[OT](OT)Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
Jeffrey Turner
Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
FRISCO, Texas -- An award-winning Texas art teacher who was reprimanded
after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a trip
to a museum has lost her job.
The school board in Frisco has voted not to renew Sydney McGee's
contract after 28 years. She has been on administrative leave.
The teacher took her students on an approved field trip to a Dallas
museum, and now some parents are upset.
The Fisher Elementary School art teacher came under fire last April when
she took 89 fifth-graders on a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art.
Parents raised concerns over the field trip after their children
reported seeing a nude sculpture at the art museum.
The parents had signed permission slips allowing their children to take
part in the field trip.
McGee's lawyer said the principal at Fisher Elementary School admonished
her after a parent complained that a student had seen nude art.
McGee said the principal had urged her to take the students to the
museum.
Now, McGee, who was honored with a Star Teacher Award two years ago, is
on paid administrative leave until her contract with the school district
expires in March.
Other parents are worried about the future of the art program at the
school, which they cite as a reason for moving into the neighborhood.
"Our main concern right now is what's going to happen to the children
and what's going to happen to the art program at Fisher Elementary. It
is the best art program. That's the reason we moved to this
neighborhood. It's because of the teachers," said Shannon Allen, a
parent. "It was a principal-approved trip. What's the big deal?"
Officials with the Frisco school district declined to comment on the
matter.
--
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have
ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defence against real, pretended, or
imaginary dangers from abroad."
James Madison
Desertphile
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
.....
> "Our main concern right now is what's going to happen to the children
> and what's going to happen to the art program at Fisher Elementary. It
> is the best art program. That's the reason we moved to this
> neighborhood. It's because of the teachers," said Shannon Allen, a
> parent. "It was a principal-approved trip. What's the big deal?"
>
> Officials with the Frisco school district declined to comment on the
> matter.
I was going to write "Only in America!" but reconsidered: any Taliban
or fascist country will also fit.
Richard Forrest
Oh No!
They'll be telling the kids that men have penises and women have
breasts and vaginas next.
Civilisation will crash around our ears as sex-crazed ten-year olds run
rampant through the streets!
(Reminds me of an exchange from Buffy:
Cordelia: Does looking at guns make you think of sex?
Zander: I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me think of sex.)
RF
Kermit
Sigh. Maybe future field trip permission slips can inform the parents:
"Warning! Some art museums may have paintings (pictures) and sculpture
(statues) of naked people. If you or your children are not mature
enough to handle this, please do NOT sign this permission slip. Signing
it relieves the school of any liability (you can't sue us) for the
damage done to your sensibilities."
Kermit
Richard Clayton
Apparently it's not enough that the wingnuts destroy science-- art has
to go, too.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
mike...@yahoo.com
So then do you support pornography, too? Do you support a sexualized
culture, too? Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy. But what about
the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
Kleuskes & Moos
mike...@yahoo.com schreef:
Please tell me your being ironic, sarcastic, even cynical.
Pleasepleaseplease tell me you did not mean that seriously...
Richard Clayton
> culture, too? Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy. But what about
> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
I'm sorry, where did the article say that the nude sculpture was
pornographic, sexualized, or blatant? It's not like the teacher took
these kids to a strip club. Some of the most beautiful famous art in
history depicts the nude human form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Venus_%28Botticelli%29
Next time, try arguing against what I actually said rather than putting
words into my mouth to score points.
CreateThis
Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
> Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
Do you mean "sexualized" like when children are taught by their
parents' religion that sex is "dirty" and "taboo" so they'll spend the
rest of their lives mesmerized by it?
CT
Deadrat
news:1159649142.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Absolutely. First amendment and all.
> Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
Do you support a government program to desexualize culture?
> Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
Ya think so? It's just a match throw to that pile of bad books over
there.
> But what about
> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
and NC17 movies.
We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
Deadrat
>
>
Perplexed in Peoria
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:dcoth2dtl89isn2fb...@4ax.com...
Hmmm. You mean its counterproductive, like telling them that creation
is an unscientific myth which no thinking person could accept.
bullpup
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12htcd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
>
> Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
>
> FRISCO, Texas -- An award-winning Texas art teacher who was reprimanded
> after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a trip
> to a museum has lost her job.
>
> The school board in Frisco has voted not to renew Sydney McGee's
> contract after 28 years. She has been on administrative leave.
>
> The teacher took her students on an approved field trip to a Dallas
> museum, and now some parents are upset.
>
> The Fisher Elementary School art teacher came under fire last April when
> she took 89 fifth-graders on a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art.
> Parents raised concerns over the field trip after their children
> reported seeing a nude sculpture at the art museum.
>
<snip>
I do hope that the scuplture in question wasn't something like a
reproduction of "David", or the "Venus De Milo".
Even if not, idiocy. Pure idiocy.
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
bullpup
<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159649142.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Define "Pornography". is the statue of "David" pornographic? How about the
"Venus De Milo"? Or "The Kiss"?
neutr...@gmail.com
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Richard Clayton wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
> > >
> > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
> > >
> > > FRISCO, Texas --
Texas...that explains alot.
<clip clip>
> > Apparently it's not enough that the wingnuts destroy science-- art has
> > to go, too.
Well, at least they're not destroying ofensive art...yet...
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
>
> So then do you support pornography, too?
That depends if it's consenting adult porn or not. If two (or more)
adults want to sell pictures of themselves to a third adult, then the
only people who should have a say are the people in the pictures, or
the buyer. It's called "capitalism".
>Do you support a sexualized
> culture, too?
Oh come on...humans have had sexualized aspects to culture since we've
HAD culture.
> Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
Is this porn?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_von_Michelangelo.jpg
No, it's a nude. The article didn't give any artistic details, but
just because it's a nude sculpture doesn't mean that it's nudity in a
sexual context.
> But what about
> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
What about them? This is about a teacher who got FIRED because some
parents complained that their child saw a piece of nude art. These
would be the same parents who signed the permission form to allow their
child to go to the art museum.
BTW: denverchannel.com did an online poll about this. The question:
Would you be upset if your child saw a nude sculpture at a museum of
art while on a field trip?
The response:
Yes: 927 votes, 3%
No: 36059 votes, 97%
VoiceOfReason
I seriously hope you can detect the difference between art and
pornography?
mike...@yahoo.com
I was not stuffing words in your mouth -- I was inquiring about your
beliefs. I did NOT say you said that about the sculpture, but what I
was
wondering was that if you permitted the display of the sculpture, do
you also permit the porn, etc.? I was making an inquiry about your
beliefs, not trying to "score points". Read the message again. Notice
that at NO POINT do I say anything about the artwork itself. Notice
how I ask about what you "support", ie. what do you find permissible.
John Wilkins
I don't know what art is, but I know it when I see it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
mike...@yahoo.com
I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
other things that I became curious about.
> > Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
>
> Do you mean "sexualized" like when children are taught by their
> parents' religion that sex is "dirty" and "taboo" so they'll spend the
> rest of their lives mesmerized by it?
>
No. What I mean is several things. One is that of women being
depicted as sex objects, for example. We've got women
wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy". Then we've got
men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women. That is
physical, sexual attraction. Add to this the sex in movies and
the innuendo often seen, etc. I consider this a "sexualized"
culture. It is an extreme position that advocates having lots
and lots of sex, whereas the position you describe is the
opposite: no sex at all. And both extremes are unacceptable.
My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
one man and one woman. The marriage should also be based
on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
species, but it should also be performed in the proper
environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
prevalent?! Perhaps it might have something to do with
too much indiscriminate sex? And could it be that the cause
of all that indiscriminate sex is related to our culture? Hmm...
> CT
CreateThis
I don't think creationism can be compared with the human sex drive for
mesmerizability.
CT
Dan Luke
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> No. What I mean is several things. One is that of women being
> depicted as sex objects, for example. We've got women
> wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy". Then we've got
> men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women.
I can see where this is heading. Dancing.
--Jeff
mike...@yahoo.com
I don't. It emphasizes sex (and I'm not just talking about pornography,
but the whole sexualized culture), it can incite (although it doesn't
do
so always) rape, etc.
Also, let's go and legalize slander and libel. Free speech and all.
> > Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
>
> Do you support a government program to desexualize culture?
>
What exactly do you mean? Legislation against pornography?
Perhaps. It's been done for child pornography already. Legislating
what people can and cannot wear? Probably not, as that seems
too extreme, and we also run into the issue of whether or not one
can legislate morality. Modest non-sexualized style of dress should
be taught by the parents, and should be part of moral education.
> > Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
>
> Ya think so? It's just a match throw to that pile of bad books over
> there.
>
Art museums are different from porn websites, stripper clubs, etc.
> > But what about
> > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>
> What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
> and NC17 movies.
>
But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
> We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
>
But it brought up another issue I felt I needed to discuss.
> Deadrat
>
> >
> >
Perplexed in Peoria
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:risth2573rau6ip2j...@4ax.com...
One might agree with you, if one did not spend much time in this newsgroup.
Mujin
You mean like in the atrium mosaics of Roman prostitution houses? Or Moche sculpture?
> We've got women
> wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South America and Africa where women
wear next to nothing are well known for being highly sexual.
For the latter, can you think of a society in which women (especially young, single women) don't
make an effort to look "sexy"?
> Then we've got
> men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women. That is
> physical, sexual attraction.
Yeah, that's definitely new.
> Add to this the sex in movies and
> the innuendo often seen, etc. I consider this a "sexualized"
> culture.
So...was Elizabethan England a sexualized culture? How about war era France? 16th C Japan?
Lots of pornographic sculpture in Moche art - were they sexualized?
> It is an extreme position that advocates having lots
> and lots of sex,
Question: do you actually have evidence that there's any real difference between 21st C America
and previous eras? Or are you just falling prey to the "Golden Era" fallacy?
> whereas the position you describe is the
> opposite: no sex at all. And both extremes are unacceptable.
>
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman.
So it's never acceptable for sex to occur in an enviroment such as, say, marriage between one
woman and two men (A common occurance among some groups in NE India)? Or in some other
circumstance which is perfectly normal in some societies but just happens to not be typical among
your neighbours?
> The marriage should also be based
> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
Interesting. I've never heard of people getting married strictly for sex.=3FDoes this actually happen?
What do you think about Japan where just a generation and a half ago omiai (a kind of arranged
meeting for marriage, usually only 2 or 3 meetings before deciding) were still very common and the
divorce rate very low? For that matter the divorce rate in Japan is still low among those who met
their spouse through omiai...not so low among those who married for love after an extended
romance.
>
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
> species, but it should also be performed in the proper
> environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
> Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
> with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
> spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> prevalent?! Perhaps it might have something to do with
> too much indiscriminate sex? And could it be that the cause
> of all that indiscriminate sex is related to our culture? Hmm...
You appear to have some very strange ideas about the sexuality of past generations.
Kleuskes & Moos
Perplexed in Peoria schreef:
> "CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:
<snip>
Kleuskes & Moos
mike...@yahoo.com schreef:
<snip>
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman.
My position on sex is this. When it's done with mutual informed
consent, it's none of your business who does what to whom under
whatever circumstances, using whatever implements the parties involved
consider "arousing".
Noelie S. Alito
>> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
>
> And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> for being highly sexual.
I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
> For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> (especially young, single women) don't
> make an effort to look "sexy"?
Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
military superior.
Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
attire looks sexy.
Noelie
--
"What part of 'no' don't you understand?"
Deadrat
news:1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
So to sum up, sex is OK if it's infrequent, happens only between two
people you approve of, only for the one reason you approve of, and then
only if neither party enjoys it. Have I got that about right?
Deadrat
mvil...@gmail.com
> Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> prevalent?! Perhaps it might have something to do with
> too much indiscriminate sex?
I always thought it had something to do with people having sex without
protection. Hmm...thanks for the correction.
Deadrat
news:1159658382.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
You don't what? Support the first amendment? Color me surprised.
You're uncomfortable with sex in this culture. I understand that. But
please don't go making up stories about incitement to rape because of
your own discomfort.
>
> Also, let's go and legalize slander and libel. Free speech and all.
Defamation is already perfectly legal. There are no criminal statutes
against it, and no one can legally stop you from defaming someone. Of
course, that doesn't mean that anyone is relieved from making good the
damage that he causes, but that's pretty much applies to most actions.
>> > Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
>>
>> Do you support a government program to desexualize culture?
>
> What exactly do you mean? Legislation against pornography?
> Perhaps.
In other words, yes. You're uncomfortable, so let's empower the state to
make sure you're soothed.
> It's been done for child pornography already.
> Legislating what people can and cannot wear? Probably not,
In other words, maybe.
> as that seems
> too extreme, and we also run into the issue of whether or not one
> can legislate morality.
Doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to dirty pictures.
> Modest non-sexualized style of dress should
> be taught by the parents, and should be part of moral education.
How about that part of moral education that says don't infringe on the
rights of others and don't presume to impose your taste on others? Where
does come, before or after the dress code?
>
>> > Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
>>
>> Ya think so? It's just a match throw to that pile of bad books over
>> there.
>>
>
> Art museums are different from porn websites, stripper clubs, etc.
Got all that straight in your mind, eh? Well, good thing we'll have you
around to censor things when your legislation passes.
>
>> > But what about
>> > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>>
>> What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go
>> to R and NC17 movies.
>>
>
> But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
In other words, they don't appeal to YOU, so let's get rid of them. (Or
is it that they appeal a little too much?)
>
>> We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
>>
>
> But it brought up another issue I felt I needed to discuss.
Fine. I'm the last person to complain about OT posts. Just wanted to
make the point that your views had nothing at all do with the situation.
Deadrat
Cheezits
> CreateThis wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2006 13:45:42 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >So then do you support pornography, too?
>>
>> Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
>
> I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
> support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
> other things that I became curious about.
Gee, I wonder why the subject of nude art suddenly pushed your buttons
about these "other things". Does the thought of a nude statue get you
thinking about SEX? Just when you thought you'd put SEX out of your
mind, someone says something favorable about SEX I mean nude art which is
all about SEX and we sure can't be having SEX thoughts that aren't
officially approved by the church's position on SEX or the Pope might
send us to our room to think about SEX I mean deternal damnation. I
could be posting nude for all you know. Hee hee hee. :-D
[sanctimonious lecture deleted]
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> children.
B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.
Sue (sounds like one of my ex-bfs)
--
Cheezits between the bedsheets became cause for divorce...
- http://www.pookas.com/cols/col.07-25-97A.shtml
Tom McDonald
neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> No, it's a nude. The article didn't give any artistic details, but
> just because it's a nude sculpture doesn't mean that it's nudity in a
> sexual context.
I think the story is more nuanced than the original posted article
suggests. This is from the New York Times' Education section today:
'She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson,
wrote: "During a 'study trip that you planned for fifth graders,
students were exposed to nude statues and other nude art
representations."'
This seems to suggest more than one troublesome sight visciously and
egregeously snuck up and attacked an unsuspecting, innocent and very
raza tabula in child form.
But wait! It may be possible to reconstruct the Nazi-like evil:
'Retracing her route this week through the museum's European and
contemporary galleries, Ms. McGee passed the marble torso of a Greek
youth from a funerary relief, circa 330 B.C.; its label reads, "his
nude body has the radiant purity of an athlete in his prime." She
passed sculptor Auguste Rodin's tormented "Shade;"'
'Aristide Maillol's "Flora," with her clingy sheer garment;'
Here is a 1931 Flora by Maillol:
http://www.pinakothek.de/images/3852_788-m.jpg
Although it may be that Malliol did a series, as this one is apparently
from 1910:
'and Jean Arp's "Star in a Dream."''
[Couldn't find this; but the first link is to the Google Images search
for 'Jean Arp Star', and the second for 'Jean Arp Dream. Gives an idea
of Arp's vision.]
The Times article also mentions that there might have been more to the
situation than we've seen:
'It cited additional complaints, which Ms. McGee has challenged.'
It is also the case that the story so far seems mostly told from
McGee's side; I think the school district is having to play it close to
the vest, if for no other reason than this is a personnel issue, and
most such issues are handled in closed session at the best of times.
<snip>
wade
<< ... >>>
> > The marriage should also be based
> > on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> > strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
>
> Interesting. I've never heard of people getting married strictly for sex Does this actually happen?
<stolen joke>
Getting married for sex is like buying an airplane for the peanuts.
Mujin
> Mujin wrote:
> > In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
> <chop>
>
> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
> >
> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> > for being highly sexual.
>
> I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
>
>
>
> > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> > (especially young, single women) don't
> > make an effort to look "sexy"?
>
> Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
> for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
> from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
> military superior.
They might make an effort to not look sexy for the wrong people, but I have it from the horses
mouth that even Saudi women who cover themselves completely in the presence of anyone but
their immediate families make an effort to look "sexy" (whatever that means - no doubt there are
men who get hot and bothered at the sight of a burqa or hijab) when they want to. I've never seen
my wife try to go to work in a bikini, but it doesn't seem to stop her choosing one on other
occasions.
> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
> attire looks sexy.
And around others no attire can make a woman look sexy.
Noelie S. Alito
Shared needles plays a big part:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1397810
et al.
Noelie S. Alito
Aye, NPR had an article on the thriving lingerie business in
Tehran. There are women who do the whole sexy hair/makeup/lingerie
thing in private, but dress very conservatively in public.
>
>> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
>> attire looks sexy.
>
> And around others no attire can make a woman look sexy.
>
<cough> Not *every* woman....
Noelie
--
"What's wrong with *nekkid*?"
--sister scowling at price tags at Victoria's Secret
Gene Ward Smith
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
> species, but it should also be performed in the proper
> environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
I think to really protect our children we should ban sex. Despite what
you say, it is by no means necessary for reproduction, as artificial
insemination and in vitro fertilization work just fine.
> Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
> with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
> spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> prevalent?!
There you go. People spread disease by having sex. It's a public health
menace, and should be outlawed.
Mujin
> Mujin wrote:
[snip]
> >> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
> >> attire looks sexy.
> >
> > And around others no attire can make a woman look sexy.
> >
>
> <cough> Not *every* woman....
Try reading it again with the stress in another place, and I think you'll find it's an all purpose
statement <g>
Noelie S. Alito
Oops, I think I misparsed your last line.
Noelie
--
Mrs. Ogg knew all about double intenders.
Kermit
neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> > But what about
> > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>
> What about them? This is about a teacher who got FIRED because some
> parents complained that their child saw a piece of nude art. These
> would be the same parents who signed the permission form to allow their
> child to go to the art museum.
>
> BTW: denverchannel.com did an online poll about this. The question:
> Would you be upset if your child saw a nude sculpture at a museum of
> art while on a field trip?
>
> The response:
> Yes: 927 votes, 3%
> No: 36059 votes, 97%
So three percent of the population admits to being dumb as mud?
Kermit
Harry K
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
<snip>
>
> Art museums are different from porn websites, stripper clubs, etc.
>
> > > But what about
> > > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
> >
> > What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
> > and NC17 movies.
> >
>
> But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
>
> > We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
> >
>
> But it brought up another issue I felt I needed to discuss.
>
> > Deadrat
I am wondering what your stance is on the bible. It is one of the best
soft porn books ever written.
Harry K
Draccus
neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
> > > >
> > > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
> > > >
> > > > FRISCO, Texas --
>
>
> <clip clip>
>
> > > Apparently it's not enough that the wingnuts destroy science-- art has
> > > to go, too.
>
>
> > > --
> > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > Richard Clayton
> > > "During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
> >
>
> adults want to sell pictures of themselves to a third adult, then the
> only people who should have a say are the people in the pictures, or
> the buyer. It's called "capitalism".
>
> >Do you support a sexualized
> > culture, too?
>
> HAD culture.
>
> > Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_von_Michelangelo.jpg
>
> No, it's a nude. The article didn't give any artistic details, but
> just because it's a nude sculpture doesn't mean that it's nudity in a
> sexual context.
>
> > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>
> parents complained that their child saw a piece of nude art. These
> would be the same parents who signed the permission form to allow their
> child to go to the art museum.
>
> BTW: denverchannel.com did an online poll about this. The question:
> Would you be upset if your child saw a nude sculpture at a museum of
> art while on a field trip?
>
> The response:
> Yes: 927 votes, 3%
> No: 36059 votes, 97%
What is bad is that there were 3% that said yes. They would be right at
home with the Taliban.
Desertphile
> Richard Clayton wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
> > >
> > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
> > >
> > Apparently it's not enough that the wingnuts destroy science-- art has
> > to go, too.
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
> So then do you support pornography, too? Do you support a sexualized
> culture, too? Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy. But what about
> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
Is that supposed to be some kind of sick joke?
Desertphile
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman.
My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
double on a horse.
> The marriage should also be based
> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
What a bloody crock of shit. The *LAST* reason two (or more) people
should marry is out of love. I can scarcely think of a worse reason.
One must pity the poor ignorant bastards who marry out of love.
You obviously have not thought out the issue; perhaps you ought to if
you are not married but plan on it in the future.
Desertphile
Just as long as the horses ain't frightened.
John Wilkins
> Mujin wrote:
> > mike...@yahoo.com says...
> <chop>
>
> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
> >
> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> > for being highly sexual.
>
> I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
As a lad, I only read it for the articles...
>
>
>
> > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> > (especially young, single women) don't
> > make an effort to look "sexy"?
>
> Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
> for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
> from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
> military superior.
>
>
> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
> attire looks sexy.
>
>
> Noelie
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
The whole point of sex is to allow vectors of STIs. From the pathogen's
PoV, of course.
Free Lunch
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
<1hmj5e4.157rpjf6u080hN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>:
>Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
>> > raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
>> > children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
>> > species, but it should also be performed in the proper
>> > environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
>>
>> I think to really protect our children we should ban sex. Despite what
>> you say, it is by no means necessary for reproduction, as artificial
>> insemination and in vitro fertilization work just fine.
>>
>> > Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
>> > with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
>> > spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
>> > prevalent?!
>>
>> There you go. People spread disease by having sex. It's a public health
>> menace, and should be outlawed.
>
>The whole point of sex is to allow vectors of STIs.
I find it interesting that over the past few decades, that collection of
diseases has transformed from 'veneral diseases' to 'sexually
transmitted diseases' in our fair land. I suppose Venus sued the public
health officials for defamation.
>From the pathogen's PoV, of course.
What other possible PoV would they consider?
Free Lunch
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
<agcuh2lr09fssqn6p...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:05:27 +1000, in talk.origins
>j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
><1hmj5e4.157rpjf6u080hN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>:
>>Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
>>> > raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
>>> > children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
>>> > species, but it should also be performed in the proper
>>> > environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
>>>
>>> I think to really protect our children we should ban sex. Despite what
>>> you say, it is by no means necessary for reproduction, as artificial
>>> insemination and in vitro fertilization work just fine.
>>>
>>> > Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
>>> > with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
>>> > spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
>>> > prevalent?!
>>>
>>> There you go. People spread disease by having sex. It's a public health
>>> menace, and should be outlawed.
>>
>>The whole point of sex is to allow vectors of STIs.
>
>I find it interesting that over the past few decades, that collection of
>diseases has transformed from 'veneral diseases' to 'sexually
Desertphile
Noelie S. Alito wrote:
> Mujin wrote:
> > In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
> <chop>
> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
Oh me gods! Say it ain't so, Joe!
> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> > for being highly sexual.
That is another crock o' shit again. The women in many of "the
societies" in the South Pacific were chase, modest, shy, and bashful.
Indeed, I would venture to say that most South Pacific Islanders were
at least as "Puritanical," if not more so, as their female counterparts
in westernized Europe and North America.
> I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
I suspect he got his "information" from Hollywood. Some island cultures
were sexually free (Tahiti being one of them), but by no means all or
most. Not in the Samoas; not in Fiji; not in the Tuamotu Archipelago;
not in the "Sandwich Islands." Rod Edmond wrote an excellent book on
the subject: "Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from
Cook to Gauguin." I have a copy here on my desk as I type this (I went
to check the author's name). My copy cost almost $100, as I recall,
since I bought it when I was sailing in the South Pacific.
> > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> > (especially young, single women) don't
> > make an effort to look "sexy"?
Yes: New Mexico.
> Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
> for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
> from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
> military superior.
>
>
> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
> attire looks sexy.
Mmmm, yes. Cowgirl hat and pony tail. Yehaw!
Mujin
says...
>
> Noelie S. Alito wrote:
> > Mujin wrote:
> > > In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
> > <chop>
>
> > >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
>
> Oh me gods! Say it ain't so, Joe!
>
> > > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> > > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> > > for being highly sexual.
>
> That is another crock o' shit again.
Thus the distinctly sarcastic tone which clearly got lost when my post was propagated. Still, do try
to keep attributions straight - makes it easier to tell what the poster means.
> The women in many of "the
> societies" in the South Pacific were chase, modest, shy, and bashful.
> Indeed, I would venture to say that most South Pacific Islanders were
> at least as "Puritanical," if not more so, as their female counterparts
> in westernized Europe and North America.
And that, oh my droogie, was my point.
>
> > I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
>
> I suspect he got his "information" from Hollywood.
Actually, I get my information from my advanced degree in anthropology. Did you read my post at
all? You really don't seem to have a good idea of its content.
