What is the problem with nudity?

[creativesoul]

To be honest with you, I am actually arguing a side for the purpose of arguing it. :wink:

Increase in public health risk.

 

[obsidianavenger]

To be honest with you, I am actually arguing a side for the purpose of arguing it. :wink:

Increase in public health risk.

haha fun.

in any case, i would argue that cleanliness and the likelihood of a person wearing clothes aren't related. for example, if someone walks around naked and doesn't bother to wash themselves, then it is a reasonable assumption that were they wearing clothes, they wouldn't bother to wash their clothes. thus the clothes would collect pathogens and become useless and protecting people from one another's germs.

in any case, if you don't want to sit bare butt you can use a towel or some other instrument, as has been mentioned. or you could choose not to. risk accumulated in that case would be fully voluntary and not in any way relevant to the issue of public health, since those who wanted to protect themselves would be fully capable of doing so by use of clothes or other methods.

 

[creativesoul]

:wink:

That is the best argument that I can come up with. Unfortunately, I think it is valid, and could be considered a moral argument as well. It is wrong to unnecessarily increase the public's health risk for the purpose of allowing public nudity. The relationship between one's personal hygeine and clothing plays no role. The increase in risk to public health is irrefutable regardless of that. The barrier is removed. If there are hazards present, the risk of contamination necessarily increases.

 

[obsidianavenger]

:wink:

That is the best argument that I can come up with. Unfortunately, I think it is valid, and could be considered a moral argument as well. It is wrong to increase the public's health risk for the purpose of allowing public nudity. The relationship between one's personal hygeine and clothing plays no role. The increase in risk to public health is irrefutable regardless of that. The barrier is removed. If there are hazards present, the risk of contamination necessarily increases.

even IF the risk of contamination increases, which you have yet to establish, the means of avoiding the spread of infection is so simple as to make the problem trivial. wear clothes or insert some other barrier between yourself and anything you choose to come into contact with. if you don't CARE about the risk of pathogens then thats your choice, but it doesn't give you the rights to control other people.

in the same way, overly sugared foods and sodas contribute to obesityand diabetes, both of which are huge health risks. should we ban them because people not taking proper precautions can come to harm from their use?

 

[creativesoul]

Common sense establishes the increase. Why should I have to take extra steps just because another wants to go nude? I do not have to take such health measures for any other newfound expression of one's rights.

:?

 

[obsidianavenger]

Common sense establishes the increase. Why should I have to take extra steps just because another wants to go nude? I do not have to take such health measures for any other newfound expression of one's rights.

:?

yes. we don't quarantine sick people. we don't force people to wash, even when they are filthy. we don't ban smoking in public, even though thats probably even more dangerous than increased pathogens. (not for lack of trying, but i think that would be wrong too ). we don't ban cars, airplanes, or cows, even though all contribute to global warming and are likely to hasten the deaths of many. the risk is hardly compelling enough (or proven enough!) to support such a wholesale violation of freedom. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

EDIT:

not to mention its not really "newfound" since we were naked long before we were clothed

 

[creativesoul]

C'mon...

That is hardly an extraordinary claim...

Tomorrow I will address what was just written and then attempt a syllogism since you seem to need one.

:wink:

 

[Nogre]

Perhaps there is some confusion between me and others over the defanition of a "lifestyle". Perhaps if I refer to naturism as a lifestyle CHOICE rather than just a "Lifestyle" then we would perhaps understand each other better? I see it as more than just a preferance to being nude though, as I have explained before. I hope this has cleared that up.

Yes, that does clear things up, and I don't really have a problem with such. I just dislike how people take one aspect of themselves and make it THE defining feature of their person. They let one issue control everything about them, and I think that's just another form of dogmatism, similar in some ways to religion.

I think it might help if you would clarify a few things, just so your stance is clear, since after 6 pages of back and forth, I'm somewhat lost on what exactly you're claiming.

You're obviously saying that nudity shouldn't be illegal, and I think few are challenging that.

Where it gets muddled is the ethical implications of nudity and naturism. Are you claiming that simple nudity is morally better than non-nudity? Are you claiming that for naturism, and if so, why? And what about nudism within this philosophy makes it better than simply embracing the ideas of not judging people without any extra baggage?

 

[Nightmare060]

Perhaps there is some confusion between me and others over the defanition of a "lifestyle". Perhaps if I refer to naturism as a lifestyle CHOICE rather than just a "Lifestyle" then we would perhaps understand each other better? I see it as more than just a preferance to being nude though, as I have explained before. I hope this has cleared that up.

