What's society's problem with nakedness? :confused:

Europe is better than America. I remember seeing naked women in the newspaper and all-day porn on channel 2 when I was young. That doesn't happen in America.

If I were to walk down the street butt naked tomorrow you would think I was a crack-head. I might even get arrested! But it's reasonable - I live close to the equator, so it'll cool me off... that's not crazy it's smart.

Now why would anyone have a problem with it? Let me reference the indigenous nudity you pervs buy national geographic for. They are more sane in this sense than our modern society! Boobs hang for everyone to see. Why? Because they are just pieces of flesh, like an arm or a neck. What makes us so different from them, that I must not reveal my sacred section of flesh.

This relates to my cursing thread. Society is imposing these weird standards on us, for what? Why can't everyone open their eyes and see good nakedness, instead of bad.

Most people would conclude with "I don't want to walk down the street and see my 4th grade 80 year old teacher naked." Hell - I don't want to stare at the woman's irregular contours, but I'm sure I'd get used to glancing at some nasty shapes after awhile. Furthermore I'd love to see a naked grandma, it would give me reason to believe society's mentalities aren't stupid.

And lastly, is covering up causing harm? Yes it is. It's Just like limiting our expression by labeling certain words "bad." It's just one more thing keeping us in this metaphorical prison, where just because noones given it ample thought, everyone has to suffer.

Society is imposing these weird standards on us, for what?

So you think that everyone should be permitted to do anything they want to do in a society of millions? Hmm?

Baron Max

So you think that everyone should be permitted to do anything they want to do in a society of millions? Hmm?

Baron Max

No I don't. I'm specifically talking about nakedness, and a few others, not everything.

As a reasonable person, how can you not agree with me on this?

We are in the habit of wearing clothes to shield us from the elements, since we are mostly hairless apes who have inhabited most of the earth with relatively hostile environments. There is nothing wrong with nakedness, but society now (through force of habit) finds it odd to see naked people. Religious "morality" has made it far worse by equating nudity inherently to sexuality, which in turn is equated with evil dirtyness.

Sick, in my opinion.

No concern....just lames who can't control themselves.

No I don't. I'm specifically talking about nakedness, and a few others, not everything.

As a reasonable person, how can you not agree with me on this?

I can't agree with you because there are so many others of society that do NOT agree with you. And that being the case, I reasonably conclude that if they don't want people walking around naked, then people should NOT do it. Such is the principle of "society" ....it's not just about YOU, it's about every member of that society. And that's the part that you're missing! Think about others for a change, okay?

Baron Max

There is nothing wrong with nakedness, but society now ... finds it odd to see naked people.

Have you ever seen an old, wrinkled, fat woman with pendulous tits and sagging butt? Obviously not, or you would not say, "There is nothing wrong with nakedness...."

Baron Max

Have you ever seen an old, wrinkled, fat woman with pendulous tits and sagging butt? Obviously not, or you would not say, "There is nothing wrong with nakedness...."

Baron Max
Point taken.

you would not say, "There is nothing wrong with nakedness...."

Baron Max
Why not?

Why not?
The Baron's apparently a prude. The hundreds of naked school girls walking around would more than make up for the occasional saggy grandma IMO.

I don't think the Baron is a prude...just really authoritarian.

Most people would not be appealling to see nude. 1 out of about every 20 guys I see are nude worthy, including the thread author! (Those little shorts are drivin me Miss Daisy!)
We teach our young that nudity is bad and dirty, so it carries into generation after generation.
BTW nothing in any National Geographic I've seen as far as nudity goes is the least bit of a turn on.

Perhaps because only savages without civilization prance around naked everywhere?

Clothing is a mark of cultivation to a stage of society.

Non-clothed public activities might have a place, though. The Greeks exercised and played sports in the nude, for instance, and I see little problem with this.

Genji:

Yes, but that is because native women and men tend to not be too attractive by our standards.

No I don't. I'm specifically talking about nakedness, and a few others, not everything.

As a reasonable person, how can you not agree with me on this?
Hot Chicks should be allowed, better yet, encouraged to walk around naked. But no one, except maybe Genji, wants to see male genetals bouncing around.

Let's set some ground rules:

Male nudity: prohibited.
Female nudity: Mandatory or prohibited, subject to prior screening.

I see no possible objections.

I dislike the negative attitude towards nudity too, and I agree with you totally, Search & Destroy.

No I don't. I'm specifically talking about nakedness, and a few others, not everything.

As a reasonable person, how can you not agree with me on this?

Baron isn't really reasonable.

I can't agree with you because there are so many others of society that do NOT agree with you. And that being the case, I reasonably conclude that if they don't want people walking around naked, then people should NOT do it. Such is the principle of "society" ....it's not just about YOU, it's about every member of that society. And that's the part that you're missing! Think about others for a change, okay?

Baron Max

You say that, and then protest when there are taxes to pay?

Have you ever seen an old, wrinkled, fat woman with pendulous tits and sagging butt? Obviously not, or you would not say, "There is nothing wrong with nakedness...."

Baron Max

You've been conditioned to be repulsed by that.

Perhaps because only savages without civilization prance around naked everywhere?

I don't see the logic. Elaborate?

Clothing is a mark of cultivation to a stage of society.

Mandatory clothing is a mark of being a prude, which is pretty uncivilized.

Non-clothed public activities might have a place, though. The Greeks exercised and played sports in the nude, for instance, and I see little problem with this.

Well, at least there's that much.

Hot Chicks should be allowed, better yet, encouraged to walk around naked. But no one, except maybe Genji, wants to see male genetals bouncing around.

You've been conditioned into being repulsed by male genitals. In most of Europe, they don't care. Nor should they.

Let's set some ground rules:

Male nudity: prohibited.
Female nudity: Mandatory or prohibited, subject to prior screening.

I see no possible objections.

That's sexist. Male nudity is just as normal as female nudity. Plus, women may end up feeling like sex objects. And some people are greatly annoyed by such feminist talk (and I believe one of them has posted in this thread).

Never mind that you were only being sarcastic. :p

As a reasonable person, how can you not agree with me on this?

You are asking Baron Max?

So you think that everyone should be permitted to do anything they want to do in a society of millions? Hmm?

Baron Max
your either missing the point or purposely making a false argument to disagree with. people should not be forced to do things a certain way simply because of thousands of years of cultural imprinting.

I can't agree with you because there are so many others of society that do NOT agree with you. And that being the case, I reasonably conclude that if they don't want people walking around naked, then people should NOT do it. Such is the principle of "society" ....it's not just about YOU, it's about every member of that society. And that's the part that you're missing! Think about others for a change, okay?

Baron Max
the majority of the people may agree with you, but only because of their conditioning. if the same people had been taught to live naked their entire lives, they sure would think differently. we are all simply humans and similar enough (genetically) to even those "primitives" who run around naked that there really isn't much of a difference besides how we were raised. it isn't any kind of moral or civil issue to run around naked--its the most natural thing one can do.

Perhaps because only savages without civilization prance around naked everywhere?

Clothing is a mark of cultivation to a stage of society.


thats up to debate. it wholly depends on how you were raised. nakedness is a mark of freedom, natural beauty, and individuality. i'd rather have those things than a "cultivation to a stage of society".

but yes, when it gets cold you better believe i'm putting on my heavy jacket.

but yes, when it gets cold you better believe i'm putting on my heavy jacket.

Yup. Clothes have a practical purpose — not even nudists can argue that — but except in cases where there's a good reason for it, mandatory clothing is pointless.

People have worn clothes for practical reasons since the Stone Age. But the actual taboo against nudity in situations where it's practical is usually inspired by religion. The ancient Greek athletes performed naked. Nude statues and other forms of portraiture go way back in history.

America was founded by Puritans and we still have huge chunks of Puritan culture. Sex was an uncomfortable idea for them, with their fixation on the Garden of Eden story. So nudity, which arouses men who are not accustomed to it and makes them think about having sex, had to be taboo.

Doesn't it work out that the societies with the most taboos are the ones with the greatest level of what they consider suppressed depravity? I've had several Muslim men explain to me--in all seriousness--that the reason women have to walk around in ninja outfits is that the mere sight of their hair, eyes, or shape--much less actual bare skin--will arouse all the men in the vicinity to peaks of uncontrollable lust and the women will simply not be safe.

That must be some society, where men are that horny and depraved that they will commit rape in public, simply as a result of becoming conscious of the opportunity to do so.

Most American women are not into public nudity, yet I don't know a one who thinks if she walked down the street naked she would be raped before she got where she was going. Lots of attention, rude remarks, catcalls, offers of romantic dates, but no rape. Actually pretty much the same thing that happens when they wear clothes. :)

I've even seen a few "candid camera" scenes like that. What's surprising is the number of male onlookers who just shrug it off and go on about their business.

the majority of the people may agree with you, but only because of their conditioning.

The very reason that we are what we are is social conditioning! Everything! Yet you want to wipe out part of it for your own selfish reasons. What if everyone wanted to wipe out something for THEIR own selfish reasons? What would happen to social order ...the thing that gives you virtually everything you enjoy in life?

it isn't any kind of moral or civil issue to run around naked--its the most natural thing one can do.

apparently not. All primitive tribes that have ever been encountered by man have had some kinds of "clothing" ...usually in the form of loin coverings even in the hotest of tropics. Now ....what's this about "...the most natural thing one can do."??? Please tell me about that again ....after you've thought about it some.

Baron Max

Do my eyes deceive me? Is the honorable Baron actually lobbying in favor of civilization? :)

The very reason that we are what we are is social conditioning! Everything! Yet you want to wipe out part of it for your own selfish reasons. What if everyone wanted to wipe out something for THEIR own selfish reasons? What would happen to social order ...the thing that gives you virtually everything you enjoy in life?
It might get better and less repressive?

apparently not. All primitive tribes that have ever been encountered by man have had some kinds of "clothing" ...usually in the form of loin coverings even in the hotest of tropics. Now ....what's this about "...the most natural thing one can do."??? Please tell me about that again ....after you've thought about it some.

Baron Max
All? Really?

You need a broader perspective Baron. For most of human history, we'v been in a stable climate perion and did not wear clothing:

Since most humans have very sparse body hair, body lice require clothing to survive, so this suggests a surprisingly recent date for the invention of clothing.

Almost nothing we do today is "natural" as compared statistically to what we've done for the vast majority of our history as humans.

Do my eyes deceive me? Is the honorable Baron actually lobbying in favor of civilization? :)
I thought Baron was an authoritarian, steel fisted government advocate???

Do my eyes deceive me? Is the honorable Baron actually lobbying in favor of civilization? :)

When have I not??? :confused:

Baron Max

It might get better and less repressive?

and it might not! It's all about "all of the people", not just what you or I want or need. That's the way civilizations/society live and function ...without it, they'd all fall by the wayside.

For most of human history, we'v been in a stable climate perion and did not wear clothing:

When? Do you have any evidence of that? ...or just one person's opinion?!

Baron Max

I thought Baron was an authoritarian, steel fisted government advocate???

Yeah, I am! I don't know where Fraggle got his idea/question from.

I think the government and the cops should just go around shooting people who don't conform perfectly to the ideals of society. Pretty soon, everyone who was left would conform and no one would have to be shot. We'd help over-population problems; immigration problems; poverty problems; education problems; ....and many, many more.

Baron Max

When? Do you have any evidence of that? ...or just one person's opinion?!

Baron Max
Yes, there is ample evidence of both claims. Google on "climate history" and "origin of clothing".

In the movie Jackass Part Two there is a setup where Johnny Knoxville, a star of the show, wears a suit and makeup that gives him the appearance of a naked 70+ year old woman and has the behavior of someone with dementia. So "she" walks around a busy downtown area as people stop and stare but say nothing. A woman working at a nearby restaurant eventually notices and walks out to the naked "woman" with a long strip of rough paper and tries covering "her" up, not saying a word. In a different setting, Johnny Knoxville does this same act again as a naked old woman and walks up to a guy selling something on the street. He laughs for a second and says, "You know you're not wearing any clothes, right?" Johnny pretends not to understand. The guy says again, "Your clothes! You're naked." Once again, Johnny says nothing, and the guy starts walking away laughing and slightly disgusted.

I thought it was funny how the woman from the restaurant just started covering the naked old lady up without speaking a word, while the man actually tried talking to her a few times. But he was selling things and it wasn't good for business to have saggy tits all over the merchandise, so he hurried away.

Like someone said earlier, the primary purpose of clothing is protection. If you're uncomfortable in your clothes, I don't mind if you take them off.

So you think that everyone should be permitted to do anything they want to do in a society of millions? Hmm?

Baron Max


There is a difference between freedom to be yourself and freedom to do whatever you like. If I walk down the street naked, that does not harm anyone. If I put LSD in the water supply, obviously that would harm people.

There is a difference between freedom to be yourself and freedom to do whatever you like. If I walk down the street naked, that does not harm anyone.

That wouldn't be your place to determine what's "harmful" to them. All of those other people are who makes that determination ...and if they say it "harms" them or their children, then it does!

You are not the only person on the planet! You have to live with others. And to do so, you must live in accordance with how they wish you to live. That's what's called "society" .....and you ain't the only one, nor the most important one. You don't make the rules, society does!

Baron Max

That wouldn't be your place to determine what's "harmful" to them. All of those other people are who makes that determination ...and if they say it "harms" them or their children, then it does!

You are not the only person on the planet! You have to live with others. And to do so, you must live in accordance with how they wish you to live. That's what's called "society" .....and you ain't the only one, nor the most important one. You don't make the rules, society does!

Baron Max

There's a difference between harming and offending. If, for example, I wear a piece of clothing that offends someone, that's their problem. It's no one else's business what I put on my body. If I walk into a public place and start smoking (I don't just an example), that is harmful to others. They have to inhale my smoke.

So if they say something harms them, that means it does? What if I say that someone's wearing a certain piece of clothing, or dying their hair a certain colour, is offensive to me, therefore it harms me?

you must live in accordance with how they wish you to live

No, dude. How I live my life is no one's business. If you mean that I don't have the right to do anything that is damaging to others, I agree, but others having a say in how I live my life is a different matter. Could you give me an actual, tangible example instead of nebulous rhetoric?

The very reason that we are what we are is social conditioning! Everything! Yet you want to wipe out part of it for your own selfish reasons. What if everyone wanted to wipe out something for THEIR own selfish reasons? What would happen to social order ...the thing that gives you virtually everything you enjoy in life?

apparently not. All primitive tribes that have ever been encountered by man have had some kinds of "clothing" ...usually in the form of loin coverings even in the hotest of tropics. Now ....what's this about "...the most natural thing one can do."??? Please tell me about that again ....after you've thought about it some.

Baron Max
what if my reasons for thinking this are that people would be happier? that maybe common nudity would curb people's over-infatuation with sexuality.

everyone gets set in their ways, some more than others. it is everyone's duty to open each others' eyes to what they are not aware of. we are not all smart, but we all are each aware of things that others aren't.

instead of sticking with the same old ideas that we *think* are right--just because we're so used to them--why don't we try different methods, or different lifestyles, or follow examples from other people around the world who seem to get along (in different respects).

my argument is not against clothing. just against the majority's (of this country) taboo against open nudity or sexuality. we are more afraid of our children seeing nakedness than we are of them seeing people blown to pieces. that is not right.

Could be that clothes were invented to accentuate the human libido, not repress it.

If you saw nudity all day it might eventually become more difficult to be sexually aroused by it.

Is it possible for someone who grew up in a nudist community to become sexually obsessive?

Clothing can hide a womens worst features and also accentuate her best features.

Possibly keeping out the cold came before considerations of feminine mystique?

I assume that this 'letting-it-all hang-out' fad would be confined to the warmer months.

Could be that clothes were invented to accentuate the human libido, not repress it.

If you saw nudity all day it might eventually become more difficult to be sexually aroused by it.

Is it possible for someone who grew up in a nudist community to become sexually obsessive?

Clothing can hide a womens worst features and also accentuate her best features.

So people should be forced to wear clothes because of that?

So people should be forced to wear clothes because of that?

Yeah, people should be forced to wear clothing if the society deems it so. People don't live in isolation, and as such, they can't do things that they might want to do ....just because they want to ...or THEY think others shouldn't be offended or "harmed".

That's what it means to live in a "social environment" ...to live by the society's rules and laws and ethics.



Baron Max

I assume that this 'letting-it-all hang-out' fad would be confined to the warmer months.

Even the most primitive tribes, in the most remote of Amazon jungles, wear loin coverings of some kind.

Baron Max

Yeah, people should be forced to wear clothing if the society deems it so. People don't live in isolation, and as such, they can't do things that they might want to do ....just because they want to ...or THEY think others shouldn't be offended or "harmed".

That's what it means to live in a "social environment" ...to live by the society's rules and laws and ethics.



Baron Max I'm pretty sure in the warmer places on earth, there's a lot of people in society who wouldn't mind public nudity being allowed...look at all the people here on this forum. If the majority of your local society voted to abolish guns, would you get rid of yours?

I'm pretty sure in the warmer places on earth, there's a lot of people in society who wouldn't mind public nudity being allowed...

Well, we sure don't see any indication of that, do we? If so, where?

...look at all the people here on this forum.

Porno is one of, if not THE, most sought after websites on the Inter-fuckin'-net and is horrendously popular. But you don't see porno being acted out on street corners, do you?

If the majority of your local society voted to abolish guns, would you get rid of yours?

I wouldn't have a choice, would I? You didn't ask me if I'd like it ...only if I'd obey the law. Big difference, huh? And just for your info, I'd probably move out of the region and/or nation if that happens.

Baron Max

Porno is one of, if not THE, most sought after websites on the Inter-fuckin'-net and is horrendously popular. But you don't see porno being acted out on street corners, do you?
Baron Max
I bet you would if it was legal to have sex on the street corners.

I bet you would if it was legal to have sex on the street corners.

No, I wouldn't. I'm old and wrinkled and have an ugly body. And worse, my usual sex partners are old and wrinkled and have sagging tits, sagging asses, flabby thighs, and they're ugly as hell, too!! I'm a mean sonuvabitch, but even I would not inflict such visual torture on even my worst enemies! :D

Baron Max

And that's thread closed, I think.

And that's thread closed, I think.

Are you a moderator??? And how is it the thread is NOT closed???

I'm confused ...which is becoming a constant state of mind for me at this fucked up site! :D

Baron Max

Here are some related texts I found through google / wiki

Research conducted at the University of Northern Iowa found that nudist children had body self-concepts that were significantly more positive than those of non-nudist children--and that the "nudity classification" of a family was one of the most significant factors associated with positive body self-concept. ~ Furthermore, nudist children showed a significantly higher acceptance of their bodies as a whole, rather than feeling ashamed of certain parts.91 ~ A study by psychologists Robin Lewis and Louis Janda at Old Damien University reported that "increased exposure to nudity in the family fosters an atmosphere of acceptance of sexuality and one's body." ~ They concluded that children who had seen their parents nude were more comfortable with physical contact and affection, had higher self-esteem, and showed increased acceptance of and comfort with their bodies and their sexuality.92 ~ Research by Marie-Louise Booth at the California School of Professional Psychology found that "individuals with less childhood exposure to parental nudity experienced significantly higher levels of adult sexual anxiety than did the group with more childhood exposure to parental nudity." 93 ~ Separate research by Diane Lee Wilson at The Wright Institute reached the same conclusion.94 ~ Research by Lou Lieberman of the State University of New York at Albany, in the late 1960s, found that "those young people who had casually seen both of their parents nude in the home were far more likely to feel comfortable with their bodies and to also feel more satisfied with the size and shape of their genitalia and breasts." 95



"When I grow up I'm going to be a nudist. People would get along better if they didn't wear any clothes. Then they couldn't pretend to be what they're not." — Judy Blume, It's Not the End of the World



* "Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from developing an attitude of shame or disgust about the human body. If parents are very secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming, about human nudity." — Dr. Lee Salk, Psychiatrist, from an article in McCall's Magazine, June, 1976



"The fear that seeing naked people in some way harms children is not supported, however, by academic research. The small handful of studies on this topic in psychology and sociology have shown, instead, that children reared in an atmosphere containing family social nudity may benefit from the practice. If this is true, then proposed laws outlawing either social nudity in the home or children's participation at naturist (or nudist) settings are unjustified." --Mark Storey in Children, Social Nudity and Scholarly Study

No, I wouldn't. I'm old and wrinkled and have an ugly body. And worse, my usual sex partners are old and wrinkled and have sagging tits, sagging asses, flabby thighs, and they're ugly as hell, too!! I'm a mean sonuvabitch, but even I would not inflict such visual torture on even my worst enemies! :D

Baron Max

I meant I bet you would see it.

Are you a moderator??? And how is it the thread is NOT closed???

I'm confused ...which is becoming a constant state of mind for me at this fucked up site! :D

Baron Max
Calm down, Max. Just wishful thinking on my part.

Here are some related texts I found through google / wiki

And those are nothing more than a few people's own opinions about nudity ...and nothing in it about nudity within a society or the effects on that society.

Posting a few more opinions, even if from some hot-shit "scholars", is nothing more than a few more opinons ....which we don't need at this point! :D

Baron Max

And those are nothing more than a few people's own opinions about nudity ...and nothing in it about nudity within a society or the effects on that society.

Posting a few more opinions, even if from some hot-shit "scholars", is nothing more than a few more opinons ....which we don't need at this point! :D

Baron Max

Research & Opinions from people who have given it more thought than you or I. Don't undervalue it just to help your point.

And is it really impossible for you to draw inferences about societal nudity from nudist colonies & family nudes?

:cool:

Calm down, Max. Just wishful thinking on my part.

It's even better when you do this:



Thread closed due to stupid, inane content and worthlessness.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6021/threadlockls5.gif

Research & Opinions from people who have given it more thought than you or I. Don't undervalue it just to help your point.

I don't undervalue those opinions, but they're still nothing more than opinions, just like yours and mine.

And is it really impossible for you to draw inferences about societal nudity from nudist colonies & family nudes?

Inferences? From those very few people who practice nudity in special, non-societal locales? No, definitely not!

Inferences? Should I also draw similar inferences about humans by noting the numbers of murders that occur? The number of violent assaults? The number of violent rapes? If we did, what do you suppose we'd have to say about humans?