> Some island cultures
> were sexually free (Tahiti being one of them), but by no means all or
> most. Not in the Samoas; not in Fiji; not in the Tuamotu Archipelago;
> not in the "Sandwich Islands." Rod Edmond wrote an excellent book on
> the subject: "Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from
> Cook to Gauguin." I have a copy here on my desk as I type this (I went
> to check the author's name). My copy cost almost $100, as I recall,
> since I bought it when I was sailing in the South Pacific.
That's a good one, though I've only read sections. Now that you've reminded me of it, I'll have to
put it on my "quasi recreational" reading list.
>
> > > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> > > (especially young, single women) don't
> > > make an effort to look "sexy"?
>
> Yes: New Mexico.
Really? Not under any circumstances?
Desertphile
Cheezits wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > CreateThis wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2006 13:45:42 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [censored]
> >> >So then do you support pornography, too?
> >> Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
> > I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
> > support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
> > other things that I became curious about.
The first time Jimmy Swaggart was caught with pornographic magazines (a
police officer pulled his car over because it was swerving all over the
road as Reverend Swaggart stuffed the magazines under his car seat), he
claimed he bought the magazines for "research," insisting he planned to
writer a sermon on the evils of porn. According to Debbie the whore,
Swaggart used to ask her to pose just like the "models" in the
magazines.
I kind of wonder if "mike4ty4" is suffering from Swaggart Syndrome.
> Gee, I wonder why the subject of nude art suddenly pushed your buttons
> about these "other things". Does the thought of a nude statue get you
> thinking about SEX? Just when you thought you'd put SEX out of your
> mind, someone says something favorable about SEX I mean nude art which is
> all about SEX and we sure can't be having SEX thoughts that aren't
> officially approved by the church's position on SEX or the Pope might
> send us to our room to think about SEX I mean deternal damnation. I
> could be posting nude for all you know. Hee hee hee. :-D
Terribly, terribly funny. I can, regrettably, picture him sitting at
his keyboard and breaking out in a cold sweat as he reads your reply.
> [sanctimonious lecture deleted]
> > The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> > raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> > children.
> B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.
Anyone who gets pregnant during (or after) sex is DOING IT WRONG.
> Sue (sounds like one of my ex-bfs)
> --
> Cheezits between the bedsheets became cause for divorce...
> - http://www.pookas.com/cols/col.07-25-97A.shtml
Maybe you should have had nuts in bed instead.
topmind
So the Cistine chapel is now classified as porn?
-T-
neutr...@gmail.com
Tom McDonald wrote:
> neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > No, it's a nude. The article didn't give any artistic details, but
> > just because it's a nude sculpture doesn't mean that it's nudity in a
> > sexual context.
>
> I think the story is more nuanced than the original posted article
> suggests.
Usually is.
>This is from the New York Times' Education section today:
> 'She later received a memorandum in which the principal, Nancy Lawson,
> wrote: "During a 'study trip that you planned for fifth graders,
> students were exposed to nude statues and other nude art
> representations."'
>
> This seems to suggest more than one troublesome sight visciously and
> egregeously snuck up and attacked an unsuspecting, innocent and very
> raza tabula in child form.
Umm..these are fifth graders, and haven't been "blank slates" for over
a decade. Odds are very good that they've all seen naked bodies of
both sexes at some point.
> But wait! It may be possible to reconstruct the Nazi-like evil:
>
> 'Retracing her route this week through the museum's European and
> contemporary galleries, Ms. McGee passed the marble torso of a Greek
> youth from a funerary relief, circa 330 B.C.; its label reads, "his
> nude body has the radiant purity of an athlete in his prime."
And whats he doing...just standing there unashamed at his nudity?
> She
> passed sculptor Auguste Rodin's tormented "Shade;"'
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kbw6a
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jy6sp
Bit of a dark piece. The neck stretched out like that...like the neck
is broken, but the body goes on. Well named.
> 'Aristide Maillol's "Flora," with her clingy sheer garment;'
>
> Here is a 1931 Flora by Maillol:
>
> http://www.pinakothek.de/images/3852_788-m.jpg
>
> Although it may be that Malliol did a series, as this one is apparently
> from 1910:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h3rkc
Very nice pieces...excellent examples of tasteful nudes. Also, much
more realistic in body form than what is currently portrayed as the
ideal. Maybe if people were exposed to more images of the female form
like Flora, there would be fewer eating disorders.
> 'and Jean Arp's "Star in a Dream."''
>
> [Couldn't find this; but the first link is to the Google Images search
> for 'Jean Arp Star', and the second for 'Jean Arp Dream. Gives an idea
> of Arp's vision.]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gnkaa
>
> http://tinyurl.com/fwtw3
Frankly, I've never been much for abstract art...I'd say his work was
mostly organic.
> The Times article also mentions that there might have been more to the
> situation than we've seen:
>
> 'It cited additional complaints, which Ms. McGee has challenged.'
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kjycr
Wearing flip-flops, not posting enough student art, and time not used
wisely for learning during the trip. Damn, she's just bad to the bone,
isn't she.
Oh, wait...according to the article you linked to...
"Ms. McGee and her lawyer, Rogge Dunn, who are exploring legal action,
say that her past job evaluations had been consistently superior until
the museum trip and only turned negative afterward. They have copies of
evaluations that bear out the assertion."
> It is also the case that the story so far seems mostly told from
> McGee's side; I think the school district is having to play it close to
> the vest, if for no other reason than this is a personnel issue, and
> most such issues are handled in closed session at the best of times.
Looks more like she pissed off the wrong person or people who have
enough backroom clout to get a teacher fired. That they didn't name
the offending piece is a bit odd... and as the article you referenced
said...
Some parents have come to Ms. McGee's defense. Joan Grande said her
11-year-old daughter, Olivia, attended the museum tour.
"She enjoyed the day very much," Ms. Grande said. "She did
mention some nude art but she didn't make a big deal of it and
neither did I." She said that if Ms. McGee's job ratings were high
before the incident, "something isn't right" about the
suspension.
Another parent, Maijken Kozcara, said Ms. McGee had taught her children
effectively.
"I thought she was the greatest," Ms. Kozcara said. But "knowing
Texas, the way things work here" she said of the teacher's
suspension, "I wasn't really amazed. I was like, 'Yeah, right.'
"
josephus
>So the Cistine chapel is now classified as porn?
>
>-T-
>
>
>
thre are delusions and delusions.
josephus
josephus
somebody quoted it but it applies Zander: "I am 17 years old.
looking at linolium make me think of SEX.
josephus
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Even though you asked Richard Clayton, and you got way too defensive in
your response to him when he replied ; I will answer -
There is a certain amount of freedom implied in a non-controlled
internet. Define the prurient interest in your way to take away porn or
sex scenes in movies and you get into fuzzy areas of controlling what
other people can make their own judgment about.
The society is sexualized because of how we reproduce. Sexually. And
so we have biological urges and they get expressed in big ways. Nudity
in classic art represents the expression of the idealized human form,
which is a whole different thing from pornography.
A few years ago, the courts in Minnesota struck down the requirement
that internets filter search results on public library computers,
because filters set to block pornography also block out real information
about sex.
I'll surf in the way that I want to, you surf in the way that you want
to, but don't take it on yourself to make my decisions for me, or for
how I monitor my own kids' viewing.
I think that the parents that complained are stupid and blinded to
reality, and I feel sorry for their kids.
The art teacher is welcome to move to Minnesota. She will find a job
here teaching art.
--
"Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes
characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with
a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever."
Herbert Spencer
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> CreateThis wrote:
>>Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
>>
>
>
> I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
> support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
> other things that I became curious about.
>
>
>>>Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
>>
>>Do you mean "sexualized" like when children are taught by their
>>parents' religion that sex is "dirty" and "taboo" so they'll spend the
>>rest of their lives mesmerized by it?
>>
>
>
> No. What I mean is several things. One is that of women being
> depicted as sex objects, for example. We've got women
> wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy". Then we've got
> men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women. That is
> physical, sexual attraction. Add to this the sex in movies and
> the innuendo often seen, etc. I consider this a "sexualized"
> culture. It is an extreme position that advocates having lots
> and lots of sex, whereas the position you describe is the
> opposite: no sex at all. And both extremes are unacceptable.
>
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman.
Bully for you. We don't all see the same way. I think it is also
permissible between one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. Or
mulitiples of consenting adults.
You do it the way you want, and worry about permissibility when it comes
to yourself.
The marriage should also be based
> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
>
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is:
And childless heterosexual couples are left out?
to have
> children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
> species, but it should also be performed in the proper
> environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
> Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
> with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
> spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> prevalent?!
