What does "feger" mean?

Someone mentioned the "liberal nature of this site" a while back. The funny thing is that this topic is showing where liberal and conservative thinking converge.

The conservatives oppose prostitution because (in their opinion) it's morally wrong. They think they have the obligation (and authority) to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

Liberals may not oppose prostitution in principle, but they'd want to regulate it. Why? Because otherwise, people might get a disease or otherwise suffer negative consequences due to the choices they've made. In other words, they (like the conservatives) want to use the power of government to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

In either case, mature adults are being treated like children who cannot be left to their own devices lest they make bad choices in their lives.

Don't you think it's intellectually inconsistent to say that two people should be allowed to engage in prostitution because they're consenting adults and *simultaneously* treat them like children who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and thus require that they follow government-mandated health and safety protocols?

I wouldn't oppose legalization of prostitution. Like many of you have already said, where's the logic in saying you can give it away for free, but you can't charge for it?

I'm actually a bit surprised that most of you seem to be focused on merely making sure that the process were regulated, however (clean, safe, etc.). I heard a great quote a couple of years ago in which a guy said, "It's not the responsibiliity of government to regulate the amount of risk I'm willing to take." This quote was in a different context, but is still applicable here.

I think it should simply be up to the prostitute and the john to decide between themselves what is safe, clean, etc. As long as they're two consenting adults, they should be able to decide about HIV tests, condoms, etc. After all, isn't the fact that they're consenting adults the essence of the argument to legalize prostitution in the first place?

I would agree that the Founding Fathers, on whole, were not big fans of *organized* religion. I think that's why so many of them identified themselves as Deists.



Did you notice that one was from John QUINCY Adams?



I agree with you here, too. I wouldn't argue that the "Christian principles" of our government are unique to Christianity. Nor would I argue that the principles of our government are wholly aligned with Christianity; true Christianity is more like communism ("our brothers' keepers") and less like the "live and let live" concept embodied by the Constitution.

However, it's difficult to prove the *source* of many of the ideas found in the Constitution. Were they religious in origin, or a product of the Enlightenment? In any case, it would be wrong for someone to employ a "separation of church and state" argument in an attempt to *remove* those ideas from the Constitution.


Self-determination, property rights, Aristotle.... Just out of curiosity, does the phrase "A=A" mean anything to you? (Secret question of sorts.)

Lynette,

Here's a brief history of the phrase "separation of church and state" as it relates to US history :


Rather ironic, huh?

Personally, I would diametrically oppose any law which required a person to belong to a particular religious group before holding public office. But of course the above deals with Constitutional interpretation -- not personal opinion. With that said, however, the above history shows very clearly what the *intent* of the First Amendment was; it was to prohibit CONGRESS (i.e. the federal government) from getting involved with religious legislation. Apparently, the states reserve the right to do so by virtue of the Tenth Amendment.

Be that as it may, John Quincy Adams said:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

I also have this quote from John Adams which is interesting:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

I'm sure I could dig up dozens of quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others in which they directly reference God or the Heavens, etc.

If you're pointing out that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists as opposed to Christians per se, then I totally agree with you. However, I don't know if that disqualifies them as being "religious". Perhaps I should have used the term "spiritual".

The broader point is that it is nearly impossible to separate Christianity from the Constitution -- not in a literal sense, but in the sense that the morals and values held by the men who drafted it were Christian in essence if not in name.

When you read the first two quotes again, this difference becomes clear. The first states that the Constitution was not founded on the Christian RELIGION; the second quote affirms that the American government was, in fact, founded on Christian PRINCIPLES.

Isaac,

Like I said in an earlier post, I've never read up on the puritans -- until now. I had always assumed they were just some small group that didn't have much real impact outside of their own community. From what I've read, this was not the case.

I've learned that although the term "puritan" was regarded as imprecise (and pejorative, incidentally), religious groups in early American history were, in fact, heavily influenced by puritan ways of thinking. One article I read said that approximately 85% of American religious groups in the late 17th century were "puritan" in nature.

So I'll have to concede that they had a much larger impact on American politics and law than I had initially thought.

Whether their cultural legacy is still palpable after two or three hundred years in the melting pot is something I remain less sure of, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

One rather interesting bit of trivia is that the present-day United Church of Christ is the direct descendant of New England Puritan congregations. Here's the kicker: UCC membership includes Howard Dean, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill), Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla), and David Letterman among others!

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?). I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party. I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.



Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people. Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States. Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time. The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing?

Isaac,

I say this because by 2006, the Puritans have been swamped out by millions of other immigrants. How influential are, say, the Amish these days?

I would guess that the Puritans would also have opposed smoking, drinking, school dances, and many other things that teenagers (and adults) do these days.

