Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / November 2003



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

High School Girls Beat Up Indecent Exposer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
greccogirl - 02 Nov 2003 04:24 GMT
High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself


Email this story

Oct 31, 10:31 am ET

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A man described by authorities as a known
sexual predator was chased through the streets of South Philadelphia by
an angry crowd of Catholic high school girls, who kicked and punched him
after he was tackled by neighbors, police said on Friday.
Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
Thursday just as students were being dismissed, police said.

But this time, a group of girls in school uniforms angrily confronted
Susanto with help from some neighbors, police said. When Susanto tried
to run, more than 20 girls chased him down the block. Two men from the
neighborhood caught him and the girls took their revenge.

"The girls came and started kicking him and punching him, so I wasn't
going to stop them," neighbor Robert Lemons told The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Susanto was later treated for injuries at a local hospital. Police said
he would be charged with 14 criminal counts including harassment,
disorderly conduct, open lewdness and corrupting the morals of a minor.
R. Steve Walz - 02 Nov 2003 06:49 GMT
> High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> an angry crowd of Catholic high school girls, who kicked and punched him
> after he was tackled by neighbors, police said on Friday.
----------------------
Misdirected sexual energy. Just like the Salem Witch Trials.

> Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> he would be charged with 14 criminal counts including harassment,
> disorderly conduct, open lewdness and corrupting the morals of a minor.
----------------
Nonsense. His morals were superior. He was being informative.
Catholic schoolgirls are the deluded ones, as they all discover
later when they can't cum.
Steve
MIB529 - 02 Nov 2003 21:16 GMT
> > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> ----------------------
> Misdirected sexual energy. Just like the Salem Witch Trials.

You could've said the Inquisition. Seriously, if he was doing
something lewd without their consent, they should pummel him to a
bloody pulp.

> > Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> > as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Catholic schoolgirls are the deluded ones, as they all discover
> later when they can't cum.

Orgasms aren't the end-all-and-be-all, Stevie-boy. He did it so he
could get off. In effect, it was a rape; the only reason it isn't
considered such is because there was no penetration.
R. Steve Walz - 03 Nov 2003 03:28 GMT
> > > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> something lewd without their consent, they should pummel him to a
> bloody pulp.
--------------------------------
He has the right to be nude in public, and to get laughed at if they
choose to laugh, anything else is dictatoriship and a violation of
human rights.


> > > Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> > > as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Orgasms aren't the end-all-and-be-all, Stevie-boy.
-----------------
Lie, they are the be-all and end-all of all human existence.
They are what wars are fought for, and what all human drama
results from.

> He did it so he
> could get off. In effect, it was a rape; the only reason it isn't
> considered such is because there was no penetration.
------------------------------
It wasn't rape, anymore than if those girls had taken off their clothes
and taunted HIM. The violence of their attack was misdirected sexual
tension.
Steve
MIB529 - 03 Nov 2003 19:09 GMT
> > > > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> choose to laugh, anything else is dictatoriship and a violation of
> human rights.

He wasn't simply nude. Usually 'exposed himself' means that he
specifically showed them his genitals - and only his genitals.

> > > > Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> > > > as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> They are what wars are fought for, and what all human drama
> results from.

Wars are fought for orgasms? And here I thought we both agreed humans
weren't necessarily polygynous! LOL
Tommy - 03 Nov 2003 19:22 GMT
> He wasn't simply nude. Usually 'exposed himself' means that he
> specifically showed them his genitals - and only his genitals.

Not sure where you guys live but where I live we have laws called indecent
exposure.

Here is how sticked they are..Ever been driving down the road and had to
take a piss?
So you go behind a tree or a building and the only thing a person can see is
the back-side of your jeans. If the cops see you doing that they can nail
ya for indecent exposure.

It's true..........Even if a woman squats down and ya can't see anything,
they will nail her tooo.
R. Steve Walz - 03 Nov 2003 23:37 GMT
> > He wasn't simply nude. Usually 'exposed himself' means that he
> > specifically showed them his genitals - and only his genitals.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> It's true..........Even if a woman squats down and ya can't see anything,
> they will nail her tooo.
--------------
Don't be stupid, exposure means exposed TO someone.
Steve
R. Steve Walz - 03 Nov 2003 23:37 GMT
> "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> He wasn't simply nude. Usually 'exposed himself' means that he
> specifically showed them his genitals - and only his genitals.
----------------------------
Then he was partially dressed, my answer to you does NOT change.
How stupid and culture-strangled of you to even imagine it would!


> > > > > Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> > > > > as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[]
> > > > > disorderly conduct, open lewdness and corrupting the morals of a minor.
> > > > ----------------
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Wars are fought for orgasms? And here I thought we both agreed humans
> weren't necessarily polygynous! LOL
-------------------------
Humans are polygamous, and more polynadrous, actually, as are all apes.

The frustration of the need for sex early in life is what is waved in
front of the call to arms to coerce teens to fight wars for bandit
lords, the promise of raping the women of their enemies is simply too
great.

In the modern era it is the emergency generated by potential for
impending untimely death that permits sex for the young soldier whom
the girl would now feel it unfair to refuse, or so the young a.shole
recruit believes, even though the stupid young brainwashed virgins
usually do refuse! War kills mostly stupid young virgins without the
savvy or the couth to avoid the draft.
Steve
greccogirl - 04 Nov 2003 05:16 GMT
Steve, point me to the law that says he has a right to be naked in
public, I must've missed that one.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>Steve
>  
R. Steve Walz - 05 Nov 2003 03:04 GMT
> Steve, point me to the law that says he has a right to be naked in
> public, I must've missed that one.
----------------------------------
Don't defend the indefensible. That right is available in numerically
most of the world's cultures where there are no such oppressive
religious "dress codes", and without being beaten up by brainwashed
catholic schoolgirls who are overwhelmed by the stimulation of their
systematically repressed sexuality! In every decent culture in the
world the girls would be jailed for assault!
Steve



> >>>>High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> >tension.
> >Steve
greccogirl - 07 Nov 2003 04:00 GMT
As I said and you confirmed, there is no such law.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>>>Steve
>>>      
R. Steve Walz - 07 Nov 2003 04:06 GMT
> As I said and you confirmed, there is no such law.
-------------------------
There will be, and then such behavior will be seen as criminal
for all time then and in the past, as it is and should be.
Steve



> >>Steve, point me to the law that says he has a right to be naked in
> >>public, I must've missed that one.
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> >>>tension.
> >>>Steve
greccogirl - 16 Nov 2003 23:19 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>for all time then and in the past, as it is and should be.
>Steve

Dream on.  Not in your lifetime.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
>>>>>Steve
>>>>>          
R. Steve Walz - 17 Nov 2003 06:13 GMT
> >>As I said and you confirmed, there is no such law.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >
> Dream on.  Not in your lifetime.
----------------------------
Maybe, maybe not! But soon!
Steve



> >>>>Steve, point me to the law that says he has a right to be naked in
> >>>>public, I must've missed that one.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >>>world the girls would be jailed for assault!
> >>>Steve
kim - 04 Nov 2003 13:07 GMT
> > > > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > something lewd without their consent, they should pummel him to a
> > bloody pulp.
I agree with Steve. As a young girl growing up, and being blessed with a
good shape and better legs, I did what many young girls do everyday. To
boys their own age and older, I would tease men with my legs and the way
I sat. If the guy was real cute, I did what many girls do everyday to
men everywhere, I would let them see my panties. If you call this rape
then more women rape men than men women. Is this true about women? Of
course it is. Does it fit a polticial agenda? Of course not. Then will
it be used anywhere against young women? Never.

> --------------------------------
> He has the right to be nude in public, and to get laughed at if they
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> tension.
> Steve
kim - 04 Nov 2003 13:09 GMT
> > > > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > something lewd without their consent, they should pummel him to a
> > bloody pulp.
I agree with Steve. As a young girl growing up, and being blessed with a
good shape and better legs, I did what many young girls do everyday. To
boys their own age and older, I would tease men with my legs and the way
I sat. If the guy was real cute, I did what many girls do everyday to
men everywhere, I would let them see my panties. If you call this rape
then more women rape men than men women. Is this true about women? Of
course it is. Does it fit a polticial agenda? Of course not. Then will
it be used anywhere against young women? Never.

> --------------------------------
> He has the right to be nude in public, and to get laughed at if they
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> tension.
> Steve
R. Steve Walz - 05 Nov 2003 03:07 GMT
> > > > > High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I sat. If the guy was real cute, I did what many girls do everyday to
> men everywhere, I would let them see my panties.
-------------------------
And I bet you were very sweet and hot-looking.

> If you call this rape
> then more women rape men than men women. Is this true about women? Of
> course it is. Does it fit a polticial agenda? Of course not. Then will
> it be used anywhere against young women? Never.
-----------------------------
The backwardness of western culture regarding sex must be destroyed.
Steve

> > He has the right to be nude in public, and to get laughed at if they
> > choose to laugh, anything else is dictatoriship and a violation of
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> > tension.
> > Steve
greccogirl - 04 Nov 2003 05:14 GMT
Yeah, well he can console himself with that while he's in prison.  

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>Steve
>  
R. Steve Walz - 05 Nov 2003 02:59 GMT
> Yeah, well he can console himself with that while he's in prison.
----------------------------
You should learn to be moral toward other people and to defend
people's rights. The right to wear a purple shirt is no different
from the right not to wear a shirt at all, and will be seen to
be so in humankind's future. Believe not that which is worthless
and will decay and vanish, else your legacy is for nought.
Steve



> >>High School Girls Pummel Man Who Exposed Himself
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >----------------------
> >Misdirected sexual energy. Just like the Salem Witch Trials.

> >>Rudy Susanto, 25, who had exposed himself to teen-age girls on as many
> >>as seven occasions outside St. Maria Goretti School, struck again on
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> >later when they can't cum.
> >Steve
greccogirl - 07 Nov 2003 03:59 GMT
Not anytime soon.  I personally found it amusing.  Maybe these people
who pick on young girls might think twice if more of them beat the snot
out of them.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>>>Steve
>>>      
R. Steve Walz - 07 Nov 2003 04:04 GMT
> Not anytime soon.  I personally found it amusing.  Maybe these people
> who pick on young girls might think twice if more of them beat the snot
> out of them.
--------------
Don't try to turn it around fraudulently, he "picked on" NO ONE,
they beat him up for violating their own religious guilt complex.

It's the same as being beaten up by Baptists for being Catholic.
Steve



> >>Yeah, well he can console himself with that while he's in prison.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> >>>later when they can't cum.
> >>>Steve
greccogirl - 16 Nov 2003 23:19 GMT
He exposed himself to a group of girls who apparently weren't in the
mood!!  He broke the law, and they took it into their own hands (so to
speak).  

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>>>>>Steve
>>>>>          
R. Steve Walz - 17 Nov 2003 06:11 GMT
> He exposed himself to a group of girls who apparently weren't in the
> mood!!  He broke the law, and they took it into their own hands (so to
> speak).
---------------------
He didn't hit them, they had no such right.
The law is an a.s. -Mark Twain
Steve



> >>Not anytime soon.  I personally found it amusing.  Maybe these people
> >>who pick on young girls might think twice if more of them beat the snot
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> >>>>>later when they can't cum.
> >>>>>Steve
greccogirl - 20 Nov 2003 05:46 GMT
I don't want to see someone's dick, thanks.  If I do I can ask.
Otherwise, keep it in your pants.  If you don't, the law steps in or
you just might get more than you bargained for, such as in this
incidence (chuckle).

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
>>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>>              
R. Steve Walz - 20 Nov 2003 06:05 GMT
> I don't want to see someone's dick, thanks.
------------
Whether you do or don't ain't your business.
Unless you look intentionally.

> If I do I can ask.
-------------
You can ASK, but living alone delusionally with your cats and
insane stacks of magazines because nobody will take your crap
isn't likely to get you a date.

> Otherwise, keep it in your pants.
--------------
We're removing the laws on pants, get used you it, you stupid
f.cking fundy prig!

> If you don't, the law steps in
---------------
That "law" is an a.s, and going bye-bye.

> or
> you just might get more than you bargained for, such as in this
> incidence (chuckle).
------------------------
In the future, bitches who try that will be raped by the
public at large in pillories.
Steve
greccogirl - 23 Nov 2003 20:16 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Whether you do or don't ain't your business.
>Unless you look intentionally.

