Judging from the European porn that my Italian friend semi-froces me to watch when we get together, European men are much more forceful and into being in control during sex, and are also very, very, very, very fond of the procedure known as ass-to-mouth, which is one of the most vile things I have ever seen in a porno.
In the US, you can show people having their throats cut and bowels torn out on prime time TV. But how dare you show a Breast. It’s so twisted. I’d rather have small children seeing the nudity than the violence.
Here in the Minneapolis area in the last couple of years, we’ve had a protest against Howard Stern billboards that showed cleavage (oh my!) and some lame complaints about some Captain Morgan billboards where a couple of women are dancing and one woman’s hand is visually across (backhanded) another woman’s breast - but only because of ‘line of sight’. Sheesh, get a grip!
Tis a pitty, since Irish women are somr of the finest that you will ever want to be nude with.
Lazily daydreams
Now I’m no history major, but wouldn’t that be British Puritanism? I seem to recall that the Puritans were British who were fed up with the Church of England not being as fundamentalist as they wanted, and also fed up with the Catholicism continuing to exist.
The mistake here is the first five words of your post.
but… nudity isn’t necessarily sexual.
that’s the REAL issue.
on a nudist beach, or a shower gel commercial, or a bill board for why breast feeding is best, or whatever, the nudity IS NOT SEXUAL.
it just is.
THAT is what the issue is really about. Americans can’t seem to separate the idea that nudity doesn’t have to equal sex.
see above for all the porn references.
irishgirl has hit on it - that which is taboo about the body becomes that which is sexual.
In a culture where it’s “ok” to show breasts, they’re not considered scandalous - South American tribes, the French Riviera, etc.
But where there is a societal taboo on breasts, they are considered sexual - nipples blurred out on breast feeding on TV (for goodness’ sake).
Victorian women showing their ankles were considered scandalous.
Afghan women showing their arms are considered scandalous.
It’s all context.
Jim you mention Native tribes and such. Here in America there is an old adage that most people understand - Before Playboy, we had National Geographic - get it. 
Yes I think the problem does have it’s roots in a decidedly Puritanical history. But how many Puritan’s such as the ones that settled our New England, were left in western Europe in the 17th and 18th century? Did most of them migrate here? If enough did not migrate here, why do European men and women see the naked body much different from the runof the mill American.
I mean show an American a picture of the Queen mum naked, and then show him a pic of J-Lo? Ask him who has a nicer ass? Is one considered Victorian and the other sexual, if so why?
Back to the ladies on the Calender - regular everyday working class women - to an American that may be scandalous, to a European it may be completely benine… My Q is why?
Partlky, but not completely true. People who carry this argument to extremes suggest deliberately covering up some non-sexual area in order to cultivate an interest in it.
But it doesn’t work that way. I seriously doubt you could get people interested in the Bridge of the Nose (an example Mad magazine’s Dave Berg used) while leaving the breasts exposed. I submit that it’s the promise of more uncovering to come that made men go gaga over an exposed ankle in Victorian days, not just because the ankle was normally covered.
Because there is something intrinsically sexy about the breasts and buttocks – it’s not just because they’re normally covered. We’ve had this discussion many times on the SDMB, so I won’t go into it now.
And, as for exposure to nudity making men desenitized to it, I ask you folks to explain the apparent success of European Playboy editions, or of the funny-sexy nudity of The Benny Hill Show. Of course European men still see women as sexy. I still see naked women as sexy, despite seeing nudes in magazines and advertising and movies. And I think that nudity invariably has some admixture of sex too it, if only in latency.
You’re right – but a dangling modifier in your first post made me reread the sentence several times (the placement of “that believes in god” makes it look as if it modifies “capita”), so I was being a smartass. Apologies, and carry on.
Daniel
nope, but I always thought that southern states were predominantly RC, whereas the Northern states were predominantly protestant. Is this correct?
And even though the Puritan ideology was “invented” to try and break away from the Catholic church (lotsa corruption in Europe, then ), a lot of US emigrants brought RC with them as their religion.
When, as an ethnic group, you find yourself a long way from home, as a lot of early emigrants would have been, you tend to dig deeper into your culture, and hold on more to it. You will also go back to more traditional values and morals. Maybe that is why a lot of US citizens are so, erm, prudish?
I don’t know, can you explain it?
a dangling modifier?
qu’est-ce que c’est?
It’s what you see if you look at a naked man.
I’m gonna repeat-- all the extreme Puritans were kicked out, and as happens classically, those who are exiled stick to the old ways more so than people in the old country.
Which is why people in Victoria, BC, can’t bear to return to England, because the England they knew is dead and gone.
jjimm’s response is less of a hijack than mine, fortunately. If anyone wants me to end the hijack, just tell me to shaddup, and I’ll happily do so.
A dangling modifier is a modifier whose antecedent is ambiguous. “Covered only in a delicious lemon sauce, she slipped the salmon into the oven.”
But on reflection, I think the post I was snarking about confused me because “per capita” really means “per person.” You were saying that the US has more people per person that are religious, and that’s some funky phrasing. I think you meant that we have a higher percentage of religious people. The “per capita” bit (usually used to describe stuff that a single person can have a varying amount of, e.g., income) threw me off.
But I hate instigating grammar tweakerosity, so my apologies for doing so originally, and I’m happy to let this die a peaceful death.
Daniel
no probs
any help with my use of English is appreciated.
I was wondering, do European women like to look at naked men?
::d&r::
Yeah, but I still don’t want to see naked people. As it is, one of the things I don’t like about going to the beach is seeing all the cellulite, and men in speedos shudder. I have no problem with people being outside naked in their own (or a friend’s) yard, or people setting up their own private nudist beaches. (Why hasn’t someone set up a nude beach in LA if it’s so wonderful? For that matter, why don’t you fill that niche? (I’m serious, you’d probably make loads of money.)) I just want to be able to opt out.
yup!
I don’t think the Puritans influenced modern American cultural life, or even that of new England, much at all.
No, not at all. Southern States are as protestant as all get out, except the Catholic immigrants from Latin and South America. Basically, Catholics are big everywhere, but never predominant everywhere.