How is it damaging?

[SeaCat]

Well Hello and Whoa Shit People.

Come on, relax okay?

This thread was not started to attack any religeon, it was a simple question.

"How is public Nudity Damaging?"

Who does it damage and why?

Joe, you made a comment that I find interesting, (and no I am not attacking you on this.) You commented "I do not wish to expose my daughter to naked men--as a matter of responsibility."
Why? Does this include you? If so how are you different, other than being her father, than any other man? How about naked women?

This is in fact a part of my question. I often hear that exposure to nudity is damaging to children. In what way? How does the sight of nudity, the endless variations in the human body damage children? Does it somehow make them more sexually active? Does it somehow make them into predators? Or prey? How?

I have also heard the comments that a woman, being nude, is more apt to being attacked. Why? For what reason does her manner of clothing cause her to become prey? Does my wife being nude mean that she wishes to have sex with any guy that comes along? (Where does this argument come from by the way? It is another one that I can't understand.)

Joe, let's put it another way. You and your daughter are walking down the sidewalk enjoying the afternoon. Maybe you have stopped for Ice Cream. It's hot out, no wind. You and your daughter are wearing Sandals, sunglasses, hat's and enough sunblock to lube my old Chevy. You come across some guy walking along wearing the same. How is he a danger to your daughter? How is this going to hurt her?

Yes there are some people I do not wish to see nude, but then again I probably just plain don't want to see them in the first place. These can and do include my neighbor, (Who has been nicely absent for the past week.) Jerry Springer, my ex-brother-in-law, Ted Kennedy, The Pope, Cameron Diaz, etc. etc.

Cat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe, you made a comment that I find interesting, (and no I am not attacking you on this.) You commented "I do not wish to expose my daughter to naked men--as a matter of responsibility."
Why? Does this include you? If so how are you different, other than being her father, than any other man? How about naked women?

Yes, it would include me. Yes, it would include women.

This is in fact a part of my question. I often hear that exposure to nudity is damaging to children. In what way? How does the sight of nudity, the endless variations in the human body damage children? Does it somehow make them more sexually active? Does it somehow make them into predators? Or prey? How?

Exposure to sexuality, or sex in general, at a very young age is something I think is worth avoiding. I think frontal nudity counts as a form of exposure. Its a personal preference.

If I want to approach this purely rationally, then fathers should be allowed to finger their five year old daughters... because how does exposure to sex /really/ harm anything? Or perhaps they ought be allowed to photograph them in provacative poses... because that's not sex, its just the body being displayed. Or perhaps just watching them get naked would be alright.

I can say, honestly, that social norms dictate other than "why not".

I have also heard the comments that a woman, being nude, is more apt to being attacked. Why? For what reason does her manner of clothing cause her to become prey? Does my wife being nude mean that she wishes to have sex with any guy that comes along? (Where does this argument come from by the way? It is another one that I an't understand.)

I think it is probable that more revealing clothing is a greater chance of sexual assault. It seems intuitive.

joe, let's put it another way. You and your daughter are walking down the sidewalk enjoying the afternoon. Maybe you have stopped for Ice Cream. It's hot out, no wind. You and your daughter are wearing Sandals, sunglasses, hat's and enough sunblock to lube my old Chevy. You come across some guy walking along wearing the same. How is he a danger to your daughter? How is this going to hurt her?

We can pick and choose situations all day. Let's assume the guy is looking at the daughter while walking down the street and while looking develops an erection. This would be exposing the daughter to sexuality, something I have a preference against.

 

[SeaCat]

Yes, it would include me. Yes, it would include women.

Why? What is the rational behind this?

Exposure to sexuality, or sex in general, at a very young age is something I think is worth avoiding. I think frontal nudity counts as a form of exposure. Its a personal preference.

Again why? Why is it worth avoiding? And here is another question, how is nudity equated to sexuality? In what way?

If I want to approach this purely rationally, then fathers should be allowed to finger their five year old daughters... because how does exposure to sex /really/ harm anything? Or perhaps they ought be allowed to photograph them in provacative poses... because that's not sex, its just the body being displayed. Or perhaps just watching them get naked would be alright.

Whoa now wait a minute. You claim rationality and logic, and yet you bring molestation into this. How does nudity equate with the fingering of a five year old by her father? Where does this prejudice come from Joe? (And what else can it be called?) Does your daughter seeing you stepping out of the shower somehow equate with your photographing her being molested? If so how? Again I am not attacking "you" Joe, but I do not understand where these attitudes come from. How is nudity equated with sex? Which is what you are saying here.

I can say, honestly, that social norms dictate other than "why not".

Again, why?

I think it is probable that more revealing clothing is a greater chance of sexual assault. It seems intuitive.

OKay, in a way I can agree with you here. A woman who is slightly dressed is much more exctitng. We wonder what is under what little clothing she has on. Yet how is it intuitive that she has a greater chance of assault? Is she by her clothing inviting it? Is she, by allowing others imaginations to wonder asking for an assault? If so then why is it allowed for a woman to dress in minimal clothing, which allows this imagination to run rampant, yet it is not allowed for the same woman to walk around nude where the imagination has nothing to feed upon? Intuition is a slippery slope.

We can pick and choose situations all day. Let's assume the guy is looking at the daughter while walking down the street and while looking develops an erection. This would be exposing the daughter to sexuality, something I have a preference against.

Yes, as you say we can pick and chose situations all day. Let's assume that you and your daughter are walking down the same street and you see some absolutely beautiful young woman wearing next to nothing and you react. How is this different than the other guy reacting? Your daughter still sees it.

Cat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Why? What is the rational behind this?

The rationale is that if I don't want to expose the girl to naked men, that includes me. Similarly, I don't want to expose the girl to naked women--as an extension of the idea that it is exposing the daughter to sexuality.

Again why? Why is it worth avoiding? And here is another question, how is nudity equated to sexuality? In what way?

It is worth avoiding because I find a preference in her not being exposed to sexuality at a very young age. Nudity, and frontal apparent nudity, is exposure to genitals. Exposure to genitals and states they might be in (erect, as an example) or what people might do with their genitals (given a public situation, touching them or even masturbating becomes hard to draw the line if what is acceptible is nudity and successive approximations of interacting with ones own body) is exposure to sexuality.

Whoa now wait a minute. You claim rationality and logic, and yet you bring molestation into this. How does nudity equate with the fingering of a five year old by her father? Where does this prejudice come from Joe? (And what else can it be called?) Does your daughter seeing you stepping out of the shower somehow equate with your photographing her being molested? If so how? Again I am not attacking "you" Joe, but I do not understand where these attitudes come from. How is nudity equated with sex? Which is what you are saying here.

Rationally speaking, there is no logical reason to deny photographing children in the nude or molestation if we accept that nudity or sexual exposure are not harmful to a child--respectively. That's just logic. As I don't believe that nudity and sexual exposure are not harmful at a very young age, I lean towards an entirely different set of standards.

You say "claim rationality and logic", but there's nothing "claiming" going on. Those premises lead to that conclusion--its not merely a claim.

Again, why?

Why we have the social norms we have? Seems they are a product of a million things, I'm sure. I can't, nor do I think can anyone, accurately enough answer that. I gave, in my first post, a very common and legalistic way of it being looked at.

OKay, in a way I can agree with you here. A woman who is slightly dressed is much more exctitng. We wonder what is under what little clothing she has on. Yet how is it intuitive that she has a greater chance of assault? Is she by her clothing inviting it? Is she, by allowing others imaginations to wonder asking for an assault? If so then why is it allowed for a woman to dress in minimal clothing, which allows this imagination to run rampant, yet it is not allowed for the same woman to walk around nude where the imagination has nothing to feed upon? Intuition is a slippery slope.

It seems intuitive because it seems apparent that the more sexually suggestive a situation is the more likely sex is to happen. I have nothing to say about "allowing" anything--as "allowing" had nothing to do with my statement.

Yes, as you say we can pick and chose situations all day. Let's assume that you and your daughter are walking down the same street and you see some absolutely beautiful young woman wearing next to nothing and you react. How is this different than the other guy reacting? Your daughter still sees it.

Assuming I am walking down the street with the daughter and I am clothed, I am less likely to have it pronounced and known that I am aroused by the woman. If I were naked, then it would be apparent. What is your point?

 

[SeaCat]

The rationale is that if I don't want to expose the girl to naked men, that includes me. Similarly, I don't want to expose the girl to naked women--as an extension of the idea that it is exposing the daughter to sexuality.


It is worth avoiding because I find a preference in her not being exposed to sexuality at a very young age. Nudity, and frontal apparent nudity, is exposure to genitals. Exposure to genitals and states they might be in (erect, as an example) or what people might do with their genitals (given a public situation, touching them or even masturbating becomes hard to draw the line if what is acceptible is nudity and successive approximations of interacting with ones own body) is exposure to sexuality.

Rationally speaking, there is no logical reason to deny photographing children in the nude or molestation if we accept that nudity or sexual exposure are not harmful to a child--respectively. That's just logic. As I don't believe that nudity and sexual exposure are not harmful at a very young age, I lean towards an entirely different set of standards.

You say "claim rationality and logic", but there's nothing "claiming" going on. Those premises lead to that conclusion--its not merely a claim.

Why we have the social norms we have? Seems they are a product of a million things, I'm sure. I can't, nor do I think can anyone, accurately enough answer that. I gave, in my first post, a very common and legalistic way of it being looked at.

It seems intuitive because it seems apparent that the more sexually suggestive a situation is the more likely sex is to happen. I have nothing to say about "allowing" anything--as "allowing" had nothing to do with my statement.

Assuming I am walking down the street with the daughter and I am clothed, I am less likely to have it pronounced and known that I am aroused by the woman. If I were naked, then it would be apparent. What is your point?

Joe, again I am not attacking you. If anything I am attacking a social institution. Yet I would like to see where you are coming from. You claim (and if I am wrong in this please clarify your stance,) that there is no difference between exposing a child to nudity and photographing them in sexualy explicite poses. I strongly disagree. In the last case it is using the power you have as an adult over a child who has no choice in the matter to exploit them for your own uses and enjoyment. In the first case it is an exposure to humanity, much as taking them to a museum which is showing Reubens.

There is a difference between nudity and Pedophilia. Yet you seem, in your posts here to not make that distinction. Why is that? I have been to many nudist beaches and facilities over the years. I have seen many children in the nude, just as I have seen their parents in the nude.

There haas been only one time I have seen a problem, and that was on a public beach where nudity was not allowed. A young boy lost his diaper in the waves and started getting attention from a guy. The guy got his ass thumped and the problem was solved.

Cat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe, again I am not attacking you. If anything I am attacking a social institution. Yet I would like to see where you are coming from. You claim (and if I am wrong in this please clarify your stance,) that there is no difference between exposing a child to nudity and photographing them in sexualy explicite poses. I strongly disagree. In the last case it is using the power you have as an adult over a child who has no choice in the matter to exploit them for your own uses and enjoyment. In the first case it is an exposure to humanity, much as taking them to a museum which is showing Reubens.

There is a difference between nudity and Pedophilia. Yet you seem, in your posts here to not make that distinction. Why is that? I have been to many nudist beaches and facilities over the years. I have seen many children in the nude, just as I have seen their parents in the nude.

There haas been only one time I have seen a problem, and that was on a public beach where nudity was not allowed. A young boy lost his diaper in the waves and started getting attention from a guy. The guy got his ass thumped and the problem was solved.

Cat

I never said you were attacking me. I didn't think you were. You don't have to keep making that clear.

As for what I've made a point about--I don't know that I can make it yet clearer, which may be a failing of my own. I /do/ make a distinction between nudity and pedophilia--there are specific circumstances by which they would be NOT distinct from each other, and I'm pretty clear about that, too.

As for the guy that got beat up... that's a nice form of social justice and apparently "self-help"--but I prefer not to have to rely on the kindness of strangers for protection for children.

 

[Pure]

note to seacat and others,

so as not to distract from nudity, i've opened a thread about what Christians object to in movies: my intent is to look at the relative weighting of sex and violence, among other things. also the nudity issue from a Xtian perspective.

so anyone, do drop by!

 

[tailfinz69]

VERY good points, 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?

 

[SeaCat]

I never said you were attacking me. I didn't think you were. You don't have to keep making that clear.

As for what I've made a point about--I don't know that I can make it yet clearer, which may be a failing of my own. I /do/ make a distinction between nudity and pedophilia--there are specific circumstances by which they would be NOT distinct from each other, and I'm pretty clear about that, too.

As for the guy that got beat up... that's a nice form of social justice and apparently "self-help"--but I prefer not to have to rely on the kindness of strangers for protection for children.

Okay, I have read this statement several times, as well as the others you have made and I finally think I see what you are saying. Let me see if I get this right, and please correct me if I am wrong.

