It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


american censorship regarding nudity...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:31 PM
There would probably be no better motivation to eat right, exercise and stay healthy than if everyone had to go around naked.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by wayno

I'm not sure if i would want to see everybody walk around naked, no matter how good they look....

On a side note: I just returnd from my holiday yesterday and had to cross a large part of Germany. They are working on their autobahn (as always) and it was hot so most workers were working without their shirts on. That immediatly triggered the thought that if all those workers were women and they were working topless, most of Germany would be one big traffic jam because of all accidents caused by men not looking at the road....

Still wouldn't mind though to be in a traffic jam with a view...


posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:31 AM
The reason it is "ok" for a man, but not a woman, to show their nipples is simple. Your general heterosexual male is not aroused by a blokes nipples, but can and often does get horny looking at a woman's nipples, and/or her pussy. So lets cover it up boys, so we can do whatever it is we do without getting horny or jealous. It is what our moral Bgod would want. It is very taboo to show a mans shlong, better cover that up REAL quick, we might get jealous of each other. And an erect penis? BAM XXXR18+ Big woody says it all, shower or grower, it doesn't matter when erect, the final result is on display.

And breasts still turn men on without the nipple showing... mmmmm look at all that cleavage. But where do we draw the line men, how much of this sexy breast tissue can we show? lets draw the line at the nipple (21st century), because we don't need a breast-exposure-tape-measure to know if the woman is crossing the line, everyone can see the distinct color and texture change.

Bgod is a man. So is his son. The Holy Ghost is male..ish. Be subservient to your man, woman. Bgod demands it in his book. Cover your face up when in church woman, Bgod demands it in his book. You will NOT say what you think (preach) woman, Bgod demands it in his book.
Does this leave you thinking "that's sexist, all this nipple censorship. It was made for the man, not the woman"?

I hope this gets my idea across, I am not trying to make an air-tight argument but illustrate how men made things. There is lots more to it as well, I know, but that is my $0.02.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by Inkrinhuminge]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:43 AM
You see even though America is the Land of the free, and religion is separate from state, You still somehow have Religious standpoints on issues.

One mainly being Nudity, If it wasn't written in the bible, it seems to be taboo.
But thats the funny thing, Nudity is all over the bible, and all over the ancient art world.

But where is most of that ancient art? In the UK. And where do they have the lax views on Nudity, the Uk.

So I base this taboo view on Nudity more so on the Negative Portrayal of Nudity in America, Seeing how most of the Nudity Americans have 1st seen outside of their home was from XXX mags. Thus forth the taboo sprung.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by 100010101]

[edit on 12-9-2009 by 1000101111]

[edit on 12-9-2009 by 10001011]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:47 AM
The more taboo something is, the more interested in it the childen become. It's more likely that little christian boys are sneaking on the net to get a peak at the forbiddon boobage when thier parents aren't looking, then a little boy who grows up in an open culture where seeing nudity is no big deal.

And I agree with George Carlin.l If I had to choose between letting my child see two people making love or a graphic chainsaw massacre, I'd choose the love.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Violet Sky]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by chiron613
My guess is that we've got a lot more Fundamentalist Christians here, who form a significant political segment and who are vocal beyond their numbers. These Fundamentalists believe in the Bible when it's convenient. Among other things, there is the prohibition (probably in Leviticus) against displaying the body. In the olden days that probably meant showing your face or anything south of there, but things have changed. Nevertheless, they believe Thou Shalt Not Show Nipple. Or Any Other Naughty Bits.

Remember, we had a Federal official who had a statue covered because it showed a woman's breasts. This statue was in a public building, but he wouldn't tolerate it. Some of these guys are seriously hard-core. Probably that wasn't the best choice of words...

Don't you remember the "wardrobe failure" of Janet Jackson? She appeared to flash a bit of nipple (I'm told that this didn't even happen, that it was actually covered). The US was in an uproar over that. Oh, my God, a nipple during prime time! It's the end of the world, our children are all corrupted. Yadda-yadda-yadda.

I too feel it is relgiously based. After all, men might start foaming at the mouth and start raping and pillaging at the sight of a nipple. LOL I suppose the burka is a similiar concept - the men might lose control at the sight of a calve.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in