NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently heard that you can get in trouble in the US if your little child plays on the beach without a bathing suit. Is that true?

Why is the US so prude, compared to places like...well, Germany for example?

Why are anti-AIDS "abstinence" campaigns being funded with millions by the White House, when it is obvious that condom campaigns would do a much better job?

Is this because America wouldn't let Russia get to 2nd base on the first date?

Well, you see, son, we have somthing in the world called stupidity and irrationality.

Well, you see, son, we have somthing in the world called stupidity and irrationality.
... and THAT'S where babies come from.

... and THAT'S where babies come from.
No, no - they outsource babies now.

I recently heard that you can get in trouble in the US if your little child plays on the beach without a bathing suit. Is that true?
It depends on how old the kid is. I don't let my kids play naked in public, but that is probably because of things that happened to me when I was a kid.

Well, you see, son, we have somthing in the world called stupidity and irrationality.

And after looking very carefully at the way things are done in...say Germany...we said, "Naw, if their doing it in Germany it has got to be completely ass backwards, so we're going to do just the opposite so we don't EVER get tricked like those poor bastards did."

I think so. When that (non)incident happend with Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, I had an on-line conversation with people who were convinced that if their child had happened to be in the room and had happened to be looking at the tv when Janet's breast was visible, they would have been 'harmed' in some way.

In the same conversation quite some number of people were absolutely certain that a post infancy aged boy seeing his own mother's breasts would result in life-long harm to the boy.

Alternatively not a single participant in the conversation except for one other non-American was even suprised, most agreed, and the few that didnt agree seemed to accept that their view was a minority one.

Another time on a tv show a couple of women who were breast-feeding their children past infancy were racked over the coals and even the 'professional experts' offered the most silly arguments as to why it should be a problem. People's statements were all along the lines of 'this is harmful or potentially harmful to the child and should not be done', at least one person stated outright that it was perverted. The general attitude of most commentors was that the motivation for the behaviour was sexual in itself, or would somehow 'sexualise' the child, or both.

The most perverse aspect of this 'prudishness' is the gratuitous treatment of anything that is or could be construed to be remotely sexual in the media, in marketing etc. It seems to me that in the US there is an attitude of prudishness that is widespread and valued as 'right' and equally, and also that there is a tendency to 'see sex' everywhere. I suspect these 2 things are related.

Hence:
Well, you see, son, we have somthing in the world called stupidity and irrationality.

And after looking very carefully at the way things are done in...say Germany...we said, "Naw, if their doing it in Germany it has got to be completely ass backwards, so we're going to do just the opposite so we don't EVER get tricked like those poor bastards did."

Precisely. We are a shining moral example to the world, so ethical that we never have sex (married males only very conservatively surgically transport semen into their partners), so perfect that we were intelligently designed (rather than being ape-descendents like those silly Germans you mention), and so devout that we pray every night for Jesus to give us more oil.

So if none of the Americans here are prude, then why do you accept the prudeness all around you?

Surely in a sample of so many, there must be at least one who thinks it's inherently bad for people to have sex before marriage, or to lay on the beach topless.

I would say America is so prudish because sex sells. The more prudish a society becomes, the more perversions exist and the more markets for perversions to cater to. Trying to sell someone video of a topless beach in France would be silly, but to Americans who worship breasts because they are hidden so well, there's money to be made.

If American society wasn't so prudish, the whole pornography industry would collapse.

That's like asking if socialist hate Bill Gates. The US is indeed quite prude.

Well...there's one thing I don't get...

Why does there have to be sex everywhere I go?

I mean, geez. I turn on the T.V. and this chick is acting like she's getting an orgasm in the middle of a courtroom from her shampoo.

If I want to see naked people, I can easily find it within seconds.

How sad is it that I can look at a woman's breasts and not even pay any significant attention to them anymore because they're freakin' everywhere I go?

I mean, I like naked women as much as anyone else...but...c'mon...When I go to the beach I don't exactly want to see some ugly whore's boobs sagging because 30 guys pulled on them and have everyone claim that the world is more progressive as a result and we are more civilized and respecting of civil liberties.

