The Paranoia Surrounding Nudity

[Nightmare060]

NOTE: This is NOT, I repeat, NOT about the practicality of clothing. This is about the moral attitudes towards nudity in general.

This is something for a long time I have felt strongly about. Society today, frowns on the human body. It is mandatory to cover it up and no matter what the reason, if we are not we are considered "In-decent". What I am asking is; Why? What is so instantly shocking and horrible about the naked human body that means we have to keep it under wraps all the time. To fully explain my views, here are some frequent points that come up when I discuss nudity;

It's dirty/indecent/gross!

How? If it's not displayed sexually then what exactly is the problem with the human body on its own? Picture this; 2 people are standing in front of you. They are the same gender, the same approximate height and weight. They are both totally nude. One starts thrusting their hips as you and tries to use "dirty talk", while the other just talks normally. Why are they both in the wrong? From my point of view at least, the one who is being dirty and in-decent is the one thrusting.

I don't want to see you naked!

And why exactly do you have to desire to see a person nude? Furthermore, WHY are you so repulsed by the human body on it's own, that you instantly make yourself believe your eyes are bleeding. Get over it! Most of the time, peoples reaction to nudity is self inflicted. We tell ourself and teach others to react that way, while if we just left it then there wouldn't be so much of a problem. Plus you could always, I dunno, LOOK AWAY? Nudity alone should not be cause for such a big reaction. It's what the person is DOING naked that matters more!

But what if little kids see this?

Um, so what if they do? Kids know what body parts are there. When you were a very small child, did you ever take a bath with your sister (if you have one obviously)? Then you see the genitals and nipples. Both of which the media censor out (I'll say more on that later). Kids will learn what body parts they have sooner or later so why bother shielding it from them? Sure, little kids don't see breasts uncovered all the time. But they will get them eventually and they do learn about it. You only have to look at your own body and see what is covered up. From what I know, small children don't have any problem with nudity until their parents shield them and tell them that it's wrong. We are taught at a very young age to ALWAYS keep our body covered. And so we from then on blindly fallow on without ever stopping to question, just for a second, why if the conditions are suitable we should not be allowed to go around without clothes.

But being naked will lead to more rapes!

Um..No it won't. There is no such thing as "Sexual provocation". Rape is all down to the sick people who decide to do it in the first place. It has nothing to do with how much, or little, you are wearing. Plus 77% of rape victims were attacked by someone they KNEW. This, and the fact that nudity =/= Sex. In todays society, the only nudity that is shown is sexual. Like pornography. However, what if we allowed just natural nudity without any sexual overtones to be viewed? How exactly could this been seen as sexual? Plus, if you think about it, a lot of pornography has only just the person covering their bare body. Like females would cover their over-sized breasts with their hands, or the camera doesn't show everything. It's TANTALIZING. If we remove the tantalization and just see nudity as a natural thing, then there will probably be LESS rapes due to the tantalizing factor of having things just out of reach is gone.

If we're naked, people will get STDs just by hugging!

This has got to be the most stupid argument I have EVER come across. Yet people still use it! OK, who here actually knows what STD stands for? SEXUALLY transmitted diseases. They can only be transfered by sexual intercourse or exchange of bodily fluids. No matter whether your naked or not, hugging will NOT give you an STD.

It's because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and so it's now a sin to be naked!

WRONG again. Adam and Eve covered up to hide THE SHAME OF THEIR SIN. If we don't sin, why do we have to cover up? Adding to that, where in the bible does it say nudity is a sin?

Also, what if we are not Christian? Why do we have to take after two people who made a mistake? We're not them, do what you want.

Here is a quote to further prove my point. Got this from a similar thread to this on gaia online, from a regular in the thread;

Christian nudist: What do you think was the second sin of mankind?

Skeptic: The first sin that we learn about in the Bible was when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. If memory serves, the second sin took place when Cain murdered Able, right?

Christian nudist: That's what most people think. Let's look closer at Genesis and we'll see if that's true. First of all, though, lets be clear about what is meant by the word sin. For our purposes, let's define sin as doing something that God does not want us to do, or not doing something that God does want us to do.

Skeptic: That seems clear enough. Now what?

Christian nudist: Okay. We agree that the first sin of mankind was the eating of the forbidden fruit. This took place in Genesis 3.1-6. Now, if you look closely at the text, the very next thing that happened in verse seven was that Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and they chose to cover themselves. That, in fact, was the second sin of mankind.

Skeptic: Wait a minute! I thought God was the one who decided that people should wear clothes. See, my Bible says here in Genesis 3.21, "And the LORD God made clothes out of animal skins for Adam and his wife, and he clothed them." What about that?

Christian nudist: I don't deny that God made clothing for Adam and Eve, but let's look at what had transpired between verse seven where Adam and Eve made their first attempt at fashion design and verse 21, which you just quoted.

When the first bites were taken from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, SELF and EGO were born. No longer would life be lived as was intended from the beginning, in total dependence on God and with total submission to God. Now Adam and Eve were self-aware, and they immediately started to do things independently of God.

Have you ever looked in the dictionary for all the words that begin with the prefix self? Among others we find self-absorbed, self-advantage, self-centered, self-conscious, self-determined, self-important, self-interest, self-reliant, self-righteous, self-sufficient, not to mention the simple but powerful little word selfish.

Skeptic: I get the picture, and it's not a very pleasant one, I admit. But you still haven't explained why God made clothes for Adam and Eve if they weren't supposed to have them.

Christian nudist: You're right, so let's go back to Genesis. After God listened to the feeble excuses of the man and woman about why they did their sinful deeds, He pronounced the curse on mankind that has been with us ever since. Among other things He proclaimed that unlike the way things had been in Eden, life would become much harsher. The ground from which they must wrestle their sustenance would now bring forth "thorns and thistles" in addition to their food. On top of that, God decided to expel Adam and Eve from the pleasant environment of the garden into the world, where there were great variations in climate.

God must have looked at the pathetic clothes the man and woman had made for themselves out of fig leaves and known that they would do little or nothing to protect them from the rigors of their new environment, so I believe that it was out of compassion that God made protective and durable clothes from animal skins.

Skeptic: That makes sense, I guess. So now clothes are not sinful anymore, right?

Christian nudist: Not so fast! The key to understanding all of this is to examine motives. Why did mankind decide to wear clothes, and why did God decide to clothe mankind. Here we come to the real issue.

Verse 25 of Genesis 2 says that before they sinned, Adam and Eve were both naked and were not ashamed. Why should they be, since they were created by God in His image and God pronounced all that He had created "very good." After they ate of the forbidden fruit, they took it upon themselves to cover up and hide this good creation from each other and from God. The audacity of these people was unbelievable! It's not until we get to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden that any real or legitimate need to clothe the body appeared.

Skeptic: Very interesting! So you're saying that covering the body for protection was okay but covering the body for the reason Adam and Eve did was sin.

Christian nudist: Right! God's motivation for clothing mankind was compassionate and purposeful, while Adam and Eve's motivation was distorted by sin and self-consciousness. By clothing Adam and Eve God was not validating their sinful act. Those who believe that the Bible teaches that God agreed with Adam and Eve and that He wanted human nakedness covered at all times have got it wrong. The second sin is still sin!

But we'll be cold all the time!

Refer to above note.

double standards in the media

Oh here we go! I think the media is largely to blame for re-enforcing this attitude as well as being a victim of it's own success. Here are a few cases to prove my point;

Exhibit A: Mr.Bean

Now, I'm sure all of us at some point in our lives have seen Mr. Bean. I personally loved Mr. Bean as a kid and still do. So does my younger brother who is now 14. Now recently they have started showing these episodes on Nickelodeon. 1 episode has Mr. Bean losing his swimming trunks in the pool, then attempts to get to the changing rooms without being seen (and fails XD). Now Nickelodeon cut that whole part out simply because it showed Mr. Bean's bottom. WTF? Even little kids know what a bottom is! What on earth is the problem with showing a bottom briefly on T.V? Bottoms and breasts are not sexual objects and are not used in reproduction. Yet we are still paranoid about it! Mr.Bean has NEVER used nudity in a sexual way, and every time Bean is without his clothes are for humorous purposes.

Exhibit B: Shower Gel/Shampoo adds.

A lot of you will have seen a lot of shower gel or shampoo adds on T.V. Now what I find somewhat hypocritically about them, is that they can have all this moaning and groaning and being sexually suggestive, yet you can't show past their shoulders or shins. What on earth is the point of THAT?

Exhibit C: The Janet Jackson incident.

At an infamous superbowl event, Janet Jackson who was performing on stage with Justin Timerlake (I think it was, correct me if I'm wrong) had a "wardrobe malfunction" in which the part of her shirt that was supposed to come off and reveal a bit of her bra or something, briefly flashed her bare breast. Now you most likely wouldn't have seen the nipple (even close ups show a nipple guard) and the breast it's self was probably only shown for 3 seconds if that. Yet there were a ton of complaints and the T.V company lost hundreds if not thousands of dollars because of 1 small breast flash. The thing that I find most puzzling though, is that nobody was bothered by the suggestive lyrics like "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song!" or ANY of the suggestive dancing that you would find in pop.

Exhibit D: The Mothers Magazine

A well known baby magazine about baby's health and such aimed at mothers, once showed a baby being breast fed. It didn't show the nipple, but could be correctly identified as a breast. Complaints came flooding in, in one case a mother turned over the magazine to prevent her 13-year-old son seeing it. 1/4 of all comments about the cover were against the nudity flash. It wasn't sexual, in fact it was probably more informative purpose than anything, yet there was still a big shock over it.

