[entropy12]

Exposure to nudity for ages 10 thru 17 bothers me less than exposure to violence, murders, brutality.

[steve86]

“Exposure to nudity for ages 10 thru 17 bothers me less than exposure to violence, murders, brutality.’

That’s a classic liberal line. What a fraud you are on this forum.

[vikingd00d]

>>Exposure to nudity for ages 10 thru 17 bothers me less than exposure to violence, murders, brutality

‘exposure to nudity’ is a bit different from encouraging the production of kiddie porn. try reading the article for once.

[Jonty30]

I would rather our kids learn to be their best and not given over to their bestial impulses.

[fr_freak]

Exposure to nudity for ages 10 thru 17 bothers me less than exposure to violence, murders, brutality.

Deluded statement, for two reasons:

1) All nudity is not the same. A movie depicting the nudity of a woman taking a regular shower is not the same as a movie depicting a woman having sex, or dancing on a stripper pole. The corollary here is that not all violence is the same, either, e.g. a man depicted as beating someone for threatening his family is not the same as a man depicted as beating someone to rob or murder him.

2) There is literally no reason we have to have one or the other. We can opt to control children's exposure to sexualized nudity AND violence, murders, brutality. In other words, we should have moral standards like we used to.

Justifying or hand-waving away deliberate attempts to expose our children to sexualization, especially to deviant sexual behavior, with the reasoning that it is less harmful than violence is a false dichotomy. It is also wrong. Wrong as hell.

[The Duke]

"Exposure to nudity for ages 10 thru 17 bothers me less than exposure to violence, murders, brutality."

Alex, I'll take "violence, murders and brutality" for $100!

[Chicory]

Violence, murders, and brutality can be faked. Nudity can not be faked.

[TTFlyer]

Get lost.