Why wear clothes?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Thoreau, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Hi Bells,
    I'll just note that:
    - clothing for function (eg hygiene and protection) such as that worn by a cook or a doctor isn't really what we're talking about.
    - the oppression of people for failing to conform to a cultural dress code comes in many different degrees, some more wrong than others. But is any oppression of that nature morally defensible?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Hmm, how would you define oppression?

    If Santa decided he was only going to wear a hat in the mall, would you be okay with your child sitting in his lap?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    so the fact that hitler (iran whatever) murdered homosexuals means that we dont need to worry about our own opression because its "not as bad as them" come on, not even children get away with that.

    As above

    so the barron max's of the world who proffess not to want to see homosexuals kissing or the muslims who "dont want to see a womens eyes" should have the right to impose that on you? Cuts both ways alright, there is a principle which guides liberal democrasy bells (god dam it why do i even have to explain this to you YOU should have studied it), that is that NOTHING should be forbiden UNLESS you can provide overwheming evidence of the danger not forbiding it causes to others. That is SURPOSED to be the guiding principle in all our laws

    i actually wasnt trying to insult you, just make a point to you about the proffession you come from without (hopefully) making it bloody ovious to everyone else incase you hadnt made it public knowlage. I didnt do such a good job but blood suckers can refer to other proffessions as well (like path nurses for instance

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And again OVERWHELMING HARM to others?

    compleatly different situation, ie OH&S laws (for instance wearing it for safty like the ambos do) and proffessional dress standeds are NOT public indecency laws. We are talking about someone wanting to protest or walk down the shops NOT someone working in a nuke reactor where without lead lined clothing they would get cancer

    Your point?

    That happened HERE bells, those students can never get a job working with children no matter what they were studying or what they were protesting because they protested by chaining themselves naked and gold painted to the fense of one of the parliment houses (i THINK NSW but i cant rember the full story)

    Again we get back to what right to do you have to determine what someone else does with there body? After all thats the basis of the abortion debate and that one CERTAINLY has other people involved (the father for instance) where as the choice of what or if to wear clothes ONLY effects you.

    good for him, that should be HIS choice not a law

    So its just the penelty that matters?
    guess we are back to our oppression of homosexuals being ok because others are worse right?

    Ops no thats not right, the ideals our sociaty is based on is that opression is bad no matter HOW server it is
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    My original comment was in response to Mad's commentary about a restaurant. But I wonder, how does it not apply to this whole thread? When you go to a restaurant, do you expect the person preparing your food to be clothed? Would you be comfortable with the knowledge that the chef was completely naked while he was handling your food? I would not be. And yes, maybe it is cultural.

    Of what nature? Making people wear clothes?

    Do you consider the laws that require you to wear at least your underpants when out in public to be a form of oppression? Do you view it on the same level as societies where you could be imprisoned for showing too much of your head or arms?

    Laws that govern society are a form of oppression for a group of people. For example, paedophiles feel oppressed at laws that prevent them from sleeping with small children and would prefer that the laws did not exist. They would prefer if one's personal feelings be allowed to rule the day.. ie. If a child wants to have sex with the adult and vice versa, then they should be free to engage in sexual intercourse. They view laws of consent (just one aspect of the issue) as being a form of oppression. Do you think it not allowing a 40 year old man to bed your 10 year old girl to be oppression? I don't.

    So yes, the laws will always oppress some in society. As a member of said society you are either free to abide by them or go elsewhere.

    I think you need to view such things with a sense of moderation. Could it be better? Yes. But to compare women being stoned to death for showing their forehead in public (wild extreme) to laws that require you to wear at least your jocks when out in public to be something that cannot be compared.

    Do you think you are oppressed in being required to wear clothes?

    Of course not. But if you do not like such a society, you can leave. Or you can strive to have the laws changed.

    I know homosexuals who not only don't like to see other homosexuals kissing but anyone with their tongues down another's throat when out in public. The same with straight people.


    The question is a simple one. Do you feel resentful or feel oppressed that you are required to wear a uniform to work?

    Hang on. So the OH&S laws that demand you wear certain clothing for work are not oppressive? But laws that require a minimum of covering of one's genitals when walking down to the local shops is oppressive?

    Any law that requires you to do or not do something is oppressive by its very nature. But you comply to them because of safety reasons as one example (as a paramedic, you are required to wear certain types of clothing for your own safety). But it is still oppressive regardless, is it not? Just as oppressive as laws that demand women cover up from head to toe when out in public, correct? Do you see what I am trying to point out here? You are screaming "oppression" yet you defend other laws that demand you cover up in the work place.

    That to them, it is a custom. Something that is ordinary and a part of life and growing up. Their freedom of expression. There are no laws that require young girls to undergo the procedure. It is a mere custom, passed down from mother to daughter. But to us, it is deeply oppressive and harmful.

    And here is where you are wrong. The choice to not wear clothes affects others. Hygiene issues for one thing can adversely affect others.

    Only one I can remember of that kind of protest resulted in all of them escapeing conviction.

    No Asguard. I was pointing out that your arguments amounted to comparing apples and oranges.