It is in public dear.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>insane stacks of magazines because nobody will take your crap
>isn't likely to get you a date.

Steve you are full of sh.t.  I've been married for 25 years, thanks.
For all of your prattling about stereotypes you are so full of them
it's pathetic.  Does that make you feel better?

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>We're removing the laws on pants, get used you it, you stupid
>f.cking fundy prig!

Yeah, yadda yadda yadda.  Call me when it goes into effect, eh?

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>---------------
>That "law" is an a.s, and going bye-bye.

See above.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Steve
>  

Hah!!  Only in YOUR dreams.
R. Steve Walz - 24 Nov 2003 00:57 GMT
> >>I don't want to see someone's dick, thanks.
> >------------
> >Whether you do or don't ain't your business.
> >Unless you look intentionally.
> >
> It is in public dear.
-------------------------------
Same-same. It's not anyone else's business what another wears or
does, as long as it doesn't offend against another's rights to
do the same.


> >>If I do I can ask.
> >-------------
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> For all of your prattling about stereotypes you are so full of them
> it's pathetic.  Does that make you feel better?
--------------------------------
Irrelevant.
Many marriages are sexless and/or loveless.

> >>Otherwise, keep it in your pants.
> >--------------
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Yeah, yadda yadda yadda.  Call me when it goes into effect, eh?
----------------------
You'll see!

> >>or
> >>you just might get more than you bargained for, such as in this
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >
> Hah!!  Only in YOUR dreams.
----------------------
Dreams are the Future.
Steve
greccogirl - 24 Nov 2003 16:01 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>does, as long as it doesn't offend against another's rights to
>do the same.

It sure is. By law.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Irrelevant.
>Many marriages are sexless and/or loveless.

Well hon mine isn't either!  25 years to be exact, in November.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>----------------------
>You'll see!

Yeah call me.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Dreams are the Future.
>Steve

You know Steve you have such a fondness for rape.  It really shows how
screwed up you are in certain areas.

>  
R. Steve Walz - 26 Nov 2003 07:17 GMT
> >>>>I don't want to see someone's dick, thanks.
> >>>------------
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> >
> It sure is. By law.
------------------
That will now change.


> >>>>If I do I can ask.
> >>>-------------
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> >
> Well hon mine isn't either!  25 years to be exact, in November.
---------------------------
Sometimes idiots give up and stay, sort of.


> >>>>Otherwise, keep it in your pants.
> >>>--------------
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
> You know Steve you have such a fondness for rape.
----------------------
Some brainwashed antisexuals need it.

> It really shows how
> screwed up you are in certain areas.
----------------------------
That's just the sh.t in your head talking.
Steve
Mike - 07 Nov 2003 07:28 GMT
I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
have a clue about human sexuality and relationships. The right to
expose one self is not a human right. I do not have the right to force
my misguided sexual behavior on anyone. However I do have the right to
be free of someone elses perverted actions.

As for surpressed sexual energy I say 2 things. One, go back to you
mystic guide and seek what ever BS you can claim they told you. Two,
do some real study of human sexuality. It is the uncontroled sexual
energy that is the problem. It is one's inability to channel and
direct that drive in a more positive and constructive way.

It is thanking like yours that get children and women raped and drive
loving couples in to hatred and devorce. The fruit confirms the bad
seed.

> > Yeah, well he can console himself with that while he's in prison.
> ----------------------------
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> > >later when they can't cum.
> > >Steve
R. Steve Walz - 07 Nov 2003 08:16 GMT
> I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
> have a clue about human sexuality and relationships.
---------------------
No it isn't, merely that you're a f.cking brainwashed little fundy
shithead, nothing more is clear, nor are you capable of knowing.

> The right to expose one self is not a human right.
---------------------
Of course it is, it is the state of nature, humans lived that way
for well over a 100,000 years, and this recent digression is nothing
more than a cultural aberration, both temporally and locally, since
it isn't even true in a majority of cultures currrently on earth!
The effort to say otherwise is nothing more than an effort to inflict
your little sh.t-religion of sick antisexual sheep-f.ckers on the rest
of the world's sane people.