People don't like to use condoms for some reason. They also share needles.
Perhaps it might have something to do with
> too much indiscriminate sex?
Or the lack of proper sex education.
And could it be that the cause
> of all that indiscriminate sex is related to our culture? Hmm...
>
>
>>CT
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>>
>>What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
>>and NC17 movies.
>>
>
>
> But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
Entertainment, even if not wholesome for you.
>
>
>>We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
>>Deadrat
B Richardson
>> > culture, too? Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy. But what about
>> > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>>
>> pornographic, sexualized, or blatant? It's not like the teacher took
>> these kids to a strip club. Some of the most beautiful famous art in
>> history depicts the nude human form:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Venus_%28Botticelli%29
>>
>> Next time, try arguing against what I actually said rather than putting
>> words into my mouth to score points.
>
> I was not stuffing words in your mouth -- I was inquiring about your
> beliefs. I did NOT say you said that about the sculpture, but what I
> was
> wondering was that if you permitted the display of the sculpture, do
> you also permit the porn, etc.? I was making an inquiry about your
> beliefs, not trying to "score points". Read the message again. Notice
> that at NO POINT do I say anything about the artwork itself. Notice
> how I ask about what you "support", ie. what do you find permissible.
June
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > one man and one woman.
>
> My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
> knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> double on a horse.
Oh man, I *always* wanted to do it on a horse.
How about while driving down the Interstate at 70 mph (well, HE was
driving)? ;-}
[snip]
--
My 2¢ ß-}
June
Draccus
June wrote:
> Desertphile <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > > one man and one woman.
> >
> > My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
> > knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> > sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> > wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> > double on a horse.
>
> Oh man, I *always* wanted to do it on a horse.
It is fun, but you both need to have really strong legs.
> How about while driving down the Interstate at 70 mph (well, HE was
> driving)? ;-}
Now that brings back memories of my first wife.
Mike Dworetsky
news:12htcd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> "The fetters imposed on liberty at home have
> ever been forged out of the weapons provided
> for defence against real, pretended, or
> imaginary dangers from abroad."
> James Madison
>
The obvious solution is for the art museum to go to Afghanistan and buy up a
job lot of burkas from Taliban Central, then pull them over any statuary or
paintings portraying the human form whenever under-18s or fundies visit.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Quantum Leaper
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159665947....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> > raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> > children. Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
> > species, but it should also be performed in the proper
> > environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
>
> you say, it is by no means necessary for reproduction, as artificial
> insemination and in vitro fertilization work just fine.
>
> > with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
> > spread of disease. Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> > prevalent?!
>
> menace, and should be outlawed.
>
Mike Dworetsky
news:1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
[snip]
> > > Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
> >
> > Do you mean "sexualized" like when children are taught by their
> > parents' religion that sex is "dirty" and "taboo" so they'll spend the
> > rest of their lives mesmerized by it?
> >
>
> No. What I mean is several things. One is that of women being
> depicted as sex objects, for example. We've got women
> wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy". Then we've got
> men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women.
Boy oh boy, there's a lot you don't know about male body builders. In some
cases, they are definitely not out to attract "women". (And in some cases,
well, yes they are.) I'd suggest you stay away from places like "Muscle
Beach" until you work this out.
[snipped]
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman. The marriage should also be based
> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
My position on sex is that any position is permissible as long as it doesn't
do my back in or give me leg cramps.
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children, as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> children.
You, uh, wouldn't be Catholic, by some chance?
[snip rest of rant]
Mike Dworetsky
news:1hmhvkj.bczdxk94c06cN%junego....@adelphia.net...
On balance, I would like to see that one banned, not out of prudishness, but
for safety reasons and respect for the safety of other road users. Unless
someone else is driving and the two of you are in the back seat or some
such. Or else pull over and park.
Anyone else remember the scene in the novel "The World According to Garp",
when sex and driving definitely resulted in unpleasant consequences?
Josh Miles
> Cheezits wrote:
>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> CreateThis wrote:
>>>> On 30 Sep 2006 13:45:42 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> [censored]
>
>>>>> So then do you support pornography, too?
>
>>>> Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
>
>>> I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
>>> support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
>>> other things that I became curious about.
>
> The first time Jimmy Swaggart was caught with pornographic magazines (a
> police officer pulled his car over because it was swerving all over the
> road as Reverend Swaggart stuffed the magazines under his car seat), he
> claimed he bought the magazines for "research," insisting he planned to
> writer a sermon on the evils of porn. According to Debbie the whore,
> Swaggart used to ask her to pose just like the "models" in the
> magazines.
>
> I kind of wonder if "mike4ty4" is suffering from Swaggart Syndrome.
Or erotophobia.
Josh Miles
> CreateThis wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2006 13:45:42 -0700, mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>> to go, too.
>>>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>>>> Richard Clayton
>>>> "During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
>> Oh, there was some pornography in the museum?
>>
>
> I did not say that. I was inquiring about his beliefs. He seemed to
> support the idea of the nude art, so I decided to inquire about
> other things that I became curious about.
>
>> Do you mean "sexualized" like when children are taught by their
>> parents' religion that sex is "dirty" and "taboo" so they'll spend the
>> rest of their lives mesmerized by it?
>>
>
> No. What I mean is several things. One is that of women being
> depicted as sex objects, for example. We've got women
> wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy". Then we've got
> men showing off their muscles, etc. to attract women.
What do you have against human nature?
> That is physical, sexual attraction. Add to this the sex in movies and
> the innuendo often seen, etc. I consider this a "sexualized"
> culture.
If you don't like those movies, don't watch them.
> It is an extreme position that advocates having lots
> and lots of sex, whereas the position you describe is the
> opposite: no sex at all. And both extremes are unacceptable.
You seem to be advocating the latter.
> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> one man and one woman. The marriage should also be based
> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
My position is this: What people do privately and how they do it is none
of your goddamn business.
> The purpose of this is to provide the right environment for
> raising children,
So I guess people who are using contraceptives or are unable to have
children shouldn't be having sex, right?
> as that is what the purpose of sex is: to have
> children.
Who are you to decide that, Taliban Mike?
> Sex, therefore, is necessary to continue the human
> species, but it should also be performed in the proper
> environment, to ensure the well-being of those children.
> Also, it provides discrimination as to who one has sex
> with and who one doesn't, which can help reduce the
> spread of disease.
So can adequate protection.
> Why do you think AIDS is so darned
> prevalent?! Perhaps it might have something to do with
> too much indiscriminate sex?
Partially. But people who try to block access to contraceptives,
condoms, and sex education--in other words, people like YOU--aren't
helping matters.
Josh Miles
> Deadrat wrote:
>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:1159649142.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>
> I don't. It emphasizes sex (and I'm not just talking about pornography,
> but the whole sexualized culture), it can incite (although it doesn't
> do
> so always) rape, etc.
That's a lie. Pornography does not incite rape.
> Also, let's go and legalize slander and libel. Free speech and all.
Slander and libel are used for the sole purpose of hurting people. Porn
is not.
>>> Do you support a sexualized culture, too?
>> Do you support a government program to desexualize culture?
>>
>
> What exactly do you mean? Legislation against pornography?
> Perhaps.
Because YOU don't like it? If you don't like it, stay away from it. It's
not the government's job to protect you from it.
> It's been done for child pornography already.
There's a huge, huge difference between child pornography and legal
pornography. Child porn is sexual abuse. Legal porn is made by
consenting adults.
> Legislating
> what people can and cannot wear? Probably not, as that seems
> too extreme, and we also run into the issue of whether or not one
> can legislate morality. Modest non-sexualized style of dress should
> be taught by the parents, and should be part of moral education.
Burqas for women, right?
>>> Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy.
>> Ya think so? It's just a match throw to that pile of bad books over
>> there.
>>
>
> Art museums are different from porn websites, stripper clubs, etc.
No shit, Taliban Mike.
>>> But what about
>>> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
>> What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
>> and NC17 movies.
>>
>
> But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
Who are you to decide that, Taliban Mike?
>> We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
>>
>
> But it brought up another issue I felt I needed to discuss.
>
>> Deadrat
>>
>>>
>
Alexander
Diane L
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
>> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
>> one man and one woman.
>
> knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> double on a horse.
My position is this. Where, how and with whom I have sex is none
of anyone else's business as long as only consenting adults are
involved. Where, how and with whom anyone else has sex is none
of *my* business, as long as only consenting adults are involved.
