http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/tv/t...9520-20603232/

Too bad the US can't present naturism in documentary form on TV.

Mark

On Jun 11, 10:14 am, "Mark" <alln> wrote:
> [..]...
>
> Too bad the US can't present naturism in documentary form on TV.
>
> Mark

yeah goofus...too many crossed lines in the sand....and too many
obvious lies....jz

On Jun 11, 9:14 am, Zee <jonZ> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 10:14 am, "Mark" <alln> wrote:
>
> >[..]...
>
> > Too bad the US can't present naturism in documentary form on TV.
>
> > Mark
>
> yeah goofus...too many crossed lines in the sand....and too many
> obvious lies....jz

Too many people like JonZee and "Anna" who would throw fits.



Dan MacKay
"Life is too short, Play Naked".
http://groups.myspace.com/NudistNaturistsNude

On Jun 11, 10:52 am, Dan MacKay <cal1f> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 9:14 am, Zee <jonZ> wrote:
>>
>>
> Too many people like JonZee and "Anna" who would throw fits.
>
> Dan MacKay
> "Life is too short, Play Naked".[..]

Depending on the time it is on and its context (no dead body, no
sexualization) I wouldn't have a problem with some nudity on
television.

But like I said I rather have no nudity than sexualized nudity on
television and since that is where it would lead I don't mind the
current position of the FCC.

"Mark" <allnude> wrote in
news:6d-dnRtyD8JddtLVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d:

> [..]
> dden-lives-89520-20603232/
>

"I just wish they'd pixelated the rude bits. I'm going to have nightmares
now."

Silly textiles.

On Jun 11, 5:03 pm, Anna <annalidd> wrote:
[..]
>>
> Depending on the time it is on and its context (no dead body, no
> sexualization) I wouldn't have a problem with some nudity on
> television.
>
> But like I said I rather have no nudity than sexualized nudity on
> television and since that is where it would lead I don't mind the
> current position of the FCC.

There is NO such thing as nudity, other than sexualized nudity, unless
you know people without genitalia.

The FCC is doing a terrible job. They have allowed some US nedia
markets to be monopolized by very few companies. What happened to the
three man radio station?

On Jun 18, 6:20 pm, Solario <sola> wrote:

>
> The FCC is doing a terrible job.  They have allowed some US nedia
> markets to be monopolized by very few companies.  What happened to the
> three man radio station?-

What's a nedia ?? Should I have a nedia ??

Michael T.
www.Fairwindlakes.com

On Jun 18, 6:20 pm, Solario <sola> wrote:

>
> What happened to the three man radio station ?
>

We still have one .. it is called rec.nude and is run by Johnny No-
Numberz, Anna/Jeff and Dan McNewscaster. Tune in some time.

Michael T.
ww.Fairwindlakes.com

On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Mark" <alln> wrote:
> [..]...
>
> Too bad the US can't present naturism in documentary form on TV.
>
> Mark

Yeah, but unfortunately if we allow nudity on public TV we would
someday end up with the programming the UK has.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/co...e-1364162.html

I don't mind seeing nudity on television as long as it is of the
nonsexual type but if allowing nudity means eventually getting this
then I don't mind no nudity on television either.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/co...e-1364162.html

http://tinyurl.com/3oqvk4

Letting the world witness where the sun don't shine

The confirmation that I really and truly know nothing whatever about
either this current world or the people who inhabit it came last
Tuesday night. I say "confirmation", because the symptoms of ignorance
had been present for some time, but I did not intellectually assemble
them as part of an overall pathology; until, that is, Dr Pixie
McKenna, a medical graduate of University College Cork,
unintentionally connected the dots for me.

She is a co-presenter of the Channel Four programme, 'Embarrassing
Bodies', which goes out every night this week (11.55 tonight), and
which invites people with physical characteristics that are socially
uncomfortable to discuss them on air.

On Tuesday, the programme's mobile clinic arrived in Leeds. The first
patient was an African woman, who described her extreme unhappiness at
a recent development to her body, which had since made her reluctant
to have sex with men, and which was far too embarrassing ever to show
to a doctor. She had grown a small flap of skin along her anus.

And naturally, being far too embarrassed to show this growth to her
doctor, she then showed it to four million viewers, including me. Yes,
she took off her knickers, lay face down on the couch, and spread her
buttocks. The camera then lingeringly showed us both the southern end
of her alimentary canal, and the offending flap, at which point, I
fell off my chair: event timed at 2305 hours. Not merely was this a
televisual first for me -- it redefined my understanding of the word
"embarrassing".

Stunned, I was still wandering around, like Moses in a Sinai
sandstorm, when Pixie gave the African lady advice on how to treat the
flap, so I'm not clear what it was. The next patient was Alyson, an
attractive blonde woman in her 30s. Her bodily condition was so
mortifying, so excruciatingly embarrassing, that it had totally
destroyed her sex life, and she could not possibly show it to her GP.
The soft-tissue between her labia, she confided, was hanging in a
loose fold.

Well, I thought, this was quite clearly far too rich for television,
even on Channel Four after the watershed (so to speak): except it
wasn't, because she promptly took off her knickers, lay back on the
examining-couch, proudly spread open her legs, and exposed the glories
of her gynaecological glenside.

"Stand up," Pixie then chirruped heartily, like a girl-guide leader
asking one of her girls to show the troop a particularly fine
sheepshank, "and let's see what you look like from the front".

Alyson rose, still stark naked, with her legs apart: and yes, we could
see a small protuberant fold of flesh from between her labia. Looked
fine to me: but what do I know?

