Tags for this video have been changed from 'anthony weiner, twitter, weinergate, confession, ethics, mea culpa, busted' to 'anthony weiner, twitter, weinergate, confession, ethics, so what you damn puritans' - edited by rasch187

Fake indeed, but very nice as well. As well I'm sure this was staged. They wouldn't just rip the dress off some random person lol. And IMHO it has nothing to do with 'this is how they treat women' but rather that sexuality is a much more open subject in much of the world than in the US thanks to our Puritanical roots and the religious right that has their paws on just about everything in this country. Someone mentioned the 'wardrobe malfunction' from a few years ago and how people in this country were in an uproar because their childred would be scared from getting a .2 second glimpse and some womans ugly nipple. Being the type of person who has friends all over the world, most of them outside the US had no idea what the big deal was. I myself found it rather funny watching the people on the news talking about their frail children catching a glimpse of someones nipple, never seeming to realize that those same children have nipples themselves.

It's just another reason why I am constantly aggravated with Christianity these days. You could likely trace a great deal of sexual crime, use of pornography and objectivity of women in this country to the fact that we are all so very sexually repressed compared to most other nations. Really we laugh about how repressed Muslims are, but we are just barely a step above them.

I can actually, I would bet its some puritanical self righteous prick with the sense of humour of a glass of sour milk.
now I will go take a look !
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Oh, and thanks for the promote. Can you believe people downvoted that video?!?

Not dead for me but I think it might be blocked for those living in the Puritan States of America. American's can watch any video on youtube, as long as it doesn't involve the worst sin imaginable... pleasurable sex!>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

dead

>> ^Trancecoach:

true f ing story.


It's also interesting to note that these are the same times you'll find Puritans going nuts about everything and prohibition.

All this "blue law" crap and other culture/societal based laws literally sent us on a path with the Mob/Mafia that we still deal with today; it almost destroyed the country (or atleast it may have fragmented it). Now we have the "Drug Wars™" and they're doing the same thing. We even got a new Federal Arm as the DHS. Time will tell if we dig ourselves out before it gets to bloody.

/Just look at Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, and California (and to a lesser degree other coastal/border states). It's the Mob/Mafia Part II, except we call them Druglords™ and Gangs™ and speak of them as though they're a tiny nuisance to the community and that once they're in jail everything is peachy again. Wait ten too twenty years when it gets farther into the country than right at the border. Then in 50-60 years Zynga can make a new, really popular game called Drug Wars™. Hollywood will have it's movies as well: Druglord I, Druglord II, Druglord III...

//So frustratingly predictable.

There shouldn't be anything controversial about seeing a woman breastfeeding her child. Humans are mammals and we have mammary glands meant for feeding our babies, just like every other mammal in the world. It's a completely natural thing to do, and it's good for the baby and the mother too! I think that if anyone is offended by a breastfeeding mother it is because he or she is a sexist, a male chauvinist, or a puritan. Seriously, what would someone's reasons be against public breastfeeding? Women aren't allowed to show their nipples like men are allowed? They should do that at home so I don't have to see? It gives me a boner, therefore it is evil? Anyways, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant...

Want to know what it even worse? Laws like this are still on the books, and enforced.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law:

"In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Maryland permits Sunday automobile sales only in the counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, and Howard; similarly, Michigan restricts Sunday sales to only those counties with a population of less than 130,000. Texas and Utah prohibit car dealerships from operating over consecutive weekend days.

Many states still prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday, or at least before noon on Sunday, under the rationale that people should be in church on Sunday morning, or at least not drinking.

Blue laws may also prohibit retail activity on days other than Sunday. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, for example, blue laws dating to the Puritans of the 17th century still prohibit most retail stores, including grocery stores, from opening on Thanksgiving and Christmas."

I'm so glad these were ruled to be unconstitutional here in Canada in 1985.
>> ^kceaton1:

So sad that this is more or less true. It leaves me speechless.

I think this is the direct result of some very specific, intentional rhetoric. I think it is also mostly, specifically american.

I'm listening to an audio book right now about John Winthrop and the puritan dream of america. The book focuses a lot on his speech on the model of Christian charity. History has been more concerned with his excerpts from the sermon on the mount, focusing entirely on "the city upon a hill". America is a beacon to the rest of the world, Christian values and American exceptionalism and boundless opportunity ... except to Winthrop these things had a more egalitarian backbone. We would be exceptional because of our belief in Christ's charity.... among other things mixed in with calvinist self-hatred and a sense of impending apocalyptic doom.