> I do not have the right to force my misguided sexual behavior on > anyone.
---------------------
And that's precisely what trying to control what anyone else is
wearing or doing besides yourself amounts to, you vicious little
brainwashed fundy piece of abusive trash! On a majority of the
beaches in the world, nudity goes entirely unopposed by the law
and is unproblematic.

What others are wearing or doing on the earth is no body's f.cking
business but theirs. All you fundy sh.t want to do is restrict the
REST of the world into doing your brainwashing of your children for
you, so that you won't ever have to EXPLAIN why you're so f.cking
backward and twisted and why you want them to unnaturally be unsexual
and hide their bodies from each other!! When the rest of us tell you
to f.ck off and go nude and f.ck in public, your sick little perversion
of a religion and a violation of human freedom and the human spirit
won't last more than about 5 minutes when your kids get to see the
TRUE human nature firsthand, and your stupid little religion for which
sex is your model for all "sin" will f.cking SELF-DESTRUCT
INSTANTANEOUSLY!!

> However I do have the right to
> be free of someone elses perverted actions.
-----------------------
NOT if what you have tried to define as a "perversion" is actually
the normal human practice of freedom and normal sexuality just as the
way we EVOLVED!! There are no such perversions that amount to one's
own chosen manner of dress or voluntary activity among people, your
definition of "perversion" is ITSELF a perversion and a f.cking LIE!
Nothing more!


> As for surpressed sexual energy I say 2 things. One, go back to you
> mystic guide and seek what ever BS you can claim they told you.
-------------
You ignorant fundy sh.t are the only weak a.sholes who need ministers
and religious figures to tell you what is "true", the rest of us KNOW
what is TRUE from WITHIN OURSELVES AND OUR HUMAN NATURE, and we KNOW
that you're sheep-f.cker religion is a COMPLETE LIE!

> Two,
> do some real study of human sexuality. It is the uncontroled sexual
> energy that is the problem.
----------------------
Garbage, there is NO such extraordinary "energy" when sex is NORMAL
and expected and relaxed, rather than energized by your terror, fear,
superstition, repression, and your guilt, shame, and viciousness toward
it that arises from your distorted perverted insanity about sex!!

> It is one's inability to channel and
> direct that drive in a more positive and constructive way.
--------------------------
That sex must be repressed to either generate other drives or to
"civilize" people is a total MYTH! It was the Church repression of
European sexuality that caused the murder, enslavement, and abuse of
native people's by European colonialist madmen and criminals in the
17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and is that which has taken human
civilization into this dark blind alley of sexual neurosis and fear.


> It is thanking like yours that get children and women raped and drive
> loving couples in to hatred and devorce. The fruit confirms the bad
> seed.
-----------------------------------
You're a complete idiot, divorce results from the INBUILT inherent
defects of monogamy and the serf/slave "nuclear" family, a remnant of
slavery wherein we were restricted from NORMAL TRIBAL sexuality in
groups to prevent us from organizing emotionally together against the
warlord-bandits  that became the European "nobility" that enslaved
Europe for 1200 years!!

The reason slaves are only permitted one sex partner is so they don't
KNOW anyone else closely and so that they can be threatened with the
withdrawal of their one sex partner by their "OWNERS"! They are
thereby made to distrust their inborn allies, the members of their
same sex, who would otherwise surely be their co-spouses in a tribal
sexuality, but who in monogamy must become distrusted rivals!!

And it is that distrust is what keeps people apart and disorganized so
that slavers and Capitalists can OWN us and sell us sh.t we don't need
to try to replace all that we lost in a society where people live in
private boxes three feet apart!!! If you had twenty lovers you lived
and worked with, would YOU need a f.cking SUV??? THINK ABOUT IT!!
YOU'RE BEING ENSLAVED BY THESE FUNDY PRICK CAPITALIST BASTARDS!

KILL THE ONWERS AND THE LANDLORDS AND RECAPTURE THE WORLD BY FORCE!!
Steve



> > > Yeah, well he can console himself with that while he's in prison.
> > ----------------------------
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> > > >later when they can't cum.
> > > >Steve
Mike - 10 Nov 2003 09:01 GMT
Why don't you try learning something for a change.
It is not A religious view I posted. It is current psycho research. It
is science. All religion will tell you is it is a sin. If you are so
set in thinking humans should act like animals then perhaps that is
where you should be. Go ahead and through your cloths and humanity
away walk on out into the woods for the rest of your life. It will not
take long for you to find out exactly what a real animal thinks of
you.

> > I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
> > have a clue about human sexuality and relationships.
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
> > > > >later when they can't cum.
> > > > >Steve
R. Steve Walz - 12 Nov 2003 03:01 GMT
> Why don't you try learning something for a change.
> It is not A religious view I posted.
----------------
Of course it is, there's no restriction on sexuality or dress built
into the US Constitution!! There's NOTHING that says that people
having the right to freedom should not have the right to dress AS
THEY PLEASE *INCLUDING* the right to be NUDE PUBLICALLY!

It is nothing but a religious superstition, like the earth being
FLAT!

> It is current psycho research.
----------------
Nope. Lie, there isn't any such thing.

> It is science.
--------------
Nope, more lies. Ain't any such "research".

> All religion will tell you is it is a sin.
-------------
Religion has no standing in law, nor any power to control anyone in
our society unless they wish to accept it. Religions are figmentary
and fictional bullshit.

> If you are so
> set in thinking humans should act like animals then perhaps that is
> where you should be.
-------------
We ARE animals, you stupid dunce. There is no distinction between the
set of things we do and the things other apes do.

> Go ahead and through your cloths
-------------
It's spelled "clothes", you MORONIC ILLITERATE!!

> and humanity
> away walk on out into the woods for the rest of your life.
---------------
Nope, I don't like wastelands. I prefer humanity and extensive human
cities with cultivated parks, lawns, and gardens, as well as buildings,
and good wholesome groupsex f.cking in public.

> It will not
> take long for you to find out exactly what a real animal thinks of
> you.
-------------------
"Real animals" are irrelevant, we OWN them all. There's nothing at
all problematic about fully sexual nudity with driving vehicles,
wearing garments that let you carry tools and weapons that still
expose your genitals for convenient sexplay and f.cking.
Steve



> > > I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
> > > have a clue about human sexuality and relationships.
[quoted text clipped - 138 lines]
> > > > > >later when they can't cum.
> > > > > >Steve
Mike - 12 Nov 2003 09:01 GMT
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/jpd/papers/1999/footprints.pdf
http://www.slu.edu/publications/gc/v6-4/news_16.shtml
http://www.psych.ohiou.edu/academics/grad_studies/exp_fac.html

The general theme is society has a common code of conduct, which all
who partakes in that society must follow. Here in the US public nudity
is an anti-social behavior. Regardless of how much you want it. If
this society does not fit you then YOU need to go find one that does.
There is no such thing as human rights. There are only "rights" that
society allows. In the US they are based on a religious history. In
some societies women do not hide their breasts. It is accepted by that
society. It is not a human right nor is it accepted here in the US.
This has been researched and it has been proven over and over again.

There is a very big difference between humans and animals. The very
ability to reason is a big one. Another difference is our ability to
control our sexual drives for the benefit of society. Humans are
civilized. We know where to relieve ourselves, where to sleep, whom to
touch, when to touch, why to touch, what to show, when to show....

Now the fact you express yourself in an abusive manner clearly shows
your lack of intelligence. You may shout to the world but your words
clearly counter your desires. Society requires a conduct accepted by
that society. Yours and the individual in the topic of this thread are
obviously not accepted. The very fact He was dealt with in the said
manner clearly shows his actions were not accepted.

Show proof that we have human rights and where they come from!

> > Why don't you try learning something for a change.
> > It is not A religious view I posted.
[quoted text clipped - 193 lines]
> > > > > > >later when they can't cum.
> > > > > > >Steve
R. Steve Walz - 13 Nov 2003 05:02 GMT
> The general theme is society has a common code of conduct, which all
> who partakes in that society must follow.
----------
Which varies like hell from society to society, which proves that
NO set or mores, which will not be absolutely the SAME in EVERY human
culture that will EVER exist, should be enforced, because they will
simply result in the criminal and inhumane suppression of valid
human liberty.

