General Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Absolute minimum?
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Unknown | Report | 12 May 2004 20:28 |
|
Come on you Leagle Eagles answer me this one. We have seen women's unmentionables shrink from Bloomers to Cami-Knicks to Knickers to High Siders and now Thongs. What is the absolute minmum that a woman or a man has to wear in public in order to not break the laws of indecency? Jim :-))))) |
|||
|
Bob | Report | 12 May 2004 20:37 |
|
Ros Pardon???? |
|||
|
syljo | Report | 12 May 2004 20:38 |
|
A feather perhaps? Feathers, small, medium and large, extra large etc |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Sandra | Report | 12 May 2004 20:40 |
|
ooh i don't know!! But i do know that as women get older the skirts get longer, and men the waistband gets higher and the trousers shorter!!!!! sandra |
|||
|
Rosalind in Madeira | Report | 12 May 2004 20:40 |
|
Hi Bob, as far as I no neither sex is indecent in the nude, but a bloke has to be extra careful........ |
|||
|
*ღ*Dee in Bexleyheath*ღ* | Report | 12 May 2004 20:44 |
|
www.difference-engine(.)co.uk/library/ human-rights/naked/nude_law.html |
|||
|
*ღ*Dee in Bexleyheath*ღ* | Report | 12 May 2004 20:46 |
|
I think that Christmas Cactus of yours should be large enough by now to cover my modesty Jim????? Dierdre X |
|||
|
Rosalind in Madeira | Report | 12 May 2004 21:21 |
|
Deirdre, I got an error on that one. |
|||
|
Len of the Chilterns | Report | 12 May 2004 22:05 |
|
Depends on which country (or state) one is in Len |
|||
|
Martin | Report | 13 May 2004 14:15 |
|
I understand it was mainly the Victorians who had a lot to answer for....to quote ... Obliterating the body was not sufficient for the morality of the Victorian period. Sexual words and references to body parts were removed from "proper" language to prevent the stimulation of sinful sexual desires. It was offensive to mention the human body in the mixed company of polite society. Legs became "limbs," a chicken leg became "dark meat," and a chicken breast "white meat." Some people took modesty to the extreme of covering such items as piano legs. Thomas Bowdler brought "respectability" to Shakespeare by publishing ten volumes of his works with all words alluding to sex or nudity removed. I think it is sad that our "modern" culture can still react in this Victorian way....before then nudity was widely accepted in many cultures. In this day and age it is quite all right for children to see terrible violence on our televisions, in the real world and make believe but to see someone "naked" (even without sexuality) is totally out of the question and our "young" have to be "protected" in some way from such great "sin". I have even heard some people suggest that there is an element of child abuse if children see their parents naked(!!!!). What planet are these people on and what is this world coming to? Martin |
|||