In response to:

What's Wrong with Public Nudity?

45caliber Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 10:39 AM
If you want to see what is wrong with public nudity, take a look at the people in the mall the next time you go and ask yourself - "Do I REALLY want to see someone who looks like that naked?" I had a friend one time in the military who went to a nudist camp so he could see naked people. "There were 50,000 women there that weekend - and only 2 were pretty. Both had so many men around them that you couldn't get close enough to see what they looked like. The rest? I may never have sex again the rest of my life!"
Illbay Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 11:21 AM
I don't get why invariably we always "go there." How someone looks measured against the current standard of physical attractiveness is irrelevant. Two hundred years ago, women we consider "fat and unattractive" today would be the height of pulchritude. Who cares?

Why don't you read what Prager is ACTUALLY saying? If you don't agree with his explication of "the sacred vs. the profane," fine, say so.

But don't rehash this stupid junior-high-school-boy argument. It's beyond boring.
Mokki Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 11:57 AM
If you want to understand Leftism -- and everyone needs to because it has been the most dynamic religion of the last one hundred years -- one good place to start is with San Francisco.

Or perhaps more precisely -- with nudity.

And even more precisely -- with public nudity.

Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted by the barest (pun not intended) margin -- 6 to 5 -- to ban public nudity. By public nudity, the law refers only to displaying one's genitals in public. San Francisco women are still free to walk around topless. But that is not unique...

Related Tags: San Francisco Nudity