Should Porn be Banned

[righteousrepublic]

[youtube]youtube]


ive heard people talking about this lately. im honestly not sure where i would fall here. on one hand it is obscene and is a scourge to families and individuals everywhere. on the other hand i have a hard time because i dont like the idea of government and legislation reaching their claws into that aspect of social life. it would be nice for there not to be any porn, but im not sure how practical or particularly liberty-minded it is for the govt to outright ban it.

what are your thoughts?

Okay folks, what would Jesus do? What would he say about it? Would he justify it in any way? Does he abhor it? Is it a celestial activity? Is it taught in the temple? Is it a sin that when engaged in will land us in the presence of God? Is it a way to put off the natural man? Is playing with it any different than playing with a Rattler?

Bottom line...is it good or is it bad? God says that whatsoever is good cometh of God, and whatsoever is evil cometh of the devil. Is there really any doubt as to where it comes from? If the government is okay with it then God is?

Or do we have to think about some more?

[Doxxen]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

[ajax]

I've often wondered about the balance between the Bill of Rights and State rights, if that's what it's about.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=52247#p950361

[David13]

Technically, Porn would be more accurately classified under "freedom of the press" instead of "freedom of speech."

Don't pay any attention to anything I said. Go and read the cases. And then see if you are right. Or not.
dc

Nah. not really worth it. Court cases are stupidly long, boring, and almost impossible to understand what the heck they are actually saying unless you are a lawyer. I'd need a dictionary, a long amount of time to kill, and a stupid amount of ADHD drugs just to get through one page of the stuff. Seriously not worth it, especially when I have far more interesting things I can do with my time.

Plus, you already spoiled it earlier when you mentioned said they classified it as free speech. I'm simply disagreeing with the courts opinion on which part of the first amendment porn is protected under.

Now you know how I feel.

Allison, did you read?
dc

[Allison]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Whatever. Those girls really wanted the boys’ attention and thought to win them over with their sexiness. The boys let them know they preferred to see and interface with them as whole individuals, not sex objects. Right away the girls switched to t-shirts instead of halter tops and bra-less spaghetti strap wife beaters. Everyone had a great time the rest of the week, and it was wholesome and fun.

The girls could have continued to flaunt their bodies and the boys would have kept aloof. Nobody was forcing anyone.

[David13]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Whatever. Those girls really wanted the boys’ attention and thought to win them over with their sexiness. The boys let them know they preferred to see and interface with them as whole individuals, not sex objects. Right away the girls switched to t-shirts instead of halter tops and bra-less spaghetti strap wife beaters. Everyone had a great time the rest of the week, and it was wholesome and fun.

The girls could have continued to flaunt their bodies and the boys would have kept aloof. Nobody was forcing anyone.

Ok, Allison.

But I think he has a good point.

As an aside, I thought the burka was because the women were camel faced ugly.
dc

[Allison]

Technically, Porn would be more accurately classified under "freedom of the press" instead of "freedom of speech."

Don't pay any attention to anything I said. Go and read the cases. And then see if you are right. Or not.
dc

Nah. not really worth it. Court cases are stupidly long, boring, and almost impossible to understand what the heck they are actually saying unless you are a lawyer. I'd need a dictionary, a long amount of time to kill, and a stupid amount of ADHD drugs just to get through one page of the stuff. Seriously not worth it, especially when I have far more interesting things I can do with my time.

Plus, you already spoiled it earlier when you mentioned said they classified it as free speech. I'm simply disagreeing with the courts opinion on which part of the first amendment porn is protected under.

Now you know how I feel.

Allison, did you read?
dc

I am sorry, I’ve been kind of trying to ignore you, David. I don’t want to fight.

I already know they interpret it as speech; I just completely disagree. That is a huge assignment you issued — find court cases on pornography and read and read for weeks, months, or years. No particular court cases, either. That is why I suggested you go and do that, then give us a summary. .

If there is any court case in particular that you want me to read, dish it up. Since I have bachelor’s degree in Paralegal Studies, I am not afraid of reading court cases.

I just don’t feel the same awe/obeisance for the SCOTUS that you might feel, which is why I see many of them as Gadiantons in black robes.

But as I said, feel free to either provide an overview of whatever it is you want me to know, or send a relevant court case or two my way. Thanks.

