What is the problem with nudity?

[Nightmare060]

I just want to state that I have nothing against nudists. I am bothered by the fact that your overstating the case for it, specifically the non sequitur being displayed with what you claim are benefits of being nude.

I think perhaps that was a miscomunication on my part. I see the benefits of somone becoming a naturist, which would incorperate being nude in general. Unfortunatly, it's a bad habbit of mine to say quite alot when trying to express my points, so often what I'm trying to say will be lost in the ammount of text I wrtie XD.

I am actually attempting to help you by allowing you the opportunity to recognize where the argument fails.

And I belive that this is working thus far.

The recognition of that should serve to strengthen your argument by removing the overgeneralizations and focusing upon what is valid and possibly even sound. It seems to me that - by your descriptions - the ideology you speak of is nothing more than being a naked humanist. While there may be fear involved in some cases, everyone who wears clothes is not fearful of being nude.

I apologise if I came out sounding like I was making that generalisation. I thought that by describing one of my none-naturist freinds who ISN'T afraid of being nude, then I would have shown that I don't belive in such a generlisation. Apparently not. As for the nude humanist part, that's actually a good way of putting it. You could say that naturists encorage humanist values through the practice of social nudity between them and helps combat the widespread gymnophobia of our sociaty.

There are many other legitimate reasons for wearing clothing. So, it would serve you well to carefully reassess how your describing people who wear clothes. Terms like irrational should not be carelessly strewn about just because *some* people have an irrational fear of nudity. All fear is not irrational.

I understand where your coming from. A fear of snakes, for example, would actualy be more natural. Because it creates an instinctive avoidance of snakes, which many of said species are quite harmfull. The Naturist Living Show podcast episode actualy mentioned how gymnophobia was irrational while not all fear in general is nessaceraly irrational.

Because in such a society one does not have the inalienable right to walk around in public while being nude. While one does have the right to walk around in public clothed. What makes you think that society is "keeping everyone dressed"??? Most people prefer being dressed in public.

I say that sociaty is keeping us dressed because for the vast majoraty of places, being nude in public is seen as illigal and immoral. And I see no reason for this to be, other than in certain places for practical reasons. I'm sure that the vast majoraty of naturists, including myself, still use common sense. In fact, I belive there was a debate on one of the naturist forums I go to about the potential of nudity being fully legal. Not really looked at it yet, but I will perhaps post a few interesting quotes to show the different viewpoints.

There are detriments to nudity, however you expressed that you were not considering the practicality of it in the OP.

I intended this to be a disccusion of morals rather than practicality, because I understand there are places where it is not practical to be nude. But what about beaches? Why aren't all beaches clothing optional? We barley wear anything on beaches normaly to begin with. And most people are smart enough not to wear swimsuits at beaches in the middle of winter.

On a documentary on Sky1 here in the UK entitled "Naked Britain", a naturist couple were sunbathing face down on the beach, nude. The beach was not clothing optional. They were not disturbing anyone, and yet an elderly couple and their dogs came up to them and started badgering them, calling them a "Menace" and to get dressed. The couple politley declined and just wanted to mind their own buisness. But it seems perfectly acceptable for those elderly people to annoy the naturists, yet if it was the other way round and a naturist was annoying a none-naturist to be nude, then they would be considerd a pervert and arrested! It's this double standard throughout sociaty that I see as compleatly unnesacery.

Morally, I would agree, there is no intrinsically 'bad' thing about being naked, in and of itself. However, that is not really saying much now is it? There is no intrinsically 'bad' thing in any given case. There are no moral absolutes. So, when speaking to someone who knows that is the case, stating it does not add substance to the position your attempting to justify.

Well we can certainly judge and define morals based on actions and consiquences. Robbing a bank and killing somone both have extreme negative consiquences, and therefore would be considerd imoral. Yet being nude doesn't nessaceraly have, on it's own, a detramental effect on anyone ellse (but the nude person, depending on the conditions of their surroundings). We only react in such an extremly negative way to the nude human body because we are tought to think that way.

I don't know if you have seen the doc on the "Naked Rambler", who attempted to talk from Lands end to Jhon'Agrotes (SP?) in Scotland. But the vast majoraty of people saw the spectical as nothing more than a joke. They were laughing, if a bit embarresed, but they didn't really make any sort of a fuss. Only a small minority of people were actualy offended. The man was assaulted at least once and arrested multiple times. He never acting grotesquley (SP?) to anybody and only really stopped in places to pick up supplies and occasionaly a bed for the night. Then he was on his way. He ended up spending a total of 4 months in prison and for what? Just not covering his body? I don't know about you, but this makes no sense at all to me!

Granted, I would not choose to be nude in such weather as he did, for practical reasons, but I would still respect his choices since he isn't harming anybody.

