What is the problem with nudity?

[Fictionarious]

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:

How about not wearing gloves? I wipe my hands with my ass all the time, wipe the stains off of them with a dry paper towel or two, then head down to the nice restaurant on the corner to sample the free salad bar.
Not wearing gloves ought to be banned.

The truth is shit happens. Piss happens, jizz happens, bloody noses happen, periods happen, and vomit happens. That all of them require a human body to happen is tangential to the question of how sanitary nudity is.
We still allow cats to shed hair in public at the behest of all the poor people allergic to cat hair. And if Ebola becomes transmissible through second-hand skin contact? That's right, we'd be screwed if that were to happen regardless because 99% of everything we touch we touch at least additionally with our hands, which are customarily permitted to be nude.

If two layers of Epidermis and a mutual respect for cleanliness won't prevent me from catching or giving away a malady, then additional layers of proxy Epidermis won't help. I guess I just derive the same sense of cosmic absurdity from a society wearing a particular style of clothes as I do from a society worshiping a particular God.

 

[Nogre]

I think at this point, we really only diverge on a few things when it comes to significant details, and we're getting too caught up in the super focused argumentation to see the big picture. I was going to go line-by-line or just make new paragraphs addressing specific points, but I think this will just continue to exacerbate things, so let me quote what you stated about your specific advocacy really quick:

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

Well, I don't think that intolerance or illegality is correct, but I also don't think that we need to deconstruct the social norm of wearing clothes. I also think "indoctrination" is a little bit strong, but it makes more and more sense as I think about it, so I'm not going to nit-pick. Other than that, I agree with everything stated here. But to be honest, your advocacy comes across stronger in your argumentation... So, here's some things I think we agree and disagree on that come from the last post:

We both agree that fear is unhealthy when it interferes with your life. I think that fear doesn't always interfere with your life (significantly), while you think it always does. You think all fear needs to be conquered and overcome; I think the way you handle fear depends entirely on the situation.

We both agree that intolerance based on fear is wrong and that the rest of the baggage coming with gymnophobia is wrong. You think that makes the fear itself bad, while I think that only the intolerance and other things are wrong. A result is that you think we should attack the fear in addition to the intolerance, and I think we should only care about the intolerance and such.

We both agree that naturism as a whole is good. I think this is because it includes some good ideas and the nudity on top of those is neutral. I prefer the advancement of tolerance and nonjudgementalism simply as they are, while you prefer to package them with nudity as naturism.

We both agree the problems we agree exist can be answered by naturism. You (at least seem to) think that naturism is preferable to other ways to handle these problems, while I think no answer is objectively preferable. I think naturism is the best answer for some, and not for others.

We disagree on the analogy to homophobia. You don't think it's a fair comparison, while I do.

The evolution thing is a factual question, so I think it'd be better to leave that to evolutionary biologists than argue it here.

We both completely agree that it should be acceptable to be nude in public.

So we really do agree on quite a bit; there are just disagreements here and there, some of which are more important than others. If you have any corrections, please clarify. So what is my specific advocacy, really?

I think that you bring up an important point about irrational intolerance of nudity and that you're right about it. As such, I support the idea that being nude in public should be legal and socially acceptable. The rejection of judging people and intolerance that comes with naturism are also great ideas and I support them. However, I think that linking these ideas to nudity is somewhat counter-productive to the advancement of these ideas because it's in no way necessary for them. I understand that being allowed to act on a preference is an extremely liberating event, regardless of what that is. I would support the coming out of every "closetted" atheist, naturist, homosexual or whatever, as I think this helps to reduce intolerance in our society and is simply healthier. I agree that overcoming intolerance is a very good thing, and can be done by joining in with what you didn't tolerate. But I don't think that this is necessarily the best way to do so, especially for everyone. I don't think irrational fears need to be squashed if people don't let them interfere with their lives or create any bigotry.

So...make any corrections if I've made a mistake, and perhaps we chan have a better discussion from here forward. If you have anything specific from the last post you think I need to address directly, feel free to point it out.

