What is the problem with nudity?

[Nightmare060]

Please note: This thread is intended to discuss the moral standards of nudity, not the practicality of it. I asume that most people here would have the common sense to dress for particular weather conditions and enviroments.

I would like to begin by asking everyone to answer the question in this poll above. If it was moraly and legaly acceptable to do so, given perfect weather conditions, would you go about your day-to-day buisness nude in public? From my peraonal experiance, the vast majoraty of you will say no, but I will wait and see what the results say overall. Please explain your reasons, whatever your answer.

Society today, frowns on the human body. It is mandatory to cover it up and no matter what the reason, if we are not we are considered "In-decent". What is so instantly shocking and horrible about the naked human body that means we have to keep it under wraps all the time, regardless of enviromental conditions.

Imagine for a moment you are sitting in a room, and you are confronted with two people of the oposite (or same gender, depending on sexual preference), who are both compleatly naked. One of them comes up to you, and starts making general conversation. Talking about the weather, what they had for lunch that day, etc. Now when the second person comes up, he (or she) starts flirting with you and starts touching you in variouse places.

In terms of moral standard, both of them would be considerd to be in-decent and imoral because they are not wearing any clothes. It does not matter what-so-ever what they are actualy doing, if they are nude, they are in the wrong.

A common reason I have found why people consider nudity a taboo is that they do not want to see "Ugly" people in the nude. However, what defines beuty? Is there any objective standard to begin with as to what could be considerd beutifull and what could be considerd ugly or unpleasent to look at? If not, then who are we to decide who should be considerd "Ugly" enough to be forced to cover up, and who is "Beutifull" enough to be nude? Where do you draw the line?

It seems that our standard of beuty is, in my opinion at least, quite corrupt. We photoshop supermodles in magazines and page 3 to look "perfect", when in reality they more than likley do not look like that. Nobody is perfect, we all have little imperfections everywhere. And so given this, is it really fair to base who should be able to be nude and who not based on personal opinions of beuty?

Another frequent excuse is that it will have an extreeme negative effect on children. I know from personal first hand experiance that this is compleat bullshit. I have been naked around children at naturist venues of variouse ages. Some as young as two years old. And yet, they do not seem to be disturbed on any level at nudity. They don't look at anyone any differently than they would a clothed person. Yet, if you were to walk naked into a public primery (or elementary, depending on your country), then you would get a mass reaction from the children and probobly get arrested. Anyone who has ever been around toddlers before know that at some point, they will try and run around naked. This says to me that it is nurture, not nature, that would effect children on a negative level. We indoctrinate them to think that nudity is rude and that you are not acceptable unless you are fully dressed. If anyone can provide any sources to suggest otherwise that children ARE effected detramentaly by nudity, then please show me and prove me wrong. However this would contradict all of my experiances that have shown children not reacting at all to nudity.

I have had some people actually suggest that public nudity would lead to a compleat loss of morrality and cause more rapes. Acording to statistics (which can be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Statistics), only 2% of all rape victims were attacked by a stranger, and normally they would have been attacked anyway, regardless of levels of clothing they were wearing. As far as I am aware (again, correct me if I am wrong), there is nothing to suggest that people are more prone to rape if the victim in question was already nude or not.

Also, considering that we sexualise nudity in the media to begin with, this is more likley for somone to become arroused at the sight of nudity to begin with. I find it ironic, that we consider nudity such a taboo and call it sexual, and yet the vast majoraty of media that involves full nudity is always of a sexual nature. Even with sexual scenes, full frontal nudity is rare unless it is VERY hardcore.

The media has a huge hypocracy when it comes to nudity. DefenderOfReason made a brilliant video on this subject entitled "Of Bullits and Boobs" as you may or may not have seen. I would link this video, but sadly DoR has closed her account. But I can provide a different example of how gore is considerd to be more acceptable than nudity.

To quote the Bear Oaks naturist club blog (http://blog.bareoaks.ca/2008/11/nipples-on-tv.html)

But the very best example of the arbitrariness of it all comes courtesy of a TV show called Dr. 90210. This is a reality show that follows the lives of plastic surgeons as they "improve" people's lives through surgery. Most of the surgery is comprised of the predictable facial changes and breast enhancements. However, one episode focused on a woman who was in the process of a sex change. Calahan's treatment has clearly been effective. Dressed, it was impossible to see that he had started life as a woman. He sported a beard and muscular forearms.

But during the initial exam, one could clearly see the outline of female breasts but the nipples were obscured. As the operation began, the shows producers protected us from those upsetting female nipples by scrambling that portion of the image. No attempt was made to shield us from the blood and gore of the operation. The image of the incision and the cutting and hacking away of the internal breast material was crystal clear.

Less than 3 minutes later, the same nipples that were the cause of such consternation are now revealed because they are now deemed to be men's nipples! The same skin and nipple material is now acceptable for public consumption because some biological material had been removed. Most of the material was never even visible in the first place as it consisted of breast tissue beneath the skin. But with the removal of the mammary glands, the nipples had lost their offensive nature.

Interestingly, the same episode also featured labiaplasty. This is where a woman gets her labia reduced to "increase her self-confidence." Not surprisingly, the woman's labia was masked during the surgery. However, the show was more than willing to show the parts of the labia that were removed after the surgery. The message: the labia is only offensive when it is attached to a living woman. What does that say about our society's view of the human body?

Does this make sense to you? It certainly doesn't too me. It seems very clear to me that we are all indoctrinated with gymnophobia (fear of nudity) from a very early age, and it's this fear that keeps sociaties standards in place. You may be thinking to yourself "I'm not afraid of nudity at all!". Granted, fear is a very strong word, but it can still effect us on variouse levels. We are still uncomfortable being nude around others, and we would not fathom being nude in public, even in an enviroment where it was acceptable to do so.

The Naturist living show podcast has done a couple of episodes devoted to examining sociaties standards on the human body and gymnophobia in more detail, also providing sources and links to the horizen documentary "What is the problem with nudity?"

http://naturistliving.bareoaks.ca/2009/11/nudity-and-human-body.html
http://naturistliving.bareoaks.ca/2009/12/gymnophobia.html

Given all the points in both this post and the sources, do you think that sociaties standards of nudity being a taboo are justified or not? If not, are they too harsh or not harsh enough? Where do you draw the line between what nudity is acceptable and what is not? If somone is truley gymnophobic, would you say that person is able to make a truley free and rational choice, even if it is based off that fear? Given how naturists like myself in private settings or designated public areas can be nude around others and not treat others in a negative fashion based soley on apearences or dress state, do you think that our discomforts when it comes to nudity are based in nature or nurture? And finally, after reading all of this, would you change your answer too the poll above?

Thank you for reading.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Me personally? Probably not. I like having clothing on.

Do I think it is a "moral" issue? Not even slightly. I don't care if other people wear clothing or not.

 

[5810Singer]

Bluntly, my wedding tackle dangles around too much for me to go naked.
I'd be catching it in things, trapping my balls when I sit down, accidentally dangling my dick in people's coffee cups when I greet them at the cafe, and so on, and so forth.

 

[Giliell]

Well, it's not practical in everyday life and there's a lot to say for the service a good bra does.
Morally I couldn't care less.
In fact, I force the public to look at my breasts while breastfeeding because I don't see why I should stuff my baby under a shirt or blanket.
But I think that Europeans are more used to nudity and especially nipples.
The famous American L-shaped bedsheets are a running joke here

The point about children is total BS
When I was a child, no room was ever locked, so I would go into the bathroom when any family-member was taking a bath or shower. There was nothing indecent about it or to be ashamed of. On the contrary, I think that educating your kids openly about the human body might even give them some protection against sexual abuse because the abuser cannot make the kid ashamed and therefore make them remain silent

 

[5810Singer]

The famous American L-shaped bedsheets are a running joke here

I've never heard of L-shaped bedsheets, what's that about?

 

[scalyblue]

I think she's talking about snuggies?

 

[Eidolon]

I like boobs.

But some people need to be clothed at all times. There is just too much ass ugliness in this world to allow it to go unrestrained.

Plus, think of how many people don't clean their asses. Would anyone want to sit where those people have sat without any clothes on?

 

[Giliell]

The famous American L-shaped bedsheets are a running joke here

I've never heard of L-shaped bedsheets, what's that about?

Well, you'll all have seen them : in a movie, there's a scene in bed where both are supposed to be naked, under one big sheet which surprisingly covers him to the hips and hre just over the breasts

 

[5810Singer]

Well, you'll all have seen them : in a movie, there's a scene in bed where both are supposed to be naked, under one big sheet which surprisingly covers him to the hips and hre just over the breasts

Right, I get what you mean now.

That reminds me of those magic movie/tv clothes that allow you to have sex, or even give birth without actually taking anything off.

 

[Netheralian]

I'm not sure...

I have no problem with others doing it morally but surely there is some hygene issues involved.

 

[Nightmare060]

I like boobs.

But some people need to be clothed at all times. There is just too much ass ugliness in this world to allow it to go unrestrained.

Did you even READ the part of the post which adresses the objections about beuty. Can you show me where to define an objective standard of beuty to show where the line is drawn between beutifull and ugly? And if not, how come we should have to fit an unrealistic standard of beuty if it is to be deemed acceptable to not cover our bodies?

Plus, think of how many people don't clean their asses. Would anyone want to sit where those people have sat without any clothes on?

Naturists like myself use towels when using seats. It's simple hygene, which could be enforced and eliminates the problem entirley.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Oh, I think I get it... do you actually care what we think, or are you just interested in promoting your viewpoint and potentially feeling better than the people who don't embrace your silly little personal preference?

 

[Eidolon]

I like boobs.

But some people need to be clothed at all times. There is just too much ass ugliness in this world to allow it to go unrestrained.

Did you even READ the part of the post which adresses the objections about beuty. Can you show me where to define an objective standard of beuty to show where the line is drawn between beutifull and ugly? And if not, how come we should have to fit an unrealistic standard of beuty if it is to be deemed acceptable to not cover our bodies?

Some 400 pound gorilla looking chick is not attractive, not to me, and not to many people at all. it may not be my place to judge what is deemed to be beautiful or not, but in general, society can dictate that skin rolls, and walrus tits aren't even in the criteria for determining what beauty is.

Plus, think of how many people don't clean their asses. Would anyone want to sit where those people have sat without any clothes on?

Naturists like myself use towels when using seats. It's simple hygene, which could be enforced and eliminates the problem entirley.

Until someone forgets to sit on the same side of the towel.

Curious, why do you call yourselfs "naturists"? Generally living all natural should also include eating basic roots, berries, and twigs. Avoiding all modern convieniences including housing, electricity, plumbing (towels and furniture ) and basically living life as a genuine caveman. Its not really being natural to just simply walk around nude and not adhere to a entirely primitive lifestyle as well. That would be just wanting to walk around in the nude but still get to do everything else that modern unnatural society enjoys,
(having your cake and eating it too).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Curious, why do you call yourselfs "naturists"?

That's what I'm wondering too. I don't see why a personal preference for nudity has to be an "-ism" in the first place.

 

[Nightmare060]

Oh, I think I get it... do you actually care what we think, or are you just interested in promoting your viewpoint and potentially feeling better than the people who don't embrace your silly little personal preference?

Quick to throw in the elitiest card it seems.

I do care what others think, that's why I made this thread. But that does not mean I cannot disagree with opinions and point out where I think attitudes are becoming illogical, or downright paranoia. If you think you know better and have a case to show how some responces are fully rational and not based on any discomforts what-so-ever, then plase do so.

And please, I ask you nicley to avoid ad-homenim attacks for future. Thank you.

P.S; Would you not get frustrated when somone brings up an argument that was delt with in the origional post?

 

[Doc.]

morally? i don't really know.

Like you said people tend to hide their imperfections, for example-everybody lies, but is it "OK" to tell a lie? No it's not. I see nothing wrong with people not wanting to show their small breast or big belly or whatever else.

as for the beauty, I personally like thin and tall women, I just do, for whatever reason, i like this kind of nose and that kind of fingers, who cares why if we can't change it. Okay it may be subjective, but doesn't change anything does it. if you are a girl and you want me to like you, than you will naturally do something to achieve it.

and one more, i don't think it would be nice if somebody saw my erection would it?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Oh, I think I get it... do you actually care what we think, or are you just interested in promoting your viewpoint and potentially feeling better than the people who don't embrace your silly little personal preference?

Quick to throw in the elitiest card it seems.

I do care what others think, that's why I made this thread. But that does not mean I cannot disagree with opinions and point out where I think attitudes are becoming illogical, or downright paranoia. If you think you know better and have a case to show how some responces are fully rational and not based on any discomforts what-so-ever, then plase do so.

And please, I ask you nicley to avoid ad-homenim attacks for future. Thank you.

P.S; Would you not get frustrated when somone brings up an argument that was delt with in the origional post?

Since there hasn't been any ad hominem attacks from me in this thread, it seems like I'm doing an awesome job of avoiding it.

I don't give a damn if you want to be naked, wear a burka, or anything in between. I also don't think a preference for nudity makes you more enlightened, less dogmatic, or any of the other things you seem to be implying in your posts. Further, in your attacks on other people's personal preferences, you seem to be inflating your own preferences into "rational" positions without establishing that they are any more valid than anyone else's preference.

 

[Doc.]

I smell trolls me precious xD

 

[Nightmare060]

Some 400 pound gorilla looking chick is not attractive, not to me, and not to many people at all. it may not be my place to judge what is deemed to be beautiful or not, but in general, society can dictate that skin rolls, and walrus tits aren't even in the criteria for determining what beauty is.

Even if such a person were to be seen on a regular basis, it's still down to subjective opinions and interpritations, especialy when sociaty pushes the notion of beuty as being photoshoped moderns. At the time of Henry the VIII, being fat was a posative thing as it was a sign of wealth and being well fed. And seeing as how standards and tollerances vary between people, I don't see why we should enforce acceptability of nudity on subjective opinions and concepts. Even if it is something that is widly held.

Plus, think of how many people don't clean their asses. Would anyone want to sit where those people have sat without any clothes on?

Naturists like myself use towels when using seats. It's simple hygene, which could be enforced and eliminates the problem entirley.[/quote]

Until someone forgets to sit on the same side of the towel.

Curious, why do you call yourselfs "naturists"? Generally living all natural should also include eating basic roots, berries, and twigs. Avoiding all modern convieniences including housing, electricity, plumbing (towels and furniture ) and basically living life as a genuine caveman. Its not really being natural to just simply walk around nude and not adhere to a entirely primitive lifestyle as well. That would be just wanting to walk around in the nude but still get to do everything else that modern unnatural society enjoys,
(having your cake and eating it too).[/quote]

Since there hasn't been any ad hominem attacks from me in this thread, it seems like I'm doing an awesome job of avoiding it.

I don't give a damn if you want to be naked, wear a burka, or anything in between. I also don't think a preference for nudity makes you more enlightened, less dogmatic, or any of the other things you seem to be implying in your posts. Further, in your attacks on other people's personal preferences, you seem to be inflating your own preferences into "rational" positions without establishing that they are any more valid than anyone else's preference.

You seem vary welling to twist my words into some sort of "attack" on people. Once again, you are playing the "Your just an elitist" card.

Once again, just because I openly disagree with peoples opinions and feel that some responces are not rational does not mean I do not respect peoples wishes and opinions. Nor am I "attacking" them in any way.

and one more, i don't think it would be nice if somebody saw my erection would it?

Well Naturists like myself never get errections around other nude females, even when we find them attractive. I personaly think this has to do with a mental link between nudity and sex that sociaty pushes upon us. It's a subconciouse reaction.

Curious, why do you call yourselfs "naturists"? Generally living all natural should also include eating basic roots, berries, and twigs. Avoiding all modern convieniences including housing, electricity, plumbing (towels and furniture ) and basically living life as a genuine caveman. Its not really being natural to just simply walk around nude and not adhere to a entirely primitive lifestyle as well. That would be just wanting to walk around in the nude but still get to do everything else that modern unnatural society enjoys,
(having your cake and eating it too).

It would be nice if you had researched into the terms rather than making up a rather pathetic straw-man of the term, but I will give a breif explination anyway;

The term "Naturist" is the same as "Nudist", however some people find that "Naturist" describes a wider philosiphy about activly having a more lifestyle and active care for the enviroment. Vegenism and nudity are but two parts of it. The Naturist living show podcast (links above) did actualy do an episode adressing the differences between the two terms and which people prefered.

I prefer naturism personaly because it puts less emphasis on the nudity aspect of the philosiphy and rolls of the toung better. But it can vary from person to person.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, keep saying "Naturists like myself" and talk about how everyone else is irrational for not agreeing with you, and tell me that you're not being elitist. :roll:

Rejecting society norms doesn't make you special or enlightened, any more than embracing them does. I'm still waiting for you to explain why not wearing clothing is an "-ism" at all.