Yes, that does clear things up, and I don't really have a problem with such. I just dislike how people take one aspect of themselves and make it THE defining feature of their person. They let one issue control everything about them, and I think that's just another form of dogmatism, similar in some ways to religion.

That is an entirley fair point. Naturism is a key part of who I am, but not the only part. I strongly advocate naturism, however it hasn't become an obsession, thankfully.

I think it might help if you would clarify a few things, just so your stance is clear, since after 6 pages of back and forth, I'm somewhat lost on what exactly you're claiming.

Good point. My stance is that there is no logical or reasonable reason for nudity to be illigal, and that I consider if a form of censorship and making it easier for those with gymnophobia to not have to overcome their fears. I would prefer that, if where practical, clothing would be optional for those that wish to be nude. People would still need to use common sense and keep hygene in mind (using towls when sitting on public seats etc..).

I also encorage people to try naturism because I see our sociaty as indoctrinating people into gymnophobia at an early age and treating it like this SHOULD be the acceptable norn. We are taught to be ashamed and even afraid of our bodies, and that anyone who wishes to be nude is either a voyer or a pervert. I see this as detramental to a persons mental health. Being in naturist enviroments, as the Horizen documentary "What's the problem with nudity?" shows, where nudity is deemed acceptable, does help people overcome their gymnophobia and feel less pressure to look a certain way.

You're obviously saying that nudity shouldn't be illegal, and I think few are challenging that.

One or two, but as you have seen, more people are supporting the notion that nudity shouldn't be illigal.

Where it gets muddled is the ethical implications of nudity and naturism. Are you claiming that simple nudity is morally better than non-nudity?

No. I am saying that being gymnophobic is detramental to a persons mental health. And that a healthy attitude and acceptance of ones body, no matter what shape or size, is far better. Naturism helps this because it allows people to be in an idealistic enviroment where they can can leave any fears of ridicule for being nude behind and loose alot of hang ups about their bodies. It's all about the mindset really. And naturism encorages a better mindset than what sociaty traditionaly raises us to have.

You can be OK with your apearence and not stress over it, while not being a naturist. However naturists are generaly less likley to have these worries because of the mindset.

Are you claiming that for naturism, and if so, why? And what about nudism within this philosophy makes it better than simply embracing the ideas of not judging people without any extra baggage?

You can embrace the idea that the human body is nothing to be ashamed of and that you shouldn't have to worry about keeping the "correct" body shape that the media will constantly push on us, but still not be comfortable with the idea yourself.

Many of my none-naturist freinds agree with the philosiphy, yet are either to scared to join in or simply prefer clothes (or both). Getting involved is one step further because you practice what you preach and it is good for yourself as well as others. Plus you make plenty of new freinds in the process too!

Common sense establishes the increase. Why should I have to take extra steps just because another wants to go nude? I do not have to take such health measures for any other newfound expression of one's rights.

:?

Because the illigality of nudity is censorship and blocks a certain level of freedom of expression. Plus would the hygene levels REALLY drop that sharply if somone was nude? I hardly think anyone will be dipping their dicks into food, and most naturists would use a towl to sit on anyway. As has been said before, if a person is unhygenic, then they would be so clothed or not.

 

[Nogre]

No. I am saying that being gymnophobic is detramental to a persons mental health. And that a healthy attitude and acceptance of ones body, no matter what shape or size, is far better. Naturism helps this because it allows people to be in an idealistic enviroment where they can can leave any fears of ridicule for being nude behind and loose alot of hang ups about their bodies. It's all about the mindset really. And naturism encorages a better mindset than what sociaty traditionaly raises us to have.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but it's not meant to be. Would you say being arachnophobic is detrimental to a person's health? Would you say that a healthy attitude and acceptance of spiders, no matter what shape or size, is far better than being arachnophobic? I fully understand your points about the media's portrayal of beauty and the fact that this causes insecurities that have definite bad consequences as seen in eating disorders and the like. However, I don't think that this is necessary stemming from gymnophobia any more than prejudice stems from it.

This may seem like a wierd metaphor, but it just seems to me that the focus on nudity is like taking away a murderer's gun. He can still murder; all he needs is a knife now. It may be somewhat more difficult to stop, but you've only partially mitigated the problem, rather than really solving it at the source. Going against prejudice based on clothing or anything else is great. Going against pop culture's unhealthy idea of beauty is also great. But I think you're making gymnophobia a bigger deal than it really needs to be. I mean, in the end, it's just an irrational phobia. I don't know if you have any irrational phobias like fear of public speaking or high places or spiders or whatnot, but it may seem to others that that fear is strange, unhealthy, and preventing you from experiencing everything life has to offer. But to you, it's normal and not a big deal, and it's not unhealthy so long as it doesn't interfere with your life. It doesn't even have to be a norm; it's just part of you that's neither good nor bad for you.