Nightmare wrote:

And I will make this clear now; being comfortable with your own nudity around others is mentaly healthy (being free from gymnophobia) and it can be used posativly to express a wider philosiphy of tollerance. Being nude around others shows that you've got nothing to hide and that you are not ashamed of your physical apearence. It's generaly in a naturist enviroment where the philosiphy can be put into practice via social nudity.

This needs work. Everything 'hidden' is not physically observable. What is wrong with shame? I can think of a number of ways that shame is very valuable, possibly irreplaceable in some instances. Self-regulation capability coming immediately to mind. As I mentioned before, this seems like a matter of lack of integrity being misdiagnosed. Along with shame often comes personal accountability, yes?

What I am saying that the only difference between what you're claiming naturism is and what humanism is, is that humanists are clothed.

I had actualy compleatly forgoten about the term "Humanism" when I wrote that, but after a quick wikipedia check up, I see your point. I think it's mostly the way it's encoraged and practiced.

Being naked is unnecessary in all aspects but one, that being the nakedness. Nudity alone does not promote open-mindedness and/or tolerance for other's preferences/beliefs/differences. Practicing social nudity does not attain the overall goal of social tolerance in any measure. In fact insisting that that be necessarily allowed in public promotes intolerance of the collective.

I think we can agree then, that Naturism is a particular way of practicing and advocating Humanism via social nudity with other like minded people.

One can attain that by thinking in humanist terms without accepting the naturism brand of nude morality also.

I agree. I have been saying basicly that throughout this thread if I recall correctly.

One can accept the fact that there are people who prefer being nude, and allow those people to congregate accordingly without imposing their will or brand of morality onto the society in general - which just so happens to believe that being nude in public is unacceptable.

Indeed, there are many who are the "keep it to themselves" kind of person. However I think there is consistant evidence to show that a large portion of our sociaty is gymnophobic and does demonise nudity. Or at least, a big enough base of power to keep these moral standards and laws in place.

Because by supporting your rights as they are, you have the opportunity to be naked in an appropriated place and others have the right to not... simultaneuosly.

I agree. I never suggested that anyone would be forced to be nude. If some people would wish to be clothed, then they are welcome. And at the same time, if one wished to be nude without being a pest to others, then they should also be welcome.

By protecting others' rights I protect my own, no matter if I agree with those or not.

:wink:

Compleatly agreed!

As a naturist myself i thought I should wade in here and offer my viewpoint.

It's great to have another naturist on the scene, however I do disagree with some details in your line of resoning. We may reach the same conclusion, just from different methods.

I can understand why the question was asked on a rationalists forum, hoping that some sensible answers might be forthcoming, and yes on the while there has been little condemnation, apart from one! Only people with hangups could possibly object to the naked human form, and as a European I'm used to seeing nudity in TV adverts, printed media and art, but our American cousins get their knickers in a knot over Janet Jackson's nipple during a 'wardrobe malfunction' on prime time TV.

OBJECTION!

While I agree that nudity is nothing to be freeked out over, and that americans are one of the worst for gymnophobia, not EVERYONE who prefers clothing over nudity is gymnophobic. As I have stated in previouse posts.

Why an 'ism you ask, well the obvious answer is that you've never felt the freedom of being clothes free, and believed that the benefits of a clothes free lifestyle area stress relieving and socially leveling way of life.

While I agree on the "Don't knock it till you've tried it" notion, you still made a none-sequiter there by suggesting that the only reason people object to naturism being an "ism" is having not tried it. It's not quite that simple.

To many nudism/naturism are little more than a hobby, a past time, to some of us it is a way of life.

And to most it incoperates an overall humanist philosiphy.

Once you've lived a week without clothes you'll find it difficult to adjust to wearing clothes again, as many have attested on naturist forums.

Not nessaceraly. While I have seen that most people who try naturism end up loving it, simply lacking clothing for a week won't nessaceraly change anything on it's own.

At Cap d'Adge in France you can live the naked life, walking the streets, shopping and dining out, and it's absolutely brilliant, but you have to try it to know it.

I agree with this.

Hygiene, so you think it's unhygienic, please explain? It is your clothing that habours sweat and bacteria that causes sweat to smell, and containing all those bodily fluids in your undergarments is the most unhygienic thing possible, they fester throughout the day and the first thing you want to do when you get home is get out of them, shower perhaps, and put on fresh comfortable clothes, and what is more comfortable than nothing at all.

None sequiter and hastey generalisation. While it is true that clothes harbor bacteria and increase smell from sweat, I think you are still exadurating the effects. Plus people can still be more comfortable clothed than nude for none gymnophobic reasons.

Ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable about being naked in public, and consider that you may have been socially conditioned to feel embarrassment, the same sort of illogical conditioning that makes people believe in a god, and we all know how silly that is. Can anyone explain how a naked body can be offensive, we all have one, and I'm all to aware that there are people who are gymnophobes, which is an illness, but how many are really ill, or just socially conditioned.

I agree with this point. Many of us are braught up by both our parents and sociaty to think and feel a certain way, thus indoctrinating us into gymnophobia. Just like if somone is indoctrinated into a fundamentalist religon, when they speak out against atheism as an adult, did they really have a choice in their desicions? Or was it their upbringing which programed them to be this way?

Free hiking is very popular in many parts of the world, I know of free hikers in the UK, and I've walked with many in the UK and Australia, I've even walked naked for charity. Recently we had an art project in London, the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square played host to several nude people who were living art.

Sadly this does not reflect sociaties overall double standards.

It's not illegal to be naked in the UK, but social conditioning still pervades society, many call the police, not because they are offended, but because the little old lady down the road might be, they are offended by proxy on behalf of someone who may not be offended at all, in fact one guy was a celebrity in the UK, little old ladies queued up to have their photograph taken with Steve Gough. Whilst it's not illegal to be naked in the UK, we still have problems with police officers who are ignorant of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and if they are they try to use the Public Order Act to force their own prejudices on naturists.

I Agree once again. The public order act can easily be misused when people have been trained to find nudity offensive. So even if the person isn't being offensive, because we are taught nudity is offensive, we precive it to be so. And therefore the law is misused to cover (pardon the pun) peoples insacurities about nudity.

We're used to immature comments from the sexually repressed people, who so unused to seeing a naked body, immediately think it must be of a sexual nature and make rather childish comments about how 'hot' or not someone is. The correlation between nudity and teen pregnancy rates is fascinating, and the prudish attitude also ties in with religious views. Take a look at teen pregnancies and religion in the USA, all in the southern, bible belt, states where you'll no doubt find the attitude to nudity on par.

Source please, and show how the servey includes stats on nudity attitudes.

Visit any beach in France and you're guaranteed to find a nude section, in fact many sections are so big you'll find you're the odd one out if you're wearing a cold damp bit of cloth around your groin (Yuk!). Saunas and spas in most of the Nordic countries will be clothes free, it is considered unhygienic to wear bathers in these facilities.

It's just a shame that public nudity, even in those countries, is considerd offensive.

Nude isn't lewd!

Pete

Agreed, but a better argument is in need of constructing on your part.

 

[creativesoul]

creativesoul:

Terms like irrational should not be carelessly strewn about just because *some* people have an irrational fear of nudity. All fear is not irrational.

Nightmare:

I understand where your coming from. A fear of snakes, for example, would actualy be more natural. Because it creates an instinctive avoidance of snakes, which many of said species are quite harmfull. The Naturist Living Show podcast episode actualy mentioned how gymnophobia was irrational while not all fear in general is nessaceraly irrational.

I do not think that all 'fear' surrounding public nudity is necessarily irrational.

Regarding the ethical aspect of personal rights...

creative:

Because in such a society one does not have the inalienable right to walk around in public while being nude. While one does have the right to walk around in public clothed. What makes you think that society is "keeping everyone dressed"??? Most people prefer being dressed in public.

Nightmare:

I say that sociaty is keeping us dressed because for the vast majoraty of places, being nude in public is seen as illigal and immoral. And I see no reason for this to be, other than in certain places for practical reasons. I'm sure that the vast majoraty of naturists, including myself, still use common sense. In fact, I belive there was a debate on one of the naturist forums I go to about the potential of nudity being fully legal. Not really looked at it yet, but I will perhaps post a few interesting quotes to show the different viewpoints.

Your argument then is focusing upon the idea that naturists' personal preference for going nude is not being embraced/tolerated/accepted in most societies for reasons that you do not find to be logical/reasonable and that that constitutes an infringement upon your personal rights?

In places where your objections warrant being examined, being nude in public is not 'seen as illegal', it is illegal. I take it that the naturist objection to those laws is based on moral grounds. I say that because it seems that your objecting to those societies imposing their brand of nude morality onto naturists in such a way that a naturist cannot legally walk around nude in public places whenever and wherever they so choose? I am wondering if this conversation would be better served by changing the perspective slightly and viewing the 'offensive' matter of it. This was touched upon by ImprobableJoe when s/he mentioned the offensive 'nature' of the term textile being involuntarily placed upon clothed persons, yet in the given context it wasn't being applied to the overall converation.

When dealing with humans rights one cannot avoid the 'offensive' aspect of one's actions as it applies to another within the society. What and how different things are determined to be 'offensive' constitute a very subjective baseline. That, I believe, holds the most potential for developing a meaningful conversation regarding the effects of public nudity on everyone in a society including both, people for and people against the idea of it being legal.

