0
4

[–] Osweo 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's only odd that it was ever banned.

When I first saw the headline, I wondered if it meant some kind of sporting event like a swimming Olympics, in which case it would have been hilarious, in the clear waters of a pool and with all the cameras and spectators! But it's just skinny dipping out in nature, so who cares?

0
1

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not too surprising though that it was banned in a place once ruled by Calvin.

Do you favor bottomless too? Or is this some kind of typically European piss poor claim for unsexual nudity?

0
2

[–] Osweo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I really don't mind bottomless if it's out in the countryside. Nothing more natural than skinnydipping in nature. Just not at proper pools and riverbanks in urban areas. Different rules apply when there's concentration of people.

Toplessness can be unsexual, if you've not been brought up in 1690s Salem. I see it every time I go to the beach here. Nobody wants to get caught staring, so it works fine. Believe it or not, you can be trained to think of it only as sexual if it happens in private and with a prospect of fucking the girl who's taking the clothes off. Otherwise, it's not MUCH different to any figure-revealing clothing on an attractive woman.

Big gap between el Calvo and 1929, mind... I doubt the place was even majority Protestant still at that date, never mind Calvinist.

0
0

[–] foreverlight ago 

I've got to say this is one I don't have a problem with. (I suppose I could be wrong) Seems like a good thing unless your country somehow got full of rapists.

0
1

[–] con77 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

ooooh, their muslims arent gonna like that

0
1

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

They like it a lot more than they let on.

0
1

[–] con77 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

too bad they act like babboons