Here's an excerpt from the speech:

that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit: first upon the wicked in moderating and restraining them, so that the rich and mighty should not eat up the poor.

Reagan of all people invoked this speech. Leaving out the part about the rich eating up the poor of course and focusing only on "that shining city upon a hill" .... I think you've touched on something with your cold war reference. Reagan made greed and enduring pride a national value during the cold war. Contextually, this seems sort of appropriate... if you're ronald reagan, it's the 80s and capitalism proving a more lasting and successful social/economic value than communism is of the utmost importance.
And somewhere between then and now, we've skipped the part where we redefine our national values and even 9/11 and the decade of war proceeding did not put our moral folly in check.

It seems ever so unlikely that economic, social, political and cultural devastation is going to put it in check now. Right around 15% of the country is now receiving food stamps. I think if we knew that, instead of "poor" being taboo, you'd be more likely to see some kind of authentic populist uprisings. I think the decades since the cold war have seen such a demonization (and femalization for that matter) of economic hardship, you're unlikely to meet enough people ready to come out of their homes and yell about it. Not only does the media and marketing make women feel bad about their bodies, I think it's making people feel bad about their inability to consume the desired quantity of shit.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I've noticed that even broaching the topic of poorness is taboo. You either get complete disinterest, eye rolling, jokes or people who try to explain to you that poor are really living it up on tax payer dollars. Even the democrats seem to avoid using the word 'poor', but they have no problem defending the 'middle class'. I'd love to see democrats combine the middle and poor classes into one 'underclass', since international free trade seems to be destroying the line between the middle and lower classes anyway.

What does it mean to be a Puritan? It's the horrible feeling that someone, somehow, somewhere is having fun.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
Ridiculous puritanical bullshit

Ridiculous puritanical bullshit

i failed to use protection as a teenager mostly out of an enormous fear of my uber controlling puritanical mother. not that i was ill informed about safe sex and how babies are made. i wasn't at all. i spent my kidhood in a house full of sex. spent my later teen years with a hyper controlling puritan who terrified the shit out of me.

i was terrified of her finding the evidence. i'm 28 years old and i'm still mildly terrified of her finding out if i'm having sex with someone.

that's why middle class white girls get pregnant.

Wroong! It's the bewbs.
>> ^shuac:

For me, it's not even the bewbs that does it. I have pr0n for that.
No, this video is good because 1) it's a catchy fun tune, 2) you can tell by the cavalier way in which the nudity is done that it was made by a non-american, which instantly boosts it's artistic merit (sorry gung-ho patriots, but that's just the way it is), 3) the kid's a fan of Carl Sagan and award-winning cinema and he knows that you should only steal from the best.
Thumbs up.
And for puritanical, provincial attitudes about artistic expression...thumbs down. Boooooo!

For me, it's not even the bewbs that does it. I have pr0n for that.

No, this video is good because 1) it's a catchy fun tune, 2) you can tell by the cavalier way in which the nudity is done that it was made by a non-american, which instantly boosts it's artistic merit (sorry gung-ho patriots, but that's just the way it is), 3) the kid's a fan of Carl Sagan and award-winning cinema and he knows that you should only steal from the best.

Thumbs up.

And for puritanical, provincial attitudes about artistic expression...thumbs down. Boooooo!

I think the really sad fucked up part in all this.

You would rather role models forgo showing kids what appropriate dress & behavior for their level of life experience is like..

then to "oppress all woman-kind" and ask a popular artist to cover the tops of her tits for two 2 mins.

If that amount of cleavage on sesame street is inconsequential..

then how is it all of sudden some outrageous, puritanical, Islamic fundamentalist idea for parents to request 8 more square inches of fabric?

Why is modesty a pejorative term for you?



>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I'm sorry, exactly what is wrong with that when you're dressing yourself?
Do you think there's something wrong with raising our children to accept the human body and human sexuality?
Fuck, The Scarlet Letter was written 160 years ago & was set 100 years prior. We haven't moved past Puritanical ideals yet? Really, really sad.

I'm sorry, exactly what is wrong with that when you're dressing yourself?

Do you think there's something wrong with raising our children to accept the human body and human sexuality?

Fuck, The Scarlet Letter was written 160 years ago & was set 100 years prior. We haven't moved past Puritanical ideals yet? Really, really sad.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

It's a good decision.
Kids don't notice that stuff consciously but if you saw women with half their cleavage exposed since as early as you can remember..
you're likely to think there's nothing wrong with that when you start dressing yourself. i.e. jessie slaughter
It's called Behavior modeling.
Not to mention I abhor popstars.