Nightmare wrote:

On a documentary on Sky1 here in the UK entitled "Naked Britain", a naturist couple were sunbathing face down on the beach, nude. The beach was not clothing optional. They were not disturbing anyone, and yet an elderly couple and their dogs came up to them and started badgering them, calling them a "Menace" and to get dressed. The couple politley declined and just wanted to mind their own buisness. But it seems perfectly acceptable for those elderly people to annoy the naturists, yet if it was the other way round and a naturist was annoying a none-naturist to be nude, then they would be considerd a pervert and arrested! It's this double standard throughout sociaty that I see as compleatly unnesacery.

The beach was not clothing optional are the key words here...

It seems that the elderly couple felt offended by the idea that the naturist couple were exposing their backsides in public. It could be that the elderly couple were just taking their evening stroll along the beach, as usual, and then unexpectedly realized that their own personal right to enjoy an evening stroll with their dogs on a public beach was being infringed upon by the naturists. While their is no sound reasoning for being offended by another's backside, in and of itself, there are sound reasons for one's being involuntarily 'forced' to view 'offensive' things against their will. That is the point I am making, really.

People have the 'right' to believe that public nudity is unacceptable. People also have the right to not believe that. So then, whose rights are being infringed upon here in this case? Unless a naturist finds clothing itself to be 'offensive', their rights to personal beliefs are not being infringed upon, because they are not being involuntarily 'forced' to view something that they, themselves, find 'offensive'. You would have a much harder time making a case for the 'offensive' aspect of clothing, than one can make for the 'offensive' aspect of public nudity and how that relates to personal rights.

Nightmare wrote:

Well we can certainly judge and define morals based on actions and consiquences. Robbing a bank and killing somone both have extreme negative consiquences, and therefore would be considerd imoral. Yet being nude doesn't nessaceraly have, on it's own, a detramental effect on anyone ellse (but the nude person, depending on the conditions of their surroundings). We only react in such an extremly negative way to the nude human body because we are tought to think that way.

This is a moral argument which fails. The case 'against' public nudity is an ethical one. "Extreme negative consequences" are themselves, subject to what one considers to be 'extreme' and that is a sliding scale, as are all morality measures. Above, I have shown exactly how being nude in public can have a detrimental effect upon another. The morality standpoint being attempting here is self-refuting. Changing the moral value that most societies have placed upon public nudity requires changing the oppositional thinking. One cannot force another to accept their 'brand' of morality in a society which realizes that there are no moral absolutes. Allowing naturists a place to be nude is the best way to allow both sides to hold onto their own 'brand' of morality and exercise their rights - given to and determined by that particular society - without forcing either side to be involuntarily subjected to that which they find 'offensive'.

 

[Photolysis]

I don't have any moral objection to nudity, and I find the general reaction towards it in the media in the US quite hilarious. It's fine to have films of people being shot, beaten up, stabbed, killed, and so on (which is illegal), yet people go off in an uproar if nudity or sex is implied or shown (which is legal).

That said there are some very ugly people that are not easy on the eyes at all, and clearly Western society as a whole seems to agree with this trend. If I'm on a beach and I see some extremely fat woman with rolls of fat in the most skimpy top you can find, I am repulsed by it. Of course it's utterly impractical to set a standard to ban it (not that I would agree with banning it), but it is something to consider.

I also personally prefer clothes. From a hygiene perspective, from a practicality perspective (preventing sunburn, reducing bites, stings, irritation from grasses, helping regulate temperature), and from a comfort perspective. I like the fact that parts of my body are nicely supported instead of bouncing around, or getting trapped, and that some of my most sensitive body parts have some protection from the environment and elements.


Incidentally, I feel the "naturist" label is just a way of glorifying it, and using the label is arbitrary because it only applies to articles of clothing (or the lack thereof) instead of many other standards of behaviour. "Nudist" is a very accurate and plain term, whereas "naturist" has all sorts of connotations about being in touch with nature and all that and the glorification that comes with it.

 

[creativesoul]

Hygiene, so you think it's unhygienic, please explain? It is your clothing that habours sweat and bacteria that causes sweat to smell, and containing all those bodily fluids in your undergarments is the most unhygienic thing possible, they fester throughout the day and the first thing you want to do when you get home is get out of them, shower perhaps, and put on fresh comfortable clothes, and what is more comfortable than nothing at all.

Your clothing is also a barrier between<i></i> your bodily fliuds and MY<i></i> skin.

Hardly an irrational fear.