Why is it that the Puritans have been so successful at banning topless bathing at public beaches, but can't seem to keep the lid on all these other activities?

By the way, I'm not going to argue that the Puritans/Calvinsts/Quakers, etc., weren't strict. I've read the "Scarlet Letter", and am aware of some of the awful things people have done to abuse political power. However, I just don't see a strong difference between the cultural origins of the US and the cultural origins of Europe, because the majority of the people came from the same cloth. Europeans had many of the same strict ways of dealing with "deviant" behavior; Americans in no way had a monopoly on narrow, religious ways of thinking.

Did they "notify" you in a friendly way? Did they assume you were a foreigner and didn't know better?

On the whole, I have to agree with you that these laws seem pretty silly. What or whom will it harm to have your breasts showing at the beach?

I've lived a while in Europe, so I'm familiar with the norms at beaches over there. I can't explain why the norms are different over there. However, I think that attributing the differences to our "Puritan heritage" is flimsy. Those deeply religious people were only a tiny fraction of those who settled this country, and it was 300 years ago! Too much has changed, and I would think that the millions of immigrants that followed them would have swamped out the whatever cultural influence the Puritans might have had.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans are ex-Europeans. For this reason, Americans don't truly have a cultural origin separate from Europe.

Personally, I think the difference in attitude toward topless sunbathing had to occur within relatively recent history -- maybe somewhere in the mid 20th century. First of all, up to the 1910s or so, women's clothing in America and Western Europe was still from head to toe. Even men wore pajama-like bathing suits and had full body coverage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine women going to the beach in a bikini (let alone topless) before or during the Edwardian time period.

Similarly, it was not desirable back then to be tan. Women were proud of their lily white skin and took great precautions to protect themselves. As this attitude changed, so did bathing suits. For this reason, I have to assume that the first topless sunbathing had to occur somewhere during this transitional period. Maybe the 1940s at earliest, and I'd guess it would have become most popular during the countercultural movements of the late 1960s - 1970s.

At any rate, 2006 is just too far past the Puritans for me to buy into that theory.

Lynette,

Have you ever just tried to do some topless sunbathing at a beach in the US?

I'm assuming that it would be technically against some law or another, but I'm wondering if its enforcement is lax, etc. Anyway, do you have any experiences with that sort of thing? What about people you know?

(I haven't read the entire thread here that carefully, so apologies in advance if this covers old ground).

No worries, Natalie! Although I responded to your post, Lynette said the exact same thing: "Majority rule in the states is completely at risk now..."

I'm just trying to get people to realize that "majority rule" is very seldom good for individuals.

I'm getting a bit off-topic with this post, but I think you're missing something important here -- the true nature of "majority rule".

Thinking in terms of "majority rule" will lead to an erosion of your individual rights every time. Under "majority rule", you don't have a guaranteed set of individual rights; you have a changing set of rules that is subject to the whim of 50.1% of whoever shows up to vote.

Also, I would argue that "corruption of government" has moved us closer to -- not further from -- majority rule. On the whole, the majority of politicians haven chosen to disregard individual rights in favor of protecting (imaginary) group rights. In other words, politicians would rather do what's popular (majority rule) than do what's right. It's all about getting votes, not upholding the Constitution.

Instead of thinking about "majority rule", focus on "inalienable rights".


To be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything like that. I'm just presenting my own viewpoint and hopefully providing some food for thought.

Regards.

Jessie,

First of all, I have to say: try not to worry about the scores. I know that's much easier said than done. But in reality, there often seems to be neither rhyme nor reason to the scoring at ANY rating site. Sometimes there are great pics that score low, and sometimes mediocre pics approach the top of the list. No one can fully explain it, because it's not an objective process.

With that said, however, I'd agree with some of the other posts here and say that you can *usually* increase your score with a high res, sexy shot. I've noticed that many of your pictures look a little grainy in general; maybe that's something that would affect a change.

Regarding the pose -- it really *is* important. I've seen pictures of professional models that make them look like literal goddesses. And then I've seen candid photos of them that make them appear to be very average in looks. I'm not a photographer, but it seems a large portion of erotic photography is creating a sexy mood and setting. That includes lighting, make-up, props, etc.

Anyway, I hope you don't get discouraged by the ratings. You can try some of the suggestions to make a sexier photo, but always keep in mind that there's no guarantees in the rating game!

Hi Lynette,

I've seen your pictures before, and they're always great!

I wanted to ask you about this particular image (linked earlier by Evade20: http://www.ratemyknockers.com/index.php?id=37&c=all)

I remember seeing this one a long time ago at a different site. However, the above version seems like whoever ripped it off also digitally altered it. Do you still have the original, and if so could you post it here?

Thanks -- and thanks for sharing your pics!