User: tompriest

Man, if a girl does it right she won't be all bumpy, reddened and sore from the razor. Some hair on a girl is okay, as long as it's purposefully neatly trimmed that way. You don't wan't to be flossing your teeth after going down there do you? If you know what I mean, lol.

========== In Reply To ========== Yeah, it's the same with girls who shave their pubes off so that their crotches look like little girls crotches (only bumpy and reddened and sore from the razor). It's just lame, that kind of conformity and I have always thought it looked moronic and unnattractive.

Unlike you, I do follow the faith and believe in the values expressed in it. The only thing is that you have some things totally wrong. Genitalia is strictly considered the organs of reproduction. Notice the "gen" in "Genitalia" and "Generation", and "Generate". You can not reproduce with breasts, it's just impossible. There is a clear and definable difference between a man's $%!@ and a woman's breasts. Then only thing you can compare a $%!@ with is the female vulva.

You say that you have to have the talk with your 10 year old daughter early, well, that's life. It would have come sooner or later, as she will develop and the questions will inevitably arise. How would you explain to her why they always show men with shirts off and don't show it as often for women?

I'm a firm believer in the thought that government should not unnecessarily interfere with the general process of life. There is no need for the FCC to regulate what they feel is indecency. I believe that the free market will dictate what gets shown on television, as long as it's not a "clear and present danger" as was defined by the supreme court. "Indecency" is defined by the "community standard". So you saying the law was violated was in fact inaccurate. I don't believe showing a woman's breast on television violates the community standard. On the other hand, sexually abusing children is clearly codified as a violation of the law. Your comparison of Michael and Janet Jackson's actions as breaking the law does not stack up.

What I suggest for you is to just think it over. Ask yourself, regarding breasts or nudity as a whole on television, "What's the big deal?"

========== In Reply To ========== I am not a Bible thumping goody two shoes, but there has got to be a line that is drawn to keep things on tv from going too far. The female breast is considered female genitalia. The male $%!@ is considered male genitalia. Would you want to explain to your 10 year old girl what that thing is if they decided to show a $%!@ on broadcast tv? I think a parent should be able to decide when to have "the talk" with their children and it should not be up to the program directors of television networks. When the genetalia of either sex is shown on tv, "the talk" becomes necessary to let the child(ren) know what they just saw wasn't dirty or gross. I think that Janet, Justin and MTV completely planned what happened. I don't care what they say to the contrary. It was very irresponsible and I took offense to it, not because it was a breast that was exposed, but because they made a parenting decision for me. I want to decide when I have "the talk" now I am forced to have it earlier than I had planned. Another point seems to be missed here, the law is the law. It is against the law to have nudity on broadcast television. If you or I had done that, there would be no major discussion about it, we would be arrested for indecent exposure and fined by the FCC. Janet and Justin seem to think that because they are "big stars" that they are immune to the rules. It was something that should never have been done, especially by someone who's brother thinks he is above the law as well. Just my opinion, so put your pants on and go on to the next post.

Thanks for the posts, your perspectives are very interesting. One of the reasons I made the post that me and my buddies all had a good time when Justin Timberlake pulled Janet's top off. I honestly don't know of anybody who was offended by the site of Janet Jackson's breast. If anyone was offended, it was some mothers, but, ironically, I bet their kids had a good time with it!

I have a story of hypocricy too. While it was on cable and not network tv, there was a Learning Channel special on what people find attractive. On this single one hour show, they had full frontal nude views of both men and women of the Amazon. Yet, on this very same show, they later had a back view of a woman diving into a pool obviously topless. The view changes and you can see that she's about to climb the ladder out of the pool. I'm expecting that they'll show her breasts, yet to my surprise they digitally blurred it! I was 15 at the time (only 19 now), so you could imagine my disappointment! Anyway, I found that very hypocritical.

In one poll on Hot or Not.com, Washington, DC rated as the city with the hottest women. If you go there, it's hard to imagine it not being numero uno!

This is wrong. Comparing the breast of a woman to the $%!@ of a man is physiologically and sociologically innacurate. A woman's breasts and a man's chest are analogous. Thus, showing a woman's breasts should be no worse than showing a man's pectoral region. The female equivilant of showing a man's genital region would be showing that of a woman, whether or not most of the genitalia is hidden. If if it isn't shaved, just the showing of a standing woman would be equivilent. But often times in movies when they show a woman's genital region they are very careful that the woman poses in such a way that you can't see much of anything. The same is not when they show a man's genital region.

So, the equivilent of showing a man's genital region is showing an unobstructed view of a woman's, not her breasts.

========== In Reply To ========== Comparatively speaking there is an obvious difference between male/female full frontal nudity..with female frontal nudity the womans $%!@ is mostly internal(meaning the $%!@,the labia(lips),the prepuce(clitoral hood)are for the most part "hidden".So,as far as the obviousness or agressiveness of the female genitalia goes ,much is left to the imagination even if her $%!@ is mostly shaven.Only if a naked woman lays back,spreads her legs,spreads her lips can one get an "equivalant view" of what one could see on just a standing nude male.This blatantly obvious "visual difference" (point of view) between male and female frontal nudity is often deliberately omitted in some circles,such as some womens'groups/feminist groups etc.,in order for these groups to obtain a socially acceptable gender equality for both female and male frontal nudity and thereby seemingly strengthening their argument and seemingly justifying their deluded meaning.Simply,two barometers must be applied because of the inherent difference in the male/female genitalia.