Who repressed Americas locker rooms?

[ashlar]

Originally posted by absinthium@Jun 27 2005, 03:52 PM

I've been saying this all along... It's all so cyclical. We'll get sick of the prudishness eventually, and things will become more open again. It's this constant wax and wane that keeps things in balance.

[post=324445]Quoted post[/post]​

I agree completely. I just hope people bore of this conservative shit sooner rather than later.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by ashlar+Jun 27 2005, 05:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ashlar &#064; Jun 27 2005, 05:29 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-absinthium@Jun 27 2005, 03:52 PM

[post=324445]Quoted post[/post]​

I agree completely. I just hope people bore of this conservative shit sooner rather than later.

[post=324478]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Yes, it is rediculous. I read and then forgot which thread it was stated on, but one poster said in disucussions about urinals that a boy should never see a penis other than his father&#39;s and his own. What???

We would be having all these teen guys coming on here thinking that all guys have 10 or more inch dicks if they had been ini the showers at school, or has seen a representative picture of the many sizes and looks of penises. It would make puberty much easier not harder if guys knew what were the possibilities and what to expect.

But no, to see any penis for any reason if you are under age 18 will just mar your life forever. You will be in theraphy, in the insane asyym and go to hell and burn forever. And the owner of the penis will burn 10 times hotter for allowing for such a dastardly deed.

Come on people. There is a difference between art, nudity, sex and pornography. Sex and porn are for adults only as far as the internet goes. But art and nudity are normal things. There isn&#39;t anything wrong with art and nudity, only appropriate displays of it. Abolutely nothing. As for this being a Christian nation, where does it say in the Bible that nudity is a sin? It is not there. That concept goes back to the Puritans who didn&#39;t even see their spoues nude. They fucked them uner the covers all right. But no peeking.

My wrant is over for the moment. But God I wish this site had been here for me when I was 14. My life would have been a whole lot better. I was scared shitless about puberty and this site would have really been a major help. Things didn&#39;t go in the way I thought they were supposed to and I thought there was something major wrong with me as in I was dying. And I was too scared to tell anyone.

All teen guys need to visit this site. It would be good for them.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jun 28 2005, 02:30 AM
Liberal politics aren&#39;t pragmatic

no, politics isn&#39;t pragmatic period. history has demonstrated ad nauseam (and continues to do so) that the application of conservative politics to the real world causes even more problems than our species&#39; inept attempts at progressive politics.

the lesser of two evils, to me, is still conservatism.

that&#39;s just because you ain&#39;t seen much of the real world yet

 

[madame_zora]

I actually agree with you, Chimera, that liberal politics are fairly naive, perhaps that&#39;s what I find appealing about it. In our world of corruption it&#39;s refreshing to visualise a time in the future (nearer would be better) when equality reigns, people respect each other&#39;s rights and are not being corralled into the herd, where individuality counts more than conformity. I&#39;ll admit it&#39;s naive, but if I didn&#39;t believe it was possible I&#39;d have a hard time breathing. In reality, I find the lesser of two evils to be the liberal stance because even though corruption exists in both camps, I find it less deadly on the left.

All that being said, I do believe in what the conservative party STOOD for at the time of it&#39;s inception. It was a radical group breaking off from the Whigs out of disgust, they wanted freedom from government interference and an end to slavery. Gee, sounds like what we "leftist nutjobs" are clamouring for now. Of course, they wouldn&#39;t support Abraham Lincoln for his second term because of his lowered popularity, so he had to run
on the National Union Party ticket. Once he was shot, they shoved in Horace Greely and it&#39;s been primarily a party for the monied interests ever since. I&#39;ve always said, if you have money, I can understand voting that way, but for the working class it makes no goddamned sense.

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jun 28 2005, 12:59 AM
...I do believe in what the conservative party STOOD for at the time of it&#39;s inception. It was a radical group breaking off from the Whigs out of disgust, they wanted freedom from government interference and an end to slavery....

[post=324640]Quoted post[/post]​

I probably shouldn&#39;t weigh into this one, but here goes. I too believe in freedom and abolishment of the slaveries we have to false gods, prophets and concepts, but I&#39;m not sure that made or makes me a Conservative. I wrote in something many years ago that Conservatives want you to be free to do with your money as you please, but want to dictate your morals. Liberals on the other hand are the opposite, ie... they want to control your economics (through government management), but are more laissez-faire about personal choices. That&#39;s far too simplistic, but it rings truer than not.

Capitalism is another area where the ideal has been corrupted. It used to be about creating wealth and jobs. No longer&#33; Marx was closer to the truth than we knew, although his solution was inherently flawed. The utopian system of transfer from the most ablest to the least was just waiting to be invaded by people who wanted to use the system and its followers for personal engandisement. We see this now in many churches and religions, both here and abroad. I go to a church that has the most beautiful basic sense of belief in an almighty and humanity that I&#39;ve ever heard. There is not a Sunday that goes by, however, that doesn&#39;t have some snake oil salesman/woman show up with a "buy this and be happy" scheme either in person or in reference. In my dotage, I find more and more that the finer and better the concept in theory, the more charlatans that it will attract to foul it up in practice. I long ago gave up a hope for anything that resembled Utopia. I chose not to change the world, only my space. My close friends are close, and we share common things in a loving way. That&#39;s all I believe I can hope for. And that&#39;s OK....

Sorry for my rambling.... I&#39;m afraid my friends have become used to them, so I let fly sometimes.

 

[megalomax]

1.) Law suits against coaches molesting their athletes
2.) Homophobia
3.) Homophobia phobia (fear of homophobes)
4.) Improvement of shower system in houses
5.) The enviromental theme "Conserve Water"

 

[jonb]

Well, it&#39;s not from the most able to the least as much as it&#39;s from those with the proper lineage to those without. But the problem is this naïve assumption that the state will simply dissolve.

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by jonb@Jun 30 2005, 10:12 AM
Well, it&#39;s not from the most able to the least as much as it&#39;s from those with the proper lineage to those without. But the problem is this naïve assumption that the state will simply dissolve.

[post=325421]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes.... better said and more to the current point.

 

[Pappy]

Now I know why I liked growing up 50 years ago. Brothers and male cousins regularly bathed together, we skinny dipped all summer long in ponds and creeks, we had sleep overs and camp outs, we had circle jerks and sometimes even sucked each others penises AND we swallowed&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I think most of us turned out pretty OK&#33;&#33; I don&#39;t know what happened to the next generation.

 

[surferboy]

I think its the recent acceptances of homosexuality, and people still fear that. Being nakid with a bunch of guys does seem homosexual, so those who detest homosexuality dont want to be confronted by it.

And why is that? Becaus of the religious right saying that us "fags" are evil. And that like, all gay men will jump the bones of any dude they&#39;re naked with. We gays are demonized by the right. And they say that if you don&#39;t mind being naked with another guy, you must be a "fag" too.

so IMO your religious right and its influence is a factor. it demonizes sexuality, scandalizes the human body (e.g. the breast of janet jackson), and the result is a higher insecurity and much more taboo.

as for your bible-quotes: the religious right just uses the quotes they need, not the actual quotes (otherwise they would fight against cheese-and-pepperoni-pizza as anti-leviticus).

I full agree with you&#33;

 

[surferboy]

I think its the recent acceptances of homosexuality, and people still fear that. Being nakid with a bunch of guys does seem homosexual, so those who detest homosexuality dont want to be confronted by it.

And why is that? Becaus of the religious right saying that us "fags" are evil. And that like, all gay men will jump the bones of any dude they&#39;re naked with. We gays are demonized by the right. And they say that if you don&#39;t mind being naked with another guy, you must be a "fag" too.

so IMO your religious right and its influence is a factor. it demonizes sexuality, scandalizes the human body (e.g. the breast of janet jackson), and the result is a higher insecurity and much more taboo.

as for your bible-quotes: the religious right just uses the quotes they need, not the actual quotes (otherwise they would fight against cheese-and-pepperoni-pizza as anti-leviticus).

I full agree with you&#33;

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Pappy@Jul 1 2005, 12:38 PM
Now I know why I liked growing up 50 years ago. Brothers and male cousins regularly bathed together, we skinny dipped all summer long in ponds and creeks, we had sleep overs and camp outs, we had circle jerks and sometimes even sucked each others penises AND we swallowed&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I think most of us turned out pretty OK&#33;&#33; I don&#39;t know what happened to the next generation.

[post=325740]Quoted post[/post]​

Just like in your day, it&#39;s still more common than you think. Happens a lot in rural America.

 

[Dr Rock]

so in conclusion, we CAN blame christians after all. what else is new?

 

[Dude!]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jul 2 2005, 11:28 AM
so in conclusion, we CAN blame christians after all. what else is new?

[post=325941]Quoted post[/post]​

Can we blame atheists for a general loss of morals in modern society? That seems to be the same genre of sweeping generalisation.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Dude&#33;+Jul 2 2005, 09:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dude&#33; &#064; Jul 2 2005, 09:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 2 2005, 11:28 AM
so in conclusion, we CAN blame christians after all. what else is new?

[post=325941]Quoted post[/post]​

Can we blame atheists for a general loss of morals in modern society?

[post=326098]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
sure, if you want. the conspicuous difference is that that&#39;s a good thing, though - so it isn&#39;t blame so much as praise.

 

[surferboy]

Originally posted by mrhung642@Jul 2 2005, 08:29 PM
You may be able to blame Christians, but not Christianity. Most Christians nowadays do not follow the Bible. Example: "Christian" soldiers. Ever heard of "Thou shalt not kill"? Huh?

[post=326153]Quoted post[/post]​

Christians have been killing in then ame of their lord for centuries. Also, I found out that the word Christian means "subservient to Christ, like a slave to a master." Which makes sense, considering how their god and Jesus are referred to as their lord.

 

[surferboy]

Originally posted by mrhung642+Jul 2 2005, 09:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mrhung642 &#064; Jul 2 2005, 09:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-surferboy@Jul 2 2005, 07:34 PM


Christians have been killing in then ame of their lord for centuries.

[post=326157]Quoted post[/post]​

That doesnt make it right.

[post=326164]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Believe me, I never claimed it made it right. MAtter of fact, it totally disgusts me how like, Christians try to forget about the atrocities commited for the name of Christ. But, I have no qualms with most Christians, so like, don&#39;t jump on my case.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dude&#33;@Jul 2 2005, 01:34 PM
Can we blame atheists for a general loss of morals in modern society? That seems to be the same genre of sweeping generalisation.

[post=326098]Quoted post[/post]​

I prefer to blame capitalists, but that&#39;s just me.

 

[dufus]

Originally posted by mavedick@Jun 22 2005, 12:01 AM
What think you?

Give me a break. Any street corner would be a better pulpit than this board.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by surferboy@Jul 2 2005, 07:34 PM
Also, I found out that the word Christian means "subservient to Christ, like a slave to a master."

I don&#39;t know what your source is, Nix, but it&#39;s wrong. There&#39;s no more of a reference to subservience in the word Christian than there is in the word Buddhist. It simply means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. A Christian doesn&#39;t even have to believe that Christ was God: the Arians were Christians, and they believed that Jesus was just a man. A man chosen by God to perform a special mission, to be sure, but a man nonetheless.