Exhibit E: Doctor Who Episode: "Bad Wolf"

In this episode, Captain Jack is stripped naked due to the "de-fabricator" on a robotic version of "what not to wear". He makes a joke referring to this saying that "The viewing figures just went up". This was not intended to be sexual, BUT none the less, the BBC would not allow his bare bum to be shown (like in the Mr.Bean episode) because it was before 8pm. Even Rustle T. Davis commented, that he found it a bit silly to forbid the showing of his back-side. Now where does the logic come into this? I do wonder?

Exhibit F: NYPD Blue 2003 episode.

Recently, The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue. What is the fine for? In this episode, one of the female characters is suprised by a young boy as she is preparing to take a shower. Yet the fine was only because of the shots of the buttocks. For a few seconds in two parts, the rear end of the female is shown on primetime T.V. FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs - specifically an adult woman's buttocks." This was not in a sexual context at all, the woman was preparing to take a shower and yet they still get fined! Now can any one tell me how this was not sexual at all?

A poll was taken on the website with this artical asking two questions. These are the results of both of them;

Is showing naked buttocks during primetime "obscene"?
No- 68%
Yes- 32%
Out of aproximatly 270,000 votes.

The Federal Communications Commission is ...
too strict- 59%
not strict enough- 25%
doing a good job- 16%
Out of aproximatly 240,000 votes.

Source: http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/nude-buttocks-may-cost-abc-14-million/20080126094309990001

It seems that the public agrees that the rules are to strict, yet what are we doing about it? Very little. We can't seem to break old habbits in sociaty even when we admit they are silly!


Exibit G: The Naked Hiker

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/07/world/main567217.shtml

This man has done little more than walk across the country without clothes. His intention? To hike and to show the human body is nothing to fear. And yet he has been arested 8 times, beaten up once, even submitted to a psyciatric hospital for testing. Why? All because he was going around without any clothes on. Am I the only person who sees something wrong with this?

You can also have double standards in general really. Around the coast, on a hot day someone in a swimsuit wouldn't look out of place. Yet if they went in their UNDERWEAR, which is almost the same amount of coverage as a swimsuit. Yet you would get strange looks and possibly even get the police on your back. How does this make sens at all?

To round of my post, I shall say this;

I am not suggesting that everyone should now throw away their clothes and go nude. However, what I am suggesting is that we should seriously sit and think about these "rules" and "Standards" surrounding nudity, and use our heads to decipher when nudity has a sexual purpose and when it doesn't. As I have said before, nudity =/= sex. I think there is absolutely NO reason to make clothing always mandatory in public (except for selected zones, or as I call them, "The little naked peoples corner") or call it in-decent exposure if we do. Clothing should be an optional choice so people can use their heads and decide for themselves when they feel it is appropriate for them to be without clothes.

So what's your take on it? Your view on nudity in general? Do you think that sociaty is realy getting out of hand with this, especially in censorship?

Edit: Here is another quote from gaia, which was by another intelligent member

I am not going around nude.
You sound like a little child.

"MOMMY MOMMY I DUN WANNA THE BLUE LOLLYPOP DUN MAKE ME!"
"... I´m giving you the choice between the blue and the red, dear."

REMEMBER, I'm not suggesting we all be nude. Just that it should be optional.

Edit;

Supporting Link(s); Americans and Dutch: Polar Oposities when it comes to nudity (http://www.alternet.org/stories/50732/?page=1)

I also took a couple of Polls while on Gaia. The first was "Given the choice, if conditions were perfect would you rather spend most of your time naked or clothed?", out of aproximatly 4500 votes these are the results;

Naked- 35%
clothed- 38%
Not sure- 25%

A narrow margin eh?

The second poll was "If someone was naked in front of you, but not acting in a sexual manner or making any sexual gestures, would you mind?" and out of approximately 2000 votes after 100 days, this was the result;

Yes- 24%
No- 50%
Don't Know- 26%

So it seems that the majority of people don't actually care if someone is naked or not! It's just the context that matters.

[Icestorm]

Such an informative post and no-one has said anything.. well I'll say that I myself would not feel comfortable with going around nude.. but I defiently agree that these days we are completely limited in our freedom to express ourselves like that. Its a natural thing and people should be able to act naturally without getting a fine or being harassed.

I agree that people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to express that part of their body and when.. Ive always thought it weird the only small difference between underwear and swim suits and yet the reaction is completely different. Its pretty stupid in my opinion.

[Dexter]

lol.

But being naked will lead to more rapes!
Um..No it won't.
Um..Yes it will

There is no such thing as "Sexual provocation". Rape is all down to the sick people who decide to do it in the first place.
Wrong.

Majority of rapists admit that they looked at some porn, or something that aroused them before committing the act. Criminologists have determined the prior sexual arousal stimulates the act

It has nothing to do with how much, or little, you are wearing. Plus 77% of rape victims were attacked by someone they KNEW.
True. The urge was so high with clothes on. I won't deny, and neither that you, that seeing a naked body usuallly creates auto-arousal. We cannot control it - it's part of the human animal (survival, to multiply the species)

This, and the fact that nudity =/= Sex.
Just like a gun =/= shooting. But it can lead to it.

(That certain analogy is also proven. If there is a gun in the room, there is a much higher chance of violence between parties)

then there will probably be LESS rapes due to the tantalizing factor of having things just out of reach is gone.
You're going to risk the lives (yes lives - a life, family and a community's lives can be ruined by rape) on the factor of probably?

But we'll be cold all the time!
You cannot defend this with religious views.

It's proven that without clothes, the human body would eventually freeze to death in today's average weather

So what's your take on it? Your view on nudity in general? Do you think that sociaty is realy getting out of hand with this, especially in censorship?
No. If anything they're far more lax than they ever were.

[DarkSlayer]

I'm from California, and in California we have nudist beaches, so I'm used to the concept of being nude and it doesn't bother me. What bothers me are the people who try to make a business out of being nude. AKA Strippers, dancers, etc. I have no respect for these people. Nude beaches/colonies are for those of us who appreciate the beauty of the human body. Stripping/dancing imo is degrading and disgusting.

[Nightmare060]

lol.
Um..Yes it will
Wrong.
Majority of rapists admit that they looked at some porn, or something that aroused them before committing the act. Criminologists have determined the prior sexual arousal stimulates the act

Ah, but that implies that they were looking at nudity in a sexual manner. What I'm trying to point out is that we should disassociate plane nudity with sexual material. It depends more on what the said person is DOING naked rather than just the plain fact they are naked.

True. The urge was so high with clothes on. I won't deny, and neither that you, that seeing a naked body usuallly creates auto-arousal. We cannot control it - it's part of the human animal (survival, to multiply the species)

The sexual desire is there, yes. However even animals have methods of displaying themselves sexually rather than just behaving normally. We are the only species who can't seem to separate the natural state of being from sexual behavior. And so because of this, all nudity that is portrayed in the media is sexual. Believe it or not, but there have been people who have gone to nudist venues for peeping or sexual purposes, and have come out disappointed because there is a none sexual air about the place.

Just like a gun =/= shooting. But it can lead to it.
(That certain analogy is also proven. If there is a gun in the room, there is a much higher chance of violence between parties)

That is not an accurate analogy. Because todays society is sexualized, we forget that being naked is just our natural state. We apply a sexual label to anything involving nudity and totally ignore the context that it is in. You don't see many rapes in nudist areas do you?

You're going to risk the lives (yes lives - a life, family and a community's lives can be ruined by rape) on the factor of probably?

You never know what a rapist can encourage himself with. Although some clothing is actually more sexualized than just being naked. A rapist would get turned on by a naked body because he instantly associates it with sex like the rest of society. But if we view the human body in a none-sexual light and just treat it for it's face value, a naked human body, then the sexual urge would be gone. Plus the fact is, there isn't any way to 100% stop rapes. It's unavoidable. However I do believe that there will be less rapes if the human body has it's sexual tag removed, because it would have more to do with how the person was acting than the plain fact they are naked.


You cannot defend this with religious views.
It's proven that without clothes, the human body would eventually freeze to death in today's average weather

Did you even read all of the post? As I clearly stated how I'm not suggesting we ban clothes all together. Plus it's not ALWAYS cold. We can surely use our heads can't we?

No. If anything they're far more lax than they ever were.

As long as people like Jack Thompson continue to have influence on a portion of society, I doubt that we are becoming more lax with censorship.

To Byakuya87: I couldn't agree more! Just goes to show that it's more about how the human body is displayed rather than the fact that someone is naked.

To Icestorm: /Agree. So many double standards in society!

[Sushi]

Originally Posted by Nightmare060
Ah, but that implies that they were looking at nudity in a sexual manner. What I'm trying to point out is that we should disassociate plane nudity with sexual material. It depends more on what the said person is DOING naked rather than just the plain fact they are naked.
The problem with nudity today is that modern society and culture has implanted this "sexual" sense of nudity into everyone. There no longer exists a bridge between nudity and sexuality. They are one in the same in out over-sexed culture.

That is not an accurate analogy. Because todays society is sexualized, we forget that being naked is just our natural state. We apply a sexual label to anything involving nudity and totally ignore the context that it is in. You don't see many rapes in nudist areas do you?
That is because a nudist society is different from a "normal" or clothed society. When the children of nudist's are born, they know nothing but the fact that they should be naked. It is natural to them. And I'm sure there are rapes within these types of societies, just not as many. The desire and mystery behind the human body is gone inside a nudist society, thus the desire from a rapist is somewhat expunged as well.

Humans don't need clothing to survive, that is a simple fact. Even in the winter, you could go inside, wrap up in a blanket, or go to a warmer part of the world to wade it out. However, human's have made it neccessary that we wear clothing. Our society and culture demand it. There are even laws against nudity, such as "indecent exposure". We have given ourselves the illusion that we need clothes through our society. Clothing is no longer a want, it's a need.

[Shinomori]

Wrong.
Majority of rapists admit that they looked at some porn, or something that aroused them before committing the act. Criminologists have determined the prior sexual arousal stimulates the act

Really?

REALLY?

What's your source?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

That paper, written by um...a professor from Northwestern (a prestigious university here in the US), shows that the incidence of rape is DECREASING even though the exposure to pornography in the US is INCREASING.

Your entire argument, really, was based off of saying that porn leads to rape...but it's entirely not true.

In fact, the converse seems to be true.

No matter what, you will ALWAYS have rape. Some people get turned on by being the one "in power" in a relationship, and rape is an easy way for them to feel that way. However, I'm pretty sure it's been decisively proven by that article that porn -> rape is definitely false.

[Nightmare060]

The problem with nudity today is that modern society and culture has implanted this "sexual" sense of nudity into everyone. There no longer exists a bridge between nudity and sexuality. They are one in the same in out over-sexed culture.

I agree with this.

That is because a nudist society is different from a "normal" or clothed society. When the children of nudist's are born, they know nothing but the fact that they should be naked. It is natural to them. And I'm sure there are rapes within these types of societies, just not as many. The desire and mystery behind the human body is gone inside a nudist society, thus the desire from a rapist is somewhat expunged as well.

I see your point, although this tends to emphasis and portray nudist areas as a totally different society, almost an alien land. The only thing that really differs nudist areas from any other place is that clothing is [b]Optional[b] rather than mandatory. It will be a slow change, but I believe that society can change and rid the nasty sexual label that is currently put onto nudity. And so I think that if we get rid of the label, people become more educated about the human body and less self conscious. And so that element of rape would go.

Humans don't need clothing to survive, that is a simple fact. Even in the winter, you could go inside, wrap up in a blanket, or go to a warmer part of the world to wade it out. However, human's have made it neccessary that we wear clothing. Our society and culture demand it. There are even laws against nudity, such as "indecent exposure". We have given ourselves the illusion that we need clothes through our society. Clothing is no longer a want, it's a need.

Very true. I'll gladly dress for the whether, as just about every other nudist would. Just when it isn't necessary, there shouldn't be a social stigmata on nudity IMO. It can be often more comfortable in hot whether without clothes.

[Dexter]

Really?
REALLY?

.. relax. =\

What's your source?
Universities.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013
Your link doesn't work. I can't seem to get access to full papers either, only the abstracts are available.

And I'd rather not trust the net as much as scholarly papers.

That paper, written by um...a professor from Northwestern (a prestigious university here in the US), shows that the incidence of rape is DECREASING even though the exposure to pornography in the US is INCREASING.
That's comforting.

Your entire argument, really, was based off of saying that porn leads to rape
No, my argument was: Criminologists have determined (perhaps not conclusively) that the prior sexual arousal stimulates the act.

This doesn't just cover marketed porn. My argument is based on the psychological implications.

However, I'm pretty sure it's been decisively proven by that article that porn -> rape is definitely false.
However those more predetermined to commit the act will have a stronger reaction to any material of course.

Ah, but that implies that they were looking at nudity in a sexual manner. What I'm trying to point out is that we should disassociate plane nudity with sexual material.
Good luck with trying to accomplish that.

Did you even read all of the post? Plus it's not ALWAYS cold. We can surely use our heads can't we?
I said in average weather. Did you read my post? Perhaps not today's average weather, what with global warming..


Essentially you're saying that clothes provide the 'tantalising' factor. Well the thing is, a boy who has grown up being molested by his unlces and father (this is more common 'than you think'), can turn into a pedophile himself. This has nothing to do with clothes, you understand? It's all psychological.

Now can you imagine if all the children were naked?

But wait:
As I clearly stated how I'm not suggesting we ban clothes all together.
Isn't that the 'tantalising' factor you affirmed to earlier? So some can be clothed if they wish, and some cannot. Hmm.

[Shinomori]

Click "Go to Download Document" on the left side of the screen for the full document.

And see, there you go again!

Your source is "Universities."

You're not actually CITING ANY STUDY!

You're just making up "evidence" that supports your claim, but when pressed you don't really have any statistics at all.

[Dexter]

You're not actually CITING ANY STUDY!
You're just making up "evidence" that supports your claim

..................................................

I'm not "making it up."
I mean my university lectures. I no longer have access to the papers as our year has finished.

And I'd rather not trust the net as much as scholarly papers.
but when pressed you don't really have any statistics at all.
You do realise that not all scholarly papers on these issues are available online? You need access and passwords to access them. You act as if I have the world's studies and I cannot provide them at your feet to prove a point on a forum based on an informal debate about something that will never come about in our existence.

And again, my argument is based on the psychological implications.

I just can't comprehend that you believe that making clothing optional won't have any psychological effects on anyone at all. Some of these things are common sense that don't even need "stats"


As said in the first post, this is a morale issue. It's not about the practicality of clothing - as said in the first post
Morals don't rely much on statistics.

[Shinomori]

...whatever.

I can find a supporting document online, and I find it rather telling that you can't.

Readers can take that how they will.

That aside, I'd have to take objection to the use of "common sense" as an argument.

There are so many different types of people in the world. To every person, there is a different sense of what is right and wrong, what is obscene, what is violent, what is distasteful.

"common sense" is hardly permissible in a debate at all. To me, it is common sense that, for example, "factual" statements have to be backed up with evidence in order for them to count accurately as "facts". Obviously, this isn't true for other people.

Everyone has a varying sense of morality. I, personally, think there would be nothing wrong or immoral about having everyone be nude their entire lives, only covering up in order to prevent death.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say it would be a good thing.

For one, I say it would greatly decrease the amount of people who are overweight or obese. Humans are vain creatures. It's visible in the fact that everyone wants the most expensive car, the biggest house, the prettiest wife. If everyone were forced to present themselves as they are, without cover, wouldn't it provide much more incentive for people to keep themselves in good physical condition?

For another, the standards of "indecency" are arbitrary at best. Do you know how "indecency" laws come into effect?

Under the "Miller test" handed down in "Miller v. California", something is defined as "obscene":

if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The problem arises usually at the "artistic" section of that. After all, everyone's got a differing opinion. The law is vague at best, and extremely poorly worded. To quote the judge from Jacobellis v. Ohio:

I know it when I see it.

That's the perfect summation to my argument. Everyone says they "know it when they see it". A person can go "THAT IS INDECENT!" at anything, and it's true to them.

However, there are also some people that do not believe that same thing is indecent.

By the same token, some people believe that nudity is indecent. Others believe that it shows the artistic value of the human body - why, for example, are most human sculptures nude? Because artists believed that the nude human body was more beautiful than the clothed body.

So how do we know what the "average" person thinks?

Simple.

We don't.

And, if we cannot know this by any human means, we have to let it be left up to individual belief.

[Dexter]

...whatever.

I can find a supporting document online, and I find it rather telling that you can't.

Readers can take that how they will.
Well fine.. even tho it's not my view that porn specifically = rape, here's a scholarly online book that shows the relationship:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=sl4S-R0J9UYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=psychological+implicatio+ns+of+nudity+rape

That aside, I'd have to take objection to the use of "common sense" as an argument.
There are so many different types of people in the world. To every person, there is a different sense of what is right and wrong, what is obscene, what is violent, what is distasteful.
I agree.
"common sense" is hardly permissible in a debate at all.
Neither are dissmissive comments like: whatever.

To me, it is common sense that, for example, "factual" statements have to be backed up with evidence in order for them to count accurately as "facts". Obviously, this isn't true for other people.
lol.
I'll use the more politically correct term of 'Universally' Acceptable then. The world is not nude atm, so it seems to be that the majority view is that it is morally incorrect in some way.

Everyone has a varying sense of morality. I, personally, think there would be nothing wrong or immoral about having everyone be nude their entire lives
I can only think of scenarios where ppl, such as your children, would have to be left alone with other families, say for a friend's b'day party, in which the supervisors are also nude.

It just doesn't sit right with me.

[Yamamoto]

I think it just depends on the situation really. I mean, one has to judge whether it is deemed appropriate depending on the circumstances- if it is a study for the anatomy of the human body in a live drawing class, then thats fine. Something like scarring little children would be deemed inappropriate though.

As mentioned in the thread, it also depends on one's cultures, values, beliefs and also how they are brought up too, and since the Western culture seems to be the most popular or globalised culture, generations are influenced by that.

From an artistic point of view, there are people admire the nude form as it is how nature made us, we were born this way and the essence of time changes our bodies. The human body is made up of complex systems, and perhaps this complexity in the forms is one of many aspects people may admire.

In my experiences though, just like any art, it really depends on the actual person himself to like it, call it art or not. Spencer Tunick is an artist who takes photographs of masses of nude people in different places as installations, and his works depend on the viewers themselves to view it as art or just a picture of a mass group of exposed flesh. It just depends on your way of thinking, and also even how mature one is to judge.

Sure one can argue a perfume ad may include nudity as a marketing ploy of sex sells, the fact that in the particular culture, nudity strikes attention. But in another point of view, perhaps the nudity could be from an artistic point of view, maybe one person's way of showing visually the essence the particular fragrance has and how natural it feels.

It really just depends on the responder, and because of the variety of backgrounds people have, there will always be controversy/conflicting views.

[Nightmare060]

After reading all the recent replies expressing for and against the subject in this debate, I have this to say;

I agree that it can vary between personal beliefs and culture. But over all, in most of the world (especially the west) going out without clothes on is not legal. And so there is still a social stigma that has migrated from the more up tight countries.

If you ask me, I think clothing should be an educated personal choice. They say that we should respect other people who don't want to see people naked by clothing ourselves. But the respect is a one way system! Why can't THEY respect US by allowing us to be naked? What if we don't like to see people in clothes either?

I live in the UK, which has some quite unpredictable weather at times. It is currently winter and very cold. However in the spring and summer, it can frequently be warm enough to go about naked. If allowed, I would probably go naked for short journeys. Like to the shop and back. Or maybe just to the park. It would depend entirely on the situation and the weather. Although the main thing is that it would not be AGAINST THE LAW to go about naked.

People today tend to act like robots. They are taught something as a child, and blindly fallow and enforce it without ever questioning WHY it's there. It's the same case with clothing. There is little reason to ban nudity and put such a sexual label on to it. And yet, people still do it. Just look at my examples in the OP and you can see how silly things are getting.

The idea behind optional nudity is for people to have freedom of choice in public. While some places would need to enforce hygiene and safety laws concerning nudity, this would vary. But over all, it would not be a taboo. In peoples own homes, they would have freedom to decide whether or not to allow nudity, but in public, it's up to the individual.

Now can anyone here give me a good reason for nudity to have;

A: A Sexual label, regardless of the context.
B: Laws enforcing a social rule making it a taboo.
C: A rating system that would limit media containing nudity (regardless of the context) to certain older age groups.

[KT Samurai]

Well, Decado can always fall back on this being the informal debate forum when he gives bad references and states his opinions as fact. We can all do it! It's easy!

Fact: watermelons cause men to rape because when a hole is cut in their side and the contents are sufficiently "smooshed" they kind of feel like a vagina.

Fact: the internet causes rape, because the internet is for porn.

Fact: commercials for the body spray called Axe cause rape because the guys always scores.

See? Easy stuff.

[Neko Bam]

Even though I agree on the opening post that there is no true ethical argument against nudity, but overall it is something society frowns upon: the majority of the worlds population does not enjoy seeing their neighbours ding-dong or seeing the jugglies of the girl across the street. It is just not accepted by society, even though there aren't any ethical arguments against it. If you want to walk around naked you should go to a nudist camp (this is not ment in an insulting way btw :sad)

[Nightmare060]

Even though I agree on the opening post that there is no true ethical argument against nudity, but overall it is something society frowns upon: the majority of the worlds population does not enjoy seeing their neighbours ding-dong or seeing the jugglies of the girl across the street. It is just not accepted by society, even though there aren't any ethical arguments against it. If you want to walk around naked you should go to a nudist camp (this is not ment in an insulting way btw :sad)

The problem I find with nudist areas is that they are hard to get to and are cut off from the rest of society. Why should we have to be only in selected areas just to be most comfortable and natural?

To KT Samurai: The fact is there isn't anything wrong with being naked, weather permitting. We just attach problems. Care to prove me wrong?

[Mobius]

Well, Decado can always fall back on this being the informal debate forum when he gives bad references and states his opinions as fact. We can all do it! It's easy!


lol target teh topic not teh posta. u havnt read a word of what hes said have u?
He already said that wasn't his argument, and that it was on psych implications or sum shit. And then he even provided teh link to support the earlier statement neway

Fact: watermelons cause men to rape because when a hole is cut in their side and the contents are sufficiently "smooshed" they kind of feel like a vagina.
See? Easy stuff.
oh and not every1 has a fked up watermelon fetish.

see. i didn't your whole post, but drew i drew a value judgment from the lil snippet i actually did see.


Reminds you of someone?


everyone knows that if we intraweb geeks see a naked chick we will all crack a woody. now im not really worried about that but people with under6inchers might be.

and plus if we were all nude we would see our relative and family naked around us, kids would learn about and have sex at earlier stages (lolicon in RL is not hot)


and you would all be crushed by my PENIS because it is soo large it will drown the world in its awesomeness


oh snap biotches :3


pps, watch this. my feelings summed up

8hvEsCUj0xQ

ppps, pay special attention to the chorus

[KT Samurai]

ol target teh topic not teh posta. u havnt read a word of what hes said have u?
He already said that wasn't his argument, and that it was on psych implications or sum shit. And then he even provided teh link to support the earlier statement neway

I read 'em, and I know they're junk. Shino noticed it and called it out like a smart person would. When one makes a statement of fact like Dec did you need good evidence and references to back it up. The link he provided was to a book that had nothing but opinions and conjecture to back it up. Nothing solid. I made reference to it earlier by calling it a "bad link".

To KT Samurai: The fact is there isn't anything wrong with being naked, weather permitting. We just attach problems. Care to prove me wrong?

Nope.

[Mobius]

I read 'em, and I know they're junk.
yah just like i know youre a knob.
ignorance anyone??
what have you and your bumchum been sayin all this time dont say anything without evidence??
hmmm???

Shino noticed it and called it out like a smart person would.
again a valued judgement. how would you know what a smart person would call out unless you are claiming that you yourself are smart. and isnt claiming that you yourself are something without people backing you up called....
umm arrogance??


When one makes a statement of fact like Dec did you need good evidence and references to back it up.
isnt "you need good evidence and references to back it up" a "fact statement" in itself??
and refer to above

The link he provided was to a book that had nothing but opinions and conjecture to back it up. Nothing solid. I made reference to it earlier by calling it a "bad link".
i know you made reference to it, im not retarded.
and how is something such as a report on a study not "opinions and conjecture". a person could draw a wide variety of conclusions from the same set of results. the fact that he is a professor or lecturer dont mean piss. his report on the results of a so called study is nothing more than his opinion.
some of the greatest mids the world has seen were convinced that the earth was flat. they even did studies and claimed that their studies concluded that it was flat.

[Nightmare060]

I read 'em, and I know they're junk.

How are my examples and references junk? They put across the point well enough don't they?

Shino noticed it and called it out like a smart person would. When one makes a statement of fact like Dec did you need good evidence and references to back it up. The link he provided was to a book that had nothing but opinions and conjecture to back it up. Nothing solid. I made reference to it earlier by calling it a "bad link".

Updated links and references. If you can't dis-prove or provide an argument to prove my opinion that nudity is NOT bad wrong, then why do you bother to outline it as an opinion?

Nope.

Then why are you arguing against it if you can't suggest why nudity is considered wrong in society?

[KT Samurai]

Nightmare, I ain't talkin' about you. Your post was great. I'm talking about Dec's posts.

yah just like i know youre a knob.
ignorance anyone??
what have you and your bumchum been sayin all this time dont say anything without evidence??
hmmm???

I don't quite understand what you're asking for. Are you asking for people like Shino and I who call out bad posts to present counter evidence? You'll have to clarify what exactly you're talking about here.

again a valued judgement. how would you know what a smart person would call out unless you are claiming that you yourself are smart. and isnt claiming that you yourself are something without people backing you up called....
umm arrogance??

No, I don't think it's arrogance to call out posts that make factual statements without making any effort to support them (outside of saying, "I heard it once in college/university/whatever" (he may have completely misunderstood the lecture for all we know)). Smart people call out posts like those made by Dec because they try to assert themselves as absolute without proving it. Shino wanted a reference and I think he was right in asking for one.

And is feeling smart arrogance?

isnt "you need good evidence and references to back it up" a "fact statement" in itself??
and refer to above

Not really. If you want to convince others that your "facts" are indeed facts then you need to back them up. If you're trying to be deep and thoughtful then a "fact" is something we take for granted to begin with, and we can only go with the most reliable sources we can find.

Hence the request for good evidence.

i know you made reference to it, im not retarded.

I never said you were. I was alluding to it a second time so you knew what I was getting at (and so that other readers knew it, too). I never called you retarded.

and how is something such as a report on a study not "opinions and conjecture". a person could draw a wide variety of conclusions from the same set of results. the fact that he is a professor or lecturer dont mean piss. his report on the results of a so called study is nothing more than his opinion.
some of the greatest mids the world has seen were convinced that the earth was flat. they even did studies and claimed that their studies concluded that it was flat.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that even conclusive evidence can be interpreted any way anyone wants? Obviously, the people who figured that the world is flat were wrong for one reason or another, whether they lacked the tools to figure it out or lacked the objectivity to see the results in front of them.

The link provided by Dec was a book that look was written by a extreme feminist who made no attempt at all to be objective. Her most critical section of the book, titled Pornography is No Fantasy, was merely an examination of real events that happened to cater to her argument. Any serious author can do that. She didn't even reference any real study. The next section, a seemingly very important part of the book (pages 115-154), are not provided in the link.

So, in short, the book is just a bunch of angry feminism trying to demonize the pornography industry based on bad logic. It's a "bad link" for sure.

[Shinomori]

...keep in mind, the author of that book is a well-known feminist.

In addition, the so-called "rich body of statistical evidence" can't be seen, neither can um...actually, ANYTHING. You can see the table of contents.

The problem with that book is this.

(and let me state that it was a total waste of my time to read even the beginning of it.)

You can tell it's biased by looking at ANY PAGE IN IT.

I don't need to see studies and statistics to tell me that there is a relationship between pornography and real violence against women. My body remembers.

Page 113. Why did I pick this quote?

Because the entire book consists of nothing but women spouting off against men.

To quote a review of the article (which I have to take as the best reference on it, since I CAN'T READ THE BOOK)...

Russell's decision to eliminate any pretense of objectivity deviates from social scientific tradition; however, this decision would not necessarily be problematic provided she paid at least minimal attention to research that was contrary to her position. Unfortunately, Russell seems unwilling to acknowledge contradictory findings. For example, to bolster her argument that pornography is a cause of rape, Russell summarizes an aggregate statistical analysis that documented a "highly significant correlation (+.64)... between reported rape rates and circulation rates" (p. 146) of eight pornographic magazines. Studies that find no relationship (e.g., Gentry, 1991) are ignored as are studies that "problematize" her analysis. For example, Baron and Straus (1989) documented a positive relationship between rape rates and circulation rates for Playgirl magazine (cf. Newcomb, 1993). This finding suggests, somewhat counterintuitively, that objectification of men is associated with sexual violence against women.

What's stated there is that this so-called "objective" book does nothing more than present one side of the argument. It ignores every counter-point, and does nothing to further any REAL sort of debate.

