• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The biggest argument for “bathroom bills” was destroyed by this study

 
 
 
bilby said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind to a child is batshit crazy nonsense that could only come from the insanity that is organised religion.

The bizarre idea that casually and incidentally seeing a naked body is in any way related to sexual behaviour is a disgraceful and ugly bit of puritanism that is worthy of the morons who covered table legs lest they arouse uncontrollable lusts in any men who saw them.

FFS people, it's the twenty first century. Not the nineteenth.
Click to expand...

To the bolded part, tell me you made that up. Please. Oh come on, that was a joke right? A bit of impromtu humor!?
 
fast said:
bilby said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind to a child is batshit crazy nonsense that could only come from the insanity that is organised religion.

The bizarre idea that casually and incidentally seeing a naked body is in any way related to sexual behaviour is a disgraceful and ugly bit of puritanism that is worthy of the morons who covered table legs lest they arouse uncontrollable lusts in any men who saw them.

FFS people, it's the twenty first century. Not the nineteenth.
Click to expand...

To the bolded part, tell me you made that up. Please. Oh come on, that was a joke right? A bit of impromtu humor!?
Click to expand...

I didn't make it up; It has been widely believed since the nineteenth century. To the point where it's a cliche.

It's probably not true though.

https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/07/21/the-victorians-didnt-cover-their-table-legs/
 
bilby said:
fast said:
bilby said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind to a child is batshit crazy nonsense that could only come from the insanity that is organised religion.

The bizarre idea that casually and incidentally seeing a naked body is in any way related to sexual behaviour is a disgraceful and ugly bit of puritanism that is worthy of the morons who covered table legs lest they arouse uncontrollable lusts in any men who saw them.

FFS people, it's the twenty first century. Not the nineteenth.
Click to expand...

To the bolded part, tell me you made that up. Please. Oh come on, that was a joke right? A bit of impromtu humor!?
Click to expand...

I didn't make it up; It has been widely believed since the nineteenth century. To the point where it's a cliche.

It's probably not true though.

https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/07/21/the-victorians-didnt-cover-their-table-legs/
Click to expand...

I think this is a case of Poe's Law in action. It started as a joke about a person who was so straitlaced they put pants on their table legs, and once removed from context, it was believable enough to be repeated as a fact.
 
bilby said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind to a child is batshit crazy nonsense that could only come from the insanity that is organised religion.

The bizarre idea that casually and incidentally seeing a naked body is in any way related to sexual behaviour is a disgraceful and ugly bit of puritanism that is worthy of the morons who covered table legs lest they arouse uncontrollable lusts in any men who saw them.

FFS people, it's the twenty first century. Not the nineteenth.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably true, but you do have to ask why we as a society get freaked out when a guy in only trench coat gets his ass put in jail for "flashing" (kids and adults).

Also, there were some #metoo incidents where a guy "whipped it out" in front of a woman and supposedly the woman was traumatized, and the guy's career was derailed. Louis C.K. comes to mind, though he did start to "spank the monkey" as well.
 
bilby said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind to a child is batshit crazy nonsense that could only come from the insanity that is organised religion.

The bizarre idea that casually and incidentally seeing a naked body is in any way related to sexual behaviour is a disgraceful and ugly bit of puritanism that is worthy of the morons who covered table legs lest they arouse uncontrollable lusts in any men who saw them.

FFS people, it's the twenty first century. Not the nineteenth.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have caused harm in the 19th, either.
 
Harvey Weinstein said:
The idea that merely seeing a naked adult could cause harm of any kind is batshit crazy nonsense....
Click to expand...



harvey-weinstein.jpg
 
Sorry. I mixed up the quote/story. (My bad)
The story about Mr Weinstein isn't even relevant.

Bilby was talking about the 'harmlessness' of exposing your genitals to children.
 
Bilby was talking abut the harmlessness of children accidentally seeing exposed genitals in bathrooms. Not about people in power delberately exposing themselves in the context of sexul predation.

Trust a Catholic to not be able to tell the difference.
 
Rhea said:
Bilby was talking abut the harmlessness of children accidentally seeing exposed genitals in bathrooms. Not about people in power delberately exposing themselves in the context of sexul predation.

Trust a Catholic to not be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

^This.

Nakedness is not inherently sexual. Merely seeing a man naked will not cause any harm at all to any child. Having a man make sexual advances towards children is a whole different thing; And need not entail any nakedness at all to be highly traumatic and worthy of harsh punishment (not just removal to a different diocese where their vile proclivities are unknown).

Of course the RCC fuck this up, like they fuck up all of their moral pronouncements - by conflating nakedness with sex, they gain the power of shame and guilt over people whose only 'sin' is to have a naked body under their clothes, which they (and probably others) will inevitably see at some point.

Seeing genitals is harmless. Realising that some creepy dude wants you to interact with his genitals is a completely different issue. But as Rhea points out, it's unreasonable to expect anyone raised in the stunted teachings of the RCC to understand the difference. Religion corrupts everything.
 
I can see a lot of grey areas in this discussion about nudity and its supposed "harmlessness".

Sending dick pics to kids? Harmful, harmless or other?
 
Bathroom stalls for everyone? That would solve almost any issue that a rational person would have.

A wall of urinals in a mixed gender bathroom? It would totally depend on the venue but generally, I'm not in favor.

Imagine you are meeting your beloved's parents for the first time. Would you want to walk past your beloved's father/grandfather standing at a urinal? Or have your beloved's mother or grandmother walk past you at a urinal?

First date: Would you want to walk past your date at a urinal? Be seen by your date at a urinal?

Would you want to see your first grade teacher/high school chemistry teacher/principal at a urinal? Be seen by your high school chemistry/principal/lunch lady/whoever at a urinal? Either as a student or 20 years later?

You are at a tedious business dinner and excuse yourself to go to the restroom at least as much because you honestly could just use a break as because you need to relieve your bladder. Do you really want to see your boss's dick? Assuming your boss is male. Or do you want the boss to see yours, assuming you are male?

Look: everybody goes and everybody knows that everybody goes. Preferring privacy is not necessarily based on prudery or being religious or insecure.
 
thebeave said:
I can see a lot of grey areas in this discussion about nudity and its supposed "harmlessness".

Sending dick pics to kids? Harmful, harmless or other?
Click to expand...

That's the high tech version of flashing, should be prohibited.

There's a big difference between simply being naked and actively involving others in that nakedness.

(And with a more sensible attitude towards nudity even the dick picks would be harmless.)
 
Toni said:
Bathroom stalls for everyone? That would solve almost any issue that a rational person would have.

A wall of urinals in a mixed gender bathroom? It would totally depend on the venue but generally, I'm not in favor.

Imagine you are meeting your beloved's parents for the first time. Would you want to walk past your beloved's father/grandfather standing at a urinal? Or have your beloved's mother or grandmother walk past you at a urinal?

First date: Would you want to walk past your date at a urinal? Be seen by your date at a urinal?

Would you want to see your first grade teacher/high school chemistry teacher/principal at a urinal? Be seen by your high school chemistry/principal/lunch lady/whoever at a urinal? Either as a student or 20 years later?
Click to expand...

All of these can be solved by diving restrooms into urinals and stalls--you don't have to walk past the urinals to get to the stalls. It's a much more logical division than male and female.
 
You are watching TV with your kids. You're feeling frisky so you wife gives you a blow job.

No problem, kids can figure it all out..right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom