How is it damaging?

[3113]

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.

I think you're ignoring something important here. Even in places where people HAD to wear clothing to survive--like Alaska--they often stipped down to nothing when inside. And that wasn't just in their own priviate igloos. It was in another's igloo, even igloos where everyone in the tribe gathered.

The real difference isn't location. People will go naked inside if they can't outside. The difference is that unlike such tribes, we don't know everyone, have grown up with them from babyhood, live with them day-in, day-out, and depend on them, as a tribe must depend on everyone for its existence.

In such a senario, where the tribe is your extended family, clothing can go out the window EVEN if you or someone else doesn't look so good naked. And you can even extend this to visitors from other tribes as you kinda know them as well (see them at festivals), and you share the same cultural ease with nudity.

But once you get towns and cities, or start to care about rank and status (including that of parent/child, or husband/wife), you don't have that. You have *strangers* or superiors/inferiors. In our case, a LOT of strangers. And getting along with a lot of strangers means that there needs to be certain rules that small, relatively egalitarian tribes don't need. We didn't grow up with the person standing in line next to us at the bank, and we don't rely on them or need them or even know them. There has to be social rules to help us and them get along, to make sure we don't annoy them and they don't annoy us.

Clothing is one of those social rules. So that they don't *force* the sight of their body on you, welcoming or unwelcoming. You don't have to smell them upclose and personal, and you don't have to stare at their unwashed butt. The clothes miminalizes the annoyance factor and allows strangers to get along.

Or so I further theorize

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Big Brother, subtle brainwashing, and societal control.

 

[deathlynx]

There was an interesting lesson my French teacher in high-school explained to us...Americans are squeamish about our bodies in general...Two Americans meet for the first time and we're more than comfortable explaining our financial condition, but even a band-aid is enough to make us childishly uncomfortable...On the other hand, you have two Parisians meet and they'll know each other's medical histories in minutes but only close friends would hear about financial difficulties...Now that's something of a generalization, I admit, but there is a fair amount of truth behind the fundimental concept...

Then again that's a Yank's perspective, what do the Brits think about that?

 

[oggbashan]

Heinlein had one of his characters tell a story about exposure of flesh and social norms - The hand on thigh routine:

A man and woman, friends but not lovers, are sitting on a beach in the afternoon sun wearing the decent minimum. He has to reach across her to pick something up, resting a hand momentarily on the skin of her thigh to balance himself. That would be a natural thing to do and would not attract comment. The reverse is also true. If she leant across him to pick something up and rested her hand on his leg between knee and shorts - again it would not be an offence to morals in most Western societies.

If however, the same people, dressed formally, met at a function that same evening and she offered to raise her dress so that he could put his hand exactly where he had it that afternoon - that would not be acceptable. Nor would it be acceptable for him to drop his trousers so that she could put her hand on his leg, even if he was wearing the same shorts.

Society's rules are complex.

Og

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Original sin.

 

[SensualCealy]

As people pointed out that some should not be seen unclothed, there are others who are slim that look just as rediculous without clothes as those who are grossly over-weight.

Anyone see the picture of Nicole Riche in the tabloids in the last month? The one where she is in a baby blue bikini? She looks like an East Indian slave from the biblical times, the way her bikini droops and the bones hang out.

I am over-weight, and by the books, grossly over-weight, this however does not say I cant go around naked in my own home. When the kids arent here I do it often. But my point is, if a person feels confident enough in themselves they should be allowed to go naked in an area where it is permitted without the judgement of others!

If you are well toned and look good, even better, but just because you are slim doesnt make it any better!

Oh and on the actual topic of the thread- I think what Rob said is true- for too long people have engraved into our minds that nudity means sex- do you actually think that many of the ancient artist thought that?
C

 

[StormRising]

A personal and very humble opinion.

Casual nudity desn't bother me in the least. People walking around naked doesn't bother me in the least, especially not in my own home. But here's the other thing- I do not see them as sexual objects until we retire to a bedroom or more private venue for sex. As long as you completely forget about the fact that they're naked and treat them the same as you would anyone else, clothed or unclothed, the embarassing "surprises" and such soon go away once everyone loses the mindset of "naked=sex."

Nudity is not in anyway wrong or disturbing if you don't have any hang-ups about it. A 600 pound person being naked may be disturbing, but I certainly am not going to ask them to cover up- they have the right, as much as I do, to be naked. There is an unspoken rule about casual nudity- guys pretend they don't get hard-ons and the girls ignore them as well, girls pretend they don't get sudden hot flashes and the guys ignore them. That's what allows it to work- you take the sex out of the equation and act like a normal human being instead of a drooling ape.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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.

Many people in the Christian community took issue with the level of graphic violence in "The Passion". Past that, there is a difference for them between graphic violence as a representation of a horrific event (not much protest over Saving Private Ryan's opening or The Passion) and graphic violence as a recreation or condoning (much protest over GTA3 and the like.

I would say its less a matter of what they "really, really like" and more a matter of the context in which its presented. I would venture to say that the Church is less against violence as a depiction of reality and more against violence as, purely, a form of entertainment.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As nudity goes...

I don't want, personally, to have to be confronted with unattractive nude people--as a preference.

I don't want to expose my daughter to naked men--as a matter of responsibility.

 

[English Lady]

Many people in the Christian community took issue with the level of graphic violence in "The Passion". Past that, there is a difference for them between graphic violence as a representation of a horrific event (not much protest over Saving Private Ryan's opening or The Passion) and graphic violence as a recreation or condoning (much protest over GTA3 and the like.

I would say its less a matter of what they "really, really like" and more a matter of the context in which its presented. I would venture to say that the Church is less against violence as a depiction of reality and more against violence as, purely, a form of entertainment.

gratuitous violence over realistic violence maybe?


Any Christian I've heard talk about the passion found it "moving" or "shocking" or "horrific" and nearly all found it "Inspiring." but none found it entertaining.


Back to the nudity thing, I think it has to regulated somehow, but then I'm an old fashioned Brit. It's okay to wander roun your house naked (I do it regularly) but parading your bits and pieces in public where it might embarass, upset or alarm is not so good. It's just good manners really.

 

[Pure]

i object!

I really want to question el sol, sensual cealy and Joe, about their view that the 'unattractive' should cover themselves (where others may go nude). Joe, let's see your pic--face obscured if you like, and we'll decide whether meeting you would be a turnoff.

Joe said,
I don't want, personally, to have to be confronted with unattractive nude people--as a preference.




Elsol says yes to Britney, no to Rosie. Well, some say Brit's a cow. The modeling agencies think only Cameron Diaz types are "attractive" (i.e., model material). Should only they be allowed to expose themselves. Should women have to take the 'pencil test' before going out? (Perky boobs only?)

I guess a male should be a Brad Pitt? How long should your dick have to be? (Under 7 in, stay covered?) Chest measureing at least 10 in. more in circumference than one's waist?

It's good that none of you were around when Oprah wanted her show; I supposed you'd tell her her weight would be a turn off, so no show.

Come on, people! How about a little fair mindedness??? ("eye of the beholder..." and all that).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I really want to question el sol, sensual cealy and Joe, about their view that the 'unattractive' should cover themselves (where others may go nude). Joe, let's see your pic--face obscured if you like, and we'll decide whether meeting you would be a turnoff.

I'd love for you to point out, first, where I even made the point that "the 'unattractive' should cover themselves (where others may go nude)." We'll start there.

(we can make this faster, you can just see like anyone and admit that I did not... you might then try to defend your aggressively ignorant point by saying "well it IMPLIES that"... to which I'm going to respond "no, it doesn't, I can have a preference of not seeing unattractive people naked and not that in public because of a personal desire not to see unattractive things; while maintaining that public decency demands a lack of anyone nude'... to which you might keep harping a point about "when people say X, they mean Y" or "society is like this or that" or whatever... but at the end of the day--no, I didn't make the point you seem to be running with so go argue with whoever did)

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I've just had a flash on the trouble an attractive nude female would run into while standing in a crowded NYC subway car. According to the wife-unit, even though she was always fully dressed, a rush-hour commute could become a not-to-subtle form of hand-to-butt combat.

For most of the world, most of time, it's impractical to go around nude. Just image the mental anguish a nude geek would experience without a pocket protector? Therefore, to have people wearing clothes seems normal while seeing someone nude in public isn't.

From that reality, many have made the dubious intellectual/theological leap to denouncing nudity as being immoral. Whatever we may think of that leap, it's human nature.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[3113]

I would say its less a matter of what they "really, really like" and more a matter of the context in which its presented. I would venture to say that the Church is less against violence as a depiction of reality and more against violence as, purely, a form of entertainment.