The most telling thing for me, really, was when I went onto my college's website, which is linked to university libraries around the entire country, as well as government libraries. The OSU library alone has 5.8 MILLION books, and gets 35,000 magazines a month.

I could not even find MENTION of this "scholarly" book anywhere.

In any of them.

In the entire country.

If that doesn't serve to discredit how much a book is really worth, I don't know what does.

As for you, deva, troll somewhere else.

some of the greatest mids the world has seen were convinced that the earth was flat. they even did studies and claimed that their studies concluded that it was flat.

Total crap.

The "Greatest minds" were the ones that thought the earth was spherical. Do you happen to know any of the following names...

Homer
Pythagoras
Aristotle
Eratosthenes
Ptolemy

Yeah...all of them thought the earth was round. It was opposed mainly by philosophers - you know, the ones that just sort of conjectured on things, and didn't actually test them. In that list alone, you have two of the GREATEST philosophers (aristotle + homer), and the other three are very famous mathematicians and astronomers.

Again, there's no evidence to back your claim up.

Door's that way. -------------->

To sum my point up, I'm just saying for the eighth time that, regardless of whether or not the debate is "informal", you CANNOT state something is "fact" if it doesn't have FACT supporting it.

And it always helps if people can read your "facts" that you're using.

[Mobius]

and yet it was your great philosopher Homer that wrote of great beasts (cilla and caribdis) that would swallow up ships and men. that wrote of reaching the end of the earth to get to Hades.

philosophers speculate son, and so do mathematicians. those you call "great minds" were probably no smarter than me.

Door's that way. -------------->

thanx heaps

i dont know why i wasted my time in this pathetic excuse for a thread

[Shinomori]

Um...yeah.

That's called folklore.

Know who else writes about giant beasts that can swallow men?

Um...well, it's in the bible. Since the bible was divinely inspired, God believes in them too, since he inspired someone to write it.

Oops, my bad.

Besides. Mathematicians do not SPECULATE. Mathematicians come up with proven formulas (the theorems are only not formulas because we have not literally tested EVERY possible case) that are usable in a certain case.

Math is not speculation.

You've proven you're trolling just by even saying that math is speculation. Every theorem can be proven through a system of easily provable (previously proven, usually) steps. By making a second proof based off of other proofs, you're certainly not speculating anything.

And for another thing, you can't compare your intelligence to someone back then. It's been over two thousand years since the majority of those men walked the earth. They were the most brilliant scholars of their time.

You've essentially said that you're as smart as Stephen Hawking, when you take into account the changes in knowledge between then and now.

[Nightmare060]

Guys, can we please get back to the subject at hand? This is spinning way off topic here.

[Dexter]

lulz. I just find it funny that only my first point was trashed repeatedly. Esp by KT Samurai, who seems to have absolutely no argument of his own, merely to discredit mine by words like "junk" and so on.

No one seems to have even questioned the first post's credibility.

After I said that wasn't my actual argument, I used my own POV on the matter. That's what this debate is about.

But nope, that too was trashed. And me alone, for some reason, even though there are numerous ppl in the thread who presented their own POV (and KT Samurai is yet to present his own view btw)
-


there have been people who have gone to nudist venues for peeping or sexual purposes, and have come out disappointed because there is a none sexual air about the place.
I'll need a full out report for this.

Although some clothing is actually more sexualized than just being naked.
Again. Really? Proof.

But if we view the human body in a none-sexual light and just treat it for it's face value, a naked human body, then the sexual urge would be gone.
Again. Give me the great minds who researched this. I'm not taking anything that hasn't been hardassed researched now.

When the children of nudist's are born, they know nothing but the fact that they should be naked.
No one questioned this either? From where did he pull this bullhonky?

No matter what, you will ALWAYS have rape.
Is that really a fact? How do you know?

Anyway, doesn't that disprove no clothes anyway? If we're always going to have it, may as well be clothed imo.

There are so many different types of people in the world. To every person, there is a different sense of what is right and wrong, what is obscene, what is violent, what is distasteful.
As I said I agree, but where's your proof for this? Twins, etc?

How do we know? Common sense.
"common sense" is hardly permissible in a debate at all



Anyway in summation to the offtopic issue, I do believe it was good debating to point out the fault in another's argument or credibility of evidence, but when doing so, at least at least recognise what the debate is about.
Morale issues. If what you're proving is already enforced by all angles (yet not morally) why is it still not in place?
Because ppl have a moral objection to it, and THAT'S what they will present.

Also, if you're going to trash talk the other person then GTFO of the DEBATE section. This means sharing your views and debating with others civilly. And reading what they said.

At least Shino, (after the 'initialness') responded with his own set of arguments and values.


Neway to conclude this spiralling out of control idiocy, in summation, a view that's shared between debaters:

So how do we know what the "average" person thinks?

Simple.

We don't.

And, if we cannot know this by any human means, we have to let it be left up to individual belief.


edit: Oh and no need to get books + resources + evidences to anyone I quoted. I was merely showing how frustrating it can be to be pointed out as having no literary evidence on a matter you know about.

[Nightmare060]

[QUOTE]I'll need a full out report for this.

Doubt you'll find it, as it doesn't make good media material. Plus can you bring up any sources to say that the perverts would get all their after and be jacking off like theres no tomorrow at all the naked people? Nudist areas have some kind of security, and so the perverts who would go their for sexual kicks would clearly be spotted.

Again. Really? Proof.

Just look at the kind of things pop stars wear these days! Or girls out on the town. Prostitutes anyone?

Again. Give me the great minds who researched this. I'm not taking anything that hasn't been hardassed researched now.

Use your brain! If we don't consider the human body, on it's own, to be sexual, what spark would their be for a sexual urge? And I'm talking about just plain naked bodies, not in any erotic positions of poses of any kind.

No one questioned this either? From where did he pull this bullhonky?

I don't know if you've seen toddlers lately, but we aren't born with the "must be dressed no matter what" rule in our heads. Todlers will often just run about naked until they are taught that it's a wrong thing to do. This was the way with me and numerous other kids I have scene. Also if they are the children of nudists, then they aren't going to be taught it's bad to be naked are they? And thus they will probably go about naked more until they are old enough to decide for themselves which is more comfortable.

Is that really a fact? How do you know?
Anyway, doesn't that disprove no clothes anyway? If we're always going to have it, may as well be clothed imo.

Not really. Just like Violence being blamed on video games, rape can be blamed on lack of clothing. We might as well let people go naked IF THEY WANT TO because some people prefer it to being clothed. Can you give me any damn good reason for nudity to be against the law? And please, use your head and say about in general.

As I said I agree, but where's your proof for this? Twins, etc?
How do we know? Common sense.

And so therefore, not every person doesn't like to be naked. Some people would prefer to be naked most of the time and yet the law forbids them. Why?

Anyway in summation to the offtopic issue, I do believe it was good debating to point out the fault in another's argument or credibility of evidence, but when doing so, at least at least recognise what the debate is about.
Morale issues. If what you're proving is already enforced by all angles (yet not morally) why is it still not in place?
Because ppl have a moral objection to it, and THAT'S what they will present.
Also, if you're going to trash talk the other person then GTFO of the DEBATE section. This means sharing your views and debating with others civilly. And reading what they said.
At least Shino, (after the 'initialness') responded with his own set of arguments and values.
Neway to conclude this spiralling out of control idiocy, in summation, a view that's shared between debaters:

You should back up your opinion, but things don't always need a text book source to back things up. Plus most of the time you're just discrediting posts rather than backing up your opinion.

To KT Samurai: I think I miss-read your earlier posts. Please ignore my responses to them.

[Dexter]

Use your brain!
Um.. that was my point:

Oh and no need to get books + resources + evidences to anyone I quoted. I was merely showing how frustrating it can be to be pointed out as having no literary evidence on a matter you know about.

[KT Samurai]

Esp by KT Samurai, who seems to have absolutely no argument of his own, merely to discredit mine by words like "junk" and so on.

I would think that going out of my way to discredit your posts would make my stance perfectly clear.

Although some clothing is actually more sexualized than just being naked.

One word: stockings!

[Nightmare060]

Um.. that was my point:

Care to add something to the actual debate then? Other than your rant on source material.

[Mobius]

Care to add something to the actual debate then? Other than your rant on source material.


lul learn to read, and if you can read then learn to comprehend.

the fact of the matter is that "making clothes optional" would not work in our society. the majority of people want to wear clothes and woul be offended to see nudity all around. this stems from almost every major religion in the world and cannot be changed. it is not possible. and for the minority that may want to walk around nude, then go to nudist areas thats what they are there for. otherwise bad luck. the majority ALWAYS wins that how democracy works.

if you want to make nudity compulsary that is not freedom it is another imposition. and if you seriously believe that clothes are more sexualised than nakedness, there is no word to describe your utter ignorance.

like dec said:
good luck trying to rid nudity of sexuality. if you can do that i will eat my socks.


I would think that going out of my way to discredit your posts would make my stance perfectly clear.

and yet you fail sooo miserably


One word: stockings!
i dont know the freaky shit youre into, but i wouldnt bang a fat ugly chick just coz she has nice stockings.

[Tyekanik]

Hmm. My own opinions incoming on a couple of the points.

I'd support nudity when I wanted to see more than 20% (being generous) of the population naked. Regardless of my mental state for feeling this way, I feel this way. Call it immature, whatever else, doesn't matter - lots of us aren't perfect. How many would really feel safe naked? Rhetorical question.

Hell, have fun standing in line at a convenience store (just how uncomfortable could you get - hey bud, dropped a quarter...). Be sure to get a nice purse to stick all your crap in too. There's a limit to what one can carry with no pockets. Otherwise you're probably wearing some form of pants. Defeated point.