[Allison]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Whatever. Those girls really wanted the boys’ attention and thought to win them over with their sexiness. The boys let them know they preferred to see and interface with them as whole individuals, not sex objects. Right away the girls switched to t-shirts instead of halter tops and bra-less spaghetti strap wife beaters. Everyone had a great time the rest of the week, and it was wholesome and fun.

The girls could have continued to flaunt their bodies and the boys would have kept aloof. Nobody was forcing anyone.

Ok, Allison.

But I think he has a good point.

As an aside, I thought the burka was because the women were camel faced ugly.
dc

There was no force or coercion, only a negotiation with a happy ending for all, and the girls were treated with respect, not as the sex objects they had come to see themselves to be. Some of the men on this forum are...interesting.

[Allison]

I've often wondered about the balance between the Bill of Rights and State rights, if that's what it's about.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=52247#p950361

This thread is fully relevant to what some of us have been talking about. A great educational boost in half an hour. Thanks, Ajax.

[ajax]

I've often wondered about the balance between the Bill of Rights and State rights, if that's what it's about.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=52247#p950361

This thread is fully relevant to what some of us have been talking about. A great educational boost in half an hour. Thanks, Ajax.

No problem, this is new knowledge to me and absolutely fascinating.

[ori]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Is it better for the young women to know how the young men feel, or to NOT know? Hmmm?? As you advocate that the young men can't say such things, well, despite what the young men tell, or do not tell, the young women, the fact is that the young men will STILL feel what they feel. So you're saying it's best for the young women not know what the young men feel?

Here is an example from my own life. When I was a BYU student, I asked a young lady on a date. She was wearing a shirt that didn't quite cover her torso -- there was a gap -- about an inch -- between the bottom of her shirt, and the top of her pants -- her skin showing through, obviously. I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was a fluke and she didn't realize the extent of it. I mean, maybe it was a shirt she loved and she outgrew it, and just couldn't bear to not wear it -- who knows, right? So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and asked her out. I took her bowling (or something) but on the night of the date, she again wore a shirt (a different one) that didn't cover. I told myself, "ok, i'm done with this lady" and never contacted her again. And yes, her wardrobe choices were the ONLY reason I didn't ask her out again. I did enjoy her company, and we had a fun date. Would it be better for her to know why men such as myself wouldn't continue to ask her out? Or to not know? Truth wins, right? To my shame, I did not ever let her know why I was no longer interested, so she will never know why I stopped contacting her.

When I was single, if what I was wearing or doing was causing discomfort in single women, I would want to know what I was doing wrong! Yes it would be hard to hear, especially from a specific person told to my face, but if the feedback could be anonymized, and presented in a letter, or something, that would be a much better way to do it.

What if the men were going around wearing speedos? Would we hear this garbage about how women "shouldn't tell men what to wear, and if the men want to wear speedos then you better let them"? I doubt it. What a bunch of baloney. You're buying into philosophies of men. And that's sad to me.

[Allison]

As an aside, I thought the burka was because the women were camel faced ugly.
dc

Lol! On the contrary, I think they tend to be drop dead gorgeous without a spot of make up! Maybe the men are insecure about losing their wives? Strange culture for sure.

[gkearney]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

[Allison]

I would be very, very careful in making the argument that the Bill of Rights applies only top the federal government and not to the state or local governments. You're asking for unattended consequences in doing so.

For example if such were the case then states and cities would be free to pass any kind of gun control they wished because, under the logic being presented here, the second amendment only prevents congress from abridging the right to keep and bare arms not the states and not local governments. Is that really a path your are ready to walk down in order to ban porn?

Isn't that happening in CA already?

And...what if porn is not actually the kind of "speech" the Founders intended to be protected for dear life? Did you listen to Brion McClanahan on this topic? The beauty is, if you find your state to become overbearing, you can move to a more libertarian state. I wish everyone would flee CA and boycott them until they mend their ways.

[ajax]

gkearney, that is the original interpretation. It is a matter of historical fact. Several states still had state sponsored religions when the US Constitution was ratified. It was reaffirmed in Barron vs Baltimore. See:

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=52247#p950361

[LadyT]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Is it better for the young women to know how the young men feel, or to NOT know? Hmmm?? As you advocate that the young men can't say such things, well, despite what the young men tell, or do not tell, the young women, the fact is that the young men will STILL feel what they feel. So you're saying it's best for the young women not know what the young men feel?

Here is an example from my own life. When I was a BYU student, I asked a young lady on a date. She was wearing a shirt that didn't quite cover her torso -- there was a gap -- about an inch -- between the bottom of her shirt, and the top of her pants -- her skin showing through, obviously. I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was a fluke and she didn't realize the extent of it. I mean, maybe it was a shirt she loved and she outgrew it, and just couldn't bear to not wear it -- who knows, right? So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and asked her out. I took her bowling (or something) but on the night of the date, she again wore a shirt (a different one) that didn't cover. I told myself, "ok, i'm done with this lady" and never contacted her again. And yes, her wardrobe choices were the ONLY reason I didn't ask her out again. I did enjoy her company, and we had a fun date. Would it be better for her to know why men such as myself wouldn't continue to ask her out? Or to not know? Truth wins, right? To my shame, I did not ever let her know why I was no longer interested, so she will never know why I stopped contacting her.

When I was single, if what I was wearing or doing was causing discomfort in single women, I would want to know what I was doing wrong! Yes it would be hard to hear, especially from a specific person told to my face, but if the feedback could be anonymized, and presented in a letter, or something, that would be a much better way to do it.

What if the men were going around wearing speedos? Would we hear this garbage about how women "shouldn't tell men what to wear, and if the men want to wear speedos then you better let them"? I doubt it. What a bunch of baloney. You're buying into philosophies of men. And that's sad to me.

Men in speedos is gross. I would simply laugh at them. Now Wrangler jeans and cowboy boots are 100 percent sexier.

I would have laughed if I was the girl you dated. She got off lucky in my book. I dressed the way that I like. If it made men have problems, well that was on them.

[ajax]

I was on organized swim teams during my teams, so I wore speedos a lot, while the girls wore their one piece racing suits. Nobody seemed to bat an eye. No biggie.

[Doxxen]

"Whatever. Those girls really wanted the boys’ attention and thought to win them over with their sexiness. The boys let them know they preferred to see and interface with them as whole individuals, not sex objects. Right away the girls switched to t-shirts instead of halter tops and bra-less spaghetti strap wife beaters. Everyone had a great time the rest of the week, and it was wholesome and fun."

"The girls could have continued to flaunt their bodies and the boys would have kept aloof. Nobody was forcing anyone."

Umm but they were forced through being compelled through extortion. They only covered them selves up AFTER you guys mentioned something. Continual passive aggressive harassment and dis-contempt caused them to clothe up. There are many ways other than "direct force", in this day and age its really hard to force something because it would be assault to hold them down and force clothes on them, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to force your believes on other people.

Yeah a woman can be a sex object and an intellectual individual at the same time. So when a women dresses sexy she loses her individuality to be an intellectual person? It's completely normal animal behavior to attract the opposite sex.

[Allison]

"Whatever. Those girls really wanted the boys’ attention and thought to win them over with their sexiness. The boys let them know they preferred to see and interface with them as whole individuals, not sex objects. Right away the girls switched to t-shirts instead of halter tops and bra-less spaghetti strap wife beaters. Everyone had a great time the rest of the week, and it was wholesome and fun."

"The girls could have continued to flaunt their bodies and the boys would have kept aloof. Nobody was forcing anyone."

Umm but they were forced through being compelled through extortion. They only covered them selves up AFTER you guys mentioned something. Continual passive aggressive harassment and dis-contempt caused them to clothe up. There are many ways other than "direct force", in this day and age its really hard to force something because it would be assault to hold them down and force clothes on them, doesn't mean there aren't other ways to force your believes on other people.

Yeah a woman can be a sex object and an intellectual individual at the same time. So when a women dresses sexy she loses her individuality to be an intellectual person? It's completely normal animal behavior to attract the opposite sex.

You are offended on behalf of the girls who were not offended and had a great time with some wholesome boys. The girls could have stayed immodest and gone after several other cabins of boys at the camp. Some did. To each his own!

[Doxxen]

"Here is an example from my own life. When I was a BYU student, I asked a young lady on a date. She was wearing a shirt that didn't quite cover her torso -- there was a gap -- about an inch -- between the bottom of her shirt, and the top of her pants -- her skin showing through, obviously. I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was a fluke and she didn't realize the extent of it. I mean, maybe it was a shirt she loved and she outgrew it, and just couldn't bear to not wear it -- who knows, right? So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and asked her out. I took her bowling (or something) but on the night of the date, she again wore a shirt (a different one) that didn't cover. I told myself, "ok, i'm done with this lady" and never contacted her again. And yes, her wardrobe choices were the ONLY reason I didn't ask her out again. I did enjoy her company, and we had a fun date. Would it be better for her to know why men such as myself wouldn't continue to ask her out? Or to not know? Truth wins, right? To my shame, I did not ever let her know why I was no longer interested, so she will never know why I stopped contacting her."

"When I was single, if what I was wearing or doing was causing discomfort in single women, I would want to know what I was doing wrong! Yes it would be hard to hear, especially from a specific person told to my face, but if the feedback could be anonymized, and presented in a letter, or something, that would be a much better way to do it."

"What if the men were going around wearing speedos? Would we hear this garbage about how women "shouldn't tell men what to wear, and if the men want to wear speedos then you better let them"? I doubt it. What a bunch of baloney. You're buying into philosophies of men. And that's sad to me."



Wow stopping dating all together because of 1 act is shallow. She is better off without you. Forcing, through isolation, your cultural customs that are unique only to you that those articles of clothing are immodest. It's like a fake victim card that a guy is being offended for being turned on, if you can't handle being turned on, don't leave your house. It's not the woman's fault for turning men on, THAT'S HUMAN NATURE. Your trying to make these people out to be immoral people. Didn't we once get turned on by ankles?

Me walking around with my shirt off and 6 pack showing would only show discomfort in religious women who adopted the same values. The opposite is true in all contexts, should a women force me to wear a shirt because she feels uncomfortable, am I now an immoral person for being human? When you say buying into philosophies of men you are a sexist person, double standard, and a hypocrite, like it's only men issues about women being turned on. I think most women wouldn't bother mentioning it because they don't care as much as guys do about this issue, hence the middle east and burkas, so why not in the middle east do women tell guys to wear long sleeve shirts because his biceps are showing. In regards to the speedo, is it illegal or not, can a cop arrest me or not, and if you don't like, take it up with legislation and not the people themselves because it looks like you are circumventing the courtrooms because you didn't get your way.

[Doxxen]

"Men in speedos is gross. I would simply laugh at them. Now Wrangler jeans and cowboy boots are 100 percent sexier."

Well now he has to change his clothes, turning you on. It's a never ending interpretation by way to many people, no single source definition of what turns on a person and what does not turn on a person because every person is different. So there would be a hard time managing what other people would be considered immoral because it is a floating definition.

[Doxxen]

"You are offended on behalf of the girls who were not offended and had a great time with some wholesome boys. The girls could have stayed immodest and gone after several other cabins of boys at the camp. Some did. To each his own!"

I'm offended against any person who thinks that another person needs to clothe up for your cultural customs that are unique only to you, hence the whole forcing of believes on someone else. Those girls are not telling all the other girls to wear bikinis now are they?

[ori]

"I know that my sons were embarrassed sometimes at Birch Camp at the pool when some of the nonmember girls would come up to them almost naked. They would leave the pool. Their whole cabin (including other Christian nonmembers) put out a letter to the girls stating that it was easier to be around them and do things with them when they dressed modestly. This concern is not unique to our church."

That is the literal exact mentality of making women wear a burka. No men or women, you cannot tell women to clothe up. It's a women's right to wear what she wants to wear and it is non of the guys or anyone else's business. Doesn't matter if it's your church or not, that's besides the point, not a very good argument.

Putting "your" desired amount of clothing "on someone else" is basically the same mentality, call it your version of a burka.

Is it better for the young women to know how the young men feel, or to NOT know? Hmmm?? As you advocate that the young men can't say such things, well, despite what the young men tell, or do not tell, the young women, the fact is that the young men will STILL feel what they feel. So you're saying it's best for the young women not know what the young men feel?

Here is an example from my own life. When I was a BYU student, I asked a young lady on a date. She was wearing a shirt that didn't quite cover her torso -- there was a gap -- about an inch -- between the bottom of her shirt, and the top of her pants -- her skin showing through, obviously. I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was a fluke and she didn't realize the extent of it. I mean, maybe it was a shirt she loved and she outgrew it, and just couldn't bear to not wear it -- who knows, right? So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and asked her out. I took her bowling (or something) but on the night of the date, she again wore a shirt (a different one) that didn't cover. I told myself, "ok, i'm done with this lady" and never contacted her again. And yes, her wardrobe choices were the ONLY reason I didn't ask her out again. I did enjoy her company, and we had a fun date. Would it be better for her to know why men such as myself wouldn't continue to ask her out? Or to not know? Truth wins, right? To my shame, I did not ever let her know why I was no longer interested, so she will never know why I stopped contacting her.

When I was single, if what I was wearing or doing was causing discomfort in single women, I would want to know what I was doing wrong! Yes it would be hard to hear, especially from a specific person told to my face, but if the feedback could be anonymized, and presented in a letter, or something, that would be a much better way to do it.

What if the men were going around wearing speedos? Would we hear this garbage about how women "shouldn't tell men what to wear, and if the men want to wear speedos then you better let them"? I doubt it. What a bunch of baloney. You're buying into philosophies of men. And that's sad to me.

Men in speedos is gross. I would simply laugh at them. Now Wrangler jeans and cowboy boots are 100 percent sexier.

I would have laughed if I was the girl you dated. She got off lucky in my book. I dressed the way that I like. If it made men have problems, well that was on them.

Lol no... it didn’t make me “have problems”. I just wasn’t interested in a daughter of God that doesn’t respect her body the way I think she should. I’d rather be with one that obeys the prophet in matters of dress and grooming.

[ori]

"Here is an example from my own life. When I was a BYU student, I asked a young lady on a date. She was wearing a shirt that didn't quite cover her torso -- there was a gap -- about an inch -- between the bottom of her shirt, and the top of her pants -- her skin showing through, obviously. I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was a fluke and she didn't realize the extent of it. I mean, maybe it was a shirt she loved and she outgrew it, and just couldn't bear to not wear it -- who knows, right? So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and asked her out. I took her bowling (or something) but on the night of the date, she again wore a shirt (a different one) that didn't cover. I told myself, "ok, i'm done with this lady" and never contacted her again. And yes, her wardrobe choices were the ONLY reason I didn't ask her out again. I did enjoy her company, and we had a fun date. Would it be better for her to know why men such as myself wouldn't continue to ask her out? Or to not know? Truth wins, right? To my shame, I did not ever let her know why I was no longer interested, so she will never know why I stopped contacting her."

"When I was single, if what I was wearing or doing was causing discomfort in single women, I would want to know what I was doing wrong! Yes it would be hard to hear, especially from a specific person told to my face, but if the feedback could be anonymized, and presented in a letter, or something, that would be a much better way to do it."

"What if the men were going around wearing speedos? Would we hear this garbage about how women "shouldn't tell men what to wear, and if the men want to wear speedos then you better let them"? I doubt it. What a bunch of baloney. You're buying into philosophies of men. And that's sad to me."



Wow stopping dating all together because of 1 act is shallow. She is better off without you. Forcing, through isolation, your cultural customs that are unique only to you that those articles of clothing are immodest. It's like a fake victim card that a guy is being offended for being turned on, if you can't handle being turned on, don't leave your house. It's not the woman's fault for turning men on, THAT'S HUMAN NATURE. Your trying to make these people out to be immoral people. Didn't we once get turned on by ankles?

Me walking around with my shirt off and 6 pack showing would only show discomfort in religious women who adopted the same values. The opposite is true in all contexts, should a women force me to wear a shirt because she feels uncomfortable, am I now an immoral person for being human? When you say buying into philosophies of men you are a sexist person, double standard, and a hypocrite, like it's only men issues about women being turned on. I think most women wouldn't bother mentioning it because they don't care as much as guys do about this issue, hence the middle east and burkas, so why not in the middle east do women tell guys to wear long sleeve shirts because his biceps are showing. In regards to the speedo, is it illegal or not, can a cop arrest me or not, and if you don't like, take it up with legislation and not the people themselves because it looks like you are circumventing the courtrooms because you didn't get your way.

Ok so I’m “shallow” because I have standards? standards that match the prophet’s teachings. I’d say one SHOULD be picky when choosing a marriage companion.

I do agree with you that she’s better off without me just like I’m better off without her. We both win when we get with someone that has similar standards.

[Durzan]

.

Darn it peeps, either flat out delete the post or leave it be. Don't blank it.