The Panty Jihad (UK Muslims angry)

frontpagemag ^ | June 15, 2004 | By Val MacQueen

[Pyro7480]

I've been to Europe, and it is indeed, worse. But we're just going on the same road, a bit slower. As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)

[Legion04]

I like the one 3rd from the left best.

[BrooklynGOP]

I've been to Europe, and it is indeed, worse.

It only seems worse cause you are used to US. Over there its no big deal. Its all in your head :]

As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)

Don't project your issues on me :>

[steve-b]

this country has blasphemy laws which are flagrantly ignored

They should be ignored, and repealed.

[BrooklynGOP]

I am not picky. They're all good.

[OSHA]

That one offends me the most too.

[steve-b]

I understand some people's reactions to comments like mine, in reaction to the Islamonazis' viewpoint on women

One beneficial side effect on the War on Terrorism is that it will associate Mrs. Grundyism with profound evil, in much the same way that the legacy of Nazi Germany associated genteel anti-Semitism with profound evil.

[Pyro7480]

I don't want to get in a flame war with you, but you were the one who accused me of being a sex addict, when all I was doing was paraphrasing a cultural commentator. I thought you were joking a bit, so I responded in kind. And again, you imply that I am. That's just uncalled for.

[OSHA]

She offends me a lot!

[NCPAC]

At most this poster is mildly titillating and sexy, but it is certainly not even bordering on being "soft porn." This may stun you, Pyro7480, but I think that poster IS moderate.

As for relating the word "toxic" to this ad - well, we obviously have a different idea as to what constitutes poison or toxicity.

For the record, although the fact I defend this poster and consider it harmless might make me a "sex addict" in some folks eyes, I do not consider myself to be a sex addict (though my girlfriend may argue differently.)

[BrooklynGOP]

Huh? Let's recap:

Post #17: Many of us are sex addicts, whether we realize it or not.

Post #21: As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-)

Who's accusing who, here?

[Pyro7480]

Maybe "moderate" by 2004 standards, but pornographic by more eternal standards...

[tjwmason]

They [the English blasphemy laws] should be ignored, and repealed.

Why?

Technically speaking this is a Christian country. Our head of state was crowned by an archbishop, during a service of the Church of England. Our Bishops sit, as of right, in Parliament. Every singe coin of this realm affirms our Christian status. Our flag consists of three crosses, each of them emblems of our Patron Saints. Long may it so remain, I don't want a country where judges can ban nativity scenes, or sculptures of the decalogue.

[Pyro7480]

Post #19: Heh. TMI!!
Post #23: Don't project your issues on me :>

I rest my case.

[steve-b]

At most this poster is mildly titillating and sexy, but it is certainly not even bordering on being "soft porn."

There seems to be some uncertainty on this issue. Obviously, we need a larger image to study in detail so that we can get to the bottom of it.

[steve-b]

This just confirms that a few centuries ago, the Atlantic acted as a diffusion filter through which sheeple did not readily pass. An unfortunate side effect of modern technology was to degrade this effect.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

At most this poster is mildly titillating and sexy, but it is certainly not even bordering on being "soft porn." This may stun you, Pyro7480, but I think that poster IS moderate.

Then you are simply defining deviancy downward. If this is not soft-porn, then what is? Full frontal nudity? Actual penetration? S&M?

The bottom line (no pun intended), is that bodies that are naked all except for nipples and pubic areas, erotically posed, ARE soft porn. Four naked female bottom's lined up in a row are intended to be highly erotic. If you did not take it this way, then the developers of the advertisement would be deeply disappointed.

I find that what many people consider to be "soft porn" or no porn changes drastically when their 8 to 13 year old sons or daughters are alongside them viewing the...er.. event. Also, it's one thing to ban pornography in it's various forms, and it's another to ban PUBLIC pornography in any form, which can be viewed by innocents.

Innocents deserve the chance to remain innocent, until their parents can introduce mature topics at an appropriate age. My children, for example, learned all the glories of oral sex at a very young, precocious age, because of a pornographic, sex-addicted President who sullied his office.

That's why words such as "soft porn", "porn", and "hard core" must mean something more than "I like it", "I like it a lot", and "I freakin' love this sh*t so leave me alone you prude!!". Words create laws, and good laws protect innocents.

SFS

[NCPAC]

"Maybe "moderate" by 2004 standards, but pornographic by more eternal standards."

Do you mean by what you PERCEIVE to be more "eternal standards?" Just thought I'd ask.

[Pyro7480]

No cleavage, no skirt above the knee, etc.

[BrooklynGOP]

Post #19: Heh. TMI!!
Post #23: Don't project your issues on me :>

I rest my case.

Yea. #19 was in response to your post #17: Many of us are sex addicts, whether we realize it or not. Sounded like a cry for help to me. And post #23 was in response to your post #21 where you accused me: As for your snide remark about sex addicts, I say you're still in the denial stage. ;-).