Baron Max

No, I wouldn't. I'm old and wrinkled and have an ugly body. And worse, my usual sex partners are old and wrinkled and have sagging tits, sagging asses, flabby thighs, and they're ugly as hell, too!! I'm a mean sonuvabitch, but even I would not inflict such visual torture on even my worst enemies! :D

Baron Max

I'd say...the US should send you to the caves of afghanistan and get rid of the taliban.

War on terrorism by nudity of rednecks with 'un'concealed weapons of visual destruction.

Baron, you failed AGAIN to see the difference between offending and harming.

Baron, you failed AGAIN to see the difference between offending and harming.

Oh, no, I understand the difference, but what you nor anyone else is explaining is ......who makes that decision? The perpetrator or the victim? Or some other, neutral, outside judge? Or a majority of the people of that society? Or a small group of people in Indonesia?

Who decides?!

Just for interest; When a little 5-year old is stripped and photographed by her "loving" uncle ...no sex involved, but perhaps a little touching (caressing?) ....is that harmful or offending? And again, who decides?

Baron Max

I don't undervalue those opinions, but they're still nothing more than opinions, just like yours and mine.
Baron Max

I still believe you're undervaluing them. They have research and a lot more time spent thinking and refining their opinions. Ours is limited to a few posts. They are all opinions, yes. But that doesn't mean some opinions can't be valued more than others.


Inferences? From those very few people who practice nudity in special, non-societal locales? No, definitely not!


Why not? There are differences, but there are also plenty similarities.



Inferences? Should I also draw similar inferences about humans by noting the numbers of murders that occur? The number of violent assaults? The number of violent rapes? If we did, what do you suppose we'd have to say about humans?


We could infer many humans are the murderous, assaulting, and raping type. Likewise, we could infer many humans are insecure about their bodies, and if children exposed to nudity in themselves and in others around them are proving to be less insecure, than it's likely the trend would continue on a larger scale.

I assert a lessened insecurity would continue onwards to a larger societal scale. You assert it wouldn't.

But I have evidence suggesting it would. What's the evidence suggesting it wouldn't.

In the west we get a a lot of our views on nudity from the ancient Hebrews (via Christianity), who made it the first item on the EVIL list...in the garden of Eden.

As soon as Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, the very first thing they 'knew' was that the body is EVIL, and must be hidden from sight, first by fig leaves and later by cloaks of skins God fashioned for them.

Wait a minute...isnt God the one who created those bodies?

This whole paradigm was more or less unknown among the ancient greeks, who are often seen cavorting about nude in their art.

Could be that clothes were invented to accentuate the human libido, not repress it.

If you saw nudity all day it might eventually become more difficult to be sexually aroused by it.

Is it possible for someone who grew up in a nudist community to become sexually obsessive?

Clothing can hide a womens worst features and also accentuate her best features.

I agree.

A lot of female clothing (and I'm sure this is true for males too) gives the impression that they are better looking naked than they are.

And like you said, not seeing it makes you appreciate it more.

I'm totally in tune with this way of living and I sure as hell don't want to change. If I saw too much public nudity I think it'd kill all my sexual urges.

And besides...without bras women's breasts would sag lot faster, and would soon be intolerable to gaze upon.

I understand that the halter women wear in India is a compromise 'inspired' by the muslim invaders, who were appalled by the indigenous topless traditions.

Why does everyone associate nudity with sex?

Why does everyone associate nudity with sex?

Because the only time we see each other naked is before we play hide the salami?

Because the only time we see each other naked is before we play hide the salami?

No. I see people naked also at times other than hiding the tiny salami.

No. I see people naked also at times other than hiding the tiny salami.

But your a dutchman. Your thoughts don't count, as they're polluted with non-American ideals.

That's true. When I was naked in the US I always had the urge to put my salami in the salami closet. Adapting to local customs.

Why does everyone associate nudity with sex?

Because sex is the best thing to do with nudity.

It's like asking why everyone associates a TV with watching TV shows, as opposed to using it as a table... or something...

Because sex is the best thing to do with nudity.

It's like asking why everyone associates a TV with watching TV shows, as opposed to using it as a table... or something...

I associate TV with heroin.

Why does everyone associate nudity with sex?

Because the curves and lines of a naked body have become more defined to attract the opposite sex's attention. And also because the opposite sex selects for certain curves. Nakedness is the way that we attract the opposite gender in order to have sex. I don't know how a thing could have anything more to do with sex.

The reason nudity is associated with sex is that normally, the only time you see people naked, is when you're having sex with him.

If we group in a nudist society and saw naked people at the mall, at the movie store, in school, etc. the association would have far less to do with sex, it seems to me.

The reason nudity is associated with sex is that normally, the only time you see people naked, is when you're having sex with him.