If the government is going to protect me from M-rated games so well, it damn better protect me from ugly naked whores people running.

America only seems prudish because its authority figures are, and they only seem prudish because they care about what they're arguing. We have the same ideological divide as anywhere, we just get more pissed off about it, so it seems like we're dumber.

I mean, I like naked women as much as anyone else...but...c'mon...When I go to the beach I don't exactly want to see some ugly whore's boobs sagging because 30 guys pulled on them.

Seconded.

-snip-
Seconded.
Then don't look.
Just because you feel something is not pretty is hardly a reason to outlaw it.

And my understanding is that in the US you can only go topless on special beaches, and otherwise I presume you'd be liable to public exposure laws and could actually go to jail.
It's ridiculous.

I don't think America's prudish because of wanting people clothed in public. That's just common courtesy and public decency. I don't want to see naked kids or old people running or hobbling along in public. America is prudish because of the censorship in the media and movies. Horribly violent acts are ok on TV, but nudity is a no-no.

Must have to do with the puritan founding.

Then don't look.
Just because you feel something is not pretty is hardly a reason to outlaw it.

And my understanding is that in the US you can only go topless on special beaches, and otherwise I presume you'd be liable to public exposure laws and could actually go to jail.
It's ridiculous.
Is it really progressive to let people run around naked, no matter how repulsive they look? It's shallow, but there are many a bodies I do not enjoy seeing.

I see enough naked teens my age in the locker room every other day. It's not like I haven't been exposed to naked people.

Again, if the government wants to protect me from the stupidest things like TV and video game violence, it better protect me from ugly naked people.

Well...there's one thing I don't get...

Why does there have to be sex everywhere I go?
I suspect that it is because of prudishness. While the 'sex everywhere' environment might impact on prudishness, I suspect that rather than sex being everywhere being the cause of prudishness, that prudishness probably causes the 'sex to be everywhere'.

I suspect that the prudishness involved a large degree of perceiving things as sexual even when they probably are not. The prudishness means that instances of sexuality are more likely to be negatively valued. This leads to a situation in which something most people have an interest in and are desireous of sex, yet are aware that their interest/desire could be interpreted very negatively. This probably leads to heightened interest and which makes it even more likely things will be interpreted as 'sexual' and also makes sexual things seem more significant, so that when negative values are attached to particular instances of 'sexualness/sexuality' they are percieved as being much more significant than might be the case otherwise. Thus the negative connotations that arise are veiwed as significant to an extent that they have the capacity to greatly influence behaviour and perception.

So we have people who desire a certain thing and have an active interest in it, yet there is a very rational fear that this interest/desire could (if known to others) lead to negative consequences. In many cases people not only are aware of other people's possible perceptions of sexual interest/desires, they have themselves internalised these perceptions.

The result is people who have both reason to fear the judgements of others, and who judge themselves (sex=guilt phenomena) in regards to sexual attitudes/desires/interests/and practises, but who none-the-less have such desires and interests. So we have a desire/interest complex intercepting with an avoidance complex. Using sex in marketing then becomes very effective because people can exercise their interest without necessarily being seen to do so (is it their fault the advert was made that way - no, so they cant be blamed for the sexual content, and so can access it without being subject to the negative connotations), and further the sexual content is attention grabbing both because avoiding something you desire tends to lead to heightened desire, and because the significance attached to sexual things gives it a shock value, and gives it a quality of 'circumventing the rules' without having to pay the price in consequences (basically being able to 'cheat' which conveys the benefits one derives from 'cheating' whilst also conveying satisfaction in terms of 'pulling one over' on others).

How sad is it that I can look at a woman's breasts and not even pay any significant attention to them anymore because they're freakin' everywhere I go?
An indication that the saturation level of 'marketed sex' is beginning to erode it's novelty/rarity/shock value.

-snip-
Do you think it could have something to do with the Sexual Liberation Movement in the US in the sixties and seventies? The whole "Free Love" thing?

In the US, I can go kiss in public and fondle guys without any legal penalty. In Saudi Arabia that is a capital offense.

In India, if I had sex with my partner I could get life in prison, even if it was in private.