Well, we know the answer to that, don't we? The answer was confirmed
by the next patient, who was having trouble with his penis. Fifty-four
and about to get married, he was far too embarrassed to let his
betrothed see it, or to get treatment for whatever ailed it. Look, he
said, whipping it out and showing it to the next presenter, a Norse-
looking cove with flaxen locks and cheekbones you could hang a
studding-sail from. The organ was visibly leprous -- but stay: there
was more!

The soon-to-be groom yanked back the foreskin, apparently revealing a
dead toad, squashed and misshapen by road-kill. A million viewers (I,
included) briefly whinnied in horror before swooning: yet this was a
vision which had been so brutally denied to -- the creature! -- the
love of his life.

Enough! Confirmation that I am in a new world, in which the word
"embarrassing" no longer implies that you suffer from a physical
affliction which you are reluctant to show anyone at all: but here,
"embarrassing" actually means you'll certainly expose your affliction
-- but only if you have an audience of at least several hundred
thousand. Anything smaller, perfectly mortifying: but once over that
threshold: "You'd like a closer look? Excellent! Allow me to open my
legs even wider still."

So in this value system, reluctant now means eager, private means
public, intimate means open, and confidential means proclamatory --
but only provided enough people are watching. So -- is a vegan someone
who will only eat seal cubs if watched by a large audience? Is a
priest someone who observes the vow of celibacy when alone, but if
observed by a large crowd, goes at it like a herd of lesbian goats in
Sodom? Does the Poor Clare who, when alone, dines on mouse droppings,
in public swagger around the place like Michael Winner on acid?

Presumably it works both ways in this amazing new world of mine. The
brash, union-bashing public Michael O'Leary, when alone in his humble
bedsit, knits mittens for SIPTU strikers on picket duty at dawn.

The very publicly womanising Colin Farrell, in private, longs for his
wedding day, so he can finally lose his virginity. And Hillary
Clinton, who on the campaign trail resembles the uninvited guest in
John Hurt's ribcage in 'Alien', when alone, is actually a sweet,
attractive, amiable little lady.

No, no. Just about anything is possible in this strange new world of
mine: but thank God, never that.

"Anna" <annaliddell> wrote in message
news:f238
> On Jun 11, 8:14 am, "Mark" <alln> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but unfortunately if we allow nudity on public TV we would
> someday end up with the programming the UK has.
>
> [..]
>
> I don't mind seeing nudity on television as long as it is of the
> nonsexual type but if allowing nudity means eventually getting this
> then I don't mind no nudity on television either.
>

Actually the programme was about as "sexual" as a visit to the dentist. And
nobody was forced to watch it, the publicity made it very clear what it was
about and in my view it performed an important function in persuading people
with embarrassing medical conditions to seek help.

I'd far rather have the odd bit of nudity on TV than the blatant political
bias shown by Fox News in the US, which wouldn't be allowed here.

David.

On Jun 19, 2:16 pm, "David Looser" <davidloo>
wrote:
[..]
>> Actually the programme was about as "sexual" as a visit to the dentist. And
> nobody was forced to watch it, the publicity made it very clear what it was
> about and in my view it performed an important function in persuading people
> with embarrassing medical conditions to seek help.
>
> I'd far rather have the odd bit of nudity on TV than the blatant political
> bias shown by Fox News in the US, which wouldn't be allowed here.
>
I find it interesting that you single out Fox for their conservative
bias, whilst igoring the very liberal bias of most other outlets,
including ABC, CBS and NBC.

"Solario" <solario> wrote in message
news:c954
On Jun 19, 2:16 pm, "David Looser" <davidloo>
wrote:
[..]
> And
> nobody was forced to watch it, the publicity made it very clear what it
> was
> about and in my view it performed an important function in persuading
> people
> with embarrassing medical conditions to seek help.
>
> I'd far rather have the odd bit of nudity on TV than the blatant political
> bias shown by Fox News in the US, which wouldn't be allowed here.
>
I find it interesting that you single out Fox for their conservative
bias, whilst igoring the very liberal bias of most other outlets,
including ABC, CBS and NBC.

==============================

my thoughts also...............

"Richard C." <post-age> wrote in message
news:nz2d
> "Solario" <solario> wrote in message
> news:c954
> On Jun 19, 2:16 pm, "David Looser" <davidloo>
> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>> I'd far rather have the odd bit of nudity on TV than the blatant
>>> political bias shown by Fox News in the US,
>>> which wouldn't be allowed here.
>>
>> I find it interesting that you single out Fox for their
>> conservative bias, whilst igoring the very liberal bias of most
>> other outlets, including ABC, CBS and NBC.
>> my thoughts also...............

Possibly because ABC, CBS and NBC are not beamed directly into many UK
houses like Fox News by the nice Mr Murdoc via his NewsCorp empire....

"Solario" <solario> wrote in message
news:c954

>
I find it interesting that you single out Fox for their conservative
bias, whilst igoring the very liberal bias of most other outlets,
including ABC, CBS and NBC.

And I find it interesting that instead of adderssing the issue of Fox's bias
you are attempting to switch the spotlight somewhere else.

I refer you to this:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ama/index.html

That is not just "conservative bias" but a crude racist slur. Had that
happened here the broadcaster would have been censured, fined and made to
broadcast a grovelling apology. But it seems the FCC doesn't care about that
sort of thing, it only acts if there's a hint of nudity.


David.

On Jun 20, 1:19 am, "David Looser" <davidloo>
wrote:
> "Solario" <sola> wrote in message
>
> news:c954
>>
> I find it interesting that you single out Fox for their conservative
> bias, whilst igoring the very liberal bias of most other outlets,
> including ABC, CBS and NBC.
>
> And I find it interesting that instead of adderssing the issue of Fox's bias
> you are attempting to switch the spotlight somewhere else.
>
One is not here to follow your agenda. Did the use of a forged
document by CBS in order to discredit the US president’s military
record exercise you so diligently?