My point is that the phobia isn't really an issue. It's a harmless symptom of a different problem. And to be honest, even though on an intellectual level I completely agree and would offer support for any activist groups about the issues and even though there's a part of me that's intrigued by this, there's a strong part of me holding back from offering anything more than sideline support. It isn't rational, but that doens't mean it's easy to overcome. And that was a big turn-off when you started going past simply saying that nudity wasn't morally wrong. So...I guess I would suggest that you don't need to marry the objection to gymnophobia to the objection to the media's perception of beauty and clothing-based prejudice so much as you have been. One way to overcome these is naturism, which adds these political statements to nudity, but it's a way that also turns a lot of people off and I'm sure there are other ways. So you might want to consider what issues you want to discuss so you can focus more on what really matters rather than getting bogged down with gymnophobia, because even among rationals, it's hard to overcome some kinds of irrationality. :lol: Sure, bring up naturism, but it might be better for your message if you bring that up after already laying down the political issues. Just offer that as the way you and many have overcome it, but not by any means the only way.

 

[Nightmare060]

No. I am saying that being gymnophobic is detramental to a persons mental health. And that a healthy attitude and acceptance of ones body, no matter what shape or size, is far better. Naturism helps this because it allows people to be in an idealistic enviroment where they can can leave any fears of ridicule for being nude behind and loose alot of hang ups about their bodies. It's all about the mindset really. And naturism encorages a better mindset than what sociaty traditionaly raises us to have.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but it's not meant to be. Would you say being arachnophobic is detrimental to a person's health? Would you say that a healthy attitude and acceptance of spiders, no matter what shape or size, is far better than being arachnophobic?

The simple answer is yes. But it's not quite the same. A fear of spiders is a bit more natural since it prevents a person from going anywhere near the deadly spiders because they avoid spiders all together. However a more emotionaly rational mindset towards spiders and not having to panic everytime they spot even the smallest of spiders would be mentaly more healthy.

I fully understand your points about the media's portrayal of beauty and the fact that this causes insecurities that have definite bad consequences as seen in eating disorders and the like. However, I don't think that this is necessary stemming from gymnophobia any more than prejudice stems from it.

It doesn't stem from gymnopphobia, you are correct. However it takes advantage of it and uses it for personal gain.

To give a hypothetical example, lets use Arachonophobia. If a company that produces bug repellant spreys presistantly sends salesmen to arachnophobes house and advertises them as keeping away an exadurated threat of spiders, wouldn't you say that they are taking advantage of the persons fear?

This may seem like a wierd metaphor, but it just seems to me that the focus on nudity is like taking away a murderer's gun. He can still murder; all he needs is a knife now. It may be somewhat more difficult to stop, but you've only partially mitigated the problem, rather than really solving it at the source.

And naturism tackles the source by creating an atmosphear and mindset that it is socialy acceptable to be nude, whatever the size. This helps break the effects of gymnophobia and gives people more confidence in their bodies.

Going against prejudice based on clothing or anything else is great. Going against pop culture's unhealthy idea of beauty is also great. But I think you're making gymnophobia a bigger deal than it really needs to be.

When people make a big deal out of the "Naked" scanners at airports and activly refuse to undress infront of colligues for decontamination, showing they would rather DIE than be nude infront of others, I'd say that it's a pretty seriouse issue. Especialy when sociaty sees nothing wrong with this and encorages shame and fear about the human body.

The laws, attitudes and many other things in sociaty work in a gymnophobes favor, by eliminating the vast majoraty of situations where a person would be exposed to nudity in.

I mean, in the end, it's just an irrational phobia. I don't know if you have any irrational phobias like fear of public speaking or high places or spiders or whatnot, but it may seem to others that that fear is strange, unhealthy, and preventing you from experiencing everything life has to offer.

I have a fear of fish. I haven't eaten fish in recent living memory and I can barley go near market stalls where whole fish are displayed openly on sale. If they're behind glass in say, an aquarium, or on TV, I can deal with it. But not if they were infront of me. I admit this is irrational and unhealthy and it's something I should work towards getting over. I would probobly be better if I didn't have this phobia and included fish in my diet. I can understand why others would see it as as strange and detramental, and really, I agree with them. The difference is, the majoraty of sociaty don't build their social and practical rules around my phobia.