:wink:

 

[Nightmare060]

Hygiene, so you think it's unhygienic, please explain? It is your clothing that habours sweat and bacteria that causes sweat to smell, and containing all those bodily fluids in your undergarments is the most unhygienic thing possible, they fester throughout the day and the first thing you want to do when you get home is get out of them, shower perhaps, and put on fresh comfortable clothes, and what is more comfortable than nothing at all.

Your clothing is also a barrier between<i></i> your bodily fliuds and MY<i></i> skin.

Hardly an irrational fear.

:wink:

I think he was refering to sweat only, but concerning other bodily fluids, you are correct .

I will now respond to the other longer arguments.

I do not think that all 'fear' surrounding public nudity is necessarily irrational.

I agree. To claim ALL fear surrounding public nudity is irrational would be a hastey generalisation. For alot of people, I think it's more to do with a fear of ridicule from others than a fear of the human body it's self.

Your argument then is focusing upon the idea that naturists' personal preference for going nude is not being embraced/tolerated/accepted in most societies for reasons that you do not find to be logical/reasonable and that that constitutes an infringement upon your personal rights?

Yes. Just as, in my opinion, polygamy is not considerd acceptable when logicaly, if they are all concenting adults, there is no reason to object to it. A simular thing with prostitution, although that is legal in many countries and some states in the USA.

In places where your objections warrant being examined, being nude in public is not 'seen as illegal', it is illegal.

I apologise for badly wording that. Nudity is seen as imoral, and is illigal.

I take it that the naturist objection to those laws is based on moral grounds. I say that because it seems that your objecting to those societies imposing their brand of nude morality onto naturists in such a way that a naturist cannot legally walk around nude in public places whenever and wherever they so choose?

That is correct. I'm pretty sure that even naturists would take into account common sense.

I am wondering if this conversation would be better served by changing the perspective slightly and viewing the 'offensive' matter of it. This was touched upon by ImprobableJoe when s/he mentioned the offensive 'nature' of the term textile being involuntarily placed upon clothed persons, yet in the given context it wasn't being applied to the overall converation.

Perhaps, yes. I'm sorry, but could you re-word that part I just quoted for me? I'm not sure I fully understand what your trying to say ^^'.

When dealing with humans rights one cannot avoid the 'offensive' aspect of one's actions as it applies to another within the society. What and how different things are determined to be 'offensive' constitute a very subjective baseline. That, I believe, holds the most potential for developing a meaningful conversation regarding the effects of public nudity on everyone in a society including both, people for and people against the idea of it being legal.

I agree. I'm sure many of us as atheists are quite fammiliar with christian fundies calling what we say and stand for as "offensive". We see our position as perfectly rational, and yet we are told it is offensive. This is not exactly the same as how people consider nudity offensive, but it shares some simularities in terms of points of view.

The beach was not clothing optional are the key words here...

It seems that the elderly couple felt offended by the idea that the naturist couple were exposing their backsides in public. It could be that the elderly couple were just taking their evening stroll along the beach, as usual, and then unexpectedly realized that their own personal right to enjoy an evening stroll with their dogs on a public beach was being infringed upon by the naturists. While their is no sound reasoning for being offended by another's backside, in and of itself, there are sound reasons for one's being involuntarily 'forced' to view 'offensive' things against their will. That is the point I am making, really.

I do see where you are coming from. From my point of view, with that logic I should be able to get somone arrested for walking infront of me with a blue shirt, if I consider the colour blue to be offensive. Because I have been "Forced" to view something "offensive" against my will. If I were to say that to the police, I would probobly get looked at strangley. In my opinion, being offended by nudity is the same as being offended by the colour blue.

If I recall correctly, this was not the first time they had been there. And I forgot to mention that this beach was FORMERLY a clothing optional beach, but had since had the clothing optional elemant legaly removed. The naturist couple still intended to use it as if it were clothing optional.

People have the 'right' to believe that public nudity is unacceptable. People also have the right to not believe that. So then, whose rights are being infringed upon here in this case? Unless a naturist finds clothing itself to be 'offensive', their rights to personal beliefs are not being infringed upon, because they are not being involuntarily 'forced' to view something that they, themselves, find 'offensive'. You would have a much harder time making a case for the 'offensive' aspect of clothing, than one can make for the 'offensive' aspect of public nudity and how that relates to personal rights.

Are you suggesting that the right to be nude is not being infringed upon because people consider it offensive? Also, refer to my argument of the colour blue being considerd offensive above. How does being offended by nudity any different to being offended by the colour blue?

This is a moral argument which fails. The case 'against' public nudity is an ethical one. "Extreme negative consequences" are themselves, subject to what one considers to be 'extreme' and that is a sliding scale, as are all morality measures.

