No Disclaimer Needed

This page last updated February 20, 2009 by Lloyd Johnson.

Send me email.

Why do there have to be nude pictures on this site?
Why is there no warning for children?

If you think beauty should be hidden from children, or anyone else, there's something wrong with you.

Was it wrong to punish Germans who didn't wear the swastika? Was it wrong when Henry VIII required all Englishmen to attend his church? Was it wrong that everyone was required to say Amen, even if they disagreed? Is it wrong to require men to wear a "Union Yes" button, even if they don't want a union? Is it wrong to make everybody carry a rosary? Is it wrong to make resident aliens in our schools pledge allegiance to our flag? Is it wrong to lead Christian children in Muslim prayers?

Isn't it a violation of free speech when we force people to say things contrary to their beliefs? Isn't it also a violation of free speech to make people wear symbols that go against their beliefs? Isn't it a violation of free speech to force people to be spokesmen for an industry they find abhorrent? When an outspoken segment of our population makes the heretical decision that some of God's creation is indecent, and forces us all to cover these body parts, it makes it impossible to speak out against their heresy without breaking that unconstitutional law.

How can somebody speak out against Nazis while wearing a swastika? How can we speak effectively against this hypocrisy, if we have to wear the emblems while doing so? When we are allowed to live our ideal only when surrounded by those that already agree, how can we spread the idea? If the point is to control the spread, isn't that a clear violation of the intent of free speech? Is government trying to control a "dangerous" idea? Wasn't democracy a "dangerous" idea?

The idea that any part of a human or animal body is indecent is a perversion. It is time for western society to recognize this mistake and correct it, in law and in deed. It is time for western society to recognize that the bathing suit as a means to cover indecent body parts is hypocrisy. The bathing suit only draws attention to those body parts as earrings draw attention to ears and face.

The bathing suit is the best example of dysfunctional clothing. If you are wearing it, you're probably not bathing effectively. If you're wearing it to swim, it's probably slowing you down. Women's suits used to be the bloomers, now it's men's suits that drag against the swimmer. Inexperienced swimmers can be dragged out to sea by their baggy suits. The suit can trap sea lice and will keep you cold after swimming.

Was it wrong for the Catholic Church to force a disclaimer on the inside cover of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestrium, indicating that his theory was neat but wrong? Is it wrong to force me to place a disclaimer here warning that this site is inappropriate for children, when in fact it does no harm?

Don't expect me to put any sort of warning on this website.  It is appropriate to put a warning on something harmful, like a pack of cigarettes.  There was overwhelming evidence that cigarettes cause a number of health problems.  There is no evidence that nudity is harmful to anyone.  If you want to keep your children away from wholesome activities, that's up to you.  I have done nothing to prevent content filters from recognizing this site for what it is.

Why aren't there any nude pictures on this page?
ans: To leave people no excuse for not reading it.