My position on nude art and its relationship to sexuality is that the
human body is an amazing, useful and often beautiful thing and
the association of the body solely with sex is one of the reasons
why our cultures have such a confused attitude to sex and nudity.
When I was about 9 we went on a class trip to an art gallery.
There were pictures of nudes there. Well of *course* there were -
it was an art gallery! The human form has been the subject of
art since art began. If these parents didn't want their children to
see nude art then they should have used their brains and not
signed the permission slips.
What's the problem with kids seeing naked bodies anyway?
>
>> The marriage should also be based
>> on love and not just sex, because those seem to be the
>> strongest marriages, and that gives an ideal environment.
>
> What a bloody crock of shit. The *LAST* reason two (or more) people
> should marry is out of love. I can scarcely think of a worse reason.
> One must pity the poor ignorant bastards who marry out of love.
>
> You obviously have not thought out the issue; perhaps you ought to if
> you are not married but plan on it in the future.
Um. I married for love. We've been married for five years now and
I love him more now than when I married him. Should I expect
some dreadful fate to befall us soon, or were you perhaps over-
generalising from your own experience?
Diane L.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1159692410....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:12htcd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
> > >
> > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
[snip the original story we have all read]
> > >
> >
> > The obvious solution is for the art museum to go to Afghanistan and buy
up a
> > job lot of burkas from Taliban Central, then pull them over any statuary
or
> > paintings portraying the human form whenever under-18s or fundies visit.
>
> It might be cheaper than drapes
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1788845.stm
>
Wow. Oh. wow. I hadn't heard of this one. Worth quoting...but take a look
at the web page with the pictures.
Quote:
Tuesday, 29 January, 2002, 13:37 GMT
Curtains for semi-nude justice statue
No longer will the 'Spirit of Justice' bare her breast
No longer will US Attorney General John Ashcroft appear in public with a
semi-nude statue towering above him. The US Justice Department has spent
$8,000 on curtains to hide the statue from the cameras.
The female, art-deco "Spirit of Justice" statue, with one breast exposed, is
located on the podium in the department's ornate Great Hall where news
conferences are often held.
Mr Ashcroft 'knew nothing' of the decision
One fully-exposed breast protrudes from her toga garment.
Her male counterpart, the "Majesty of Law", is sculpted with a cloth
strategically placed around his waist.
Photographers have gone to great lengths in the past to capture the
scantily-clad female statue in the background as the Justice Department's
top brass addressed the world's press.
Mr Ashcroft has been photographed speaking in front of her several times
since the 11 September attacks.
Hired drapes have previously hung in front of both statues for formal
events, such as President George W Bush's visit to name the building after
assassinated former attorney-general, Robert Kennedy.
Visual harmony
This was done for "aesthetic" reasons, according to Justice Department
spokesman Shane Hix, who said the drapes provided a pleasant background for
television cameras.
But on Monday the department announced that it had taken a "cost effective"
decision to buy the curtains, which cost around $2,000 to hire.
ABC News reported that the decision was taken at the request of the
conservative Mr Ashcroft himself.
But Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said Mr Ashcroft knew
nothing of the investment.
"He has more important things to worry about than what appears in the
pictures," she said.
The drapes are reported to have been hanging since Monday, drawing to a
close the sport of photographers who infamously sprawled on the floor to
snap the former Attorney General Edwin Meese holding aloft his report on
pornography in front of the female statue.
End quote.
Alexander
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> "Alexander" <alexand...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1159692410....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > > "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:12htcd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9936513/detail.html
> > > >
> > > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
>
> [snip the original story we have all read]
>
> > > >
> > >
<<Snippity>>
In fairness I think the Art Deco sculptures are now permanently on
display again regardless of whether dignitaries are in front of them or
not - but at the time it was quite an interesting tweak. This thread
just reminded me of it.
Mike Dworetsky
One of my hobbies is coin-collecting. This story reminds me of the saga of
the1916 design of the standing Liberty US quarter dollar. The original
design looked like the classic Liberty with a shield, robes, and one breast
defiantly bared. Never mind that you needed a magnifying glass to see it.
The DAR and other conservative "morality" groups raised a stink, all sorts
of weird scenarios of boys hiding in the outhouse staring at their change,
etc, and the Treasury redesigned the coin so that Liberty was more chastely
draped. The Type I quarter is now a real collector's item.
Desertphile
June wrote:
> Desertphile <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > > one man and one woman.
> >
> > My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
> > knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> > sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> > wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> > double on a horse.
> Oh man, I *always* wanted to do it on a horse.
Just don't sit on the reigns: it confuses the horse: Giddyup; woah;
giddyup; woah; giddyup; woah...
> How about while driving down the Interstate at 70 mph (well, HE was
> driving)? ;-}
That and alcohol are probably the leading cause of automobile
accidents. :-)
Desertphile
Mujin wrote:
> In article <1159673018.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, deser...@hotmail.com
> says...
> >
> > Noelie S. Alito wrote:
> > > Mujin wrote:
> > > > In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
> > > <chop>
> >
> > > >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
> >
> > Oh me gods! Say it ain't so, Joe!
> >
> > > > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> > > > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> > > > for being highly sexual.
> >
> > That is another crock o' shit again.
> Thus the distinctly sarcastic tone which clearly got lost when my
> post was propagated. Still, do try to keep attributions straight -
> makes it easier to tell what the poster means.
Text does not have any tone, sarcastic or other wise. The attribution
is exactly as I found it, silly.
> > The women in many of "the
> > societies" in the South Pacific were chase, modest, shy, and bashful.
> > Indeed, I would venture to say that most South Pacific Islanders were
> > at least as "Puritanical," if not more so, as their female counterparts
> > in westernized Europe and North America.
> And that, oh my droogie, was my point.
So is your mother.
> > > > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> > > > (especially young, single women) don't
> > > > make an effort to look "sexy"?
> >
> > Yes: New Mexico.
> Really? Not under any circumstances?
Yes, really. Well, there was this one time in Santa Fe that I thought I
had encountered a beautiful woman, but she had this huge flaw..... she
did not want anything at all to do with me. I hate that trait in a
woman.
Cheezits
> Cheezits wrote:
[gratuitous references to SEXXX censored]
> Terribly, terribly funny. I can, regrettably, picture him sitting at
> his keyboard and breaking out in a cold sweat as he reads your reply.
He can always take a cold shower. :-D
[etc.]
> Anyone who gets pregnant during (or after) sex is DOING IT WRONG.
Well, unless that's what they had in mind.
>> Sue (sounds like one of my ex-bfs)
>> --
>> Cheezits between the bedsheets became cause for divorce...
>> - http://www.pookas.com/cols/col.07-25-97A.shtml
>
> Maybe you should have had nuts in bed instead.
Tried that too. :-)
Sue
--
A Real Winner - DWM, 39 boring, dull, very ugly, no hobbies, no interest,
no life, IQ of celery, seeks real beauty. Great sense of humor a must.
- seen in a local paper
josephus
sometime in my desultory education I read this story. -- i
paraphrase here
In Arcadia they put a great value on virginity. It was published in
CHURCH, it was published in houses everywhere.
As a consequence it was rarer than GOLD. it could not be found anywhere.
Mark Twain.
I observe that Christians know exactly and precisely what SIN is. and
they are determined that it should never DIE OUT. the ideas is that the
run of the mill , bog standard member, should not be exposed due to
weakness of mind.
The other complain was "FORGIVENESS". Since Christians are forgiven,
they can SIN with IMPUNITY, because they can always be forgiven. In
the middle ages, it was called an "indulgence". historically
NONCHRISTIANS had no rights and could be folded, stapled and mutilated..
Now look at Fundy Activities. -- They will LIE and
misrepresent as their GOD GIVEN REQUIREMENT TO SPREAD THE "GOOD NEWS"
defined by the BIBLE.
I remember the magazine article about the radical Christians. the
article said it was not about law or morality, it was about TAB U. they
have an agenda with a laundry list of TABUS.
I would guess
sex
sex with children
incest,
there are others but these seem to be the core tabus.
josephus
Jim Willemin
news:46OdnWtbwuD...@giganews.com:
> Mujin wrote:
>> In article <T5ydnXz2NtfoloLY...@giganews.com>,
>> noe...@deadspam.com says...
>>> Mujin wrote:
>>>> In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> mike...@yahoo.com says...
>>> <chop>
>>>
>>> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
>>> >
>>> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
>>> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well
>>> > known for being highly sexual.
>>>
>>> I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
>>> > (especially young, single women) don't
>>> > make an effort to look "sexy"?
>>>
>>> Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
>>> for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
>>> from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
>>> military superior.