If we group in a nudist society and saw naked people at the mall, at the movie store, in school, etc. the association would have far less to do with sex, it seems to me.

This is also true.

i live in belgium, and see boobies all the time, but no bananas or salamis... its a weird thing how nudity is devided between sexes. not that i disagree, most wangs should be kept away from humanity :D

an other thing is beaches, there you can see all kinds of semi-nudity...but if you walk 400 meters away, into the "trolling-zone" then can give you a ticket for beeing undressed. strange

personally, i have nothing against nudity, but i rather have clothes myself, its more comfortable :)

Guys. Other animals are naked, including the ones most closely related to us genetically, but the males aren't getting boners every time they see a naked female, and then waltzing over to rape them.

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.

Guys. Other animals are naked, including the ones most closely related to us genetically, but the males aren't getting boners every time they see a naked female, and then waltzing over to rape them.

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.

Maybe man has harder time controling himself than those other animals.

That is merely a consequence of said social construct, most likely.

Guys. Other animals are naked, including the ones most closely related to us genetically, but the males aren't getting boners every time they see a naked female, and then waltzing over to rape them.

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.

For obvious reasons you must be wrong. If there was no sexual attraction because of the natural, naked body, then how would people (or animals) have sex at all? All living organisms that reproduce sexually and can see have an attraction to the natural, naked form of the opposite sex. Look at Cardinals, for example. The female is attracted to the most vibrantly red male.

For obvious reasons you must be wrong. If there was no sexual attraction because of the natural, naked body, then how would people (or animals) have sex at all? All living organisms that reproduce sexually and can see have an attraction to the natural, naked form of the opposite sex. Look at Cardinals, for example. The female is attracted to the most vibrantly red male.

And you are making it out to be a problem for people to be naked at least most of the time, when it's not a problem for other animals. I didn't say there was no sexual attraction at all to the naked body. But nakedness in and of itself is associated with sex because it is a social construct.

I say again, you don't see male chimpanzees getting horny every time they see a female chimpanzee, and walking up to them in order to have sex with them every time. In fact, they probably have as much sex as we do. They don't automatically associate nudity with sex, because they lack the social construct that we exhibit, which is that you only see someone naked when you're gonna have sex with them. You can say a similar thing for cardinals, probably, only I think they breed during a particular time of the year only.

And you are making it out to be a problem for people to be naked at least most of the time, when it's not a problem for other animals.
first of all, where in this thread have i disagreed with this idea? In fact I have been arguing for an acceptance of nakedness. Relax, I agree with you here.

You said:

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.
But there is an association, as you admit in your reply to me. The association is that many noticable physical features/forms have modified to attract the opposite gender for the specific reason of sex.

In nature there is no naked or clothed. We are all naked. Because we are used to nakedness, we aren't horny all the time. But we are still attracted to the physical form of the opposite sex. What stops us from going over there and having sex is that we are a) used to the feeling and don't want to spend every waking moment having sex, and b) the social interaction of consequence for one's actions (be it the alpha male, possible pregnancy, or something else).

They don't automatically associate nudity with sex...

Right, instead they automatically associate hormones or general forms and movement with sex. If they did not, there would be nothing to attract them for sex. Do you imagine that other animals just 'know' that they have to have sex?

Oh, no, I understand the difference, but what you nor anyone else is explaining is ......who makes that decision? The perpetrator or the victim? Or some other, neutral, outside judge? Or a majority of the people of that society? Or a small group of people in Indonesia?

Who decides?!

Just for interest; When a little 5-year old is stripped and photographed by her "loving" uncle ...no sex involved, but perhaps a little touching (caressing?) ....is that harmful or offending? And again, who decides?

Baron Max

The molesting uncle is doing something that affects her. Someone who doesn't wear any clothes is doing something that affects them only. Who makes that decision? I think anyone with any logic would be able to differentiate between harming someone and doing something they consider offensive but doesn't actually harm or violate anyone.

Guys. Other animals are naked, including the ones most closely related to us genetically, but the males aren't getting boners every time they see a naked female, and then waltzing over to rape them.

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.

I think this is a perfect example of someone using misusing genetic closeness in an argument. Just because our genes are close does not mean we aren't very different.

Humans are unique. We are the only animal that is sexually interested 24/7, 365 days per year... Other animals have limited mating patterns, which obviously makes them very different.

I think this is a perfect example of someone using misusing genetic closeness in an argument. Just because our genes are close does not mean we aren't very different.

Humans are unique. We are the only animal that is sexually interested 24/7, 365 days per year... Other animals have limited mating patterns, which obviously makes them very different.

Although not as often occupied by it as humans, dolphins also have sex for pleasure/pasttime.