In America, I can be openly in the position that I am and although some people will vocally disapprove, they will usually continue to provide me with most services, while in France, Greece, or Hungary, I will be discrimated against when looking for a job, getting my grades from my professors, and getting standing in everyday life, while the government and people will vehemently deny they do this.

I don't really think America is too prudish. I can marry back in my state anyway so don't bring that up.

I talked to someone who went to a nudist colony once and he said virtually the only people who go there are folks you wouldn't want to see naked in the first place.

"It is more exciting to conceal, than to reveal." - Robin Williams in the movie "Club Paradise".

-snip-
Not sure what gay rights have to do with being prude though...

It depends on what you value as prudishness: actual physical effects or loud, outspoken bullcrap.

It depends on what you value as prudishness: actual physical effects or loud, outspoken bullcrap.
I'm talking about the general negative way Americans seem to look at sexuality. When it is merely implied, as in advertising, it is considered okay (although I'm not sure how much skin can legally be shown in an ad) - but things like breast-feeding, topless on a beach or in a park, teenage sexuality (and -pregnancy) are considered absolute taboo.

That is more strict than in Europe, no matter which way you look at it. I agree that the rules may be stricter in Saudi Arabia or parts of India, but that is hardly the standard the US should be compared to.

What drives ME nuts is the people who insist that their boy seeing Janet Jackson's breast is going to "harm" him somehow...yet, they have a big cow over the idea of anything GAY.

Shit, go teach your boy that breasts are bad, then be amazed when he turns out gay...WTF?!?!?

What drives ME nuts is the people who insist that their boy seeing Janet Jackson's breast is going to "harm" him somehow...yet, they have a big cow over the idea of anything GAY.

Shit, go teach your boy that breasts are bad, then be amazed when he turns out gay...WTF?!?!?
It's better when they scream at anything that performs abortions or is gay. But who has the lowest abortion ratio than gay men?

Who do they consider a bigger threat then? Who do they value more? What is their real motive?

I'm talking about the general negative way Americans seem to look at sexuality. When it is merely implied, as in advertising, it is considered okay (although I'm not sure how much skin can legally be shown in an ad) - but things like breast-feeding, topless on a beach or in a park, teenage sexuality (and -pregnancy) are considered absolute taboo.

That is more strict than in Europe, no matter which way you look at it. I agree that the rules may be stricter in Saudi Arabia or parts of India, but that is hardly the standard the US should be compared to.

I think as you see the older generations die out and lose power, you'll see a lot more relaxation in America. Except public nudity, I don't think we're going anywhere with that one... except during spring break. Television and such is definitly allowing more sexual things on the air, but the attitude towards gays is atrocious. I envy our Canadian neighbors sometimes. Their civil rights definitly seem to beat out the "land of the free"'s.

I talked to someone who went to a nudist colony once and he said virtually the only people who go there are folks you wouldn't want to see naked in the first place.

I do frequent resorts, there are people of all shapes, ages, and sizes there. Anyhow, I will adress more on this tommorow morning.

Do you think it could have something to do with the Sexual Liberation Movement in the US in the sixties and seventies? The whole "Free Love" thing?
Well it would have to, because if there is no prohibition on sexuality in any way shape or form, what is there to liberate?

The 'free-love' movement wasnt just 'free-love', there were quite some number of 'counter-movements' to the status quo that had existed prior. I dont think anyone could be construed as cause or effect. Obviously if you have an attitude of 'generalised rebellion' against what is the norm, and the norm includes stringent social taboos about sex, then sex is likely to figure in the rebellion-expression. However arguably too, if someone is impressional (ie young) has a desire to do a certain thing, and is presented with the choice of conformity to a non-peer oriented/maintained status quo, or joining in a rebellion against the status quo and the latter not only allows the desire to be fufilled but actually encourages, then chances the later will be accepted.
This is just one example of 2 mutually influencing traits within a confluence.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

I'm pretty sure this explains America's prudeness.

America is extremely prudish, the Janet Jackson Superbowl "disaster" confirmed it. The "wardrobe malfunction" was discussed ad nauseum & she apologised a number of times for it.

