Randy,

Are you planning on becoming a nullo?

...........You could wear a real tiny wonan's thong and not have anything to worry about.

As with all laws, one never really knows until the law is challenged in court. I am sure there is no specific mention of nullo's in any of these "public exposure" laws. The court challenge would be about what is being exposed. A clever lawyer could argue it. But, this country is pretty obsessed with modesty, to the point of being a fixation in a way, in that the obsession has become unhealthy in my opinion.

Of course, if you could get so FAT that your belly would hang down to your thighs you could get by without wearing trunks because even if you wore them nobody could see them.

Therefore, if you went WITHOUT them nobody could see anyhow...

...I kind of got his idea from the Eddie Murphy movie "NORBERT". You should watch it and get a load of Norbert's wife in a bikini.

...If you do watch it could you give me an idea if you think that she is a transvestite, because I think it is Eddie Murphy in a fat suit dressed in drag...



shakemitkshakemitk:shakemitk :shakemitk

Informed response from a naturist (nudist): Don't make that a reason for doing it!

Partly a technical jurisdictional question depending on the precise wording of the law and on established case law. Some jurisdictions ban "nudity"; most ban "exposure of the sexual organs" (and sometimes but not always the buttocks, or the anal cleft). Often a phrase like "in a lewd or lascivious manner" qualifies the exposure. (In fact, in FL it is NOT against the state exposure statute for anyone to go skinny-dipping.)

A nude nullo (radical penectomy) would not be in violation of a law prohibiting exposure of the sexual organs (only), because he hasn't any. A few cases (not many) of exposure against women have resulted in acquital when they claimed (rightly) that a woman's sexual organs are internal.

There's a catch: Most jurisdictions also have disorderly conduct laws, often vaguely outlawing "acts tending to corrupt the public morals" or "contrairy to community standards of conduct". These laws are often used to charge naked people, because they are usually easier to get an conviction on. In FL, that's the statute usually used.

So the real answer is that unless you're at a nude beach, they'll find some law to charge you with breaking.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:51 am Of course, if you could get so FAT that your belly would hang down to your thighs you could get by without wearing trunks because even if you wore them nobody could see them.

Therefore, if you went WITHOUT them nobody could see anyhow...

...I kind of got his idea from the Eddie Murphy movie "NORBERT". You should watch it and get a load of Norbert's wife in a bikini.

...If you do watch it could you give me an idea if you think that she is a transvestite, because I think it is Eddie Murphy in a fat suit dressed in drag...

Rasputia, Norbit's wife was played by none other than EDDIE MURPHY!



DO I think she was a man - NO, I know she was a man.



And ugly at that!

Randy,

Milkman (imported) wrote: Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:13 am Are you planning on becoming a nullo?

I have read about Skoptsy who were castrated for religious reasons like me. Some of them ended up nullos, and I can relate to them. On a hard day, I sometimes wonder why I didn't just cut off my penis instead of balls; that would have made sex impossible and without any of the side effects of low T. Was it because a penectomy would have been much harder to achieve than castration was? Or was it because testicles are more important becoming genderless like God? A penectomy would have just left me frustrated....really freakin frustrated and probably dangerous. Castration helped me in the way I look at women. When i see women I see symmetry and beauty. I also see it in men now too which is confusing. Men, women, and children are all appreciable beauty wise but none are desirable sexually.

I gave up my testicles because I believe they make a man a man. A born eunuch with a penis intact will not become a man in my eyes.

Penectomy now that I am a eunuch?... (as my boss says) "it wouldn't be wrong." I haven't even really thought about going forward with it but one thing I do know is that I wont go to a cutter to do it. Also I dont like the reroute thing.. bladder infections.. nah. Let me put it this way, if I woke up without it I wouldn't really mind.

ps: i know milkman (the poster i am replying to) and he is not offering to penectomize me.

randy (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:10 pm When i see women I see symmetry and beauty. I also see it in men now too which is confusing. Men, women, and children are all appreciable beauty wise but none are desirable sexually.

Finding someone (or something) aesthetically pleasing does not mean it's sexual. Beauty != sex.

Also, isn't there some passage in the Bible that indicates those men who no longer have penises will not enter the gates of heaven? I'm too lazy to search, but I think I've heard it quoted.

Deuteronomy 23:1, KJV-

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Some controversy surrounds translation/interpretation of this passage.

As I was taught, there was a restriction on men who could become priests during the Old Testament Era. One had to be perfect (or at least, have no deformities nor disabilities) to enter into the inner sanctum of the temple and/or be a priest. Only the highest priests could go into these areas. Thus the interpretation of "congregation of the Lord".

One can also apply this to belief in the Byzantine Empire, with the Emperor closest to God, or as some believed, almost like "God in the flesh." No one with a deformity could be Emperor. It was common practice when an Emperor was overthrown to have him mutilated in some way to prevent him (or his sons) from reclaiming the throne. Castration and blinding were the most common. St. Ignatius, one of the more well known, was castrated at the age of 13/14 and sent to be raised in a monastery when his father Michael (?) was overthrown, thus making it impossible for the boy to challenge the new Emperor later on.

But back to the passage in question...

Is this saying that eunuchs cannot go to church?

Is this saying that eunuchs go to hell?

No.

There are several more passages in the Bible that state just the opposite:

Isaiah 56, 3-5, KVJ:

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Also, keep in mind two other big ones - Daniel was, as I interpret it based upon historical fact as well, HIGHLY favored of God. He was also a boy-eunuch.

Then, later, one of the more famous baptisms recorded in the New Testament, the baptism of the Eunuch of the Court of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. I think I got that right...yep:

Acts 8:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... text=verse)

And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Acts 8:26-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... xt=context) (in Context) Acts 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?bo ... xt=chapter) (Whole Chapter)

Those are just a few examples. Interpret the Bible as you will, based upon your own beliefs. Bible verses can be searched out by keyword here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Wow, Paolo. You are nothing if not thorough.