>>
>> They might make an effort to not look sexy for the wrong people, but
>> I have it from the horses mouth that even Saudi women who cover
>> themselves completely in the presence of anyone but their immediate
>> families make an effort to look "sexy" (whatever that means - no
>> doubt there are men who get hot and bothered at the sight of a burqa
>> or hijab) when they want to. I've never seen my wife try to go to
>> work in a bikini, but it doesn't seem to stop her choosing one on
>> other occasions.
>
>
> Aye, NPR had an article on the thriving lingerie business in
> Tehran. There are women who do the whole sexy hair/makeup/lingerie
> thing in private, but dress very conservatively in public.
>
>>
>>> Of course, around some sex-craving males, a woman in any
>>> attire looks sexy.
>>
>> And around others no attire can make a woman look sexy.
>>
>
> <cough> Not *every* woman....
>
>
> Noelie
Actually, based on in my experience in the clothing-optional subculture
it strikes me that nudity per se is among the least arousing forms of
public dress, at least in an environment where general nudity is
accepted. (In private, of course, things can be very different...)
Anyhow, it surely seems to me that "sexy" is not a function of the amount
of skin visible, but much rather a function of behavior and, of course,
the eye of the beholder. Which means that if one is upset about the
'overt sexuality' of modern dress, one really needs to muck out one's own
mind and grow up.
I'd also like to remark that while I find nudity not necessarily sexy, it
is certainly one of the most beautiful forms of dress I can imagine,
regardless of the body type of the individual involved - I can't think of
anyone I have seen nude that actually looks better in clothes (and I have
seen some pretty impressively large people - ones that would make the
Venus of Willendorf look like Nicole Ritchie). But maybe that's just me.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Cheezits
[etc.]
> I'd also like to remark that while I find nudity not necessarily sexy,
> it is certainly one of the most beautiful forms of dress I can
> imagine, regardless of the body type of the individual involved - I
> can't think of anyone I have seen nude that actually looks better in
> clothes (and I have seen some pretty impressively large people - ones
> that would make the Venus of Willendorf look like Nicole Ritchie). But
> maybe that's just me.
How old were they? Any varicose veins, eczema, other skin conditions? I
just spent the better part of three weeks recovering from poison ivy.
Trust me, I looked better under wraps.
Nude gardening will never catch on.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Kermit
And how ...ironic that it was the statues of Law and Justice that were
covered up.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
>
> >
Kermit
Kermit
Cheezits wrote:
> Jim Willemin <jimwi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
> > I'd also like to remark that while I find nudity not necessarily sexy,
> > it is certainly one of the most beautiful forms of dress I can
> > imagine, regardless of the body type of the individual involved - I
> > can't think of anyone I have seen nude that actually looks better in
> > clothes (and I have seen some pretty impressively large people - ones
> > that would make the Venus of Willendorf look like Nicole Ritchie). But
> > maybe that's just me.
>
> How old were they? Any varicose veins, eczema, other skin conditions? I
> just spent the better part of three weeks recovering from poison ivy.
> Trust me, I looked better under wraps.
>
> Nude gardening will never catch on.
As a fellow gardener, what do you do to keep your poison ivy healthy?
Mine keeps dying off. Must I garden nude? I only have a fence on two
sides of my suburban property, and that could cause a problem.
>
> Sue
> --
> "It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
> make us what we are." - Red Green
Kermit
Inez
> > >
> > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
> > >
> > to go, too.
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
>
> culture, too? Art museums, yes, it gets a little iffy. But what about
> the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
If you consider a nude statue similar to pornography, you need a better
grade of porn. Most people can see a nude person merely by glancing
downward in the shower, and most survive the experience.
Deadrat
@individual.net:
> Desertphile wrote:
>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
>>> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
>>> one man and one woman.
>>
>> My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting,
>> prone on my back,
Wow! Prone and supine at the same time! Impressive. You must be very
flexible. Is this the infamous "beast with two backs" I keep hearing
about?
Er, was it good for you?
Deadrat
>> on my
>> knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
>> sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
>> wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
>> double on a horse.
>
<snip>
> Diane L.
>
>
>
Diane L
> "Diane L" <dian...@lindquist.plus.com> wrote
Erm, actually, I didn't. You've managed to snip all of my text
except the name at the bottom.
Inez
Desertphile wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > one man and one woman.
>
> knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> double on a horse.
I hope this list doesn't indicate a prejudice by omission against
having sex in inflatable bouncy castles, because that's rather fun.
Not that I would have any way of knowing.
June
> "June" <junego....@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:1hmhvkj.bczdxk94c06cN%junego....@adelphia.net...
> > Desertphile <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > > > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > > > one man and one woman.
> > >
> > > My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
> > > knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> > > sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> > > wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> > > double on a horse.
> >
> > Oh man, I *always* wanted to do it on a horse.
> >
> > How about while driving down the Interstate at 70 mph (well, HE was
> > driving)? ;-}
>
> On balance, I would like to see that one banned, not out of prudishness, but
> for safety reasons and respect for the safety of other road users. Unless
> someone else is driving and the two of you are in the back seat or some
> such. Or else pull over and park.
It was stupid, but not quite as bad as it first sounds...very early in
the a.m. in the middle of the New Mexico desert with no one else on the
road (except for that truck driver who honked enthusiastically ;) God,
we were young & enthusiastic!
It *is* illegal on several counts including reckless driving, so no need
for special banning.
Noelie S. Alito
> Mujin wrote:
>> In article <1159673018.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, deser...@hotmail.com
>> says...
>>> Noelie S. Alito wrote:
>>>> Mujin wrote:
>>>>> In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> <chop>
>>>> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
>>> Oh me gods! Say it ain't so, Joe!
>>>
>>>> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
>>>> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
>>>> > for being highly sexual.
>>> That is another crock o' shit again.
>
>> Thus the distinctly sarcastic tone which clearly got lost when my
>> post was propagated. Still, do try to keep attributions straight -
>> makes it easier to tell what the poster means.
>
> Text does not have any tone, sarcastic or other wise. The attribution
> is exactly as I found it, silly.
Verbal cues for sarcasm:
- as we all know
- clearly
- obviously
- as our brilliant president said
- of course
"And, ____________, there are no caves in Africa."
<snip>
Noelie
--
I don't want to work, I just want to bang on de drum all day.
Deadrat
@individual.net:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "Diane L" <dian...@lindquist.plus.com> wrote
>
> Erm, actually, I didn't. You've managed to snip all of my text
> except the name at the bottom.
Sorry, this should have been addressed to mike4ty4. Prurient interest
clearly interfered with my editing. I still want to know, though.
Deadrat
>
>> in news:4o9i3pFd002sU1
>> @individual.net:
>>
>>> Desertphile wrote:
>>>> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
>>>>> performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
>>>>> one man and one woman.
>>>>
>>>> My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting,
>>>> prone on my back,
>>
>> Wow! Prone and supine at the same time! Impressive. You must be
>> very flexible. Is this the infamous "beast with two backs" I keep
>> hearing about?
>>
>> Er, was it good for you?
>>
>> Deadrat
>>
>>>> on my
>>>> knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine,
>>>> in sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of
>>>> the wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even
>>>> riding double on a horse.
>>>
>>
<NB> Signature below should have been snipped as well. >
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Diane L.
>
>
June
I have several friends who participate in the same sub-culture and have
told me similar views. If everyone is nude, nudity is no longer as
titilating.
From reading history, I recall that different body parts have been
considered more or less sexually stimulating at different times, e.g.
women wore dresses cut almost to their nipples in the 17th century but
exposing a knee was considered extreme sexual provocation. Also that
different decorations/distortions of different body parts can become
sexually stimulating...tatoos, stretched earlobes, distorted feet, etc.
> Which means that if one is upset about the
> 'overt sexuality' of modern dress, one really needs to muck out one's own
> mind and grow up.
Agree. ALL human society has been and is very sexual. If you forbid all
exposure of the body (ala strict sharia/female burkas), you are
emphasizing all parts of the body as sexual signals. If most of the body
is exposed, whatever is NOT exposed is emphasized as a sexual signal.
For us humans (and especially men, and especially *young* men)
EVERYTHING is a sexual signal ;-]
>
> I'd also like to remark that while I find nudity not necessarily sexy, it
> is certainly one of the most beautiful forms of dress I can imagine,
> regardless of the body type of the individual involved - I can't think of
> anyone I have seen nude that actually looks better in clothes (and I have
> seen some pretty impressively large people - ones that would make the
> Venus of Willendorf look like Nicole Ritchie). But maybe that's just me.