All she did was flash a tit & you couldn't even see a nipple.

America is extremely prudish, the Janet Jackson Superbowl "disaster" confirmed it. The "wardrobe malfunction" was discussed ad nauseum & she apologised a number of times for it.

All she did was flash a tit & you couldn't even see a nipple.
And the worst thing for me was that she didn't even do it!
It was the guy, whoever it was, who grabbed it and pulled it off, for whatever reason.
And everyone attacked her! WTF?

America is extremely prudish, the Janet Jackson Superbowl "disaster" confirmed it. The "wardrobe malfunction" was discussed ad nauseum & she apologised a number of times for it.

All she did was flash a tit & you couldn't even see a nipple.


This was perfect P.R. which she needs to stay in business.

I don´t think America is prude, at least the intern of the President isn´t .

I don´t think America is prude, at least the intern of the President isn´t .
Actually, that's another point.

A sex-related scandal (whatever the guy does is his own business, it's not like it was impacting on his performance as prez) vs a serious leak of info on the CIA. What got more attention?

Seriously, that is not simply the Dems not being able to spin it properly, that's just the media not being as interested.

This was perfect P.R. which she needs to stay in business.

I don´t think America is prude, at least the intern of the President isn´t .

You know, it was weird enough with Clinton... but imagining George W. and his intern... *shudders

That almost classifies as necrophilia, doesn't it? :eek:

I recently heard that you can get in trouble in the US if your little child plays on the beach without a bathing suit. Is that true?

Why is the US so prude, compared to places like...well, Germany for example?

Why are anti-AIDS "abstinence" campaigns being funded with millions by the White House, when it is obvious that condom campaigns would do a much better job?
1)Past 4 it is sick
2)Puritants and the right to practice religeon freely.
c)Condoms are unnatural, silly.

1)Past 4 it is sick
Agreed, but I was saying "young child". What about 3 or 2 years?

2)Puritants and the right to practice religeon freely.
Oh, you have that right in any given European country as well - there's plenty of religios people who enjoy a bit of naturism on the side. In East Germany it was positively mainstream, and still is with many.

c)Condoms are unnatural, silly.
If the catholic church says that, then okay - I understand they are a male-dominated, ancient and hierarchical morass.
But the US government should know better, and the American people even better still.

I mean, I like naked women as much as anyone else...but...c'mon...When I go to the beach I don't exactly want to see some ugly whore's boobs sagging because 30 guys pulled on them and have everyone claim that the world is more progressive as a result and we are more civilized and respecting of civil liberties.
There are also many women with ugly faces. I propose all women should wear the Islamic veil from now on. After all, the governement must protect me from seeing them, right?

Agreed, but I was saying "young child". What about 3 or 2 years?


Oh, you have that right in any given European country as well - there's plenty of religios people who enjoy a bit of naturism on the side. In East Germany it was positively mainstream, and still is with many.


If the catholic church says that, then okay - I understand they are a male-dominated, ancient and hierarchical morass.
But the US government should know better, and the American people even better still.
1)Although i am against this idea of 'nudity' it would be like saying 3 yeaor olds shouldnt be Breast fed i say damn it if they want it give it.

2)I always spell religion(???) wrong but it must be a Puritant thing.
The people that left for America didnt like the way they were being treated by the Catholics and Moderate Protestants so they went off and did their own thing.
But..... when others came for the same reason 'to express their right of religieon(???)'the Puritants said no!

Then isnt it interesting to note when the puritants got into power in England before during and after the Civil Wars they descriminated against Catholics and were oppressive themselves.

c)Puritants are the same except they wear stupid clothes and dont have a real Sect/breanch of Christianity.

Is America prude?

ARE PENGUINS THE MOST AMUSING ANIMALS?! YES!

How sad is it that I can look at a woman's breasts and not even pay any significant attention to them anymore because they're freakin' everywhere I go?

Erm... yeah. Do you think that in the years before clothing, when humans were running around naked, that all the men were in a constant state of arousal? 'Cause that could get a little inconvenient...

The only reason that you pay significant attention to naked women is because in our society, you associate nudity with sex. If everyone was naked all the time, you wouldn't care in the slightest. One could rather argue that it is 'sad' that you pay them such attention in the first place.

Is it really progressive to let people run around naked, no matter how repulsive they look? It's shallow, but there are many a bodies I do not enjoy seeing.

There are many faces that I find repulsive, but I don't petition the government to force them to wear masks. There are many political views that I find repulsive, but I don't petition the government to ban them. There are many clothes I find repulsive, but I don't petition the government to force everybody to be naked.

I personally have no interest in going around in my birthday suit, for the record. Far too unhygienic and dangerous for my tastes. But live and let live.

ARE PENGUINS THE MOST AMUSING ANIMALS?! YES!



Erm... yeah. Do you think that in the years before clothing, when humans were running around naked, that all the men were in a constant state of arousal? 'Cause that could get a little inconvenient...

The only reason that you pay significant attention to naked women is because in our society, you associate nudity with sex. If everyone was naked all the time, you wouldn't care in the slightest. One could rather argue that it is 'sad' that you pay them such attention in the first place.

No i would go about killing all the excessivly fat people.

No i would go about killing all the excessivly fat people.

Well, aren't you special?

Besides, they don't need any help with that, their cholesterol will do it for you.

I think if you manage to make people believe that one of their most basic instincts is somehow evil, then you already have a foot in their brains. Controlling people's sexuality is powerful tool to control the people themselves

I don't mean that it's some kind of conspiracy or some people set out and said "let's make people suppress their sexuality, so we can control them" - it simply happens because it works.

Something like:

Breasts are harmful.

War is Peace.

etc.

If you just go topless in a public park in the US you will most likely be arrested for Indecent Exposure and get a fine or something.

Why? The country was founded by Puritans. From there it just made itself part of our culture. We're the prudes because England dumped 'em all on us. Thanks guys.

Well, aren't you special?

Besides, they don't need any help with that, their cholesterol will do it for you.
Yeah its called Special needs.

Is this because America wouldn't let Russia get to 2nd base on the first date?

I think it's because we watched Germany act like a frat boy on a date with France several times in a row...

Now we're acting like a frat boy...

That's just what they want you to think.

I have seen the opposite of prudishness in the US in recent years. What I have seen is girls wearing clothes that covers less of their bodies than any clothes ever designed in the past, wearing these clothes at a younger age than was ever considered appropriate, and being objectified in ways never before considered moral. Ive seen little girls, Im talking 9 and 10 years old, sometimes even younger, wearing shirts that cover only the top half of their torso, leaving the belly exposed and the words "boy candy" written across the part where their breasts would be if they were old enough to have any. Why do they even make these clothes in children's sizes and sell them in the girls section of stores? Why do they make two piece bathing suits in 8 year old sizes? Why is the phrase "boy candy" appropriate for young girls to wear? Ive seen plenty of other shirts marketed towards children (usually girls) with sexual innuendo written on them. When girls finally do get boobs, there is a line of clothing specifically designed to show them off. The US is getting far less prude than it has ever been.

This was perfect P.R. which she needs to stay in business.

I don´t think America is prude, at least the intern of the President isn´t .

It might have the perfect PR on Jackson's behalf, but the public outcry was unique to America.

A lady ran on the the field of the Australian Rules Football Grand Final (the Superbowl could be considered an equal of this in America) stark naked, but there was no over the top reaction, nor apology regarding her nudity. Most of the discussion involved why her pubes didn't match the hair on her head. No bullshit about "wardrobe malfunctions" because her tit was exposed for less than a minute.

European, British, Australian, Kiwi films & TV have naked bodies in them without any worries. American shows don't. It's only naked flesh, naked bodies. Get over it.

European, British

Thanks for that ;). It's the little things that make the big difference!

Why do they even make these clothes in children's sizes and sell them in the girls section of stores? Why do they make two piece bathing suits in 8 year old sizes? Why is the phrase "boy candy" appropriate for young girls to wear?

I ask myself those same questions, my daughter has a friend who is about 7 who owns a thong, I am 23 and I don't have a thong!!!!!!!!! Why would a 7 year old need one? I doubt she is worried about panty lines.