    Oppression is bad, no matter how severe it is. Ergo, I expect you to protest the laws that require you to dress in a certain manner for work and for play. Because all laws oppress someone or other. But you defend some while stating the other is oppression.
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    This is a functional issue. I expect someone doing a particular job (such as a cook) to wear the equipment required for that job. For a cook, that means wearing whatever is needed to protect themselves, and protect the food from contamination. That's why people preparing food wear hair nets, gloves, and aprons.

    Yes and no, respectively. But I think that the difference is one of degree, not of kind.

    Laws that protect individuals from actual harm are clearly justifiable.
    What harm is done to you if you see a penis?
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Maybe I would, maybe not. But since my child has the freedom to not sit in Santa's lap, why shouldn't Santa have the freedom to be naked?
  10. Bells Staff Member


    Why do they wear hair nets, gloves, aprons, etc? Because we are socially conditioned into thinking that the discovery of a hair in our food to be something bad. But in some societies, they pick it out and keep on eating as if it were nothing at all. So there are rules and regulations in place to ensure contamination is kept to a minimum. So if someone wished to protest, they could very well do so and refuse to wear it, because they feel being made to cook while wearing a chef's uniform is a restriction of their personal freedom. And yet, I doubt anyone here would argue for his/her cause. Why? Because we would prefer the food we are buying in a restaurant to not have pubic hairs in it, etc.

    So accidently and unknowingly coming into contact with faecal matter does not cause actual harm? Say you place your hand on a bench that someone had sat on naked and had failed to wipe properly and you end up with some of it on your hand, and then you rub your eyes or eat a sandwich, etc with that hand. And you find yourself falling ill. Is that not harm?

    And no, no harm is done to me if I see a penis. But harm can come to me if I come into contact with something that could make me quite ill because someone fails at personal hygiene and through personal freedom, was allowed to sit down on public benches, etc, without a care for anyone else who would be unfortunate enough to sit there after he/she had left. Again, it is seen as a safety and functional issue to wear clothes.

    How can I put this. You may wish to walk around everywhere naked and you should be allowed to do so if you so please. You know your hygiene cannot be faulted. But do you trust others to be as hygienic as you? I couldn't.

    And if your child decides to exercise his/her freedom to sit in Santa's naked lap and you are not comfortable with it? Would you allow your child to exercise his/her freedom and sit in the man's lap, even if you are against it personally? Or would you remove your child's freedom of choice by saying 'no'?
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    out of interest bells why do you think no clothes equals child abuse?

    has your husband ever been naked around your sons?

    hell mum used to shower with my sister, it saves water. it was only once it made US uncomfertable that our parents started worrying about nudity.

    oh and tell me your not honestly that germ a pobic because i have some bad news for you. you should really worry about door knobs and money, LOTS of bugs including ecolie (ie feacal matter)
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Salmonella, botulism, and disease.

    So, your position is that it is fine for someone to be naked in public, as long as they are hygienic? I'm OK with that. I'm told that In nudist resorts, no one sits down in a public place except on their towel.

    Well, you can't be sure now that any public surface is free of fecal matter. That's why we wash our hands before eating, and why we avoid touching surfaces that are obviously dirty.

    Now that's an interesting topic. Ideally, it should depend on the specific reasons that I am against it; how much is about my personal bias and how much is a reasonable judgment of the probability of harm. Practically, it's going to depend as much on the kind of day I've had as anything else!

    Every parent encounters situations where there is a conflict between parental judgment and child freedom, and each case has to be considered as it occurs. There's no easy answer.
  13. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    and at what age did your mum quit showering with you and at what age did your dad quit showering with your sisters?
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    no idea, who cares? it really never bothered me if they were naked. naked doesnt equal sexual. guys (even intesly homophobic ones) piss next to eachother without any shame for the most part, lots of people male and female change infront of eachother again without embaresment, lots of females sleep in the same bed well into adulthood. hell during uni orientation males and females slept, changed ect in the same bedrooms without caring.

    not everyone views the body as purly sexual
  15. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    so if it isn't sexual or embarrassing, at what age did you quit taking showers with your mum or are you still doing so?
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    as i said, i dont rember. i to be honest im not surprised you dont agree with me, if the debate was "is torturing babies to death wrong" you would STILL be on the other side of the debate
  17. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    what are you talking about? Where did I say I didn't agree with you? Go ahead, show me if you can.

    And saying you don't remember tells me you quit showering together when you were quit young. If you wanna make assumptions (which you frequently do), try making one as to why you quit showering with your mum and your sisters quit showering with your dad.
  18. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    When you don't fit in the shower or bath together anymore, that's when I started bathing alone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    My kids stopped bathing with us when they got too big to hold. They stopped bathing together when my son said he wanted to bathe alone.
  20. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Sperm are haploid, so they are either X or Y. You mean the number of Y sperm goes down in comparison to X sperm?
  21. kurros Registered Senior Member

    I have got to go to Spain.
  22. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    and what person wants to see some bleeding gash while they eat their spaghetti bollanaise for lunch

  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    im sorry of course your right, that was a REALLY stupid mestake

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page