> Here in the US public nudity
> is an anti-social behavior. Regardless of how much you want it. If
> this society does not fit you then YOU need to go find one that does.
------------
No, we need to change this one, because it's wrong, that's what we're
here for and why we're arguing. People who try to suppress freedom
of dress, including non-dress, and sexuality should be taken out and
killed immediately as enemies of humanity, and we'll work for
that for an infinite time if need be, all along the way destroying
any alternate social arrangement until we get it! This devotion to
human freedom will inevitably win, since any such abuse of freedom
is based soley in rank religious superstition and nothing but your
ridiculously incorrect anti-science!

> There is no such thing as human rights. There are only "rights" that
> society allows.
-------------------
Yes, and those will therefore change when we the people change them,
which we're doing! The Internet has put porn in every household at
the touch of a few buttons, and you can't stop it!

> In the US they are based on a religious history.
--------------------
Not for much longer, we've destroyed most of THAT sh.t in the last
30 years, AND THERE'S MUCH MORE TO COME!!!

> In
> some societies women do not hide their breasts. It is accepted by that
> society. It is not a human right nor is it accepted here in the US.
-----------------
In Santa Cruz, Calfornia it is legal for women to go topless anywhere.
They do so regularly, even have parades in summer with dozens of them.

In the State of NY it is legal for women to go topless ANYWHERE!

This is true in numerous States of this Union.

It's also legal in all of Ontario, Canada, et alia there.

It *IS* a Divine Human Right JUST *BECAUSE* SOME cultures DO manage
it!!

Nor does the citation of some things which some cultures do that are
hideous even matter, because they are AGAINST human freddom and we
manage to do WITHOUT them ELSEWHERE!! There should not be ANY
restrictions on human Freedom that don't protect people from GENUINE
HARM, and nudity CANNOT BE SHOWN to do any GENUINE HARM, whereas
hideous imposed barbarisms can, as is evidenced by the shrieks of
their victims!!

> This has been researched and it has been proven over and over again.
-------------------
Nonsense, there is no such "research" into what human rights are, NOR
is any such EVEN POSSIBLE!! All you're touting is stupid pop opinion
by other religious jerk-offs LIKE YOU! You're not even doing THAT,
because you stated no study, no research, instead you pretended
immaturely that it was somehow "professionally" decided, sounding
like a stupid little lying religious little prick who can't explain
himself reasonably so he has to pretend he has support, and then
conveniently fail to meantion where and who, besides, of course, his
other little churchy Fundy mental-incompetents.


> There is a very big difference between humans and animals.
-------------------
Sure, we have a culture!! Animals don't, per se.
And YES, we can CHANGE OUR CULTURE, and we're NOW DOING THAT!
Live it, or Live With it!

> The very ability to reason is a big one.
------------------
Which you clearly LACK! You're trying to declare the equivalent of:
"Gee, let's all stay in the trees instead of that standing upright
stuff!"

> Another difference is our ability to
> control our sexual drives for the benefit of society. Humans are
> civilized. We know where to relieve ourselves, where to sleep, whom to
> touch, when to touch, why to touch, what to show, when to show....
--------------------------
No, we control our sexual drive to give us pleasure, THAT'S the BEST
Benefit of Society! And NO societal concern can be seen as superior
to the desire by two or more people for sexual satisfaction together!
That's called FREEDOM!

We DON'T EVEN HAVE a culture ANYMORE than forbids us sexual access
between people who agree!! WE HAVE DESTROYED IT BY DESTROYING BULLSHIT
SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGION!! All you're doing is defending this stupid
dying sh.t-beast of religion. It's dying, we're killing it, GOOD
f.cking RIDDANCE!!

> Now the fact you express yourself in an abusive manner clearly shows
> your lack of intelligence.
------------------
Nope, it only shows your lack of intelligence in forming that opinion
and pretending that it is some universal, rather than just your stupid
sexually repressed preference to believe it to comfort yourself about
your dying religion and way of life. You'd LIKE to be able to get your
little morality squad to come shut us up when we use sexual words to
express ourselves, but you CAN'T anymore so you want to pretend that
you have some monopoly on truth and that the use of certain WORDS you
don't like and IDEAS you don't share magically makes their advocates
"unintelligent", when that's nothing but an immature attitude to cover
your a.s!