Someone purchased a pair of pants for my daughter that says "angel" on the rear end and a top that says "2 hot 4 u" in sequins on the front chest area.

She is only 4!!!!!!!!!!

I took the shirt back and got a refund and they asked what the problem was and I said "That shirt is too suggestive for me to wear, why would I put it on my kid?"
and the sales clerk said some crap about her needing to be in touch with her sexuality so she could be empowered.

I want my kids to be empowered because they are smart, funny, confident, and special, not because they have sequins on thier chest.

and as far as the pants, why would anyone want to draw attention to a child's rear end? advertising for pedophiles?:headbang:

the subject is of no interest.
US folks think like they want and the others are suckers.
Gott mit uns.
O father why did you die when falling that mirador ?

It might have the perfect PR on Jackson's behalf, but the public outcry was unique to America.

A lady ran on the the field of the Australian Rules Football Grand Final (the Superbowl could be considered an equal of this in America) stark naked, but there was no over the top reaction, nor apology regarding her nudity. Most of the discussion involved why her pubes didn't match the hair on her head. No bullshit about "wardrobe malfunctions" because her tit was exposed for less than a minute.

European, British, Australian, Kiwi films & TV have naked bodies in them without any worries. American shows don't. It's only naked flesh, naked bodies. Get over it.

Indeed, it's embarrassing to see the US's prudishness.

Indeed, it's embarrassing to see the US's prudishness.
Oddly, that applies mostly on broadcast TV and radio in the US.

Cable and satellite is quite different.

There are several reasons why people aren't allowed to be ugly in public(in the US):
1. health concerns. Naked+cold or very hot day=not good for you. Coldness helps cause sickness by lowing your immunity because less energy goes into immunity and more into not freezing to death. Hot leads to sunburns oftentimes, which aren't very fun/

2. Sex=powerful. Sex is a very powerful thing. Naked is associated with sex because people are more likely to do it when they are not wearing clothes than when they are not. Believe it or not, sex is very powerful. That's why it needs to be controlled. Uncontrolled sex increases the number of AIDS victims and causes people to do stuff they'll regret later, like killing people right in front of law enforcement.

3. The porn industry. Porn makers want money and naked is considered sexy in a society where what isn't seen is what it sexy. Maybe everyone should wear masks and whatnot for 364 days a year. On the other day, everyone gets naked. $$$$$

It depends on how old the kid is. I don't let my kids play naked in public, but that is probably because of things that happened to me when I was a kid.

I don't let my kids go naked in the water because, unlike when I was in Europe, the water isn't really that clean.

And I'm too busy naked running about that I usually forget to bring the kids...

;)

I have seen the opposite of prudishness in the US in recent years. What I have seen is girls wearing clothes that covers less of their bodies than any clothes ever designed in the past, wearing these clothes at a younger age than was ever considered appropriate, and being objectified in ways never before considered moral. Ive seen little girls, Im talking 9 and 10 years old, sometimes even younger, wearing shirts that cover only the top half of their torso, leaving the belly exposed and the words "boy candy" written across the part where their breasts would be if they were old enough to have any. Why do they even make these clothes in children's sizes and sell them in the girls section of stores? Why do they make two piece bathing suits in 8 year old sizes? Why is the phrase "boy candy" appropriate for young girls to wear? Ive seen plenty of other shirts marketed towards children (usually girls) with sexual innuendo written on them. When girls finally do get boobs, there is a line of clothing specifically designed to show them off. The US is getting far less prude than it has ever been.


Right but what is the parental excuse? "There are no other choices at the stores, I had to get her the low-V neck half shirt with hip huggers and a thong. I know she's only ten, but she has to be fashionable."

America is Prude!

The thing that suprises me is that seeing someone naked in the US is considered a taboo and wrong/corrupting, yet seeing a man being shot is okay. WTF!

The thing that suprises me is that seeing someone naked in the US is considered a taboo and wrong/corrupting, yet seeing a man being shot is okay. WTF!
When was a man shot?

Right but what is the parental excuse? "There are no other choices at the stores, I had to get her the low-V neck half shirt with hip huggers and a thong. I know she's only ten, but she has to be fashionable."

