Gymnophobia (a fear of nudity, sight of a naked part or body) and CNN . . .

14 comments

• how

  •

  16 years ago

  Didn't see the report (CNN has been banished from my TV tuner since the mid-1990s), so I can't comment on the reporter. But it is not unreasonable that a parent would be chagrined by her/his young daughter sending out nude pics. Age is a legitimate consideration.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  It also isn't unusual that a parent would have NO problem with nudity as in case CNN was reporting on. But, of course government knows best. I guess you wouldn't allow nudity of children at a nudist colony? Next, we need to go off the deep end about women with uncovered faces. :) Don't worry with any luck the government will require co-ed showering starting in elementary school so these prudish religious nuts and gymbophobes will actually have a little something to complain about.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Correction: gymnophobes will actually have a little something to complain about.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  I'd also heard about some young girls being arrested on child porn charges for taking pictures of themselves. That isn't as demented as the arrest of the activist who was attempting educate people NOT to have their young sons circumsized. According to the government bloody baby boy penises are child porn. Heck, even a cartoon can be child porn to the extremists. Most people will happily march and believe whatever official propaganda is put forth. As a pre-teen and as a teenager the girl next door is responsible for bathing her baby brothers. I can just see some nitwits wanting to call the police--- yapping CHILD PORN and INCEST!!! Yep, America is desperate for more prisoners. Now, if some prudish religious nuts or those suffering from gymnphobia wish to teach or impose such silliness on their children, then perhaps the government ought to come down on *them* with a heavy boot. After all, I doubt they'd have any qualms about siccing the government on others who don't share their rabbid convictions.
• Book Guy

  •

  16 years ago

  You're a racist. That's child porn. I know my rights.
• SuperDude

  •

  16 years ago

  Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the semi-nude statue of Justice in the lobby of the Department of Justice, draped, because he found it offensive and indecent.
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  SD, And your point is...? Perhaps, in your opinion he was wrong, and in others, he was not. But the bottom line is, he had the power to do that, which is available to anyone. If you wish, you become the AG and you can reverse that!
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  So part of Attorney General's job description is interior decorating? Sounds like he was stealing from the taxpayers. LOL! Of course, given the quality of the man everyone may have been better off if he kept busy with making sure the men's room hygienic physically and psychologically. In any case he had a severe case of gymnophobia.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the semi-nude statue of Justice in the lobby of the Department of Justice, draped, because he found it offensive and indecent." He probably would have given the teenage girls and their boyfriends, 10 years of hard prison labor. Good riddance to supposed "conservatives." Oh, and strippers and their customers? He probably has wet dreams thinking about mass executions of the deviants. Good riddance to supposed "pro-lifers" as well.
• casualguy

  •

  16 years ago

  There's nothing wrong with the human body. However the US has set up laws against sending pics of nudity for anyone under 18 I believe. If people would get over their hangups against seeing nudity, maybe we wouldn't have all these problems. The biggest problem many years ago would be someone taking copies of their butt or breast on a photo copy machine. Now with cell phones with pic taking ability in the hands of kids, they aren't going to exercise that much control if they can get away with it. Laws need to change so we aren't locking up every kid with a cell phone. Maybe nudity laws should all be struck down. Unless your female and over 200 pounds. I don't want to see that. We need a line somewhere to protect us from ugly pics. I suspect most of this is going unreported since if a thousand pretty girls sent me pics of their pussies, I wouldn't report it except to other guys.
• ozymandias

  •

  16 years ago

  Honestly, gymnophobia has a perfectly rational basis - MOST people, especially in the USA, have quite ugly bodies. I myself am content to limit my viewing to the top 10% at most. While my reaction to seeing "the average body" is more akin to revulsion than fear, I can certainly forgive a certain dread people have to "leaving the lights on" ;) O.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  I'd like to think gymnophobia has the rational basis of being that "MOST people, especially in the USA have quite ugly bodies." Unfortunately, I think the main basis was the thinking that sex is dirty (shameful) and anything that my incite sexual thoughts is also to be feared and considered dirty. The anti-sex BS has a rational basis, imo, in that there are concerns about disease and pregnancy. And, it can be seen as a major threat to strong families. From that lens it is understandable some people go off the deep end when confronted with nudity. But, Americans are opposed to ugliness? I am. But, I think that is a minority concern.
• JMelbourne27

  •

  16 years ago

  What you have here is another example of 'Legislating Morality for the Masses' A teenage girl gets ARRESTED for sending a naked picture of herself to a boy who's already had sex with her, but Calvin Klein can PLASTER the WORLD(!!!) with pictures of teens in their underwear (For a while he had a 15 story picture of a teen in Lingerie in NY) and it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE, because afterall, Calvin Klein is 'ONE OF US.' He is one of the Elite's one of Ashcroft's Golfing buddies, one of Bush AND Obama's Whitehouse dinner guests. According to Psychology Today, Calvin Klein almost single-handled turned teenagers into sexual objects. Before Calvin Klein began his ad campaigns College Girls were considered the SEXIEST girls, but now it is 17 year olds (and younger for some). The problem with sexually objectifying teens in advertising is that you create a DISSONANCE between what is DESIRABLE and what is ACCEPTABLE. Your brain and the Law tell you TEENS are not acceptable!!! But the advertisements dangle the sexually objectified teens in front of your eyes and you SUBCONSCIOUS responds WITHOUT your consent. Calvin Klein did take his ads down for 1 year...in America. In Europe he spent 100% of the money he had planned for American Ad campaigns and the American Advertising Companies had a $#IT FIT in Washington. They started telling Congress people they would give their POLITICAL RIVALS FREE AIR TIME if they didn't help them. Hence, Calvin Klein is untouchable, despite the MOUNTAIN of evidence that he as much as CREATED the problem our society has with Pedophilia today.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi JMelbourne27, Within the last year or so Playboy had a very interesting article claiming the pedophila wasn't even consider a problem until fairly recently. And, certainly not where you a developed young lady and a man interested in marrying her. It is sort of how you could buy opium at the corner drugstore very inexpensively without fanfare. It wasn't perceived as a problem. Perceptions are the key. The government needs to peddle fear and hate so that it can grow and gain power. Pick out a few sorry souls who are wretched and blame it on the opium. Of course, more government is the solution. On my mother's side of the family many of her people LOVE alcohol to an extreme degree----take a few of them and start screeching how alcohol is evil and bingo there is a problem in need of a solution. Again, more government is the solution. People on the right and left love more government. BTW, even if you created a powerful police state to keep my mother's people away from the booze the problem isn't really solved. Yes, less of 'em should be addicted to alcohol, but alcohol is *more* a *symptom* than the true problem----in general they're probably better off completely drunk 24/7. Anyway, I don't buy into the anti-sex BS even though the foundation for it maybe extremely rational e.g. protect families, slow the spread of disease, reduce unwanted pregnancies, etc. I also don't buy into the anti-drug BS even though again the foundation for it maybe extremely rational e.g. stop addiction, increase health, protect families, etc. Heck, I think the gun haters have a huge amount of the logic on their side and that if saving lives was paramount, then banning guns is the answer----but, then I don't buy into the anti-gun BS. Probably the least rational BS the government pushes, imo, is anti-terrorism.