How is it damaging?

[SeaCat]

How is public nudity damaging to either children or adults? In what way does it injure?

This topic was brought up to me by a patient of mine. She s from Europe. She is here on vacation in southern Florida. Before she became sick, this 45 year old woman was informed that she could not wear her thongs on the public beaches. After she became sick she scandalised her R.N.'s by walking about her room in the nude. She was comfortable with this.

She couldn't understand the prevailing attitude here in America that nudity was something to hide. She asked me why it was so dangerous, why it was frowned upon.

To be honest I couldn't answer her. I still haven't wrapped my own head around this. I know some of the arguments, and find them to be so much Bovine excrement.

So why do you think this is?

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

It's our Puritan ancestry.

Nudity leads to sex and sex is bad.

 

[Pure]

i think you should ask your local imam. maybe read some St. Paul as to why women should cover their hair in church. hint: the formula is beauty incites lust (certainly does for me!)

you might read the old American classic

"An arrow against profane and promiscous dancing drawn out of the quiver of the Scriptures" (1684) probably by Increase Mather.



try

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week04/Mather1684.html


or

http://www.visionforumministries.or...roversies/an_arrow_against_profane_and_p.aspx

 

[sister76]

I don't think there is any reason.

 

[MagicaPractica]

It's our Puritan ancestry.

Nudity leads to sex and sex is bad.

Precisement. Sometimes the attitude is tiring to me. "Puritanical hyprocrites," I always remember that phrase from the movie French Kiss and sadly believe it to be true of many Americans. It completely boggled my mind when John Ashcroft had the statues draped. "Nothing ever is but thinking makes it so" and our thinking makes the human form "dirty."

 

[rgraham666]

In fairness, some people should be clothed.

A few years ago, I was out walking on a very hot day. A man was on the opposite side of the street coming towards me. He was dressed only in a pair of shorts and sandals.

His stomach literally hung down to his knees and wobbled as said knees bounced against it.

It was a most unpleasant sight.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The often referenced "freedom means we should do what we want if it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't really how our society was designed, it surely isn't in the Constitution. It isn't even a statute in any European countries, either explicitely or otherwise--so to start, we should work from the standpoint that social norms exist pragmatically, if not essentially. That's not unique to America.

Then, we have to deal with American society prohibiting any number of things considered, by common law, immoral or offensive to developing society. Sort of a social investment that isn't benefited by certain acts or practices.

At the heart of the law is that someone wouldn't want a pedophile leering at their young daughter at all--but certainly wouldn't want to have to deal with her having to see him naked, potentially aroused or being lewd. Protection from sexuality is not, to that opinion, a hazard or an evil--and there are situations where the public has rights to not be exposed to some things.

That would, then, include people having sex, people being naked, etc.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's our Puritan ancestry.

Nudity leads to sex and sex is bad.

Eggsactly...

You can sell movies that depict violence of all kinds...murder, disembowelment, decapitation, etc. but if you sell sex aids the church ladies will shut you down!

 

[rgraham666]

Eggsactly...

You can sell movies that depict violence of all kinds...murder, disembowelment, decapitation, etc. but if you sell sex aids the church ladies will shut you down!

But violence is normal, damn it!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Eggsactly...

You can sell movies that depict violence of all kinds...murder, disembowelment, decapitation, etc. but if you sell sex aids the church ladies will shut you down!

Except for the many instances of the Church speaking out against violence and media that promote it.

Must have forgot about that, I'm sure.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The often referenced "freedom means we should do what we want if it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't really how our society was designed, it surely isn't in the Constitution. It isn't even a statute in any European countries, either explicitely or otherwise--so to start, we should work from the standpoint that social norms exist pragmatically, if not essentially. That's not unique to America.

Then, we have to deal with American society prohibiting any number of things considered, by common law, immoral or offensive to developing society. Sort of a social investment that isn't benefited by certain acts or practices.