I suspected you'd bring up context--but I'm afraid it's irrelevant to the argument. That there needs to be a whipping scene is context. But the Bible does not contain a movie script which says: "Whipping scene must be incredibly bloody and go on for thirty minutes." There have been plenty of movies of the cruifixion that weren't nearly so violent--yet the context is the same.

So I don't see context as being a viable excuse for the excessive violence being necessary to tell the story--only necessary to tell Gibson's version of the story. But if we're going in that direction, then there should only be protests against violence that is out of context. Thus, there should have been no protest around "The Last Temptation"...oh, wait. The objection there was over the sex...the violence was never mentioned (Jesus literally takes out his heart and offers it in one scene, yet that was never mentioned by those protesting the movie). That was Scorsese's version of Kazantzakis's novel.

The point is: I'm willing to bet that some of the same American Christians who had no problem with the graphic violence in "The Passion" because of it's "context" would have problems with a movie of ANY Biblical story that depicted nudity and graphic sex even if it was in context!

Thus, we come right back to the point. Which isn't about whether the violence is in context or whether people find it "enjoyable" rather than "moving and horrific." It's that violence on screen is more acceptable to Americans (Fundamentalist Christians included) than nudity or sex, no matter the context.

I remember when Christian distributors of movies edited out scenes of nudity and sex (implied sex, not graphic) from "The Bad Lieutenant"--making it nonsense!--but left in the violence. You can argue that they'd rather have neither, and I'll agree. But honestly, if it's a choice between the two--nudity or violence, which do you think they'd rather censor out?

 

[Guest]

My parents were relatively relaxed about nudity "in certain situations".

It wasn't a big deal.

I think that's why I don't have a problem showing off. *grin*

I think kids natural (non-sexual) exposure to nudity should be gauges by their reaction/comfort level.

My son has seen me, (I'm a nude housekeeper *grin*) and now that he's 13, he doesn't want to anymore and is much more modest.

Great. Whatever he's comfortable with is how I judge it.

 

[R. Richard]

[Threadjack]

I've just had a flash on the trouble an attractive nude female would run into while standing in a crowded NYC subway car. According to the wife-unit, even though she was always fully dressed, a rush-hour commute could become a not-to-subtle form of hand-to-butt combat.

She left out a real problem. I used to ride the NYC subways while fully dressed. I was occasionally touched/ occasionally touched others, presumably all by accident. However, I can never eat sardines again.

[/Threadjack]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I suspected you'd bring up context--but I'm afraid it's irrelevant to the argument. That there needs to be a whipping scene is context. But the Bible does not contain a movie script which says: "Whipping scene must be incredibly bloody and go on for thirty minutes." There have been plenty of movies of the cruifixion that weren't nearly so violent--yet the context is the same.

So long as statements about what the Church does or does not condone are being made, the context of these things is more than relavent, it is necessary. If you can't agree on that, then there really isn't a chance at discussing this intelligently. The preference of an agency is not necessarily simple, and the complex relationship between its ideals and those presented around them demands contexual understanding.

So I don't see context as being a viable excuse for the excessive violence being necessary to tell the story--only necessary to tell Gibson's version of the story. But if we're going in that direction, then there should only be protests against violence that is out of context. Thus, there should have been no protest around "The Last Temptation"...oh, wait. The objection there was over the sex...the violence was never mentioned (Jesus literally takes out his heart and offers it in one scene, yet that was never mentioned by those protesting the movie). That was Scorsese's version of Kazantzakis's novel.

If the purpose of the story of the crucifixion was the suffering of Christ--then a fully realized (and up until that point, its portrayal in media had not been full by any means) example of that suffering becomes necessary. I think few, if any, people knowledgeable about the origins and development of Christian doctrine will make the point that suffering was /not/ an essential component to the theology with regard to Christ. We can say Gibson went too far or not far enough, but that's a matter of scale--in the end, if we accept suffering is a contexual point and a necessary one, some kind of depiction that does justice to the doctrine was natural and a follow-through.

(And you're wrong, there were Church groups speaking out against "The Last Temptation...", you should stop broadbrushing all Christian groups and assuming "nobody ever" or "everybody did" kind of stuff)

Past that, if you accept doctrinal points, sex scenes with regard to the story of Christ's last days would be beside the point and superfluous. I could see how those protests would be more popular, as sex scenes are not a part of that period of the narrative or theology. Its the difference between "an essential component or vehicle for theological significance" and "hasn't no such relationship"--one is part of the emotional telling of the story, with regard to the Biblical impact, and the other is seemingly for purely entertaining superfluous purposes.

It is hardly madness or idiocy for that distinction to be made by Christian groups.

The point is: I'm willing to bet that the same Christians who had no problem with the graphic violence in "The Passion" because of it's "context" would have problems with a movie of ANY Biblical story that depicted nudity and graphic sex even if it was in context!

I would be willing to bet that the same Christians who had no problem with the graphic violence in "The Passion" would not have a problem with a Biblical story that depicted nudity, as graphic sex is not actually a part of the Bible--or subsequent doctrine or theology--I have to leave that out. Then again, we can make assumptive bets about hypothetical Christiants all day long.

A great deal of my point, however, is that one should /not/ be making blanket statements or absolute judgements about unnamed, hypothetical, theoretical, "from my experience" Christians as a means to judge Christianity. That's intellectually reckless and irresponsible.

Thus, we come right back to the point. Which isn't about whether the violence is in context or whether people find it "enjoyable" rather than "moving and horrific." It's that violence on screen is more acceptable to Americans (Fundamentalist Christians included) than nudity or sex, no matter the context.

Context, again, is entirely the point. I have nothing intelligent to say, and have said nothing about, what is more acceptable to "Americans". I disgreed that the the Church condoned Sex on screen and not Violence... which evolved into disagreeing that the Church condones only Violence it "really, really likes" and being down on others... I don't know why we're trying to evolve the discussion away from that, unless you're conceding that you agree with me.

I remember when Christian distributors of movies edited out scenes of nudity and sex (implied sex, not graphic) from "The Bad Lieutenant"--making it nonsense!--but left in the violence. You can argue that they'd rather have neither, and I'll agree. But honestly, if it's a choice between the two--nudity or violence, which do you think they'd rather censor out?

Again, this is remarkably beside the point--I can re-quote your points from earlier, if you'd like or need reminding.

However, as a new proposition? Do I think the Christian distributors would rather censor nudity or violence? I honestly don't know. What kind of nudity, what kind of violence?

If you're asking would they rather censor the nudity in National Geographic trips to Africa or the violence in GTA3? I'd say probably GTA3. If you're asking would they rather censor the nudity in "The Devil's Advocate" or the violence in "The Godfather"? That's harder... maybe the nudity?

Again, context... very important. Surely, you see that?

 

[Pure]

hey joe, lighten up,

Joe said,
I don't want, personally, to have to be confronted with unattractive nude people--as a preference.

first, what does an 'unattractive' (nude) person have to do to be 'confronting' you? would walking toward you on the far side of the street count? how about a couple blocks away?

which of these, if any, count as 'attractive' or 'unattractive: Cameron Diaz, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Kate Winslett, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Barbara Walters?

for those you've picked, would they be welcome nude in your presence if they were 6 mos pregnant? how about 8 or 9 months?

how does age figure in, i.e., does Raquel Welch pass muster, or is being over 50, fatal to 'attractivness.' i guess Brigitte Bardot would not qualify now, right?

when your wife is the age of Bardot, will you insist on lights out when she undresses?

just curious man... about this visually ideal universe according to Joe W? (I realize you're not telling anyone whom they should allow in *their* presence; just focussing on Himself.)

PS. By the way. Let's suppose you lose some of your stellar 'attractiveness' over the next 40 years. From what date do you plan NOT to expose your unattractiveness?

 

[Pure]

good points, 3113,

i think the history of censorship attempts (some successful) by the various Xtian groups shows a clear preference, i.e., almost all objections are to sexual scenes; also to the moral issues (i.e., the prostitute in Butterfield 8, had to die at the end, for the movie to pass). yes, i suppose sacrilege, again, around sex, e.g., Xt's in the Last Temptation.

i'd want to ask Joe, "up until, say, 1980, did any Xtian pro censorship group ever object to a movie on grounds of pure violence in some of its scenes (i.e., scene w/o sex)?"

i think it's an historical point, since the Puritans who objected to 'promiscuous' dancing, i.e., of men with women, also had no problem hanging a quaker woman for her beliefs; also, iirc, there was at least one execution for adultery.
---

Exhibit A: Films condemned [="C" rating] by the "legion of decency" (catholic) in the given years:

1960
· Breathless
· Never on Sunday
1961
· A Cold Wind in August
· Jules and Jim
· Viridiana
1962
· Boccaccio '70
1964
· Kiss Me, Stupid
1965
· The Pawnbroker
1966
· Blowup
· Masculin, féminin
· Torn Curtain
1967
· Hurry Sundown
1968
· Rosemary's Baby
1971
· A Clockwork Orange
· The Last Picture Show
1973
· Last Tango in Paris

 

[3113]

So long as statements about what the Church does or does not condone are being made, the context of these things is more than relavent, it is necessary. If you can't agree on that, then there really isn't a chance at discussing this intelligently.