The nude body is equal to sexuality. Or Nudity is in it's own way a form of sex. If I am correct in this interpratation of your comments then yes your other comments are logical. If I am correct in this then I even know where you get your basic argument, which in our societies belief that nudity is equal to sex which is equal to sin. (Yes I too am an American.)

Now following the basic premise that nudity is equal to sexuality/sex, where does this belief come from? What is it's basis? How does one rationaly equate nudity and sex? To me this just doesn't make sense. That to me is like saying that person who uses Birth Control is only interested in sex, and sex with many partners.

Cat

 

[Pure]

in the history of European thought and art, nudity is often equated with truth, lack of dissimulation. a nude goddess figure is held to be more truthful than a clothed one.

in the history of religion in England, sometimes (17 cent.) a quaker evangelist, man or woman, would walk through a town nude, to portray the 'bare truth' of the gospel.

 

[SeaCat]

in the history of European thought and art, nudity is often equated with truth, lack of dissimulation. a nude goddess figure is held to be more truthful than a clothed one.

in the history of religion in England, sometimes (17 cent.) a quaker evangelist, man or woman, would walk through a town nude, to portray the 'bare truth' of the gospel.

Have you ever tried to lie while naked? It's not easy.

Cat

 

[SensualCealy]

I really dont think I was intending for unattractive people to cover up, my intent was to show that everyone has a different idea of attractiveness. Be it heavy, slim, not so pretty or handsome or very pretty and handsome.

I objected to the idea that people think heavy women or men should not run around naked, who gave those people the right to say its okay for some and not others?

C

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).

 

[SeaCat]

I really dont think I was intending for unattractive people to cover up, my intent was to show that everyone has a different idea of attractiveness. Be it heavy, slim, not so pretty or handsome or very pretty and handsome.

I objected to the idea that people think heavy women or men should not run around naked, who gave those people the right to say its okay for some and not others?

C

Cealy,

While I do not think this was directed at me, I do know that I made the comment that there are some people I would not like to see in the nude. For me it is not so much their physical attributes as their attitudes that makes me not wish to see them in the nude. (If I recall correctl I said that their are some people I wouldn't want to see in the nude, then again I just plain didn't want to see them.)

For my part there is also a definite difference between being heavy and being obese. My aunt Petra stands 6'3" and weighs 300+ pounds. She is heavy. My neighbor stands roughly 5'0" weighs the same as my Aunt, she is clinicly Obese.

I would much prefer to see my Aunt in the nude as opposed to my neighbor.

Then again my Aunt has a sense of humor and doesn't think the world should bow down to her, as opposed to my neighbor.

At the beach last summer was a woman who was in my mind incredibly beautiful. (I told her so too.) She was wasted, she looked like a skeleton. She had no hair. (I'm talking absolutely no hair.) She had scars, and yet she was out there wearing a thong. She showed me by this that she had the courage to do what she wanted regardless of what other people thought. She was a survivor and she was intent on enjoying her life. To me that made her absolutely beautiful. (Her scars will fade and her weight and hair will come back, but it was her sense of self, her courage and her joy of life that made her beautiful to me.)

Cat

 

[RomanticLass73]

Every parent has the right - the responsibility - to decide how they will raise their child, what they will all their child to be exposed to and what they won't, to the extent that they are able to control it. That's how it should be, and I respect the decision you've made Joe about what you'll expose your child to. (Your post got me thinking, but my response isn't specifically directed at you.)

I will say, on the other hand, that I think when I have children I'll make a different choice. I think it's important for children to learn from their parents that the bodies of both men and women are beautiful, and that their own body is nothing to be ashamed of. I think it's important for children to learn from their parents how to be comfortable with their own bodies - AND to learn when modesty is appropriate. I think clothing would be optional within my home, with my family, and that my children would learn that modesty is appropriate when guests are around. I see clothing as an extension of manners - that we eat and speak and dress in a way that allows those around us to be comfortable with us. Children learn to eat with forks, to say please and thank you, and to wear clothing with those not in their family because it's polite.

So why is it polite? I think because there are those people that each of us doesn't want to see naked. And the people that each of us doesn't want to see naked is different for each of us - so complicated! LOL I don't wanna see my hairy, big bellied neighbor walk around half naked, scratching his belly. I wish he'd keep his clothes on. But his family seems to have no problem with it. I wander around my house as scantilly clothed as the temperature allows. But when the shades are open or when I'm leaving my home, I wear clothes. Partially because I'd freeze my... tooties... off if I didn't, and partially because it's polite.

So I was gonna answer your question Cat, but it seems I can't LOL I don't see sexuality as intrinsically linked to nudity. Coincidentally linked, yes. People are usually (but not always) naked when they have sex, it's true. I think that saying public nudity is prohibited in order to protect children is a smokescreen for something else that makes people uncomfortable - the mere sight of a nude person does not damage a child's psyche, and it's unfortunately true that children can be and have been molested many times while both the child and the molester are fully clothed. So what else is going on when people get squirmy about public nudity?

 

[tolyk]

I have only a few problems with being nude in public (aside from the weather)..

First, where the hell would I keep my wallet?

Second, my watch would look kinda silly if I had nothing else to match it *nods knowingly*

Thirdly, a woman carrying around a pink purse while nude would look hilarious.. maybe flesh toned would be alright though?


Anywho, just wanted to pop in to make the lame jokes Carry on then.

 

[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 Wordsworth would be generally endorsed in his claim that an ugly person unclothed is (if not immoral) unpleasant, and likewise, most of the public equates a man nude in the presence of children with pedophilia.

Why ask why? No one will understand why you had to ask.

This attitude is only one stupid step away from the Islamic attitude we all deride- that women must hide behind shawls or burkhas, lest the men who see them be forced to rape them. And it is so pervasive that my own children- who were raised around a naked mommy and daddy- have become prudish as they've gotten older. We all wear clothes around each other nowadays, and I find it uncomfortable and irritating.

BUT- I am proud of the fact that they do not judge anyone's right to exist by their wieght or age.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

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.

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.

 

[Liar]

Second, my watch would look kinda silly if I had nothing else to match it *nods knowingly*

Get a matching cock ring.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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.

My eyes are rolling beyond the power of a smiley to express.
So you are saying that there is an absolute, and negative, moral value to nudity in front of children, and that any culture which accepts public nudity in any way is de facto harming the kids?
I don't see how that follows.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

My eyes are rolling beyond the power of a smiley to express.
So you are saying that there is an absolute, and negative, moral value to nudity in front of children, and that any culture which accepts public nudity in any way is de facto harming the kids?
I don't see how that follows.

I'm quite sure I didn't say that at all. I tend to be very literal.

 

[tolyk]

Get a matching cock ring.

That would definitely work, thanks!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm quite sure I didn't say that at all. I tend to be very literal.

Gotcha. Maybe it was the juxtaposition- the insertion of your observation into the topic of nudity. under normal conversational usage, that means a correlation...

Well, your assertion is correct, and pederasts do say that the only reason children are damaged etcetera.

However, my assertion regarding nudity is borne out by real life examples- most of Europe is far more relaxed about this than we puritanical Americans are, and the kids grow up as well as ours do. And the pro-pederasty argument has been well rebutted, both by psychological data and the individual testimony of adults who were in these relationships. It's extremely prone to exploitation and control by the older partner, and it doesn't matter whether the practice is condoned socially or not. (this is referring to teen/adult relationships- pre-adolescent pederasty is a sexual fetish, not anything like a relationship)

And, I suppose, I should have asked you if you really and truly correlate nudity with pederasty, (at least in front of children) and if so- why?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And, I suppose, I should have asked you if you really and truly correlate nudity with pederasty, (at least in front of children) and if so- why?

In some circumstances, yes. I think one benefits the other.

 

[oggbashan]

As I said before...

It all depends on social customs.

Public nudity on many European beaches can be and is accepted. It is not considered a sexual display. Public nudity one hundred yards inland is not acceptable unless in a dedicated nudist resort.

All that is different is custom and public prejudice.

What is acceptable on an European beach is unlikely to be acceptable in many parts of the US. Social customs differ and complying with local customs is courteous even if you personally think they are perverse.

Polite people do not offend local prejudices. In some parts of the world bare feet are considered an insult. When in such a place, keep your shoes and socks on.

Whether a particular human body is aesthetically attractive is irrelevant to the society's custom of public nudity. If the body is very unattractive it might be politer to remain covered even among a host of nude bodies but that is a personal choice.

Og (nude sometimes if appropriate)

 

[Stella_Omega]

In some circumstances, yes. I think one benefits the other.

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.