Are female nipples honestly that "bad" to be shown?

Post Reply New Topic

What is ironic is how the US calls puritans as "liberals".

There used to be a time the US actually was almost as traditionally liberal as the rest of the western world. Sadly those days are long gone and now we have sh***y SJW "liberalism" and conservatives are starting to miss classic liberalism, because they didn't know how good they had it til it was gone.

Does this puritanical attitude only come from the left or is the right involved as well?

It used to come from the right, but somehow the spectrum got flip flopped.

The Free the Nipple movement is supposed to be left wing movement. However, they shot themselves in the foot by supporting the wrong political party.

exclusively from the bible-thumping right. the left aren't at all worried about seeing a little t*t.

...and from the selectively bible-thumping Obama Administration.

So is this a religion thing?

I can't conceive of anything outside of religion that would have such behavioral strictures as part of its philosophy.

Surely they realise the creator gave women breasts for breastfeeding. Why would they want to subvert God's design?

It's strange how often religion is used to push ideas that go against God's express wishes.

Or do they think Jesus was bottle-fed too?

they have a view of it akin to early American TV where there were no such things as toilets or bodily functions. not too much of a stretch from "virgin birth."

I'd look at her tits. Anything that's displayed in public is free to be viewed by the public.

Yes, I see your point. If she can't copulate she can't breastfeed either. No nipples, like a barbie doll. Perhaps she had no need to defecate as well. After all an immaculate person would never do that. I'm sure she was also free of the many parasites that every person living in those times had. And her immaculate skin never got dirty even though soap hadn't been invented yet.

Seriously, I can't believe that some people call her the "ever virgin" Mary and suggest that she remained virgin even after Jesus was born. I can believe that she was a virgin prior to her marriage and I know the Bible says Jesus was born when she was just engaged but why would she wish to remain celibate through a lifetime of marriage?

Even if she was born free from original sin, why must she remain ever virgin when it is not a sin for a woman to have sex with her husband? Do they think that James, the brother of Christ was also the product of a virgin birth? Does that make him a messiah as well?

I don't think the "ever virgin" Mary is a realistic character and as such I don't think she makes a good role model for women (Socrates would disagree since he believed in having perfect role models).

I'm sure we'll both agree that the "ever virgin" part was a later edition. Just as they wanted the clergy to remain celibate and childless so they could leave all their money to the church, they probably wanted the unmarried members of their congregation to leave their money to the church as well.

It's shocking but not surprising how quickly they want from "My kingdom is not of this world" to being obsessed with money. If Jesus ever met a priest he might mistake him for a money changer and tell him to get out of his father's house.

The whole "virgin birth" thing stems from a translation error from aramaic to greek, using "virgin" when the original text only referred to "a young woman". It's kind of funny how much of a mess has come of that.

Could you provide a link?

My bad: hebrew, not aramaic.

https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/