I'm sorry you don't think we can have an intelligent discussion unless I agree with this. I don't. I think context is less important to some of these churches and groups than whether they favor the story or not. Which is true of a lot of groups, but let's not waste time getting into that. You've concluded that there's no way for us to argue intelligently if I'm in disagreement with your requirements. So that's the end of that.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm sorry you don't think we can have an intelligent discussion unless I agree with this. I don't. I think context is less important to some of these churches and groups than whether they favor the story or not. Which is true of a lot of groups, but let's not waste time getting into that. You've concluded that there's no way for us to argue intelligently if I'm in disagreement with your requirements. So that's the end of that.

You didn't say you thought it less important... you said it was irrelevant. Am I misquoting you?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

hey joe, lighten up,

Joe said,
I don't want, personally, to have to be confronted with unattractive nude people--as a preference.

first, what does an 'unattractive' (nude) person have to do to be 'confronting' you? would walking toward you on the far side of the street count? how about a couple blocks away?

Confront - to cause to meet, to bring face-to-face. Its in the dictionary, I believe. Exposure in reasonably close proxmity, best defined by "out in public" and chanceable as in a grocery store or street sidewalk, public park, etc. Anyone can be confronted by any demographic of person--I don't want to be confronted with the unattractive and naked.

That's hardly a sin, a crime, or even uncommon.

which of these, if any, count as 'attractive' or 'unattractive: Cameron Diaz, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Kate Winslett, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Barbara Walters?

for those you've picked, would they be welcome nude in your presence if they were 6 mos pregnant? how about 8 or 9 months?

how does age figure in, i.e., does Raquel Welch pass muster, or is being over 50, fatal to 'attractivness.' i guess Brigitte Bardot would not qualify now, right?

when your wife is the age of Bardot, will you insist on lights out when she undresses?

As none of this has anything to do with my point, I don't have anything intelligent to say about it.

just curious man... about this visually ideal universe according to Joe W? (I realize you're not telling anyone whom they should allow in *their* presence; just focussing on Himself.)

Everyone has a visually ideal universe according to them. Unless, that is, someone has never found anything unattractive ever.

PS. By the way. Let's suppose you lose some of your stellar 'attractiveness' over the next 40 years. From what date do you plan NOT to expose your unattractiveness?

Again, I don't see how any of this has to do with my point or preference.

You seem to be reaching for things to be contrary about.

 

[LadyAria]

As nudity goes...

I don't want, personally, to have to be confronted with unattractive nude people--as a preference.

I don't want to expose my daughter to naked men--as a matter of responsibility.

Well said...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

i think the history of censorship attempts (some successful) by the various Xtian groups shows a clear preference, i.e., almost all objections are to sexual scenes; also to the moral issues (i.e., the prostitute in Butterfield 8, had to die at the end, for the movie to pass). yes, i suppose sacrilege, again, around sex, e.g., Xt's in the Last Temptation.

i'd want to ask Joe, "up until, say, 1980, did any Xtian pro censorship group ever object to a movie on grounds of pure violence in some of its scenes (i.e., scene w/o sex)?"

My point had nothing to do with pre- or post-1980's. You're welcome to re-read it if you didn't catch that the first time. Similarly, nobody else's point had anything to do with pre- or post-1980's. So, I'm wondering why you're offering now an artificial limitation on the issue?

i think it's an historical point, since the Puritans who objected to 'promiscuous' dancing, i.e., of men with women, also had no problem hanging a quaker woman for her beliefs; also, iirc, there was at least one execution for adultery.

I think I'd be delighted to know what any of this has to do with any point I've made so far... by all means quote me and respond accordingly--you seem to be attacking a number of straw-men.

If you're agreed that none of it actually does, then accept that I haven't anything intelligent--at this time--to say about whatever it is you're talking about.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well said...

Well, sake's alive--I'm glad someone gets it.