But to you, it's normal and not a big deal, and it's not unhealthy so long as it doesn't interfere with your life. It doesn't even have to be a norm; it's just part of you that's neither good nor bad for you.

Well I admit that it kinda does intrude with my life, but again, sociaty isn't built largley around this phobia.

My point is that the phobia isn't really an issue. It's a harmless symptom of a different problem. And to be honest, even though on an intellectual level I completely agree and would offer support for any activist groups about the issues and even though there's a part of me that's intrigued by this, there's a strong part of me holding back from offering anything more than sideline support. It isn't rational, but that doens't mean it's easy to overcome.

I see where your coming from. Well the reasons I advocate public nudity and offer naturism as a way of getting over gymnophobia are two seperate reasons. However I don't consider it fair to be indoctrinated from an early age into this gymnophobia, so people don't REALLY have a choice in the matter of wether they prefer to be nude or clothed. I wouldn't be so active about it if this wasn't the case.

And that was a big turn-off when you started going past simply saying that nudity wasn't morally wrong. So...I guess I would suggest that you don't need to marry the objection to gymnophobia to the objection to the media's perception of beauty and clothing-based prejudice so much as you have been. One way to overcome these is naturism, which adds these political statements to nudity, but it's a way that also turns a lot of people off and I'm sure there are other ways.

Again, if we are indoctrinated to think a certain way about nudity since birth, do we really have a choice in the matter? Especialy when the media pushes this standard on people frequently. I agree that gymnophobia and media attitudes may not have an exact effect/causal relationship, but the factors in building up sociaties attitudes towards nudity do seem to intertwine when dealing with both of those things.

So you might want to consider what issues you want to discuss so you can focus more on what really matters rather than getting bogged down with gymnophobia, because even among rationals, it's hard to overcome some kinds of irrationality. :lol:

I do see your point there. Although gymnophobia does play a large part in shaping the moral standards of nudity, which I think are bias, unnesacery and unfair. Although I may make a seperate thread more focused on the notion of how naturism can help people overcome gymnophobia and how server a matter it is. If the mods see if fit to do so, of course.

Sure, bring up naturism, but it might be better for your message if you bring that up after already laying down the political issues. Just offer that as the way you and many have overcome it, but not by any means the only way.

That is entirley true. Thanks for your little critique, I will keep it in mind and try and perhaps organise my thoughts a little better . I haven't responded to some of the more political sided arguments on this page mostly due to what I would have said having been already said. But if I can add something different, I will focus more on that.

 

[creativesoul]

creativesoul wrote:

... I think it is valid, and could be considered a moral argument as well. It is wrong to increase the public's health risk for the purpose of allowing public nudity. The relationship between one's personal hygeine and clothing plays no role. The increase in risk to public health is irrefutable regardless of that. The barrier is removed. If there are hazards present, the risk of contamination necessarily increases.

Obsidian:

even IF the risk of contamination increases, which you have yet to establish, the means of avoiding the spread of infection is so simple as to make the problem trivial. wear clothes....

Am I the only one who finds this to be absurd?

in the same way, overly sugared foods and sodas contribute to obesityand diabetes, both of which are huge health risks. should we ban them because people not taking proper precautions can come to harm from their use?

How is that possibly considered to be in the same way? Equivocation fails.

People voluntarily ingest those things. That is not in the same way. If a nudist has some kind of disease which can be spread through indirect contact with their skin and/or bodily fluids then the rest of the public necessarily is at an increased health risk as a result of the nudist being naked.

I can think of no other freedom of expression which has this consequence, can you? :roll:

Obsidian wrote:

yes. we don't quarantine sick people. we don't force people to wash, even when they are filthy. we don't ban smoking in public, even though thats probably even more dangerous than increased pathogens. (not for lack of trying, but i think that would be wrong too ). we don't ban cars, airplanes, or cows, even though all contribute to global warming and are likely to hasten the deaths of many. the risk is hardly compelling enough (or proven enough!) to support such a wholesale violation of freedom. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This form of refutation is becoming ridiculous. This does not even make sense.

We do quarantine some sick people,and it depends completely upon the public health risk. Public smoking is banned in most places for the very same reasoning which I am giving. It increases the public health risk. No one else should necessarily have an increased and possibly life threatening health risk simply so another can smoke cigarettes or be nude in public places where indirect contact is nearly inevitable.

Cars, airplanes, and cows are not a means for freedom of expression, therefore, once again...