At the heart of the law is that someone wouldn't want a pedophile leering at their young daughter at all--but certainly wouldn't want to have to deal with her having to see him naked, potentially aroused or being lewd. Protection from sexuality is not, to that opinion, a hazard or an evil--and there are situations where the public has rights to not be exposed to some things.

That would, then, include people having sex, people being naked, etc.

I would disagree with the idea that certain rights aren't in the Constitution simply because they aren't mentioned. The 9th Amendment suggests otherwise.

Now, I understand concerns about pedophiles, but nudity doesn't equal sex. Also, someone having sex in the bushes is not the same thing as a guy whipping out his dick at some kid. Two different situations. Apples and oranges.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Except for the many instances of the Church speaking out against violence and media that promote it.

Must have forgot about that, I'm sure.

You don't live in Georgia, do you?

 

[rgraham666]

Now, I understand concerns about pedophiles, but nudity doesn't equal sex. Also, someone having sex in the bushes is not the same thing as a guy whipping out his dick at some kid. Two different situations. Apples and oranges.

To the bluenoses they are.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

To the bluenoses they are.

LOL. True enough. Now, if you were talking about the latter, well, I like what one 12 year old girl did to a sicko who suggested something to her. She zipped up his pants while he was still exposed. Ouch, but that sent him a clear message. I don't exactly feel bad for him, either.

 

[rgraham666]

LOL. True enough. Now, if you were talking about the latter, well, I like what one 12 year old girl did to a sicko who suggested something to her. She zipped up his pants while he was still exposed. Ouch, but that sent him a clear message. I don't exactly feel bad for him, either.

Me either.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You don't live in Georgia, do you?

Mississippi. Your point?

I would disagree with the idea that certain rights aren't in the Constitution simply because they aren't mentioned. The 9th Amendment suggests otherwise.

I would disagree with that idea, too. Notably, I didn't make that point at all.

Now, I understand concerns about pedophiles, but nudity doesn't equal sex. Also, someone having sex in the bushes is not the same thing as a guy whipping out his dick at some kid. Two different situations. Apples and oranges.

True, nudity does not equal sex. Someone having sex in the bushes is different than someone exposing their genitals to a kid. However, what is not apples and oranges is the idea that someone exposing their genitals and certainly if "active" (erect, as an example) to a child is exposing that child to sexuality. In that respect, nudity and sexuality are not as freakishly opposite as two different fruits--but would moreso resemble apples versus some eating an apple.
I guess I fail to see how this is a response to my post.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Some good points by Rob, Pure, Joe and others. Without doing an in-depth, world-wide cultural analysis, I have a hunch the Europeans are the ones taking it off to a different drummer. That is to say, in most of the world, casual acceptance of public nudity is the exception, not the rule. So perhaps the pertinent question is not why Americans don't, but why Europeans do.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Mississippi. Your point?


I would disagree with that idea, too. Notably, I didn't make that point at all.


True, nudity does not equal sex. Someone having sex in the bushes is different than someone exposing their genitals to a kid. However, what is not apples and oranges is the idea that someone exposing their genitals and certainly if "active" (erect, as an example) to a child is exposing that child to sexuality. In that respect, nudity and sexuality are not as freakishly opposite as two different fruits--but would moreso resemble apples versus some eating an apple.
I guess I fail to see how this is a response to my post.

I just mean that I don't see it as inherently harmful or even sexual. My point regarding the Constitution has to do with rights and freedom to live one's lifestyle peacefully. Now, I do grasp what Rumple is saying these days. However, historically that hasn't always been the case. Certain sects in monotheistic religions have had that impact to a large extent. Remember that our ancestors at some point were all naked. The notion that nudity is dangerous came along later on. Just look at the Egyptians. Semi-nudity was common enough in ancient Egypt, but not today. Same nation, but Islam is a bit stricter about such things than the old ways were.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Cat started a "public indecency" thread a while back. Part of my post there is one answer to the question posed by this thread:

Perhaps it is the sloppy or corrupt definition of "moral" used in this "decency" context that leads to so much confusion in this area. There is no question that public nudity standards are purely social constructs. Any reasonable person recognizes this - the most superficial survey of the field of anthropology confirms it. It is just irritating then when ignorant, stupid or cynical people try to make the case that there is something implicitly "immoral" about nudity.

I will add an important qualification to that: Context does matter, and exposure for the purpose of titillation can be seen as diversionary from the path to "the good life" under certain interpretations of that which are not illegitimate, even in one disagrees with them. Under this interpretation, putting one's self in reach of such exposure-for-titillation (going to a strip club or sexy clothing-optional beach) could be seen to have a moral component. It's bad for you, in other words, because the kind of lifestyle it celebrates is not conducive to lifelong human flourishing. This is not just whacked-out fundamentalism, it's actually worth thinking about. (My personal reconciliation of this is through the concept of balance - all smut and no sensitivity to the other stuff of life is bad for me. A little bit of smut is good.)


. . . the Judeo-Christian guilt ethic is not the only basis for discouraging certain types of nudity (those intended to titillate), and caution about such things is not necessarily based in subjective or mystical belief systems. There is an "Aritotlean" rationale based on that which is conducive to or destructive of "the good life" and the lifelong flourishing of the human person. Necessarily such considerations require much more sophistication and thoughtfulness than "tittie = eternal damnation!"

 

[3113]

There is this prevaling given about nudity being taboo because it leads to lust--but, of course, it's a catch-22 argument. The nudity only leads to lust in cultures where everyone is required to wear clothes and feel ashamed without them. Tribes where everyone does run around naked are no more lustful or likely to have sex...outside of the fact that it's easier to have sex if layers of clothing aren't in the way.

And kids certainly get an eyeful of adult genitalia in such tribes--including raging hardons and sex. Having never psychoanalized such a tribesman I can't say whether they are more or less screwed up than folk who protect their kids from such sights.

HOWEVER, I kinda suspect that it may have more to do with an element of power. Clothing and adorment is a way of protecting the body, and also indicating status. As Rob pointed out, it also hides unpleasantries--like sagging breasts and varicose veins and penis size.

So, even though the terms used for exposed body parts are things like "obscene" and "indecent," I'd like to question the assumption that puritanical fears of sex are really all that's behind a culture insisting on clothes.

Power: By power, I mean either using clothes to diminish power (forcing women to hide their faces, hair, body or anything else that could give them power over a guy--and let's face it, the way sexy girls can get a guy to do what they want shows that there is validity to this!), or to grant/gain power. The king gets to wear the richest robes and jewelry, and people at parties try to outdo themselves in what they wear, to display their position and power.

This was most evident back in the days when there were laws about what a person could or could not wear given their status. Now-a-days, even a poor man can put on a tux, but it used to be that only the aristocrats could wear certain colors, jewelry, etc. to distinguish them and maintain their power.

Lies: By lies I mean that we either want to create a persona for ourselves (that black leather jacket and jeans we wear to show we're tough and cool, right?), or we want others to maintain the general lie: which is that we don't want to see age or weakness. We don't want to see another people's physical short comings; it makes us all too aware of our own--or what might be in store for us (wrinkles and sagging bits).

I propose that when someone is striding around naked, people of certain cultures feel uncomfortable not only because they were culturally indoctrinated to feel uncomfortable about nudity, but also because the person has left them with no handholds. The person has removed any indicators of status or personality or power.

A person who flaunts his nudity disturbs certain people; forcing a person to strip off their clothes is an act of power--the clothed person retains power, the naked person loses power (in theory). Someone who has willingly stripped down to their skin confuses. What kind of idiot does that to themselves? What kind of person forces us to see something most of us would rather not display OR see--not just the flaws of a human body, but also how vulnerable we all are under those layers of clothing.

All this just being my musings.

I know a nudist, by the way, who was part of a certain group of friends. Anytime these friends gathered together someplace private, he'd take off his clothes. As you can well imagine, we got so used to it that no one noticed. So when my husband brought a friend to one of these gatherings, the friend was a bit flummoxed. "What's with the naked guy?" he asked.

And my husband answered, "What naked guy?" My husband eventually admitted that, yes, there was a naked guy in the room, but he had his friend going there for a minute.

 

[3113]

Except for the many instances of the Church speaking out against violence and media that promote it.

Must have forgot about that, I'm sure.

Oh, yes, the many, many instances! Like how they deplore violence in the bible and boycotted "The Passion" because of it's very graphic dipiction of violence! Oh, wait, they didn't object to that much, did they? Must have forgotten about that, I'm sure.

I dunno. Sounds a little problematic for them to be against media violence...except when it comes to violent stories they really, really like.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

I don't personally grasp it, aside from Victorian concepts of "moral purity". I am very familiar with such from my own Rhodesian and British past. However, I don't personally subscribe to such. They simply do not make much sense. Nevertheless, there are plenty in my family who see it as tied to "godless Communism", which is a big issue in my expat family. They view it as necessary to separate Europe from Africa in their minds by equating European with Christian and African with pagan or secular humanist. I shan't say that such connections make sense to me, due to the fact that paganism was the native religion of Europe. Oh, well, not everyone has a deep and profound sense of history. I shan't just call it fundamentalism. I'd call it cultural bias in many cases.

I am familiar with Ms. Appleby's idea of "balance", but that's only valid in my mind in terms of avoiding sexual addiction or obssession. The irony of course is that the most open societies are often the least obsessed. Obsession is mostly a by-product of repression. Just look at Britain and America. Smut is accepted and used in continental Europe, but as an aid to sex, not a substitute for it. The opposite appears to be the case in Anglophone societies, one of the few things of which I'm not proud about Albion and her daughters. It's sad, since Anglophone civilisation has many good points, if you overlook such priggishness.

Also, speaking from experience, I have to concede 3113's point about nudity and class (and race, from my own experience). Not to legitimise the radical leftist takeover of my native country, but nudity as a symbol for the supposed "primitive and morally inferior character" of the native Africans is a prime example of why they have turned on us and become so ruthless in their oppression of the whites in Rhodesia (note that I still do not excuse their conduct or the cowardly abolition of Rhodesian unilateral independence in favor of "Zimbabwe"). I simply use this as an example of clothing being a status symbol.

 

[R. Richard]

Lets look at location.

If you live in South Florida or southern California, particularly at the beach, it is practical to go nude outside at least part of the day for, oh 300+ days a year.

If you live in Duluth, MN, it is practical to go nude outside in the summer. Last year, summer in Duluth was on a Tuesday. The people who live in Duluth are very unlikely to vote to legalize public nudity.

Let's look at situation.

I work out 365 days a year. I have no reason why I am ashamed to show my nude body. In the area where I live, there are grossly fat men who walk around in shorts and flip flops during the summer with their belly fat hanging down. There are grossly fat women who wear bikinis during the summer and it looks like a fat landslide. IMNTHO, wearing revealing clothing if you are grossly fat should be a capital crime.

Let's look at opportunity.

Of course, I and other male Literoticans are capable of self control. However, among the legions of the great unwashed, there are those who would 'accidentally' brush up against a nude girl with great tits [hell, maybe even against a girl with just average tits.] That way lies trouble.

 

[LadyAria]

Going to college on the coast and having spent many a weekend at the Playa d’en Bossa. I have some very specific opinions.

First, most Americans and British should not be nude on the beach cause they end up a lovely shade of red in the soft parts. Second, nudity is a natural thing, but that doesn't mean I want to see most people naked. Yes, I have a certain insensitivity to nudity. However, when someone stands out (good or bad) Europeans look too. Use to it, does not mean immune.

I think it is damaging when we concentrate on anything too much.

 

[elsol]

Britney Spears walking around naked... okay.

Rosie O'Donnell walking around naked... not so much.