallow the thread rules of not showing a womens nipples in pics? Seems like it takes more effort to show them then to not.pingdum said:
pingdum said:
All I have mentioned is directly related to what you are opposing. You are asking "why", I am telling you "why".
1st MP3 in NH said:
True, but I do know that he covered up the breasts on the statue of Justice in front of the Justice Dept. building, I don;t feel it's a far leap from that to what I said.
Where did you get this. Don't you think this is a far leap from a nipple in my avatar?
No, a running race is a simple physical competition. Football is huge behemouths trying to break each others legs.
You're going to have to give me proof of this. It's just because you see more of it on TV and the media. Violent crime and things such as child/spousal abuse and teenage pregnacy are way down in the modern age. Let's not even talk about a hundred years ago when you could murder your neighbor and just bury him in the woods, or **** your daughter and beat your wife and everybody just ignored it because you were the man.
Yea, there's nothing sexual about those outfits they wear or the moves they do.
I agree
TX Speed Demon
Member
laracroft said:
Where's that picture of Vic spread eagle and ass up over the hood of the Pirana mobile when you need it?
1st MP3 in NH said:
No, you're the only one who said this. The whole country is in an uproar because she showed her nipple. I have not heard one word about context or "simulated sex acts" except from you. If you can show me one qoute from a web site, TV report, or newspaper I'll defer.
Here's a perfect example of how you are making up your own ideas. Nate asked me about showing penises on this site, not on TV. And I said he was afraid of being seen as gay not afraid of being gay. And the point I made was a valid one that has actually been proven in scientific studies where it was shown that homophobic men tend to be more aroused by pictures of penises then those who are more tolerant.
You know, I really enjoy a good debate, even if we are so diametrically opposed, but please, get a dictionary and learn some grammer. It's hard to understand you when your posts are almost unreadable.
Last edited:
StarvingRussian
Member
How can you say that nothing about the dance they did was sexual? Did you see how close they were and grinding on eachother and s***? Did you watch it or what?
StarvingRussian
Member
pingdum said:
then why did you say this?
StarvingRussian said:
Sorry, I forgot the sarcastic smiley
EDIT: I get it now, you thought I was talking about Justin and Janet. I suggest you reread the post. I was speaking about NFL cheerleaders who 1st claimed were not not presented in a sexual way.
Last edited:
StarvingRussian
Member
gotcha678910
New Posts and Comments
- Article