I think if we use the words "constructive" and "destructive", our points will become more clear. I see phobias, including gymnophobia which most people suffer from on some level, to be destructive actions. The only reason that we aren't effected by gymnophobia in our daily lives is because the law and many facilities cater to this, preventing (for the most part) any view of the nude human body from occuring. Imagine this scenario;

You are walking into a tall building with a freind. A skyscraper, for example. You are about to step into an elevator, and your freind says "You know what, I think I'm just take the stairs, because I'm just more comfortable with that". You say how the elevator will be quicker, but your freind gets very defensive and refuses to get in. Would you consider that normal? What if he did this on a regular basis?

Now, if that person said he was OFFENDED by the idea of elevators and describes a displeasure of them because they make people lazy and fat. Now what if he joined with a large number of other people and tried to get elevators banned because of this line of reasoning. Does this make sense? If he sees people using an elevator, are they IMPOSING something offensive on him and so it should therefore be illigal?

And before you throw the "elevators have a practical use" argument, nudity is usefull for keeping cool on hot days because of how our sweat system works. That's what it is for, evolutionary speaking.

Above, I have shown exactly how being nude in public can have a detrimental effect upon another.

No, you have not. All you have shown is that if somone sees something as offensive too them, they can claim that by seeing it against their will in a public enviroment, it can be considerd oposing their rights and is AOK to be illigal. However you could say the same thing about arachnophobes and spiders in pet shop windows. Or images of spiders in adverts.

The morality standpoint being attempting here is self-refuting. Changing the moral value that most societies have placed upon public nudity requires changing the oppositional thinking.

Or at least challinging it to show how irrational the oppoisitional thinking is. People can be offended by many things, including a different spoken opinion. Yet we don't make all of this illigal.

One cannot force another to accept their 'brand' of morality in a society which realizes that there are no moral absolutes.

This argument applies to the pro-nudity side as well! How can none naturists force me to accept their "brand" of morality in a sociaty which realizes there are no moral absolouts?

Allowing naturists a place to be nude is the best way to allow both sides to hold onto their own 'brand' of morality and exercise their rights - given to and determined by that particular society - without forcing either side to be involuntarily subjected to that which they find 'offensive'.

How is segregation a good comprimise?

 

[scalyblue]

Can we just agree that, ideally speaking, society would be improved by striking the laws that prohibit public nudity?

Humans would have never developed clothing if it weren't necessary, heck the only reason we have bacon flavored mayonnaise is because it's necessary to somebody. It can be argued that: since every independent strain of civilization developed clothing to some degree, clothing is as much a part of the human condition as feathers are to a bird. That shouldn't mandate it's requirement, though. Why do we have laws against nudity? Because of sanitary reasons? No. Because of environmental reasons? No. We have laws against nudity because the big invisible man in the sky said we should, and that's not really a good enough reason for me.

I've been to renaissance festivals where being 'skyclad' was optional. Some people did it, others (like me) didn't..and after about four days of utter weirdness and awkwardness, you don't really notice--heck, some of the fashion choices that can be done when you don't have to worry about decency can look damned good, even on people that you could consider 'fugly'

 

[creativesoul]

Nightmare,

Your moral argument fails for the same reason that all do, yours are no more sound than that which you oppose.

It is about someone's rights. Your rights end where mine begin. If I hold a deep-seated religious conviction which causes me to find public nudity offensive, as most people do, then your going nude in public infringes upon my personal right to the pursuit of happiness, and it does so against my will. You can express your right to be nude in private or in appropriate places without being jailed. That is the compromise.

I never said it was logically sound. No morality is, including your invocation of the terms constructive and deconstructive. The point is that people have a history of being clothed for lots of reasons. If public nudity was made legal, then those who find it offensive would not be able to avoid it, and they most certainly have the right to do such a thing. As it stands, each side has the ability to pursue their own personal preference.

 

[scalyblue]

It is about someone's rights. Your rights end where mine begin. If I hold a deep-seated religious conviction which causes me to find public nudity offensive, as most people do, then your going nude in public infringes upon my personal right to the pursuit of happiness, and it does so against my will. You can express your right to be nude in private or in appropriate places without being jailed. That is the compromise.

This implies that somebody's rights to be offended are greater than somebody's rights to be the subject of offense.

By that logic, if I wore a "Fuck God up his wrinkled mystical bronze age ass" shirt I would be infringing upon the personal rights of the pursuit of happiness against your will. ( By the way, the pursuit of happiness isn't a legal "right" in the US--last time I checked the declaration of independance is not a document establishing any sort of sovereign law, and the government that created the declaration was disbanded well before constitution was written )

The funny thing is that, in the US, anti nudity laws are indefensible in court, I'm pretty confident they would fail any test of the constitutional right of free speech--if anybody who had the time and the resources actually bothered to fight it all the way to the supreme court.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Nightmare,

Your moral argument fails for the same reason that all do, yours are no more sound than that which you oppose.