> You may shout to the world but your words clearly counter your > desires.
------------------
That's pompous prating and posturing!
And ALSO: THAT didn't make a BIT of sense!

> Society requires a conduct accepted by
> that society. Yours and the individual in the topic of this thread are
> obviously not accepted. The very fact He was dealt with in the said
> manner clearly shows his actions were not accepted.
--------------------
We're changing society! It's changing and you don't like it!
Get used to it!!


> Show proof that we have human rights and where they come from!
------------------------
We have the rights that we're willing to fight for and TAKE BY
FORCE AND THREAT OF KILLING, because no one WILL be willing to
risk their lives against us if we only demand them for OURSELVES!

It isn't worth it, or doesn't ever appear so, when it's TOTALLY
worth it to US!! However it will lead to the end of your whole way
of life, and you won't be able to justify opposing it even to
yourself as well as we can justify killing you with great prejudice
if you oppose us!!

You see:
-
1) The right to be nude in public doesn't steal your right to wear
a nun's habit if you wish, but you sure won't get invited to many
parties! And shortly YOU WILL BE *ALONE* because what I'm promoting
is SOMETHING PEOPLE *WILL* *LOVE* once they SEE IT and TRY IT!

2) The right to f.ck in public doesn't require YOU to do so, but
YOU sure will look STUPID without a date, and YOU f.cking KNOW IT!

That's why NO one CAN develop the desire to try to stop US from
doing what WE want, in private or public, as long as we don't do
it at YOUR house, but that will happen too, because we'll change
what even your kids think, and you can't stop us! You see, you
can NEVER stop other people from telling your kids that you're
full of sh.t, AND EXACTLY WHY, and PROVING IT BY THEIR OWN EXAMPLE!

And that, you stupid a.s, is why your religion is dying, and
we're joyfully KILLING IT, and YOU CAN'T STOP US AT ALL!!
Steve



> > > Why don't you try learning something for a change.
> > > It is not A religious view I posted.
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> > > It will not
> > > take long for you to find out exactly what a real animal thinks of

> > > you.
> > -------------------
[quoted text clipped - 146 lines]
> > > > > > > >later when they can't cum.
> > > > > > > >Steve
greccogirl - 16 Nov 2003 23:22 GMT
told you.

>Why don't you try learning something for a change.
>It is not A religious view I posted. It is current psycho research. It
[quoted text clipped - 203 lines]
>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>            
greccogirl - 16 Nov 2003 23:20 GMT
Steve has always felt that a man's desire to push his sexuality on a
woman is not bad, and he also thinks rape is ok, since the rapist would
just as easily liked for you to CONSENT (You know, the "lie back and
enjoy it" defense).

Just wait.

>I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
>have a clue about human sexuality and relationships. The right to
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>>>>Steve
>>>>        
R. Steve Walz - 17 Nov 2003 06:20 GMT
> Steve has always felt that a man's desire to push his sexuality on a
> woman is not bad,
--------------
Not as bad as, say, murder or battery, if not accompanied by such.

> and he also thinks rape is ok,
---------------
Not unless it is required to achieve a normal level of human access to
sex against an antisexual culture.

> since the rapist would
> just as easily liked for you to CONSENT (You know, the "lie back and
> enjoy it" defense).
--------------------------
Irrelevant and erroneous.
Steve



> >I have just read these post and it is very clear that Steve does not
> >have a clue about human sexuality and relationships.
----------
Gee, that explains why I was married twenty years and founded several
groupsex communal relationships, including a current one of very
long-standing which I am a member.

> The right to
> >expose one self is not a human right.
-------------
Of course it is, you're merely prating superstitious fundy horseshit.

> >I do not have the right to force
> >my misguided sexual behavior on anyone.
----------------
Wearing clothes or not, or having public sex or not, isn't a sexual
behavior with onlookers.

> >However I do have the right to
> >be free of someone elses perverted actions.
--------------------
Not in public you don't.

> >It is thanking like yours that get children and women raped and drive
> >loving couples in to hatred and devorce. The fruit confirms the bad
> >seed.
----------------------
Vicious stupid religious liar.
Steve
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.