Equivocation fails.

By your logic, individual freedom of expression takes precedence over public welfare.

...not to mention its not really "newfound" since we were naked long before we were clothed

What is that supposed to add? When speaking in terms of freedom of expression, it would be newfound.

There are diseases and skin conditions which are transmitted through direct and indirect contact. A clothing barrier between an infected person's skin necessarily decreases the liklihood for spreading such a disease/condition. There are infected people in public places. Removing an infected person's barrier/clothing necessarily increases the public risk.

The irony here is that your arguing that the public should be responsible for taking extra efforts to resolve the increased health risk so that another may willfully increase the danger. Hell, why not just expect non-smokers to buy respirators?

 

[Nogre]

The simple answer is yes. But it's not quite the same. A fear of spiders is a bit more natural since it prevents a person from going anywhere near the deadly spiders because they avoid spiders all together. However a more emotionaly rational mindset towards spiders and not having to panic everytime they spot even the smallest of spiders would be mentaly more healthy.

By natural, I'm assuming you mean "evolutionary viable," and I think there's a very good case for clothing being evolutionary viable. It serves as protection from the cold in many climates, protects from the sun in some climates, and certain clothing can protect you from physical attacks. In addition, the instinct to cloth yourself and take more control over your appearance also grants a major advantage in sexual selection, as your attractiveness to a mate isn't solely based on your genes; you can change your appearance to get more mates.

In terms of not having irrational fears being more "healthy," I'll cover that later.

It doesn't stem from gymnopphobia, you are correct. However it takes advantage of it and uses it for personal gain.

And people who make guard rails take advantage of people who fear heights, as sometimes it's not at all necessary to have the guard rails we do. However, that doesn't mean everyone needs to be cured of their fear of heights. Granted, the problem is more serious with people minipulating gymnophobia, but this is a problem that needs to be solved itself; it doesn't make the fear itself unhealthy.

And naturism tackles the source by creating an atmosphear and mindset that it is socialy acceptable to be nude, whatever the size. This helps break the effects of gymnophobia and gives people more confidence in their bodies.

My point is that when it comes to people being judged by their clothes (which has been brought up, if memory serves), then removing clothes doesn't solve the real problem; it only forces people to find something else to base prejudice on. That's my point with the example you quoted.

I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't be open to others being nude, simply that being nude yourself is by no means also necessary for the issues you're solving with it, and in some extent, the focus on nudity rather than the rejection of prejudice is focusing on the wrong thing.

When people make a big deal out of the "Naked" scanners at airports and activly refuse to undress infront of colligues for decontamination, showing they would rather DIE than be nude infront of others, I'd say that it's a pretty seriouse issue.

Well, some people would rather die than speak in front of a large group. That feeling is all but alien to me and I see that fear and stage fright as being very constricting for a lot of people, but I don't necessarily think it's a serious issue. People have different preferences, and so long as a preference isn't harming people, there's no reason to change the preference. Of course, I support making people either get over their fears in situations where something important demands this, or simply avoid the situations. I don't necessarily think that some people being afraid of something to an unhealthy level means that the fear itself is unhealthy.

Especialy when sociaty sees nothing wrong with this and encorages shame and fear about the human body.

I agree with this, but don't think that necessitates everyone in the world becomes a naturist. I simply think we need to get over taboos about many things, nudity among them.

I have a fear of fish. I haven't eaten fish in recent living memory and I can barley go near market stalls where whole fish are displayed openly on sale. If they're behind glass in say, an aquarium, or on TV, I can deal with it. But not if they were infront of me. I admit this is irrational and unhealthy and it's something I should work towards getting over. I would probobly be better if I didn't have this phobia and included fish in my diet. I can understand why others would see it as as strange and detramental, and really, I agree with them. The difference is, the majoraty of sociaty don't build their social and practical rules around my phobia.

Well, I wouldn't say that that's necessarily an unhealthy fear. If you couldn't go out in public or to a beach for fear of seeing a fish, then it would be unhealthy. But simply avoiding fish in your diet doesn't seem unhealthy to me at all. Of course, I'm a vegetarian... :roll:

I see where your coming from. Well the reasons I advocate public nudity and offer naturism as a way of getting over gymnophobia are two seperate reasons. However I don't consider it fair to be indoctrinated from an early age into this gymnophobia, so people don't REALLY have a choice in the matter of wether they prefer to be nude or clothed. I wouldn't be so active about it if this wasn't the case.