 

[tom300]

meh the problem is its like giving it out on a plate
unlike only showing some bits and wearing tight clothing
im more turned on by someone wearing skimpy clothing than just someone thats naked
thats just boring :\

 

[e2iPi]

meh the problem is its like giving it out on a plate
unlike only showing some bits and wearing tight clothing
im more turned on by someone wearing skimpy clothing than just someone thats naked
thats just boring :\

I would conjecture that is due to the fact that what we imagine is often times much better than reality and social conditioning. In the Victorian age, a little bit of ankle was considered sexy.

-1

 

[Nightmare060]

meh the problem is its like giving it out on a plate
unlike only showing some bits and wearing tight clothing
im more turned on by someone wearing skimpy clothing than just someone thats naked
thats just boring :\

I would conjecture that is due to the fact that what we imagine is often times much better than reality and social conditioning. In the Victorian age, a little bit of ankle was considered sexy.

-1

Well said. Hence why I would say that our reactions and attitudes to nudity are nurture rather than nature. And when you think about it, is it really a rational desicion to want to hide away or avoid seeing shapes that do not comform to this fantasy? I'm willing to bet that if I said I don't want girls to wear skirts because anything that isn't a mermaid tail is ugly, then I would be looked at like a loonatic. And yet we wouldn't say the same thing when people have that same attitude, only towards photoshopped supermodles.

 

[irmerk]

I do not think someone's preference in clothing or body type should dictate how much or what kind of clothes another person wears.

It is not a moral issue. I dare say it is absolutely not.

I would definitely go nude and a lot of times wish I could. Other times, as others have said, I would prefer to wear clothes due to practicalities such as grass, insects, or even washing my hands and preferring to wipe them off on my jeans.

The hygiene issue people raised only shows how much forethought those people put. I see clothes people daily which I think should not be in public due to poor hygiene. So what? Don't sit where they did or wipe off the facet they used.

Seeing an erect penis isn't bad. Some guys get erections at random and some because they are just horny. I really don't give a shit.

As a distraction, I think there is no issue. People wear so many different things, some are distracting to certain people and some are not. That doesn't really make a difference. If you find skimpy clothing more attractive than full nudity, who cares? That should not be reason to keep others from (not) dressing how they want.

Besides, if it were acceptable, I'm sure businesses would still keep a professional attire requirement. Especially those involving food, because that is just food safety. Yet, I wouldn't care if my bank tellers were nude, be it skinny, pale guys with boners or fat, hairy men with beards.



If anything I said was already challenged or cleared up before, I apologize. I stopped reading when people started trolling.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Well said. Hence why I would say that our reactions and attitudes to nudity are nurture rather than nature. And when you think about it, is it really a rational desicion to want to hide away or avoid seeing shapes that do not comform to this fantasy? I'm willing to bet that if I said I don't want girls to wear skirts because anything that isn't a mermaid tail is ugly, then I would be looked at like a loonatic. And yet we wouldn't say the same thing when people have that same attitude, only towards photoshopped supermodles.

i wouldn't call it *irrational* to seek images you find attractive and avoid the ones you don't find attractive. personally, i find myself attracted to thin people of both genders.. is this conditioned by society? possibly... but knowing that doesn't make me any more turned on by a fat person... whats the point in *denying* my preference? no one is harmed by it, except maaaaaybe me (i could have a great relationship with a fat person but i pass on it because i don't find them attractive...). it seems to me that physical attraction is physiological... meaning that it is a-rational if it is anything. of course there are cognitive components, but in general, you are attracted to who you are attracted to, and trying to change that will probably just lead to diminished happiness. take a different example... is it rational to be attracted to someone of the same sex? i don't think anyone would call it irrational and to say they are a lunatic is rather cruel...

as the current saying goes... "nature via nurture". we are "wired" to find certain things attractive but this is partly molded by the culture we find ourselves in. which is mostly arbitrary, admittedly. however, saying from that that we should ignore our preferences as to what we find attractive is just silly.... i mean... i wouldn't want someone to be with me because they were denying their true feelings of attraction... cultural ideal or not i would want them to be with me because they thought i was attractive.