It is about someone's rights. Your rights end where mine begin. If I hold a deep-seated religious conviction which causes me to find public nudity offensive, as most people do, then your going nude in public infringes upon my personal right to the pursuit of happiness, and it does so against my will. You can express your right to be nude in private or in appropriate places without being jailed. That is the compromise.

I never said it was logically sound. No morality is, including your invocation of the terms constructive and deconstructive. The point is that people have a history of being clothed for lots of reasons. If public nudity was made legal, then those who find it offensive would not be able to avoid it, and they most certainly have the right to do such a thing. As it stands, each side has the ability to pursue their own personal preference.

people have a right to prevent other people from appearing in a way they find offensive?

if i want to wear a tshirt that says GOD IS DEAD or some other such inflamatory statement, should i be prevented because other people are offended by it?

what about drag queens, many people find them offensive... should they be banned as well? people will too many piercings or tattoos?

i don't undersand how simply having to *look* at something one finds offensive is sufficient grounds for banning others from dressing as they please.... even if they want to walk around naked.

the right to free speech protects minority opinions... no one can stop you from speaking but they can not listen and/or argue. similarly, i don't see why people should not be allowed to walk around naked if they so choose... if you don't like it, don't look!

 

[creativesoul]

This is becoming a much better line of argument.

 

[Jotto999]

Well I have mentioned ways to get around those issues (although I will add bug sprey, suncream etc..) which would help the practicality issue on some level. But then I can see how wearing trousers overall would be simpler. I'm glad we can agree upon the "too each their own" notion overall though .

Not only simpler, but something you can become accustomed to. For example, I certainly have to wear clothing most of the year here due to climate, and although there may be some hot enough days where going completely naked would be comfortable, I would be so used to wearing pants that I would likely want to have them on anyways, and I would have to tan my lower body every year just to go nude but not get severe sunburn for a small portion of the year. Overall, definitely not very practical.

In a relatively gentle and pleasant climate, where clothing is often not necessary, then the practicality argument is not very relevant. However, there are many places where certain articles of clothing are not just greatly convenient, but certainly required to reasonably live there. I can pitch the example of warm clothing needed most of the year for places like Canada because that is what I know best, but I'm sure there are examples for other climates.

I know there are places where people can go naked all the time and clothes simply aren't necessary. However, there are many places where that is either not viable at all, or would just be highly impractical. For me, the practicality argument is highly relevant.

 

[creativesoul]

It is common knowledge that a young child has no concept of nakedness being 'wrong'. That is easily shown by the fact that almost all of them under the age of two or so go around naked without feeling shame, sometimes in public like on beaches and at community pools. Noone usually makes a fuss about it either because of their age. They do not know any 'better'. It is only after one has been taught to believe that being naked around others is 'wrong' that they will have that element in their conscious thinking. The individual reasoning behind that lesson can be bolstered afterwards without much discussion because of the fact that everyone else in public has clothes on as well. That can serve to confirm the convictions regardless of their foundation.

It is clear then, that public nudity being 'wrong' is learned.

Most people in the states agree that public nudity is unacceptable behavior, even if there are differing opinions on exactly what makes it 'wrong' or unacceptable. It seems that the argument against those laws is one which attempts to establish that there are insufficient grounds to warrant that 'brand' of morality being 'forced' onto those who do not believe that public nudity is 'wrong'. There have been excellent counter arguments given against the 'offensive' aspect offered earlier. I am impressed... finally... The counters given have established that the 'offensive' aspect is often hypocritical in many ways and are not sufficient reason to ban another simply because of the fact that one may be offended.

There are many ways to look at this topic. From a social etiquette point of view, we do not usually discuss private matters in public in such a way that others are exposed to our personal business because it has come to be considered as unacceptable/inappropriate. The same holds true for other matters of social etiquette such as table manners, standing in lines at the grocery store, and general courtesy towards your fellow wo/man. These are things that one does in order to display the fact that they have some form of respect and courtesy for others in society. Those things also help to establish one's own integrity and personal accountability to their fellow wo/man. There are no laws against going into a Christian church wearing a "Fuck 'God' up his wrinkled old bronze-aged ass!" shirt, nor are there laws against walking around wearing a shirt which says "Racist and proud to be!"

Why is it that there are laws against going around nude in public then? What is the difference between walking around nude and wearing clothing previously described? The society sets the standards for acceptable behavior and there are laws against public nudity. The expressions on the shirts display one's ability to exercise freedom of belief/expression/speech. There is, however, a standard of public clothing which basically states that one's genitals must be covered. Women's nipples and vaginal area, and a man's penis and scrotum are to be covered while in public.