Well, to some extent I'm unsure of the idea that we're indoctrinated with gymnophobia. As I've said, a preference for clothes has evolutionary advantages, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's found to be partially instinctive, not just socially learned. I also think you might be going a bit far to label the preference for clothes gymnophobia in every case. Sure, there are plenty of cases where it probably is a phobia as much as claustrophobia, etc. But in thinking about myself, it's more of a preference. I'm not scared of being nude; I'm just happier with clothes on. The fact that it's socially unacceptable to be nude certainly isn't right, but that doesn't mean that we all need to become naturists.

Anyway...I think might be a point of confusion here. I'm not saying naturism is wrong or that nudity is. I'm simply saying that naturism isn't preferable to the acceptance of the same ideals minus the nudity. I'd say that a preference for nudity or clothing is no difference than a sexual preference. I know a lot of people that have an irrational dislike for homosexuality. Technically, this is what homophobia really should be, although we usually use that word to mean intolerance. And I would never say that homophobia, simply as the fear of homosexuality, is wrong and that it's better and healthier to not be that way. I would only say that intolerance is unhealthy.

In fact, homophobia is pushed on the media all the time. I think this is wrong for the same reasons I would agree that the media's pushing of gymnophobia is wrong. I think the intolerance of both is, of course wrong. But I would never say that people who have homophobia minus the intolerance should change that about theirselves. I may even ben willing to be a little less physical around my lovers around my friends that are uncomfortable with it. And I would certainly never recommend that people start getting intimate with the same sex in order get over themselves.

I guess that's where I'm disagreeing with what you're saying (or at least what I'm hearing...reading...whatever).

I may make a seperate thread more focused on the notion of how naturism can help people overcome gymnophobia and how server a matter it is. If the mods see if fit to do so, of course.

I would be interested to see this, even though it's likely impractical to the point of impossibility to make such a change in my life, even if I wanted to do so.

 

[Nightmare060]

The simple answer is yes. But it's not quite the same. A fear of spiders is a bit more natural since it prevents a person from going anywhere near the deadly spiders because they avoid spiders all together. However a more emotionaly rational mindset towards spiders and not having to panic everytime they spot even the smallest of spiders would be mentaly more healthy.

By natural, I'm assuming you mean "evolutionary viable," and I think there's a very good case for clothing being evolutionary viable. It serves as protection from the cold in many climates, protects from the sun in some climates, and certain clothing can protect you from physical attacks.

Humans evolved in Africa, where the climate is very hot. Black skin was evolved first to protect from the sun, and walking upright and hair on our heads minimizes surface area directly at the sun. And even today, most of us live in climates that are warm or hot some of the time. We have invented bug spreys and suncream to give extra protection from those two sources. That, and insect bites are more a mild annoyance than lethal these days due to advances in medecine.

In addition, the instinct to cloth yourself and take more control over your appearance also grants a major advantage in sexual selection, as your attractiveness to a mate isn't solely based on your genes; you can change your appearance to get more mates.

But by that logic, anyone can change their apearence regardless of how fit they are, and so it could end up doing more harm than good because the bad genes would still get passed on. This isn't a problem in modern sociaty due to ongoing medical science.

And people who make guard rails take advantage of people who fear heights, as sometimes it's not at all necessary to have the guard rails we do.

However in MOST instances where a gaurd rail is used, it improves general overall saftey and servers a more obviouse practical perpose in all situations it is used. Clothing is not the same way. Plus the methods that clothing is used to take advantage of those with gymnophoboa do not relate to their origional and practical perposes.

However, that doesn't mean everyone needs to be cured of their fear of heights.

That doesn't mean it won't ever be a detrament to the person or they will not benefit from being cured of it.

Granted, the problem is more serious with people minipulating gymnophobia, but this is a problem that needs to be solved itself; it doesn't make the fear itself unhealthy.

All phobias that I can think of off the top of my head are unhealthy, because they exaddurate the risks and over protect a person which detraments them because they cannot face the mundane aspects of life because of the exadurated fear. And in our sociaty, we have created a system where the exaduration would not be unlikley. If you go naked in public, it is almost a garantee that you will get ridiculed, look at negativly, treated negativly and even be arrested! And for what reason? Because people are afraid of this nudity. It's circular reasoning at it's best, and it is prominant in almost, if not every, developed country and culture.

My point is that when it comes to people being judged by their clothes (which has been brought up, if memory serves), then removing clothes doesn't solve the real problem; it only forces people to find something else to base prejudice on. That's my point with the example you quoted.

