Why is being nude so "wrong"?
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
Lied? You didn't read her Statement in Capital letters?
She simply said that she couldn't see a problem with it, and debunked your hysterical patter about pedophiles. You called her sick for not assuming that people would be able to track down a name and address from an anonymous picture-hosting site.
It's just...nudity. It's not necessarily sexual, unless people routinely use Da Vinci prints as whack-off material.
Maybe your boyfriend needs to wait until you're conscious once in a while, you wouldn't be so uptight about sex.
So ... yeah ... why are you taking pedophilic pictures of your kids, Shorty?
Shorty 37
I owe you an apology. I realize now that you did not lie. I'm sorry.
That's about the only nice thing I have to say to you at this time, though.
My predictions are affirmed:
Now then ... if it's really so important to you, next time take a few seconds and actually make the effort of referring back to your point. This is our sixth post in this exchange, and had you been so courteous as to include a link with your argument, we could have reached this point in the second post of this exchange, and I would probably be more sympathetic to your histrionics.
As it is, Shorty, you need to calm down. You might be shocked that Orleander doesn't sexualize her children, but then again, you're the one insisting that children be sex objects.
Shorty 37
I owe you an apology. I realize now that you did not lie. I'm sorry.
That's about the only nice thing I have to say to you at this time, though.
My predictions are affirmed:
(1) Speculatively, though, I'll go so far as to give her a certain benefit of the doubt and say I think I understand her point. As such, I would even agree with it.
(2) I'm going to predict that when I look over into that thread, I'm not going to find it helps your argument.
(2) I'm going to predict that when I look over into that thread, I'm not going to find it helps your argument.
Now then ... if it's really so important to you, next time take a few seconds and actually make the effort of referring back to your point. This is our sixth post in this exchange, and had you been so courteous as to include a link with your argument, we could have reached this point in the second post of this exchange, and I would probably be more sympathetic to your histrionics.
As it is, Shorty, you need to calm down. You might be shocked that Orleander doesn't sexualize her children, but then again, you're the one insisting that children be sex objects.
Bells
Staff member
Well you seemed so sure and knowledgeable about sexual relationships between siblings, what else could she or anyone else assume?
You took someone saying their daughter ran through the house naked in front of her brother and twisted into something that was quite depraved. Seriously, for a woman of your age, one would assume you would know better. You equate a brother seeing his sister naked being as sexual as said brother looking at a pornographic magazine that is specifically designed to arouse the reader. How in the hell could you even make such a leap? And you call us weird?:bugeye:
You equate nudity with sex. Enough said really. Your ranting on the issue, only makes us amused and provides more fodder.
Bells;1580255:Well you seemed so sure and knowledgeable about sexual relationships between siblings, what else could she or anyone else assume?
She does not BELLS.
You took someone saying their daughter ran through the house naked in front of her brother and twisted into something that was quite depraved. Seriously, for a woman of your age, one would assume you would know better. You equate a brother seeing his sister naked being as sexual as said brother looking at a pornographic magazine that is specifically designed to arouse the reader. How in the hell could you even make such a leap? And you call us weird?:bugeye:
You equate nudity with sex. Enough said really. Your ranting on the issue, only makes us amused and provides more fodder.
You must be talking about different ages thats all.
She does not BELLS.
You took someone saying their daughter ran through the house naked in front of her brother and twisted into something that was quite depraved. Seriously, for a woman of your age, one would assume you would know better. You equate a brother seeing his sister naked being as sexual as said brother looking at a pornographic magazine that is specifically designed to arouse the reader. How in the hell could you even make such a leap? And you call us weird?:bugeye:
You equate nudity with sex. Enough said really. Your ranting on the issue, only makes us amused and provides more fodder.
You must be talking about different ages thats all.
Bells
Staff member
Of any age John.
Who in their right mind views a naked sister running through the house as being akin to a naked woman posing in a highly sexual manner in a Playboy Magazine as being the same? Especially when the context given by Orleander was that of a young girl, a child really.
But the same would apply, regardless of the ages of the siblings.
It is physically impossible for closely genetically related individuals to find each other sexually attractive under any circumstances, especially nude. Please bone up on modern psycho-sexual research.
well apparently you've never read Flowers in the Attic. Or any other of the books Baron has researched.
Superluminal said:
Heh. You said "bone". Heh-heh.
Actually, dude, that's a very interesting thesis that I've never heard before. That I've never heard it doesn't mean it's not real. So I was hoping that you might provide some detail on the thesis so that I can learn more about sexual deviance. I mean, "physically impossible"? That's a hell of a statement by my understanding. If I consider the number of parental sexual abuse cases, I'm wondering where the children came from.
Good. Sometimes it takes a clearly absurd statement to refocus the point of a discussion...
Good point there. Kinda makes the statement even more absurd, don' it?Even if the naked women have paper bags over their heads???
Baron Max
Er, then why does incest occur? :/ It's a minority, but it exists.
As for as psycho-sexual research, iirc, one of the reasons is people are not sexually attracted to family is that family is around them when they grow up. People who grow up closely with people who are not genetically related will also not be sexually interested in them.
Good Question???????? But some ppl here seem to close their eyes to the fact it does actually occur.
Oh, missed it. So you didn't mean it.
How come? I'm not saying that intimate association during a certain developmental period is the only reason, but it seems to be one.