There is an ex nude pianist who now owns and operates a used bookstore on Interstate 10 near the southern California/Arizona border in the continental U.S. who - I believe - actually had his case taken to a Supreme Court. I am unsure whether that was at the state or federal level, however, he was backed and supported by a major civil rights organization and he won his case. The local residents wanted to make him wear more clothing than he had been wearing. He wears only an almost see-through pouch covering his genitals which is basically supported by a see-through string around his waist and going between his ass cheeks and a broad-rimmed straw hat. It was a pleasure meeting him, and my friend(who knows him) and I had a very pleasant conversation with what seemed to be quite the intelligent fellow.

I just wondered what the point is?

Deviance for the purpose of deviance?

 

[scalyblue]

But why cover female nipples and not male nipples? They are physiologically identical--if we are going to establish a standard of decency it should be consistent.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Why is it that there are laws against going around nude in public then? What is the difference between walking around nude and wearing clothing previously described? The society sets the standards for acceptable behavior and there are laws against public nudity. The expressions on the shirts display one's ability to exercise freedom of belief/expression/speech. There is, however, a standard of public clothing which basically states that one's genitals must be covered. Women's nipples and vaginal area, and a man's penis and scrotum are to be covered while in public.

i am not sure where you're going with this... you admit its a prejudice with no rational basis and yet uphold the laws against it? if tyranny of the majority is acceptable on this issue, why not on others? maybe atheists SHOULD BE censured, cause theres so few of them and so many religious people who think atheism is wrong.....

 

[garytheagnostic]

Nudity immoral? Absolutely not! I noticed that beauty seems to be the leading reason why not allow others to go nude. It seems that problem would fix itself as people would be more aware of themselves and how they look instead of hiding behind concealing and decorative clothing. Also, "ugly" populations would dwindle due to sexual selection, at least until the advent of alcohol.
I can agree with the hygiene argument. If everybody went nude, I know a few people who would have to tape a coffee filter to their ass. As for practicality, just get a fanny pack :lol:


I guess where I would draw the line is at bodily functions. You can walk around naked all you want but, I still don't wanna see you take a shit or yank out a tampon.

 

[Nightmare060]

Nudity immoral? Absolutely not! I noticed that beauty seems to be the leading reason why not allow others to go nude. It seems that problem would fix itself as people would be more aware of themselves and how they look instead of hiding behind concealing and decorative clothing. Also, "ugly" populations would dwindle due to sexual selection, at least until the advent of alcohol.
I can agree with the hygiene argument. If everybody went nude, I know a few people who would have to tape a coffee filter to their ass. As for practicality, just get a fanny pack :lol:


I guess where I would draw the line is at bodily functions. You can walk around naked all you want but, I still don't wanna see you take a shit or yank out a tampon.

Of course! I have yet to see a naturist just randomly take a shit in the middle of the park. Plus females would generaly wear clothes at least on the lower half if during that time of the month. Common sense really.

 

[creativesoul]

Obsidian wrote:

i am not sure where you're going with this... you admit its a prejudice with no rational basis and yet uphold the laws against it? if tyranny of the majority is acceptable on this issue, why not on others? maybe atheists SHOULD BE censured, cause theres so few of them and so many religious people who think atheism is wrong.....

I think your argument is strong enough without the strawman. The moral aspect is irrational, and I have not said otherwise.

How are laws for public clothing considered tyranny? What is being taken from naturists?

 

[obsidianavenger]

Obsidian wrote:

i am not sure where you're going with this... you admit its a prejudice with no rational basis and yet uphold the laws against it? if tyranny of the majority is acceptable on this issue, why not on others? maybe atheists SHOULD BE censured, cause theres so few of them and so many religious people who think atheism is wrong.....

I think your argument is strong enough without the strawman. The moral aspect is irrational, and I have not said otherwise.

How are laws for public clothing considered tyranny? What is being taken from naturists?

i'm sorry for the unflattering analogy but i am still confused. if you agree that a law is based on an irrational prejudice, on what rational grounds can you uphold it?

laws restricting clothing use simply prevent people, who are not harming anyone else by doing so, from walking around in a way they find to be comfortable. freedom of action is being taken away from them, freedom of expression. and the only reason you can give is extremely poor; it doesn't even come close to justifying such a large scale control measure by the government.

 

[creativesoul]

Interesting how one can judge an answer without hearing it. There is no moral justification and I have never said otherwise. Although I am curious to hear what is wrong with wearing clothes.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Interesting how one can judge an answer without hearing it. There is no moral justification and I have never said otherwise. Although I am curious to hear what is wrong with wearing clothes.

i keep asking you for an answer and you keep not giving one

there is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing clothes, just as i see nothing wrong with not wearing them. its a personal preference and laws of restriction in this regard serve no purpose but prejudice. if you have a counterargument other than offensiveness, please share it.