I'm not at all saying that people shouldn't be open to others being nude, simply that being nude yourself is by no means also necessary for the issues you're solving with it, and in some extent, the focus on nudity rather than the rejection of prejudice is focusing on the wrong thing.

Which is why a naturist ENVIROMENT helps because the attitude is very different. You don't get judged by apearence at all, and it encorages this standard. This would not work for the general public, however naturism does help to have the person look at nudity in more an objective manner and overcome their fears because of the enviroment where the exadurated social reaction they are afraid of does not happen.

Well, some people would rather die than speak in front of a large group. That feeling is all but alien to me and I see that fear and stage fright as being very constricting for a lot of people, but I don't necessarily think it's a serious issue.

How is it not a seriouse issue? It's a phobia that prevents a person from performing a mundane task that they would probobly have to face sooner or later in their life.

People have different preferences, and so long as a preference isn't harming people, there's no reason to change the preference.

But it is harming the person in question because they need to avoid something that there should be no reason to avoid! Plus I don't see how you can even BEGIN to suggest that it's not a problem when somone would rather end their life than face a mundane task.

Of course, I support making people either get over their fears in situations where something important demands this, or simply avoid the situations. I don't necessarily think that some people being afraid of something to an unhealthy level means that the fear itself is unhealthy.

You just contradicted yourself there. Like saying you've got 5 fingers on one hand but half of 10 on the other. How is an unhealthy level of fear of something generaly mundane NOT it's self unhealthy?

I agree with this, but don't think that necessitates everyone in the world becomes a naturist.

At what point did I suggest it did? I'm simply stating how naturism helps overcome an unnesacery phobia enforced by an equaly unnesacery social taboo.

I simply think we need to get over taboos about many things, nudity among them.

That's what I'm trying to suggest! And hence I encorage naturism to overcome this social taboo and phobia.

Well, I wouldn't say that that's necessarily an unhealthy fear. If you couldn't go out in public or to a beach for fear of seeing a fish, then it would be unhealthy. But simply avoiding fish in your diet doesn't seem unhealthy to me at all. Of course, I'm a vegetarian... :roll:

And so by that logic, how can you not see being afraid to go out in public or to a beach without some form of clothing on to be healthy?

Well, to some extent I'm unsure of the idea that we're indoctrinated with gymnophobia.

We are taught from a young age that nudity is shamefull and the media pushes a narrow minded few of nudity and a natural lack of social acceptance for nudity on a regular basis. If that isn't indoctrination, I don't know what is!

As I've said, a preference for clothes has evolutionary advantages, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's found to be partially instinctive, not just socially learned.

I'd like to see your evidence for this. Because if this were true, then why do children from naturist fammilies have no issue with being nude? And how can people overcome such fears if it is nature rather than nutrue?

I also think you might be going a bit far to label the preference for clothes gymnophobia in every case.

What have you been reading? I've stated repeatedly that a preference for clothing is NOT gymnophobia in every case!

Sure, there are plenty of cases where it probably is a phobia as much as claustrophobia, etc. But in thinking about myself, it's more of a preference. I'm not scared of being nude; I'm just happier with clothes on. The fact that it's socially unacceptable to be nude certainly isn't right, but that doesn't mean that we all need to become naturists.

How many times must I repeat myself when I say I do NOT think we all need to be naturists? And if you are apparently not afraid to go nude, then would you swim nude in an enviroment that it was acceptable to do so?

Anyway...I think might be a point of confusion here. I'm not saying naturism is wrong or that nudity is. I'm simply saying that naturism isn't preferable to the acceptance of the same ideals minus the nudity.

Maybe not, but it still helps. Alot of people probobly don't know if they'd like it or not because they are too afraid to try it!

I'd say that a preference for nudity or clothing is no difference than a sexual preference. I know a lot of people that have an irrational dislike for homosexuality. Technically, this is what homophobia really should be, although we usually use that word to mean intolerance. And I would never say that homophobia, simply as the fear of homosexuality, is wrong and that it's better and healthier to not be that way. I would only say that intolerance is unhealthy.

:facepalm: But intolerance is often a result of phobia. Thus making the phobia unhealthy! That, and sexual preference is something that is more deaply ingrained into ones nature than a preference to clothing or nudity is.

In fact, homophobia is pushed on the media all the time.

The only homophobic media I have seen are actavists and fundamentalists like those in NOM. And they hardly represent the mainstream media.

I think this is wrong for the same reasons I would agree that the media's pushing of gymnophobia is wrong. I think the intolerance of both is, of course wrong. But I would never say that people who have homophobia minus the intolerance should change that about theirselves.

I have not seen a case of homophobia where a person has not been intolerant. Especialy because most of the time, you would not know somone was gay unless they told you so! But if this was the case, I would say changing it would help them live a better life because they don't have to constantly avoid something unnessaceraly.

I may even be willing to be a little less physical around my lovers around my friends that are uncomfortable with it. And I would certainly never recommend that people start getting intimate with the same sex in order get over themselves.

Exposure to a phobia does not nessaceraly mean joining in. But this depends on the nature of the phobia. By that logic, the only way to get over a phobia of spiders is to become a spider yourself!

I guess that's where I'm disagreeing with what you're saying (or at least what I'm hearing...reading...whatever).

Perhaps I don't understand your line of reasoning, but I am seeing alot of none sequiters in your arguments.

I would be interested to see this, even though it's likely impractical to the point of impossibility to make such a change in my life, even if I wanted to do so.

Remember; Naturism does NOT mean being naked 24/7. It's nude when able due to a preference, clothed when practical. So even if people were to become naturists as a mainstream culture, people would still wear clothes when it was practical to do so.

 

[kanly3141]

well i have read the first post ans some after that but it quickly became to long and i feel it would be better to just put in my two cents and be done

I dont think its a moral issue but i myself would not go nude nor do i like the idea of others being nude, not that i dont want to see others nude, but more that it would be a distraction for me.

 

[Andiferous]

It seems to me after going through many, many, many posts, that from the naturalist side of things, it seems silly to force people to wear clothes merely because their bodies are either too sexually stimulating or sexually repulsive to us due to our lack of exposure to naturalism (har).

There are a lot of good arguments for and against. It does make sense that reducing the sexual impact of naked bodies, we're likely to put much less pressure on average teens to starve themselves and achieve the perfect body (a well plastic-ated perfect body, meticulously airbrushed and photoshopped) which indeed tends to be the only body we see are likely to see depicted in the media. There is something seriously wrong with society when a skinny seven year old looks in the mirror and says "I think I'm fat."

On the other hand, it's too darn cold to run around naked.

 

[Nightmare060]

It seems to me after going through many, many, many posts, that from the naturalist side of things, it seems silly to force people to wear clothes merely because their bodies are either too sexually stimulating or sexually repulsive to us due to our lack of exposure to naturalism (har).

There are a lot of good arguments for and against. It does make sense that reducing the sexual impact of naked bodies, we're likely to put much less pressure on average teens to starve themselves and achieve the perfect body (a well plastic-ated perfect body, meticulously airbrushed and photoshopped) which indeed tends to be the only body we see are likely to see depicted in the media. There is something seriously wrong with society when a skinny seven year old looks in the mirror and says "I think I'm fat."

On the other hand, it's too darn cold to run around naked.

A couple of nitpicky points I need to get off my chest to a post that I would otherwise agree with;

Naturalism and Naturism are two different things. a Naturalist, to the best of my knowlage, is a scientist who would study nature and relating subjects. Naturism is a social group/movement focused around social nudity and practice of some humanist philosiphies. It's not quite secular humanism though as it does not speak negativly (or at all) about religon.

Also; Remember the summer season XD.

Funny little thing. About a week ago, when I was alone in the house, I decided to run out into the snow in my back garden just to feel what it felt like. I actualy didn't notice the cold for the most part, due the pain of the extreme cold of my bare feet on the snow XD. At least I can say I've done it now! Coldest wether I've been nude in after the out-door hot pools at alton towers waterpark.

 

[Andiferous]

A couple of nitpicky points I need to get off my chest to a post that I would otherwise agree with;

Naturalism and Naturism are two different things. a Naturalist, to the best of my knowlage, is a scientist who would study nature and relating subjects. Naturism is a social group/movement focused around social nudity and practice of some humanist philosiphies. It's not quite secular humanism though as it does not speak negativly (or at all) about religon.

:facepalm:

Ugh, sorry about that.

 

[Abi]

On the other hand, it's too darn cold to run around naked.

Nah, that's what hair's for.

 

[Nightmare060]

A couple of nitpicky points I need to get off my chest to a post that I would otherwise agree with;

Naturalism and Naturism are two different things. a Naturalist, to the best of my knowlage, is a scientist who would study nature and relating subjects. Naturism is a social group/movement focused around social nudity and practice of some humanist philosiphies. It's not quite secular humanism though as it does not speak negativly (or at all) about religon.

:facepalm:

Ugh, sorry about that.

No worries, it's a common mistake.