"you're unattractive but i love you anyways" isn't much of a complement. yet it is the direct corollary of the usual line "looks don't matter".

 

[Nightmare060]

Well said. Hence why I would say that our reactions and attitudes to nudity are nurture rather than nature. And when you think about it, is it really a rational desicion to want to hide away or avoid seeing shapes that do not comform to this fantasy? I'm willing to bet that if I said I don't want girls to wear skirts because anything that isn't a mermaid tail is ugly, then I would be looked at like a loonatic. And yet we wouldn't say the same thing when people have that same attitude, only towards photoshopped supermodles.

i wouldn't call it *irrational* to seek images you find attractive and avoid the ones you don't find attractive. personally, i find myself attracted to thin people of both genders.. is this conditioned by society? possibly... but knowing that doesn't make me any more turned on by a fat person... whats the point in *denying* my preference? no one is harmed by it, except maaaaaybe me (i could have a great relationship with a fat person but i pass on it because i don't find them attractive...). it seems to me that physical attraction is physiological... meaning that it is a-rational if it is anything. of course there are cognitive components, but in general, you are attracted to who you are attracted to, and trying to change that will probably just lead to diminished happiness. take a different example... is it rational to be attracted to someone of the same sex? i don't think anyone would call it irrational and to say they are a lunatic is rather cruel...

as the current saying goes... "nature via nurture". we are "wired" to find certain things attractive but this is partly molded by the culture we find ourselves in. which is mostly arbitrary, admittedly. however, saying from that that we should ignore our preferences as to what we find attractive is just silly.... i mean... i wouldn't want someone to be with me because they were denying their true feelings of attraction... cultural ideal or not i would want them to be with me because they thought i was attractive.

"you're unattractive but i love you anyways" isn't much of a complement. yet it is the direct corollary of the usual line "looks don't matter".

I see your point. However I do think that we are perhaps pushed by the media to find more unrealistic levels of skinny as attractive. If you've seen the process wherebye they photoshop supermodles to make them look a certain away, then you'll know what I'm talking about. It also seems that alot of pop music videos by female artists these days are more focused on showing off the ultra-skinny body (Lady Gaga is a perfect example of this. More skin and bones than musical tallent, but I digress). Because this is being pushed on us as "Beutifull", and the vast majoraty of us want to be considerd attractive, you have alot of body conciouse people who would consider themselves "fat" and "Ugly" simply because they don't fit the supermodle standards.

I don't think it's as simple as far = ugly and thin = beutifull. It's HOW thin or HOW fat that seems to bother people. In naturist enviroments, I've seen people of all shapes and sizes. What I adovcate is perhaps more of an apriciation of how people can be unique in their exact shape so that people don't have to feel that they are ugly because they aren't as skinny as lady gaga. It's this urge and the culture of overly body conciousness which I consider irrational.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I don't think it's as simple as far = ugly and thin = beutifull. It's HOW thin or HOW fat that seems to bother people. In naturist enviroments, I've seen people of all shapes and sizes. What I adovcate is perhaps more of an apriciation of how people can be unique in their exact shape so that people don't have to feel that they are ugly because they aren't as skinny as lady gaga. It's this urge and the culture of overly body conciousness which I consider irrational.

thats true, but i think its more of a self confidence issue; again one that is effected by society but not necessarily caused by it. because as much distortion of what a healthy body is goes on in the media, people are also speaking out about how unrealistic those standards are. so it is up to the individual to be able to integrate those views in a healthy way. personally i think self esteem is the arbiter here and is more effected by interactions with parents and peers rather than culture at large. its more of a local phenomena that gets flavored by overarching cultural norms.

anyways, i don't believe that naturism is necessary or sufficient for the understanding you are advocating since i can easily imagine a naturist wanting to be only around "attractive people" as well as a normal person not swallowing the cultural bs and seeing people for who they are.

i agree that people shouldn't be dismissed as people (friends) based on their appearance though! it just gets more complicated when it comes to parters since sex is an important aspect to relationships...