Nudity makes no logical sense in daily life. I for one couldn't sit on any park benches or the such, nor public transport, who knows who's balls have been there? I'm a horrible person because I think about this stuff I know, though I'm not the only one. Movie theaters are out for another example.

If someone is a rapist, they are already off in the head. Supporting facts? Rape is ****** up. Debunk that. Who cares what a rapist watched beforehand? (crime of passion? Not all rapists plan on setting out to commit evil, see my thoughts above on a rapists mind) Putting naked women in front of them would not be a positive thing. Saying anything different is insanity. Pervs too, there are already people whacking off in public. Give them that much more material and see what happens. Yeah, pedo's are really gonna stop eyeballin the 12 year olds because everybody's naked :rolleye09 I'm using simple logic to come to these conclusions, not looking for scholarly facts. Feed something, it gets bigger (after some base theorums of life get debunked we'll move on to more complicated ones). Don't need any more smarts than a middle school kid to figure this stuff out.

Nekkid womens stimulate guys. Most of them anyway, me included! (quite sure it stimulates a raptist!!!! I got the feeling!!!! else...wtf are they doing?). Sex offenders overindulge in a womans body. They can't control their hormones or they don't want to. Would seeing naked women on tv every seven minutes or whatever cause them to be more active?

Thats what a stimulus does. It...stimulates things. This can be discussed further once Naked Women Makes Guys Horny is debunked.

Again, regardless of how things are in a perfect society, we gots the bad guys. Pretty sure instincts have taken root. Removing clothing is actually just a step towards more beast like behavior if you ask me (scenes of moral deprivation often include excessive nudity and public animalistic sex - reference, The Island of Dr. Moreau), however I'm moving on.

'People' can't handle all around nudity because not enough have morals. The few can always spoil it for the many, if the numbers were even that generous. I don't want numbers though, its clear what's a good idea and whats not without someone who got a degree in not raping women telling you based on their own personal research.

Last thing, on clothing being sexualized, and women being sexualized. Yep, some of it is. Its intended that way. That latex nurses outfit is indeed clothing, and I highly doubt its for comfort. People like variety - some people like that stuff (lingerie man myself) whereas the entire point of it is what lies beneath (its only sexy when there is a naked woman beneath! It's really not all that when viewed on some hangers...) Naked women will be de-sexualized when I stop having sex with naked women, its not just one way when its convenient, and another when its convenient again.

Please forgive any crudeness and minor jokes, trying to offer some very basic truths that I believe everyone can understand, and lighten up the tone. Got a little overworked at some point.

As a disclaimer I do not in fact believe the Island of Dr. Moreau to be valid scientific evidence, however everything Val Kilmer said was true.

Lets enjoy debating, this was an excellent read for awhile :(

[Nightmare060]

lul learn to read, and if you can read then learn to comprehend.

I do. And I can comprehend that he didn't add much to the actual subject other than just trying to show how my points and sources were not valid.

the fact of the matter is that "making clothes optional" would not work in our society.

Yet.

the majority of people want to wear clothes and woul be offended to see nudity all around.

I'm sure I edited my post to add the results of the poll I took. Because if you look at them, you will see that the margin of people preferring to be clothed and those preferring to be naked is very slim. Also, the vast majority of people are NOT offended by plain nudity, as it is seen in a none-sexual light.


this stems from almost every major religion in the world and cannot be changed.

Refer to my quoted dialog of the Christian nudist. Can you offer any piece of bible or religious text that specifically outlines being a taboo?

it is not possible. and for the minority that may want to walk around nude, then go to nudist areas thats what they are there for.

Well think of it like this;

It is against the law and considered in-decent to go anywhere without a thick fluffy coat on. No matter what the weather, you could get arrested if you went outside without the coat on. Because people would call you dirty/in-decent/perverted. And the only place you can take the coat off is in specifically designated, remote, hard to reach and hard to find locations. How would you feel about that?

otherwise bad luck. the majority ALWAYS wins that how democracy works.

In the words of Iron Maiden "You don't get a say, the majority gets it's way. Your outnumbered by the bastards 'till the day you die!". And if you visit the link that I provided, you can see how in other countries nudity is not such a taboo. So why can't the majority realize that nudity being a bad thing is delusional?

if you want to make nudity compulsary that is not freedom it is another imposition. and if you seriously believe that clothes are more sexualised than nakedness, there is no word to describe your utter ignorance.

Read my posts I again and think about what you just said.

A: I am wanting to make nudity optional not compulsory.
B: Making clothing compulsory, by your standards, should then be taking away freedom.
C: I said SOME clothes are more sexual than nudity. Not all. Plus nudity shouldn't be sexual anyway.

like dec said:
good luck trying to rid nudity of sexuality. if you can do that i will eat my socks.

It can be done, but it won't happen over night.

and yet you fail sooo miserably

Seeing as simply discrediting another's points is not forming a proper argument, dec does fail. As far as I'm aware, he has yet to come up with anything to support clothing being mandatory and nudity remaining a taboo.

i dont know the freaky shit youre into, but i wouldnt bang a fat ugly chick just coz she has nice stockings.

Your missing the point completely. He is supporting my point on how some items of clothing can be deliberately more sexualized than the human body on it's own. As they can emphasis attention to areas of the body which have the most sexual stigma.

So let's cover what we've established here shall we?

A: My point is clothing should be optional not mandatory.
B: Religion is not against nudity.
C: Some countries clearly don't view nudity as a taboo.
D: Things can change slowly.
E: Making clothing mandatory robs people of some freedom.
F: Some clothing can be more sexualized than just a naked body it's self.

Anything more you can try and tell be about how being naked is not good? And please, read my posts before responding.

Hmm. My own opinions incoming on a couple of the points.
I'd support nudity when I wanted to see more than 20% (being generous) of the population naked. Regardless of my mental state for feeling this way, I feel this way. Call it immature, whatever else, doesn't matter - lots of us aren't perfect. How many would really feel safe naked? Rhetorical question.

That's why clothing would be made optional, not mandatory.

Hell, have fun standing in line at a convenience store (just how uncomfortable could you get - hey bud, dropped a quarter...). Be sure to get a nice purse to stick all your crap in too. There's a limit to what one can carry with no pockets. Otherwise you're probably wearing some form of pants. Defeated point.

Not defeating the point, as I'm suggesting clothing should be optional. So we can still dress for practicality. Plus your speaking mostly out of paranoia. What do you think someones gonna do? Rub their dick in your face? I somewhat doubt it.

Nudity makes no logical sense in daily life.

Apart from Comfort, and cooling during the summer. Oh wait, that means they DO have logical sense on daily life. Guess you fail there.

I for one couldn't sit on any park benches or the such, nor public transport, who knows who's balls have been there? I'm a horrible person because I think about this stuff I know, though I'm not the only one. Movie theaters are out for another example.

I believe nudist areas have a rule that you bring a personal towel to sit on for purposes of hygiene. Plus your often touching things with your naked hands *le gasp!* And yet do you hesitate to touch a park bench with your hand? I think not!

If someone is a rapist, they are already off in the head. Supporting facts? Rape is ****** up. Debunk that. Who cares what a rapist watched beforehand? (crime of passion? Not all rapists plan on setting out to commit evil, see my thoughts above on a rapists mind) Putting naked women in front of them would not be a positive thing.

*face/palm* Now who's not using logical sense? If the human body was de-sexualized then the instant erotica of a naked person wouldn't be there. If anything, rape rates would go DOWN because it would depend on the way the person was acting, not how they are dressed. Plus if your gonna be raped, your gonna be raped. No two ways about it. And plus, it's the action that counts, the rapist can't claim "well she was naked, she was asking for it!". 'Cause no one is asking for rape, no matter what they wear.

Saying anything different is insanity.

Oh wait, I see what your doing here. Your trying to go "God Mode Turn on". Face it, just because you say something doesn't mean your right.

Pervs too, there are already people whacking off in public. Give them that much more material and see what happens. Yeah, pedo's are really gonna stop eyeballin the 12 year olds because everybody's naked :rolleye09 I'm using simple logic to come to these conclusions, not looking for scholarly facts. Feed something, it gets bigger (after some base theorums of life get debunked we'll move on to more complicated ones). Don't need any more smarts than a middle school kid to figure this stuff out.

Have you read anything I posted? As I keep saying time and time again, if nudity was de-sexualized then people wouldn't be getting off purely off naked people. If this was the case, you'd get hundreds of people flocking to nudist beaches to jack off!

Nekkid womens stimulate guys.

Got anything to prove this? We only are stimulated by plain nudity because we link it to sex. It should be more the actions of the person that makes them sexual, not the cover level of their body.

Most of them anyway, me included! (quite sure it stimulates a raptist!!!! I got the feeling!!!! else...wtf are they doing?). Sex offenders overindulge in a womans body. They can't control their hormones or they don't want to. Would seeing naked women on tv every seven minutes or whatever cause them to be more active?

Are you suggesting that people are not in control of their hormones? We have brains you know. If nudity is allowed then we won't be like that guy in Arm of Kannon, who just doesn't stop ejaculating. Get a grip on reality pls! K thnx.

Thats what a stimulus does. It...stimulates things. This can be discussed further once Naked Women Makes Guys Horny is debunked.

Once again, if nudity is not linked to sex, it will be what the person is doing that will make people horny.

Again, regardless of how things are in a perfect society, we gots the bad guys. Pretty sure instincts have taken root. Removing clothing is actually just a step towards more beast like behavior if you ask me (scenes of moral deprivation often include excessive nudity and public animalistic sex - reference, The Island of Dr. Moreau), however I'm moving on.

And I think that you are just over-dramatizing the situation to try and get your negative points across. I doubt things will be anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

'People' can't handle all around nudity because not enough have morals. The few can always spoil it for the many, if the numbers were even that generous. I don't want numbers though, its clear what's a good idea and whats not without someone who got a degree in not raping women telling you based on their own personal research.

