Well, it is nudity today, and Beatiality the next week!
What? if the homophobes can use that I can, can't I?
That slippery slope argument is wrong from the homophobes, and it is wrong here. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are sought to be legitimized, nothing else. Animals cannot give consent, so the question does not arise. Heterosexual acts does not devolve into beastiality, so why would homosexual ones? I know you are not being serious and only bringing up the canards put out by homophobes, and I am clarifying for their benefit.
Here is a scene from a beach in Kerala from 1900. Contrary to what @Manvantaratruti thinks, we have NOT been upholding today's standards of decency for the past 100,000 years. I'll post the link in two bits, since I don't want to be accused of putting "**** pics" here.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o08kbf0n580/T_cfYOzm8mI/AAAAAAAAT6c/
WADsCm8HcvM/s1600/1900+photo_vallarpadm+island.jpg
Note: It is a scene from Vallarpadam islands, and taken from the Travancore palace archives. It depicts working women and fisherfolk, all bare chested. That was not taboo or indecent a hundred years back.
I am bringing this example because from your screen name I am assuming you are a malayalee. In Kerala, well into modern times, only "uppity" and pompous women wore clothes on their upper body. The standards of what is decent and what is indecent have varied across the continent throughout history. As indeed in other places across the world. In afghanistan I suppose showing toes or face is obscene. These are all artificially derived morals.
Last edited: