How is it damaging?

[Joe Wordsworth]

What circumstances?
I can think of a few- but that child would be in some peril regardless of their clothing in any scenario I can think of.

Were it the case that a man were to be around a child and decide, because it is not illegal, to take his clothes off in front of the child so as to derive some kind of shock value or sexual gratification at the exhibitionism--that would be nudity benefitting pederasty, and doing so in such a way that if public nudity were not legal it wouldn't have happened.

We can say "the child would be in some peril regardless" but not as apparently or to the same effect at all. Past that, though, the question wasn't whether one was this or that gradation of dangerous, only whether I thought the two were related--which, in some circumstances, they are.

 

[tolyk]

Were it the case that a man were to be around a child and decide, because it is not illegal, to take his clothes off in front of the child so as to derive some kind of shock value or sexual gratification at the exhibitionism--that would be nudity benefitting pederasty, and doing so in such a way that if public nudity were not legal it wouldn't have happened.

We can say "the child would be in some peril regardless" but not as apparently or to the same effect at all. Past that, though, the question wasn't whether one was this or that gradation of dangerous, only whether I thought the two were related--which, in some circumstances, they are.

Joe, that's basing everything off shock value due to cultural norms. If our society were already used to nudism, the child wouldn't be shocked at all.

I saw lots of naked guys when I was a kid. I lived on an army base that was a german training facility as well. Every time I went to the swimming pool there were naked germans showering after their swim. It didn't bother me one bit, but I don't shower naked in a public place due to the experience.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe, that's basing everything off shock value due to cultural norms. If our society were already used to nudism, the child wouldn't be shocked at all.

I saw lots of naked guys when I was a kid. I lived on an army base that was a german training facility as well. Every time I went to the swimming pool there were naked germans showering after their swim. It didn't bother me one bit, but I don't shower naked in a public place due to the experience.

You'll note that my answer had nothing to do with the child, only the exhibitionist. I was asked how free public nudity would have a situation where nudity would further pedophilia, I answered with a situation that /does/ in fact show that very thing. The pedophile stripping in front of a child for the shock value and exhibitionism (on his end, for his satisfaction, regardless the child's opinion at all) would be both (1) legal and (2) contributing to his pedophilia.

Were it the case that public nudity were NOT allowed, then I believe that would both (1) reduce the possiblity of that happening by a significant amount (taking into account how infrequently it happens right now) and (2) show how certain situations of pedophilia can be held in check by a society not contributing to public nudity.

Surely, that's clear. I try not to mix words or stray from the very specific questions I'm asked.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You'll note that my answer had nothing to do with the child, only the exhibitionist. I was asked how free public nudity would have a situation where nudity would further pedophilia, I answered with a situation that /does/ in fact show that very thing. The pedophile stripping in front of a child for the shock value and exhibitionism (on his end, for his satisfaction, regardless the child's opinion at all) would be both (1) legal and (2) contributing to his pedophilia.

Were it the case that public nudity were NOT allowed, then I believe that would both (1) reduce the possiblity of that happening by a significant amount (taking into account how infrequently it happens right now) and (2) show how certain situations of pedophilia can be held in check by a society not contributing to public nudity.

Surely, that's clear. I try not to mix words or stray from the very specific questions I'm asked.

no, Joe, "exhibiting" to a child is actionable, regardless of clothing.

Exhibitionism is socially repugnant, regardless of clothing. Merely being naked, in a society that accepts nudity, would not be active pedophilia.

... and a man who strips for exhibitionary purposes in front of a child- in a public situation... would most likely be apprehended by anyone else in that public situation, don't you think? Just as he would in a clothed society.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

no, Joe, "exhibiting" to a child is actionable, regardless of clothing.

I don't know what you mean by "actionable".

Exhibitionism is socially repugnant, regardless of clothing. Merely being naked, in a society that accepts nudity, would not be active pedophilia.

The question wasn't what is or isn't pedophilia, but whether there were circumstances where nudity contributed to it in a society accepting of public nudity as opposed to a society that did not. And in a society that accepts public nudity, one would be free to strip in front of a child--and one could satisfy exhibitionist tendancies by doing so. Given that one wanted to do this in front of a child, it would be a case of nudity contributing to pedophilia. What about that isn't not rational, given the premises I was told to follow?

... and a man who strips for exhibitionary purposes in front of a child- in a public situation... would most likely be apprehended by anyone else in that public situation, don't you think? Just as he would in a clothed society.

I wasn't asked to consider "whether he would be 'apprehended'" or other such chances. I was asked for a specific example. I gave it. We can assume the hypothetical apprehension-techniques of hypothetical people in this hypothetical society, but that wasn't the question.

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Stella_Omega
//Cat, the ONLY way in which public nudity is damaging- is because our society has deemed it so. A child who sees a naked man is expected to be scarred by this horrific event. //


Joe Tragically... this is the exact same argument that can be used to justify any number of things we deem wrong to do with children up to and including approximations of pedophilia.

That's an important point to note.

Pure: I think you're right, joe, but i don't see the tragedy of it. A number of acts which I and we don't condone may well have much of their ill effect because of society's reactions, eg., horror, disgust.

Consider a teenage girl sexually exploited by Dad. As a minor she's subject to manipulation, can't legally consent, etc. HOWEVER, if or when it came out, her friend would be aghast; if her dad's (and her) neighbors found out (say, through a newspaper article about a trial), they would express shock. All of these compound whatever injury there was; these reactions cause 'victims' to hide from embarrassment, etc.
---

Now as to the issue of whether public nudity would further or 'benefit' pedophila as you put it, (or banning public nudity would curb pedophilia) :

JoeI was asked how free public nudity would have a situation where nudity would further pedophilia, I answered with a situation that /does/ in fact show that very thing. The pedophile stripping in front of a child for the shock value and exhibitionism (on his end, for his satisfaction, regardless the child's opinion at all) would be both (1) legal and (2) contributing to his pedophilia.

Were it the case that public nudity were NOT allowed, then I believe that would both (1) reduce the possiblity of that happening by a significant amount (taking into account how infrequently it happens right now) and (2) show how certain situations of pedophilia can be held in check by a society not contributing to public nudity.
---

Pure: I find this a rather tortured example, and not really going to the issue of this thread, e.g. what's wrong with public nudity (and its social acceptance).

Your argument, can be extended. In a word, you're claiming "Exhibitionists would have a field day." But this seems problematic. As you conceded, the 'childs opinion' or the 'victims' opinion might not be adverse; you focus on the thrill of the offender.

So you're claiming the exhibitionist gets off, but the audience is neutral or unconcerned. I suggest that would DEflate any appeal of exhibitionism. They aim to shock; a guy exposes himself precisely to see a horrified expression. The one stripping for the child is counting on its having a sexual meaning for the child, or at least being confusing or mysterious.

Yet, as originally imagined by seacat (and hypothetically explored), there is public, accepted nudity. If everyone isn't always nude, then they routinely disrobe, say, in a park, to sunbathe; at the beach, in the gymnasium, etc. So disrobing is entirely routine. I argue that that DEflates any intended sexual meaning. The child, then sees disrobing by NONperverts constantly, and there's nothing per se that would identify the one with perveted thoughts (and the hypothetical arousal you attribute).

Consider the case of an obscene phone caller for a similar phenomenon; he WANTS the woman to react. IF, hypotheically, women were blase and yawned and treated it like a phone soliticitation from the local bank, the thrill disappears.

So, since public nudity does NOT, likely, further the sexual arousal of exhibitionists or pederasts, the laws again public display do not, likely, help curb them.

I'd argue you have it backward on this proposal as well. The laws *create* the situation of arousal. Exhibitionist and pedophilic exhibitionist are creatures of the the present law and social norms. They know it's 'unacceptable' and, further, shocking. *That why they do it.*

In summary, i argue that socially accepted public nudity--say, extending that found in Europe-- would help *reduce* exhibitionism (this 'stripping' for one's own arousal'). Conversely, the present US laws (and social attitudes) likely *promote* exhibitionism, by giving it its 'forbidden' air. The attitude that the man's erect penis is 'traumatic' to a young person (woman) is a self fulling prophecy: the moralists inculcate such horror right along with their legislation banning 'full frontal nudity' (itself a kind of horrified expression) in movies.

Merry Christmas Joe!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

As many state, if society norms were towards nudity then the mere lack of clothing would be innocuous to anyone of the culture. Children wouldn't care because they had grown up with it and would know that nakedness does not equal sex or sexual attraction.

Actually it becomes important to note that most children don't make those connections even in societies like ours. Anyone who has chased a naked toddler around the house or had to ask a child or toddler to "put their damn clothes back on" or "where are your clothes" knows this. Nakedness is not taboo to them because they have no implicit understanding of sexual desire or sexual means (there are exceptions of course both fortunate and rather painfully unfortunate but for the most part they are blissfully unaware).

Anyways, there are plenty of examples throughout history and hell modern cultures where nudity makes sense and is the common trope or otherwise a daily neccessity. Bath houses in Japan where men, women, and children of all ages shared a bathing space. Many villages operated with similar public bathing places where nudity among each other was common. Most any tribe near the equator and many in Africa are rather nude because the neccesities of heat make clothes unneccessary. Bare breasts and dangling penii are not viewed as implicitly erotic by those tribes and their children are hardly damaged and abused by their exposure to them. Indeed any child of young enough age who has been raised not from a bottle knows implicitly the bare boob and has not found it a source of sexual stimulation or otherwise naughty nor have their parents.

We forget of course that clothes in our earliest times were worn for reasons of neccessity rather than sexual repression. Keeping warm out of the cold, protection against weapons, animals, and fire, and all that jazz rather than preventing lustful thoughts or actions.


Indeed in those countries where the sexual mores are more relaxed and nudity is more common, it proves that naked and nude are clear different things. Naked without eroticism indeed is not meant to be erotic. It occurs as if the person were wearing a full set of non-accentuating clothing, drab and plain, and as everyday and as far removed from sex as possible. It exists not as stroke but as a fact of life. The lack of shirt and bra, the normal non-enhanced breasts on a non-enhanced body and non-enhanced pubes and ass. It walks across the screen in the movies or across the plains in the villages and there is obviously no intention of the erotic. It is everyday. The erotic comes from the context. Quite often in the literal sense of genuine sexual stimulae or enhanced camera angles and context in their movies. A perusal of foreign films will quickly reveal the starkness of the dichotomy and the genuine gulf between just plain nakedness and sexual nudity.

Indeed taken out of a sexual context, there is little exclusively exciting about the nude body. Sure there are parts we love to lick or explore or fuck but these same parts tantalize in tight dresses or pants or in nearly exposing wear.

Many works comment that what is truly erotic is not the revealing of the body but rather the promise of imminent revealing. Our society would reflect this in its fashion, in its strip clubs and in what it chooses as stimulating pictures.




Without a society constantly telling us that the absence of clothes only occurs in the circumstances leading to sex, there would be little knee-jerk reaction to link the two actions. With careful consideration there is quite often very explicit and obvious context involved in moving the merely unclothed to the erotic and quite often that context is quite easy to perform fully clothed and as modern dance shows us it is possible to quite explicitly emulate sex and eroticism while remaining fully clothed just as it is possible to be naked in a completely nonerotic fashion.

And to think that this is miraculously not so for pedophilia is foolish. A fully clothed man in suit and tie and all respectable means of adornment leaning far too close to a little girl or boy, suggesting innoportune things, breathing heavily and staring too long, lingering with touches, requesting things, etc...

We all know what those represent and we become apprehensive. Does it matter if he's dressed, how he's dressed, or what his profession is if they are acting in this manner? Not particularly. It's creepy.

Compare this to a simply naked man watering his flowers. Make him rotund, make him skinny, make him buff. Chances are good that with nakedness, some flaw is apparent because no one is Apollo, no one is Aphrodite. We wear sexy clothes to hide our flaws more often than not. Perhaps a child walks down the street. Perhaps he waves briefly the same as any person watering a garden. He does not stare, he is happily minding his own business, butt slowly tanning in the noon day heat.

Is this the same thing? Is this pedophilia, deviant sexual practices? Nein. Nej. Nyet. No. It's a naked guy.




Because of our societal images and restrictions, we forget these distinctions it seems. That the context makes the erotic. Even the mundane into erotic (at least as far as I can tell). And that this context is unattached to the lack of clothing and quite often has little to do with it. Few of us met hudbands, wives, SOs, fuckbuddies as naked people or are exclusively attracted to naked people. Seduction and foreplay are not restricted to occur only after the removal of all articles of clothing and as anyone who has slept naked, woken up and walked into the kitchen for a glass of something to drink or just into the bathroom to shower knows that the lack of clothing is not implicitly erotic.


With that lack of a tie, all other arguments collapse and it becomes entirely a question of societal context and societal norms.

As a final example, I point to a couple that lives across the street from my parents. They are from Northern California. Their kids have been naked in the rain and have trampolined naked. They have family naked time and the parents have walked around naked in the house from time to time. My parents when visiting have been told by the kids to hold on because mom and dad are naked. Are these parents pedophiles? Have they molested their kids? Are their kids traumatized? Will they be sexually stigmatized for the rest of their lives? All signs seem to point quite truly to no on all accounts. The kids do not seem abnormal in any adverse or harmful ways and the atmosphere of the household seems functional and loving so in other words better than most. Nakedness hasn't ruined the kids other than they will likely have fewer hangups about nakedness later in life.

Truthfully I must say that I don't see this as an inherently bad thing and I fail to see the implicit link to a rabid increase in pedophilia anymore than allowing gay marriage will implicitly lead to the downfall of straight marriages.

But then, it may just be because I'm asexual.