We've done some nude hot pooling (out at natural hot pools) and it isn't
as 'embarassing' when everyone else is nekkid too. The only time I felt
uncomfortable was when a friend's mother came on a hike to a natural hot
spring & he insisted on wearing a bathing suit so *she* felt she had to
wear a bathing suit so we *all* wore bathing suits. Wierd.
Mark Iredell
> "June" <junego....@adelphia.net> wrote
> > How about while driving down the Interstate at 70 mph (well, HE was
> > driving)? ;-}
>
> On balance, I would like to see that one banned, not out of prudishness, but
> for safety reasons and respect for the safety of other road users. Unless
> someone else is driving and the two of you are in the back seat or some
> such. Or else pull over and park.
>
> Anyone else remember the scene in the novel "The World According to Garp",
> when sex and driving definitely resulted in unpleasant consequences?
As I recall the novel, they were *parked* in a dark driveway and then
rear-ended. (I mean their car was rear-ended, of course.)
SPOILER: The woman had pretty sharp teeth.
Jim Willemin
news:Xns984F80D93542Ech...@199.45.49.11:
> Jim Willemin <jimwi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
>> I'd also like to remark that while I find nudity not necessarily
>> sexy, it is certainly one of the most beautiful forms of dress I can
>> imagine, regardless of the body type of the individual involved - I
>> can't think of anyone I have seen nude that actually looks better in
>> clothes (and I have seen some pretty impressively large people - ones
>> that would make the Venus of Willendorf look like Nicole Ritchie).
>> But maybe that's just me.
>
> How old were they? Any varicose veins, eczema, other skin conditions?
> I just spent the better part of three weeks recovering from poison
> ivy. Trust me, I looked better under wraps.
>
> Nude gardening will never catch on.
>
> Sue
While I admit I've never seen folks with really acute, gross skin
pathlogies nude, I have seen folks with mild skin problems and folks of
most all ages in the altogether, and on consideration, I'll still say that
no one I've seen nude looked better with clothes on. I guess the thing is
that it seems easier to see the person inside the body when the body is all
there is to see, and inside the body I think most folks are beautiful. But
again, that is an expression of personal belief, I suppose - if one sees
most folks as inherently shameful or degraded or unworthy or sinful, then I
imagine that nudity will simply magnify that perception of the inner
individual and that person so cursed will see less ugliness the more the
actual body is hidden. As an aside, note that the major religions that
emphasize the degraded nature of humanity tend to be really repressive with
respect to sexuality and nudity, whereas those that tended to be more
optimistic about human nature (thinking here of ancient Greece and, to some
extent, Hinduism) were more accepting of the human body.
Richard Forrest
josephus wrote:
> Mujin wrote:
>
> >In article <T5ydnXz2NtfoloLY...@giganews.com>, noe...@deadspam.com says...
> >
> >
> >>Mujin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <1159657302....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >><chop>
> >>
> >> >> We've got women wearing "revealing" clothes that look "sexy".
> >> >
> >> > And as we all know, the societies of the South Pacific South
> >> > America and Africa where women wear next to nothing are well known
> >> > for being highly sexual.
> >>
> >>I see you read the classic porn mag National Geographic.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > For the latter, can you think of a society in which women
> >> > (especially young, single women) don't
> >> > make an effort to look "sexy"?
> >>
> >>Uh, those in which the women would be beaten up (or worse)
> >>for doing so. Or those who don't want to attract attention
> >>from the lascivious lord of the manor, company boss, or
> >>military superior.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >They might make an effort to not look sexy for the wrong people, but I have it from the horses
> >mouth that even Saudi women who cover themselves completely in the presence of anyone but
> >their immediate families make an effort to look "sexy" (whatever that means - no doubt there are
> >men who get hot and bothered at the sight of a burqa or hijab) when they want to. I've never seen
> >my wife try to go to work in a bikini, but it doesn't seem to stop her choosing one on other
> >occasions.
> >
> >
> >
> >>attire looks sexy.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And around others no attire can make a woman look sexy.
> >
> >
> >
> looking at linolium make me think of SEX.
> josephus
It's from that great work of philosophy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the
TV serial, not the rather mediocre film).
RF
Kleuskes & Moos
Inez schreef:
Tell me more...
> Not that I would have any way of knowing.
Shit, Scheisse, Merd'allors, Kut met PEREN! Just when i thought i was
going to find out about the next kinky thing. Sex with inflatable
bouncy castles sounds GOOOD.
Have you ever tried making out with a purple inflatable crocodile? All
the rage in Australia, i hear.
Walter Bushell
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > But what about
> > > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
> >
> > What about them? This is about a teacher who got FIRED because some
> > parents complained that their child saw a piece of nude art. These
> > would be the same parents who signed the permission form to allow their
> > child to go to the art museum.
> >
> > BTW: denverchannel.com did an online poll about this. The question:
> > Would you be upset if your child saw a nude sculpture at a museum of
> > art while on a field trip?
> >
> > The response:
> > Yes: 927 votes, 3%
> > No: 36059 votes, 97%
>
> So three percent of the population admits to being dumb as mud?
>
> Kermit
Mud is not that stupid.
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Umm..these are fifth graders, and haven't been "blank slates" for over
> a decade. Odds are very good that they've all seen naked bodies of
> both sexes at some point.
And if they haven't it's certainly time they did. Oh, well their fathers
are probably screwing them anyway.
--
Divided we stand!
Inez
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Inez schreef:
>
> > Desertphile wrote:
> > > mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > My position on sex is this: Sex is permissible when it is
> > > > performed in the proper environment, ie. marriage, between
> > > > one man and one woman.
> > >
> > > My position on sex is this: Standing, sitting, prone on my back, on my
> > > knees, on the kitchen table, in the forest under a Ponderosa pine, in
> > > sandstone caves among Anasazi ruins, in a sail boat, in front of the
> > > wood-burning stove, wading in the fish pond, and once even riding
> > > double on a horse.
> >
> > I hope this list doesn't indicate a prejudice by omission against
> > having sex in inflatable bouncy castles, because that's rather fun.
>
> Tell me more...
>
> > Not that I would have any way of knowing.
>
> Shit, Scheisse, Merd'allors, Kut met PEREN! Just when i thought i was
> going to find out about the next kinky thing.
I was being coy. I do actually have a way of knowing.
> Sex with inflatable
> bouncy castles sounds GOOOD.
>
> Have you ever tried making out with a purple inflatable crocodile? All
> the rage in Australia, i hear.
I've never used an inflatable item for the actual sex-partner part. I
prefer real for that.
Walter Bushell
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Deadrat wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Art museums are different from porn websites, stripper clubs, etc.
> >
> > > > But what about
> > > > the blatant pornographic videos all over the net and sex in movies?
> > >
> > > What about them? If it bothers you, don't surf the net and don't go to R
> > > and NC17 movies.
> > >
> >
> > But why bother having them at all?! What BENEFIT do they serve?
> >
> > > We're talking about a 5th-grade field trip to an art museum.
> > >
> >
> > But it brought up another issue I felt I needed to discuss.
> >
> > > Deadrat
>
> I am wondering what your stance is on the bible. It is one of the best
> soft porn books ever written.
>
> Harry K
Not to mention the violence. The whole world wiped out by flood, promise
of fire next time. One guy says "Eat me or go to hell", and that is the
(putative) Good Guy. auuuuuuugh!
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Boy oh boy, there's a lot you don't know about male body builders. In some
> cases, they are definitely not out to attract "women". (And in some cases,
> well, yes they are.) I'd suggest you stay away from places like "Muscle
> Beach" until you work this out.
What and ruin his "Surprise!"? He might just find what he is looking for
in the Ramble in Central park, Manhattan.
--
Divided we stand!
Draccus
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> "Alexander" <alexand...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1159692410....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> > > "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:12htcd6...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Art Teacher Loses Job After Kids See Nude Sculpture
> > > > Children Were On School-Approved Field Trip
>
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > The obvious solution is for the art museum to go to Afghanistan and buy
> up a
> > > job lot of burkas from Taliban Central, then pull them over any statuary
> or
> > > paintings portraying the human form whenever under-18s or fundies visit.
> >
> > It might be cheaper than drapes
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1788845.stm
> >
>
> Wow. Oh. wow. I hadn't heard of this one. Worth quoting...but take a look
> at the web page with the pictures.
Yeah this is an old one old Crisco Kid Ashcroft could not stand to be
around the naked breast, he also saw no irony in covering up Justice,
Now look where we are with his buddies Bush and Cheney.