Benutzer - Profil
Benutzer - AcostaAcosta7
Benutzer-Galerie (0) - Clan (0) - Clanwars (0) - Computer (0) - Forum (0) - Freunde (0) - Gästebuch (0) - Medaillen (0)

Person
Nick AcostaAcosta7
Kein Bild vorhanden
Vorname --
Nachname --
Geschlecht weiblich
Geburtstag (Alter) 04.08.1952 (68)
Größe --
Adresse --
PLZ - Ort --
Land ----
Registriert 23.04.2016 um 22:08 Uhr
Letzter Besuch 24.04.2016 um 00:27 Uhr

Kontakt
E-Mail libracamp30tkzhtm (at) hypermailbox (dot) com
Homepage nudism.name/nudist-video/nudist-nudism-teen-boy.php
ICQ --
MSN --
Skype --
Telefon --
Handy --

Info
Random manner. It is only when you step back, quit taking a look at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a
macroscopic view of the whole cage, you could see why the bird will not go anywhere; and then you'll see http://nudist-video.net/young-nudist/boo bs-nudist-big-beach.php in
a instant. It's going to need no great subtlety of mental powers. It is absolutely obvious the bird is encircled by a
network of systematically associated barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by
their relationships to every other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon." 110
80. Topfree inequality (requiring girls, but not men, to wear tops) is demeaning and discriminatory
toward women, and reinforces patterns of male domination over girls.111
In our culture, breasts may be subjected to sell drinks to guys in pubs, but women might not be topfree on a
Shore for their own comfort and delight. Reena Glazer writes: "The criminalization of women baring their breasts,
Hence, indicates that society views women's bodies as immoral and something to conceal. There is something
Possibly criminal about every girl just by virtue of being female." 112
Herald Price Fahringer writes, "men hold the right to cover or expose their chests as they see fit--women do
not. Men have the right to take pleasure in the sun, water, and wind with no top; women don't. Few guys would be willing
to give up this right. Then why shouldn't women love the same edge? . . . Requiring women to cover their
breasts in public is an extremely visible expression of inequality between women and men that promotes an approach that
demeans women and damages their sense of equality. . . . For countless decades, men have held the capacity to create these
misconceptions. The male perspective on the exposure of a female 's breasts is crucially affected by the demand of guys to
define women. . . . This reaction stems from a masculine ideology that has . . . Ill-fated generations of girls to a
secondary status." 113
Raymond Grueneich writes: "So what's actually at stake is whether women will probably be free to bare their own
breasts in appropriate public places for their own private goals on such events in which they feel free to do
so, or whether they'll simply be permitted to bare their breasts in public on an occasion which can be used
commercially and that bolsters the idea the sole function of the female breast is for the satisfaction of man
Dream. It is as though it is a crime for a woman to be undressed in public, unless she was undressed in the service
of a corporation or a commercial entrepreneur." 114
81. Laws banning exposure of female breasts do so in part due to the reaction such exposure would
supposedly cause in guys. Such laws are written completely from the male point of view, and ignore the point of view of
Girls, who might want to go topfree for their own comfort.
82. By refusing to accept the need to "protect" themselves from guys by covering their bodies, women increase
power, and change the burden of responsible behaviour to men, where it rightfully belongs.
Reena Glazer notes that "male power is perpetuated by viewing girls as things that guys act and react
to rather than as actors themselves. . . . their entire worth is derived from the reaction they are able to cause from men. In
order to keep the patriarchal system, men must determine when and where this arousal is allowed to occur.
This way, the (heterosexual) male myth of a lady 's breasts has been codified into law. Because girls are the
sexual things and property of men, it follows that what might arouse guys can only be exhibited when men need to
be aroused." This emphasis on women as temptresses "transfers the load of responsibility from men to women;
because girls provoke uncontrollable impulses in males, society justifies male behavior and attributes the victim for
whatever occurs. . . . To sanction the concept that men have uncontrollable urges suggests that violence against
women is unavoidable." 115
83. Patriarchal laws strip girls of the right to control their very own bodies, but there have consistently been
"exceptions" to obscenity laws which permit the use of women's bodies in consumer seduction. Therefore female nudity
is considered improper on the beach, but is ubiquitous in advertising and porn.
84. By imposing arbitrary clothes conditions for women (requiring them to cover their tops), the
government acts in loco parentis, in the function of a parent. This really is demeaning to women. Like children, they're not
Surrendered the skill or right to determine the best way to dress, substantially as they previously weren't allowed to vote, own property, or
exercise little naturism . The repression of healthful female nudity fuels porn.
Herbert Muschamp notes: "To object to the nude body in a general interest magazine while enabling it
to stay in men's skin magazines is one way of keeping girls in their place." 117
  • 25.09.2020 um 10:53 Uhr nach UTC +1 [Sommerzeit]
  • Load: 16ms
  • Queries: 24
  • Memory: 1.3 MiB [peak 1.56 MiB]
  • Mailus
  • Imprint
template by ich-raffs-nicht.de