Wow. I really am coming late to this party, aren't I?

To be absolutely fair, Gabe's right, it doesn't. A woman's bladder isn't connected to what is actually the vagina (which is only a specific part of a woman's genitalia, and not the correct term for the whole thing, as it's often incorrectly used for); it's located in roughly the same place, to be true, but it's completely different plumbing.

And I really can't believe that where a lady pees from is the subject of my very first posting here.

And while the US is not strictly a theocracy, it has theocratic traditions, and there are plenty of theocrats, or would be theocrats around who haven't given up on the idea.

Such a psychological climate tends to produce a lot of neurotic people, and in fact I believe violence often becomes a substitute for sexuality, i.e., a dominance display intended - on a subconscious level - to elevate ones status and appear more sexually attractive, when not the simple product of sheer sexual frustration.

The recent events at Virginia Tech seem to indicate something to this effect in terms of the motives of the killer, basic shyness possibly exacerbated by a conflict between strict religious values and and a natural inclination to get busy, resulting in a psychotic break.

No, we have it A MILLION TIMES BETTER than a dictatorship. Anyone who even tries to make claims of similarities between what we have now and a real dictatorship has obviously never been exposed to one or disingenuous.

Just the fact that people can make such statements publicly without any fear of reprisal or second thoughts undermines the comparison."

You might find it in your heart to forgive us for wanting to keep it that way.

There is a contingent of persons in this country who seek to stamp out any attempt to portray human sexuality in the most casual way, they do it like they were apponted personally by god to do so - and they are more often successful than not.

Where this tends to cause problems is hat there is no real consensus on the issue, one person might get away with anything, another might be ruined, and hounded mercilessly - Check the CBLDF website - this generally fits the definition of injustice.

The difference between us and a dictatorship is that we can complain about it, and so we are.

Basically, what it is, is that in America, sex is highly politicized, violence considerably less so - and politics is our latest and greatest teams sport - like most local politics and team sports, the more petty and meaningless it is, the more violent and intractable the participants become.

Truely, I do believe much of the uproar would come as a shock to our Puritan forebearers, who must have gotten considerable sex education simply watchign their farm animals copulate - welcome to the monkey house.

Never said that there is NO prudery at all in America. The examples you give are valid. But the examples of prudery are far outweighed by the hypersexualization of the country too. Look at how kids and teens even dance now (freakdancing) and the music videos they watch. The way the media tries to barrage us with sexual images nonstop, what great benefit comes from showing nipples and private parts? Given the tacky people that are abound in media and comics, if we give free license to show full nudity, how long before we see it getting abused by the purveyors of bad taste? Give them an inch, they'll ask for a mile. We'd get such gems as Meltzer adding "depth" and "realism" to Sue Dibny's rape by adding an exposed nipple, sloppy wet penetration and maybe even a money shot (all for the sake of "art" of course). ANd I shudder to think of what hack shock tactic writing WInick would put out if you allowed him to show explicit nudity in superhero comics too. We've already seen incest references, orgies, white slave sex rings and pedophilia in his all-ages books, I'm sure we could trust him to use nudity tastefully. What a lot of progressives don't realize here is that it's easy to let things out of Pandora's box but it's a bitch to put them back in once they're out

Joe -

So all those fixation on sex as seen on MTV programming, hip-hop videos, the pornification of the mainstream, the "stripper workouts" now catching on with soccer moms in aerobics classes all over the country...all of that is evidence not of a desensitization to and destigmatization of sex but rather of prudery? I think you're reaching there.

So doesn’t anyone get naked on Big Brother? they don’t do the adults only specials in America?

No and no. There is no nudity on Big Brother or any other network show.

In America, you’re forced to be a prude until you’re 21?

What makes you think it stops at 21?

And from a different poster (lest the wookie take the blame for saying something so stupid):

Umm, you guys do know that women DON’T PEE OUT OF THEIR VAGINAS, right?

Wow. Just wow. And people thought (artist) Brad Walker was the one having trouble with anatomy. It's not coming out of their belly buttons, Gabe...

All of your examples are well taken, and it speaks to a weird fascination we have with titillation rather than frank discussion about things. We don't want to talk to our kids about sex, but we don't mind listening to Jenna Jameson talk about it. We don't mind hearing about the lurid details of everyone's sex life, but if we show a nipple, the world will fall apart. As I've been saying all along, this isn't about sex, it's about nudity. Why is it okay to hear all about kinky stuff, but if we show a naked woman in a normal standing pose, it's horrible? And, as I've pointed out, this is in marked contrast to the violence that goes on.

You make very good points. But why, if we're so depraved, is nudity not allowed? That's what puzzles me.

So doesn't anyone get naked on Big Brother? they don't do the adults only specials in America?
If not, maybe Burgas has a point?

Why is everybody making such a big deal out of something as simple as culture?

In Japan, nudity is accepted as part of the culture, been to a bathhouse lately? Soo so public.
In Australia, nudity is fine as long as it's after 8:30.

In America, you're forced to be a prude until you're 21?

Greg's post is 'anti-stupidity' or 'anti-hypocrisy'. All of his statements have to do with people and their attitudes. Not with the laws of the land.

The term 'anti-american' denotes someone as a political radical, and it's waaaay overused these days. Greg gave his opinion. If you agree with him, fine. If not, la-de-da. The fact that he voiced his opinion was a decidedly american thing to do. Free speech and all that

I was reminded again how idiotic Americans are.

and

I am blaming this idiotic puritanical attitude we have in this country

and

What an uptight country I live in!

How is one being narrow-minded by calling the tone of this piece Anti-American? I never said that Burgas "hated America" as you claim, that would be ridiculous. But this particular piece is anti-American. It really is possible to write something anti-American but not hate America. It's possible to write something anti-American yet be patriotic. So for clarification for future respondents, my responses here shouldn't be interpreted as saying Burgas hates America, Burgas roots for terrorists, Burgas is a pinko or Burgas isn't patriotic. All I am saying is that this particular piece, which repreats the premise that Americans are idiotic throughout, is anti-American.

I didn't say anyone here was comparing Bush to Hitler. What I DID say is that anyone who seriously entertains the notion that living under Bush is anything like living under a dictatorship are just as dumb as the people who make Hitler comparisons at the drop of a hat, and I stand by that. Such things are an insult to people who actually DO have it bad under real dictatorships. I have family who've been in prison camps and who've had to leave the old country in exile, I would love to see someone seriously sit down with them and tell them they're having a comparable experience in America under Bush.