'mufty day' is a day at school when you go in wearing your own clothing instead of the school uniform.
i've neighbours who walk around their graden nakied. you just learn not to look over their way when looking out of upstairs windows, as it's their choice and it's their private property.
i've also done life drawing classes, so i guess i'm more used to people without clothing.
Quote:
'mufty day' is a day at school when you go in wearing your own clothing instead of the school uniform.
Or a lack of clothes thereof, but I am going with a "yes" on public nudity, it feels stupid being one of the few European countries who don't allow it. If you were MEANT to wear clothes, wouldn't you be BORN with them on?
Quote:
If you were MEANT to wear clothes, wouldn't you be BORN with them on?
And if we were MEANT to fly, we wouldn't have invented airplanes.
But see, ever since Adam & Eve, humans have has this little thing called 'Shame'. It goes hand-in-hand with a little thing I like to call 'Decency.'
But see, ever since Adam & Eve, humans have has this little thing called 'Shame'. It goes hand-in-hand with a little thing I like to call 'Decency.'
That's assuming you believe in that creationism cr-- er, theory.
Quote:
That's assuming you believe in that creationism cr-- er, theory.
Can it cycle. Creationism is just as valid a theory as Evolution. Neither one of them has been proven and just because you favor one over the other doesn't automatically make it better. 
Yet I agree with the Adam and Eve statement obviously as I'm a Christian. Ever since the first sin, we have been ashamed of our "nakid selves."
And yet there are so many people more than willing to expose their naked bodies in public without feeling shame. Does this make them non-humans? Or have they simply bypassed the one of the side effects of Original Sin?
However, it's true that the argument of being born naked is not grounds for claiming being naked is necessarily right. Doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily flawed, however.
Can it cycle. Creationism is just as valid a theory as Evolution.
A theory is "a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified." Creationism isn't a theory at all, let alone a valid one.
Back on-topic, I think thong underwear shouldn't be sold in waist sizes greater than 34 inches. Any thoughts?
Back on-topic, I think thong underwear shouldn't be sold in waist sizes greater than 34 inches. Any thoughts?
Agreed.
And buttfloss should be banned.
I think he means thong underwear, Cyc.
The ones that only really fat girls wear and then they go top ick something up and you're all "AAAAAAH MY EYES HAVE BEEN BURNED". Unless of course you're into that sort of thing, in which case you should be shot. Into space. With some sort of Hyper-cannon.
Quote:
I think he means thong underwear, Cyc.
The ones that only really fat girls wear and then they go top ick something up and you're all "AAAAAAH MY EYES HAVE BEEN BURNED". Unless of course you're into that sort of thing, in which case you should be shot. Into space. With some sort of Hyper-cannon.
Yeah, because, you know.... Finding someone larger attractive is like, totally against the 13th commandment. If a large girl wants to wear a tight top and a g-string, then I say all the more power to her, for not being ashamed to wear what she wants.
And as for nudity, if people want to be nude, let them. It's their choice. If it offends you, then turn the other way, or go somewhere else. Everyone has just as much right to express themselves as you.
Quote:
Can it cycle. Creationism is just as valid a theory as Evolution.
This is why Church and State should stay seperated.
They can't mix or debate with each other.
I understand if it became a regular thing, people would become desensitized to the naked body. I still prefer cloths because of: 1)pockets; 2) minimum protection; and 3) I'm a guy (erection). With women though their gentals do enlarge and "blush" like men, theirs don't extend straight out of the body when aroused. Teenage boy and trippers (ouch!!! 
) are going to be ones with the most problems. And honestly, who wants to be boped into a men with a erect penis.
why don't we just wear transperant underwear? that way we don't "collide" with other people. Its just like being naked except with invisble covering.
edit: kudos for wonderbat making an obscure high score hometsar runner fan toon refrence
The invisible underwear would either be so loose as to have no real effect, or would have some obvious effect. Also, what solid materials do you know that are flexible, but also provide reasonable resistance while being transparent?
I agree that clothes are a lot more practical - especially now that winter is here - but that doesn't mean that nudity needs necessarily be seen as something inherently taboo, or to be embarassed about, or implying any sexual overtones. Just not always practical.
Also, what solid materials do you know that are flexible, but also provide reasonable resistance while being transparent?
http://www.glad.com/pressnseal.html
Fair enough. Not sure how good it would be as transparent underwear, though. Probably a bit too clingy...