So you don't want to know my side of the argument, even if I bring up statistics to back it up? Your trying to make this argument increasingly one sided aren't you?

Last thing, on clothing being sexualized, and women being sexualized. Yep, some of it is. Its intended that way. That latex nurses outfit is indeed clothing, and I highly doubt its for comfort. People like variety - some people like that stuff (lingerie man myself) whereas the entire point of it is what lies beneath (its only sexy when there is a naked woman beneath! It's really not all that when viewed on some hangers...) Naked women will be de-sexualized when I stop having sex with naked women, its not just one way when its convenient, and another when its convenient again.

But the fact is that it is emphasizing the body in a certain sexual way. Where as if the body is just naked, not in sexual positions or anything, it hasn't got the sexual implications with it.

Please forgive any crudeness and minor jokes, trying to offer some very basic truths that I believe everyone can understand, and lighten up the tone. Got a little overworked at some point.

More like basic opinions that you do not want to be proven wrong. Guess you don't quite understand the meaning of a debate.

As a disclaimer I do not in fact believe the Island of Dr. Moreau to be valid scientific evidence, however everything Val Kilmer said was true.
Lets enjoy debating, this was an excellent read for awhile :(

And what is the relevance of this?

[Dexter]

@Tyekanik: Well thought out.+rep

I find it funny that Nightmare060 didn't have a shot at countering it.

Seeing as simply discrediting another's points is not forming a proper argument, dec does fail.
lol. KT Sam - he's insulting you, since I did no such thing.

And as I said in the last page, and in your PM, I WASN'T discrediting your points. Read before assuming I was trying to discredit your points. You've based all your insulting power off of that, yet I was doing completely the opposite.
I said that you DIDN'T need to have the resources. That's why the other two were attacking my views - their only opposition at that point - remember?

I even quoted myself.

I'll do it. Again:

Oh and no need to get books + resources + evidences to anyone I quoted. I was merely showing how frustrating it can be to be pointed out as having no literary evidence on a matter you know about.

It was an example. I made it more than clear. I even answered to your claims, because I allowed you to present them, so that I would have something to debate against. Why would I then turn around and discredit it, thus discrediting my earlier arguments?

[Nightmare060]

@Tyekanik: Well thought out.+rep
I find it funny that Nightmare060 didn't have a shot at countering it.
lol. KT Sam - he's insulting you, since I did no such thing.
And as I said in the last page, and in your PM, I WASN'T discrediting your points. Read before assuming I was trying to discredit your points. You've based all your insulting power off of that, yet I was doing completely the opposite.
I said that you DIDN'T need to have the resources. That's why the other two were attacking my views - their only opposition at that point - remember?
I even quoted myself.
I'll do it. Again:
It was an example. I made it more than clear. I even answered to your claims, because I allowed you to present them, so that I would have something to debate against. Why would I then turn around and discredit it, thus discrediting my earlier arguments?

This has been sorted. I'll re-check any arguments you made to make a proper debate out of this.

[Tyekanik]

Not defeating the point, as I'm suggesting clothing should be optional. So we can still dress for practicality. Plus your speaking mostly out of paranoia. What do you think someones gonna do? Rub their dick in your face? I somewhat doubt it.

Being a bit touchy, I said comfort, not molestation :facepalm:

Apart from Comfort, and cooling during the summer. Oh wait, that means they DO have logical sense on daily life. Guess you fail there.

Comfort is debatable, I just pointed out that many people wouldn't be comfortable.

Question, does Nightmare060 telling me I fail give weight to his argument?

If it doesn't - don't aim that shit at me. Do things in a non aggressive manner and I'll take you seriously. Even though I tossed in some jokes, when it comes down to it I had valid points. You pull annoying high school antics like this for what reason?

I believe nudist areas have a rule that you bring a personal towel to sit on for purposes of hygiene. Plus your often touching things with your naked hands *le gasp!* And yet do you hesitate to touch a park bench with your hand? I think not!

More perfect world scenarios, everyone'll follow the codes like they do now....

*face/palm* Now who's not using logical sense? If the human body was de-sexualized then the instant erotica of a naked person wouldn't be there. If anything, rape rates would go DOWN because it would depend on the way the person was acting, not how they are dressed. Plus if your gonna be raped, your gonna be raped. No two ways about it. And plus, it's the action that counts, the rapist can't claim "well she was naked, she was asking for it!". 'Cause no one is asking for rape, no matter what they wear.

Oh wait, I see what your doing here. Your trying to go "God Mode Turn on". Face it, just because you say something doesn't mean your right.

K, I gotta say something.

HOW IN THE NETHER HELLS DO YOU DESEXUALIZE NEKKIDNESS TO A RAPIST? This is a legit problem to the nudy idea - that quite a good deal of people do what they will, regardless of what they should. Please, offer a counterpoint, not another "I'm right your wrong" statement. Who said anything about a rapists claim? I think it should have been obvious that I believe rapists claims are worth their weight in horse puckey.

Have you read anything I posted? As I keep saying time and time again, if nudity was de-sexualized then people wouldn't be getting off purely off naked people. If this was the case, you'd get hundreds of people flocking to nudist beaches to jack off!

You do realize, I hope - that nudist colonies are controlled. Open nudity would lack that control. Again, please offer a valid counterpoint, not some sophistry that makes me yawn.

Got anything to prove this? We only are stimulated by plain nudity because we link it to sex. It should be more the actions of the person that makes them sexual, not the cover level of their body.

You...can't be serious...

Are you suggesting that people are not in control of their hormones? We have brains you know. If nudity is allowed then we won't be like that guy in Arm of Kannon, who just doesn't stop ejaculating. Get a grip on reality pls! K thnx.

Here, can you not see that I specifically targeted sex offenders with that statement? little copy past from my sexy self - Sex offenders overindulge in a womans body. They can't control their hormones or they don't want to. Yep, sex offenders are lacking in control.

Your argument to this?

Or is it you just want to sneak in some quick jives as you intentionally twist what I say?

Defend rapists more, its inadvertently what you are doing. If I have to point this out to you, don't worry about me posting a response again. I know futility when I see it.

Once again, if nudity is not linked to sex, it will be what the person is doing that will make people horny.

Sorry, I still find naked women hot.

And I think that you are just over-dramatizing the situation to try and get your negative points across. I doubt things will be anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

Ding ding ding! You found one of the silly parts! If you seriously believe, even after the disclaimer, that I think things would be like the Island of Dr. Moreau, you have no chance at this, period. If you can't discern the obvious points from the obvious jokes, there is some skill lacking.

I add bits of humor to keep things light, some people just attack them. Do what you will, I'll keep trying to get people on that lighter note.

So you don't want to know my side of the argument, even if I bring up statistics to back it up? Your trying to make this argument increasingly one sided aren't you?

Sigh. I just don't care about numbers. I am not always in the majority. Life is like that. What I can't stand is people needing other peeps to tell them they are right. Lemmings. It isn't about politics so don't go off on another sophistry tangent, its about the basics.

I have a sense of right and wrong (I can do this for myself!). You want to bring in numbers? Go for it. Not like I am legitimately limiting your ability to bring numbers to me.

In any case I assume it was another lame attempt at hiding the fact you had nothing to pit against it.

Debating is one sided. You pick a side and argue it, yes? It's about what you do with the other debaters side. You do nothing. If I fully believe in both sides..eh..what is there to debate? That I'm stuck on the fence? Thats what reading debates is for, not participating.

But the fact is that it is emphasizing the body in a certain sexual way. Where as if the body is just naked, not in sexual positions or anything, it hasn't got the sexual implications with it.

For some people. Its the ones who do bad things you have to look out for.

More like basic opinions that you do not want to be proven wrong. Guess you don't quite understand the meaning of a debate.

Hmm? My point is, before you go picking my post apart (I honestly think you didn't do a good job) you have to first debunk the base truths in life in order to sway anyone with some cockamamie ideas like - we should all do this, and it would work -...savvy?

You know, the most simple concepts that are being completely overlooked in this intellectual brawl make me cringe. When I say rape is bad, you all but say prove it?

/moreviolentfacepalm

And what is the relevance of this?

Whoa be unto you who does not recognize the greatness of Val Kilmer. At the time I felt it was insanely idiotic of me to actually feel the need to put a disclaimer on a Hollywood movie. However, you completely tied that in with everything else. I need to get off this level.

Yeah, Hollywood is about exaggeration.

@Decado Common sense still stands strong!

[DarkSlayer]

The topic of this thread is great, the arguement is great, it's a very indepth thread - but is it really necessary to say shit like "You fail" when it comes to a debate? This isn't an insult match, this is an informal debate. Show some respect to those who are actually taking the time to go indepth and actually show interest in the thread's topic and debate with you.

I mean no offense to anyone who has already posted here, but it's really dissappointing to see individuals actually showing intelligence by writing a page and a half of information/opinions, only to see them quote someone else and say "You fail" instead of something intelligent like "I disagree". I've been seeing that a lot in some of the threads that Nightmare has made for us and I've held my tongue up until now. Just wanted to throw that out there and I hope I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Other than that, by all means - keep debating! It's been a very enjoyable debate so far!

[Vampyrelord]

Alright, that does it. Spam and flaming is out of control here...

KT Samurai and Deva, do not flame in debates again.

I'm closing this thread until further notice.

