Gymnophobia (a fear of nudity, sight of a naked part or body) and CNN . . .
jablake
I was watching CNN and the talking head was having conniptions over some school girls sending nudie shots to their boyfriends via cellphones. Apparently a couple of girls got suspended and the parents sided with the girls and took legal action!!! :) Future strippers? :)
He definitely seemed to be in the firm clutches of gymnophobia and I'm thinking get that boy some meds. Or, sentence him to a nudist colony where he'll have substantive cause for fear or least reason to deogle.
Nudity shouldn't be that big a deal unless the denuded are an eye sore. Talking heading was yapping where's the shame and what is wrong with the parents? It is good to be ashamed of your body?
What is more offensive: Teaching kids hot to put a condom on a bananna or sending one's boyfriend a nudie shot? :)
He definitely seemed to be in the firm clutches of gymnophobia and I'm thinking get that boy some meds. Or, sentence him to a nudist colony where he'll have substantive cause for fear or least reason to deogle.
Nudity shouldn't be that big a deal unless the denuded are an eye sore. Talking heading was yapping where's the shame and what is wrong with the parents? It is good to be ashamed of your body?
What is more offensive: Teaching kids hot to put a condom on a bananna or sending one's boyfriend a nudie shot? :)
14 comments
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.
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.
That's child porn.
I know my rights.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.