Porn is defined as anything appealing to prurient interest - i.e., something
that turns you on sexually.

Pavlov, et al, established that animals (us) can be conditioned to respond
to abstract stimuli - the most common example is his dog salivating at the
sight of an abstract shape because it had ONLY been displayed just before
the dog was fed.

Almost everybody has been conditioned to become sexually aroused by certain
sights, sounds and scents - things that we ONLY see, hear or smell just
before enjoying sex. Prudes refer to these things as "porn" but the fact is
that censors create all porn by forbidding the commonplace sight of things.
Healthy people do not get turned on by things they see all the time but
prudes are not healthy. If seeing a box of popcorn gets them excited they
want to ban popcorn.

Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex per se
until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see them is
before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they are
a fetish in America. Prudes have declared the organs God provided for
children to suckle dangerous to children ... and we're idiotic enough to
believe it. Want to protect children? Lynch a prude!!

Vito wrote:

Want to protect children? Lynch a prude!!

Amen to that! Where do I sign up, and can we include religious fundamentalists?

"Never through zealotry should one mans morals become anothers laws.", who said that?

Cheers
Marty

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex per
se
until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see them
is
before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they
are
a fetish in America.


So you think that all women should bare their breasts in public?

Have you thought of entering the Presidential contest?
You would present people with a very tough choice! Breasts or Bush!!


Regards


Donal
--

On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:17:58 +0100, "Donal"
wrote:

So you think that all women should bare their breasts in public?

No, just the attractive ones.

Donal wrote:

"Vito" wrote in message
...

Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex per

se

until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see them

is

before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they

are

a fetish in America.



So you think that all women should bare their breasts in public?

Have you thought of entering the Presidential contest?
You would present people with a very tough choice! Breasts or Bush!!


Are you saying he's not 'clean clean'?

Cheers

"Vito" wrote in message
...
snip
Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex per se
until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see them is
before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they are
a fetish in America. Prudes have declared the organs God provided for
children to suckle dangerous to children ... and we're idiotic enough to
believe it. Want to protect children? Lynch a prude!!


While I agree with some of what you say, I think on this point you're quite
wrong. In most (perhaps all?) advanced species sexual attractiveness is very
dependent on features not related directly to reproduction. Are peahens
attracted to peacocks with certain feathers because sometime in the past a
prudish pea society forced them to be covered? I think not!

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Vito" wrote in message
...
snip
Female breasts are a good example. Breasts had nothing to do with sex
per se
until prudes demanded they be covered. Thus the only time US men see
them is
before sex so most are conditioned to associate them with sex that they
are
a fetish in America. Prudes have declared the organs God provided for
children to suckle dangerous to children ... and we're idiotic enough to
believe it. Want to protect children? Lynch a prude!!


While I agree with some of what you say, I think on this point you're
quite
wrong. In most (perhaps all?) advanced species sexual attractiveness is
very
dependent on features not related directly to reproduction. Are peahens
attracted to peacocks with certain feathers because sometime in the past a
prudish pea society forced them to be covered? I think not!

Current scientific thot is that peacocks (et cetera) evolved these otherwise
useless feathers because hens liked them but that hardly applies to breasts,
which evolved to provide nutrition to infants, not to attract mates. Unlike
bald peacocks, small-breasted women have no trouble getting laid. What puts
the blame for our national insanity squarely on prudes is the fact that
breasts are not a fetish in cultures where women commonly go topless.

"Vito" wrote

Breasts had nothing to do with sex per se

Huh?


until prudes demanded they be covered.

You're nuts!


Thus the only time US men see them is
before sex


Don't date much, Veto?