Guys. Other animals are naked, including the ones most closely related to us genetically, but the males aren't getting boners every time they see a naked female, and then waltzing over to rape them.

The association with nudity to sex is a social construct. Nothing more.

Most animals can only mate when the female is in estrus, which is typically a monthly or seasonal thing. The males require a cue from the female to know when to mate; typically scent, though I'm sure there are hormone cycles (tied to the environment, no doubt) in the males, as well.

In humans, we have no way of knowing when a woman is fertile. Thus the males must be ready at all times to go.

Although not as often occupied by it as humans, dolphins also have sex for pleasure/pasttime.

As do bonobos. Those frisky chimps mediate social disputes with sex. I hear the average bonobo has somethng like 6-15 sex acts a day.

Imagine if crusty of Baron Max got a half dozen blow jobs a day!

As do bonobos. Those frisky chimps mediate social disputes with sex. I hear the average bonobo has somethng like 6-15 sex acts a day.

Imagine if crusty of Baron Max got a half dozen blow jobs a day!That last sentence is disgusting. I picture him looking like Ari Fleischer. Eww!

wulfie, if you're going to be making naturalistic fallacies, at least make sure your naturalism is correct.

Sheesh.

Can you be more explanatory?

What's society's problem with nakedness?

Who knows? Humans are weird animals! :bugeye:

Can you be more explanatory?

About...?

wulfie, if you're going to be making naturalistic fallacies, at least make sure your naturalism is correct.

Sheesh.:confused:

Naturalistic fallacy: The argument that that which is natural (or occurs in nature) is good, right, moral, correct, ethical, etc.

It's a logical fallacy, like an ad hominem.

About...?

About this quote:
wulfie, if you're going to be making naturalistic fallacies, at least make sure your naturalism is correct.

Sheesh.

How is my "naturalism" incorrect?

And if not wearing clothes is bad, wrong, immoral, unethical, etc., then you can show me why. If you can't, then my argument works. Not wearing clothes is okay, not simply because it's natural, but because to force clothes onto people is stupid.

What's society's problem with nakedness?

And lastly, is covering up causing harm? Yes it is. It's Just like limiting our expression by labeling certain words "bad." It's just one more thing keeping us in this metaphorical prison, where just because noones given it ample thought, everyone has to suffer. Don't worry about it. If it weren't nudity, it would be something else. All societies have social taboos. So if nudity were accepted you’d just be bitching about something else.

~Raithere

Naturalistic fallacy: The argument that that which is natural (or occurs in nature) is good, right, moral, correct, ethical, etc.

It's a logical fallacy, like an ad hominem.

Are you saying that his idea of naturalism has a fallacy, or that naturalism in and of itself is flawed?

If it is the latter, I disagree with your conclusion and I think you misinterpret it. Naturalism eliminates right and wrong and explains morals through survival and understanding. I agree that not everything natural is the most efficient or least disruptive way of going about it, but nature seems to eventually even out or make obsolete any inconsistencies and conflicts. But only temporarily.

Are you saying that his idea of naturalism has a fallacy, or that naturalism in and of itself is flawed?

If it is the latter, I disagree with your conclusion and I think you misinterpret it. Naturalism eliminates right and wrong and explains morals through survival and understanding. I agree that not everything natural is the most efficient or least disruptive way of going about it, but nature seems to eventually even out or make obsolete any inconsistencies and conflicts. But only temporarily.

As a logical argument, naturalism fails, just as
All A are B,
Therefore, all B are A,
fails to be a logically valid argument..

As a logical argument, naturalism fails, just as
All A are B,
Therefore, all B are A,
fails to be a logically valid argument..

How does this relate to the premise of naturalism? Insert the relative notions of A and B.

Don't worry about it. If it weren't nudity, it would be something else. All societies have social taboos. So if nudity were accepted you’d just be bitching about something else.

~Raithere

Anyone who startles upon society immediately recognizes taboos. Only a fool would assume theirs a unique taboo-generating one.

In an alternate universe there would be different things to discuss. But we're here, not there, so why bitch about the irrelevant?

There are social taboos I deem wrong. Whether it's this or that is irrelevant as long as it's wrong.

Wrongness is determined by certain critical criteria, such as an elimination of emotional bias and an emphasis on good reasoning.

All black people were slaves. Are you glad that has been dealt with?

Roman and Roy,

You guys are confusing between two ""naturalisms"". One of you is talking about a logical argument and the other is talking about a philosophical ideal.

So....

Is our clothes only the influence of religion?

How does this relate to the premise of naturalism? Insert the relative notions of A and B.

That doesn't have anything to do with the logical structure of an argument.