Oh pulease <rolls eyes>

Parents who dress their children up like sluts then wonder why they start to act like one when they hit the teens - I mean, Jesus F Christ; this is the same crap as always, especially by the right wing, especially the religious right, "its everyone elses fault except mine" - don't like the product, don't purchase it. Don't like the television show, turn off the television, and shock fucking horror, read a book, exercise that brain of yours!

The other side of the equation, their bloody sons who aren't taught how to present themselves properly, the result is a generation of boys out there can't dress themselves - thank christ for the gays like me and their girlfriends, because fucked if I can see them getting themselves appropriately dressed in the required attire.

When was a man shot?
In hundreds of 12 movies, a lot of PG's as well. Hell saving Private Ryans only a 15. Yet anything with somone being naked is automtically a 15.

In hundreds of 12 movies, a lot of PG's as well. Hell saving Private Ryans only a 15. Yet anything with somone being naked is automtically a 15.
Ok it once again has something to do with Puritants.
What if it was Nudity and Guns?
Oh probably 15.

Saving Private Ryan is different though cause they were dopning something good.
How can someone say nudity achieves anything constructive?

How can someone say nudity achieves anything constructive?
Well, your parents might...:p
*just kidding*

There are plenty of excellent movies, where nudity and the way it is portrayed is central to the message. And that is just as constructive as Ryan was (and that wasn't very constructive by the way).

1. health concerns. Naked+cold or very hot day=not good for you. Coldness helps cause sickness by lowing your immunity because less energy goes into immunity and more into not freezing to death. Hot leads to sunburns oftentimes, which aren't very fun/

Funny, I have gotten some nasty burn while clothed. Besides, thats what sunblock is for. As for being cold, I don't know many people who will go nude when its really cold out.


2. Sex=powerful. Sex is a very powerful thing. Naked is associated with sex because people are more likely to do it when they are not wearing clothes than when they are not. Believe it or not, sex is very powerful. That's why it needs to be controlled. Uncontrolled sex increases the number of AIDS victims and causes people to do stuff they'll regret later, like killing people right in front of law enforcement.

I hope you are joking because this is the largest amount of BS I have herd in some time. If this was true, pregnancy rates would be lower in the US than in Europe sence we are more stringant on nudity. The thing is, nudity does not equate to sex.

Well, your parents might...:p
*just kidding*

There are plenty of excellent movies, where nudity and the way it is portrayed is central to the message. And that is just as constructive as Ryan was (and that wasn't very constructive by the way).
Aye, SPR didn;'t really have a message, even if it was true to life.

Just because we have anti-public nudity laws doesn't automatically mean we are prude.

I mean, we have popular music that is all about sex that is listened to by pre-teens. We've got (as mentioned before) girls wearing thongs before their 10th birthdays. We don't have nudity everywhere, but we've got pretty suggestive stuff everywhere. Of course, I'm used to it, seeing how I live in Latin America (they're alot more open here. Not with nudity, but they have alot of "suggestive" stuff. And it's ironic, since almost everyone is a devout Catholic...). Personally, I'd rather that everyone doesn't walk around naked, but that's just my personal preference. I wouldn't slap a fine on someone for doing it.

I recently heard that you can get in trouble in the US if your little child plays on the beach without a bathing suit. Is that true?

Why is the US so prude, compared to places like...well, Germany for example?

Why are anti-AIDS "abstinence" campaigns being funded with millions by the White House, when it is obvious that condom campaigns would do a much better job?

Because we're lead by a monkey fuck insane bastard who doesn't represent most of us. Personally, I believe there should be sex ed in school, not just abstinsence programs, but whining won't fix anything.

Prudishness is good for the economy and makes nudity more interesting.
As long as I’m allowed to be a perverted asshole, I really don’t care what other people’s opinions are on the subject.

I guess those prudes are frightened of their own thoughts. They see something naked (i.e. leg, belly, breast, penis, ...), think about what they have seen, like that thought, and get frightened because he/she ought to be a superior being.
The problem is that prude people are only human and have human fantasies.