Re: POLICE CALLED TO LAYTON,UTAH HOME DUE TO ANATOMICALLY CORRECT SNOWMAN/WOMEN!!

I don't understand why you feel this was a negative thing.... it is good that the police decided the snowmen weren't worth wasting time over.

You said the complaint was over lewdness. Merely showing anatomically correct genitals isn't lewd.

I don't understand why you feel this was a negative thing.... it is good that the police decided the snowmen weren't worth wasting time over.

You said the complaint was over lewdness. Merely showing anatomically correct genitals isn't lewd.

"Merely showing anatomically correct genitals isn't lewd."

No, it's just infantile and offensive.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
No, it's just infantile and offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, that's the trouble with snowmen. You think they're sweet, innocent, pure as the driven snow then they let you down like this. Next thing they'll be climbing lamp posts and dangling their snowballs for everyone to see. The sex offender's register is just too good for them!

http://www.mrsmcgowan.com/cc/snowman.gif
Rik

Rik,

Being a sarcastic person myself, I got a laugh out of your reply. I don't mean this as criticism since I find sarcastic humor funny. Don Rickles in this country made a good living at it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Rik]

Jon-Marc

Sarcastic? Moi?

Rik

[Angel]

I went and found the article in question before commenting here ... Yes there were two snowmen ... Adam and Eve. Eve had breasts! (Shock, horror!) There was no specific mention of genitalia at all. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

After the police visit, Eve now has leaves on her breasts (they looked like oak, not fig), and Adam has a strategically placed set of jingle bells.

If breast-like protruberances are all it takes to make something "anatomically correct", and this is offensive, I *demand* that Barbie be taken off the shelf! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here's a little more sarcasm for you.

I can't imagine the harm and phychological damage it must have done to any children who saw the "anatomically correct" snowman and woman! OH, the horror of it! I bet they will be tramatized for the rest of their lives!

Also, Angel's point about Barbie is a good one. What damage it must do to little girls (and boys) who see the breasts on Barbie. I gave my younger daughter two anatomically correct dolls, one boy and one girl, when she was little. As far I know she was never damaged by the "disgusting sight" of body parts that many believe should never be seen. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[FireProf]

Someone please remove Stu#### from these forums.

He is in need of some serious help. And who gave him two stars...he shouldn't even be here.

I for one am tired of his attacks and narrow mindedness.

GOOD BYE STU!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FireProf:
Someone please remove Stu#### from these forums.

He is in need of some serious help. And who gave him two stars...he shouldn't even be here.

I for one am tired of his attacks and narrow mindedness.

GOOD BYE STU!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fireprof,

Just ignore his posts if you don't like them but bear in mind this is a public forum to whom all are welcome. Their opinions, narrow or otherwise, are also welcome provided they don't descend into personal abuse and as yet Stu has not done that.

He may attack our views about nudity but if we are confident in what we believe then we should have no difficulty in argueing our case. Although he may be more extreme than most in his anti-nudity views at least he attempts to justify his views as opposed to, for instance, simply screaming that nudity is a sin because it says so in the bible (or some such nonsense). This gives us the opportunity to examine our own views about nudism and helps us to argue the case in "the real world" (whatever that is!).

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FireProf:
Someone please remove Stu#### from these forums.

He is in need of some serious help. And who gave him two stars...he shouldn't even be here.

I for one am tired of his attacks and narrow mindedness.

GOOD BYE STU!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fireprof,

Just ignore his posts if you don't like them but bear in mind this is a public forum to whom all are welcome. Their opinions, narrow or otherwise, are also welcome provided they don't descend into personal abuse and as yet Stu has not done that.

He may attack our views about nudity but if we are confident in what we believe then we should have no difficulty in argueing our case. Although he may be more extreme than most in his anti-nudity views at least he attempts to justify his views as opposed to, for instance, simply screaming that nudity is a sin because it says so in the bible (or some such nonsense). This gives us the opportunity to examine our own views about nudism and helps us to argue the case in "the real world" (whatever that is!).

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But he justifies his views by lying and doesn't really listen to anything we say. Geez, I said he was no more than a troll quite a while back and he is why I left that other thread. Too much negativity! He isn't here to learn about us or to be our friend. It has gotten to the point where he is only a disruption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Merely showing anatomically correct genitals isn't lewd."

No, it's just infantile and offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More like LEGAL even when on a real person and not a snowman.