[Nightmare060]

Being a bit touchy, I said comfort, not molestation :facepalm:
Comfort is debatable, I just pointed out that many people wouldn't be comfortable.
Question, does Nightmare060 telling me I fail give weight to his argument?
If it doesn't - don't aim that shit at me. Do things in a non aggressive manner and I'll take you seriously. Even though I tossed in some jokes, when it comes down to it I had valid points. You pull annoying high school antics like this for what reason?
More perfect world scenarios, everyone'll follow the codes like they do now....
K, I gotta say something.
HOW IN THE NETHER HELLS DO YOU DESEXUALIZE NEKKIDNESS TO A RAPIST? This is a legit problem to the nudy idea - that quite a good deal of people do what they will, regardless of what they should. Please, offer a counterpoint, not another "I'm right your wrong" statement. Who said anything about a rapists claim? I think it should have been obvious that I believe rapists claims are worth their weight in horse puckey.
You do realize, I hope - that nudist colonies are controlled. Open nudity would lack that control. Again, please offer a valid counterpoint, not some sophistry that makes me yawn.
You...can't be serious...
Here, can you not see that I specifically targeted sex offenders with that statement? little copy past from my sexy self - Sex offenders overindulge in a womans body. They can't control their hormones or they don't want to. Yep, sex offenders are lacking in control.
Your argument to this?
Or is it you just want to sneak in some quick jives as you intentionally twist what I say?
Defend rapists more, its inadvertently what you are doing. If I have to point this out to you, don't worry about me posting a response again. I know futility when I see it.
Sorry, I still find naked women hot.
Ding ding ding! You found one of the silly parts! If you seriously believe, even after the disclaimer, that I think things would be like the Island of Dr. Moreau, you have no chance at this, period. If you can't discern the obvious points from the obvious jokes, there is some skill lacking.
I add bits of humor to keep things light, some people just attack them. Do what you will, I'll keep trying to get people on that lighter note.
Sigh. I just don't care about numbers. I am not always in the majority. Life is like that. What I can't stand is people needing other peeps to tell them they are right. Lemmings. It isn't about politics so don't go off on another sophistry tangent, its about the basics.
I have a sense of right and wrong (I can do this for myself!). You want to bring in numbers? Go for it. Not like I am legitimately limiting your ability to bring numbers to me.
In any case I assume it was another lame attempt at hiding the fact you had nothing to pit against it.
Debating is one sided. You pick a side and argue it, yes? It's about what you do with the other debaters side. You do nothing. If I fully believe in both sides..eh..what is there to debate? That I'm stuck on the fence? Thats what reading debates is for, not participating.
For some people. Its the ones who do bad things you have to look out for.
Hmm? My point is, before you go picking my post apart (I honestly think you didn't do a good job) you have to first debunk the base truths in life in order to sway anyone with some cockamamie ideas like - we should all do this, and it would work -...savvy?
You know, the most simple concepts that are being completely overlooked in this intellectual brawl make me cringe. When I say rape is bad, you all but say prove it?
/moreviolentfacepalm
Whoa be unto you who does not recognize the greatness of Val Kilmer. At the time I felt it was insanely idiotic of me to actually feel the need to put a disclaimer on a Hollywood movie. However, you completely tied that in with everything else. I need to get off this level.
Yeah, Hollywood is about exaggeration.
@Decado Common sense still stands strong!

Point A: The point I'm trying to make on rapist and such are that, in a world where nudity is not directly a sexual object, rapes might decrease because the mystery and taboo that surrounds the human body wouldn't be there. Besides, rape is about power and control, not sexual desire. Plus as I've said many times over in the past, if someone is going to rape you, there going to rape you. No matter how your dressed.

Point B: Yes I do understand that nudist areas are controled. However that is because the natural human body in todays sociaty is sexualised, and so people would enjoy seeing them naked in the wrong sense, which is not what they are trying to prove.

Point C: The human body is currently labled as sexual and so we creat a mental link between the two. It is hidden and the media only brings it out when the intention is sexual. So there is a sense of taboo, mystery and sexual air when nudity is shown, regardless of the context. What I'm trying to point out here is that people who disasosicate sex from nudity don't instantly get horny and start jacking off. Nudists already don't have an issue with the human body, as it's just the natural state. I want to try and prove that me just sitting at my computer naked, talking to my freinds, is NOT a sexual, perverted or in-decent act like many would belive.

Point D: If you are wanting to properly debate then argue against my points rather than avoiding them and plugging your ears singing "I'm right your wrong!" all the time. Anyway, I am not suggesting we all be lemons. However by outright condeming nudity, we ARE being lemmings, we ARE being sheep to their flock because we never stop and think to questions why things are. However in this sociaty, as in the Iron Maiden quote, the majoraty gets it's way. And yet strangley, the majoraty of people don't mind nudity. Many people don't understand why we are taught to be self conciouse and why none-sexual nudity is a taboo. Yet we don't do anything about it. Why? If we don't like it why do we have to conform to a standard that is in-correct? People need to realise that it is their minds and their mental links that make a naked human body into a sexual thing, rather than just the body it's self. It should depend much more on what the said person is doing rather than just the fact that they are naked.

Point E: To round of this post, I will say that, first of all, I have already gone on about the point of rape. Secondly, can you please provide counter arguments to all of my points rather than ignoring them and refusing to debate because "your right". And if that is not your trying to do, then please continue to debate and prove it so.

[Mobius]

Point A: The point I'm trying to make on rapist and such are that, in a world where nudity is not directly a sexual object, rapes might decrease because the mystery and taboo that surrounds the human body wouldn't be there.
what arouses men? boobies, ass and vagina. other thing only heighten this state of arousal.

Besides, rape is about power and control, not sexual desire. Plus as I've said many times over in the past, if someone is going to rape you, there going to rape you. No matter how your dressed.
like i said, power and control only heighten an already aroused state of mind. if power and control was what it was all about, then why should the act of penetration even need to take place? surely forcing the victim to lets say, clean your gutters also shows power and control.


Point C: The human body is currently labled as sexual and so we creat a mental link between the two. It is hidden and the media only brings it out when the intention is sexual. So there is a sense of taboo, mystery and sexual air when nudity is shown, regardless of the context. What I'm trying to point out here is that people who disasosicate sex from nudity don't instantly get horny and start jacking off. Nudists already don't have an issue with the human body, as it's just the natural state. I want to try and prove that me just sitting at my computer naked, talking to my freinds, is NOT a sexual, perverted or in-decent act like many would belive.
if you can seperate it, hats off to you. but the fact of the matter is that last year some girls were gang raped by (i hope i dont offend muslims) muslim youths. this is in AUSTRALIA
and when the mufti (religious leader) was asked why he said:
if you leave meat out on the window then the cats and dogs will definitely pounce on it and eat it.
this was clothed, imagine naked. and imagine 10 year old girls, who were "given the choice" of being naked by their new-age "enlightened" parents.

Point D: If you are wanting to properly debate then argue against my points rather than avoiding them and plugging your ears singing "I'm right your wrong!" all the time. Anyway, I am not suggesting we all be lemons. However by outright condeming nudity, we ARE being lemmings, we ARE being sheep to their flock because we never stop and think to questions why things are. However in this sociaty, as in the Iron Maiden quote, the majoraty gets it's way. And yet strangley, the majoraty of people don't mind nudity. Many people don't understand why we are taught to be self conciouse and why none-sexual nudity is a taboo. Yet we don't do anything about it. Why? If we don't like it why do we have to conform to a standard that is in-correct? People need to realise that it is their minds and their mental links that make a naked human body into a sexual thing, rather than just the body it's self. It should depend much more on what the said person is doing rather than just the fact that they are naked.
the fact of the matter is that women and children are the most vulnerable part of our society. gone are the days when they were simply possessions of a man. allowing them to be nude when there are real sexual predators in the world is simply out of the question. if it means forcing a minute amount of people to wear clothes then so be it.
i mean we are technically forcing a small number of people not to kill others, and you cant claim that as taking away freedom.

as for iron maiden, they are simply a insignificant bunch of disillusioned fools.
"You don't get a say, the majority gets it's way. Your outnumbered by the bastards 'till the day you die!".
that is laughable. for this to be relevant to anybody then they must forever choose to go against the majority whether the majority is right or wrong.

this is not a political statement, its just a fickle attempt to get angry outcast youth to buy their CDs, effectively giving them the illusion that its the against them world and the listening to iron maiden will somehow validate that.

[Nightmare060]

what arouses men? boobies, ass and vagina. other thing only heighten this state of arousal.

If body parts naturaly cause arowsal then why don't nudists get horny when seeing each other?

like i said, power and control only heighten an already aroused state of mind. if power and control was what it was all about, then why should the act of penetration even need to take place? surely forcing the victim to lets say, clean your gutters also shows power and control.

I see your point. Although I think I should mention that something like 70% of rape victems were attacked by someone they knew. Random street attacks are very rare, and I doubt that the state of someones dress would realy have much of an effect on it. As I have said before, if somone going to rape you, they will. Regardless of somones state of dress.

if you can seperate it, hats off to you. but the fact of the matter is that last year some girls were gang raped by (i hope i dont offend muslims) muslim youths. this is in AUSTRALIA

In which case that proves that state of dress has little to do with rape!

and when the mufti (religious leader) was asked why he said:
if you leave meat out on the window then the cats and dogs will definitely pounce on it and eat it.

It's not quite the same though. As I have said before (and I will look up exact statistics for this) public rapes are very rare. The person who rapes you is already going to have the mindset for it, and now that I think about it, would make the human body sexual on his own. Currently the human body is sexual, but if it wasn't, the rapist would probobly imagine it was.

this was clothed, imagine naked. and imagine 10 year old girls, who were "given the choice" of being naked by their new-age "enlightened" parents.

Again, random attack rapes are very rare and the person who is doing the raping would make it sexual anyway.

the fact of the matter is that women and children are the most vulnerable part of our society. gone are the days when they were simply possessions of a man. allowing them to be nude when there are real sexual predators in the world is simply out of the question. if it means forcing a minute amount of people to wear clothes then so be it.

It isn't a minute ammount of people though. Look at my statistics in the first post, the margin is very narrow. And the majoraty of people don't care if someone is naked or not (for none sexual perposes). If you are that paranoid about sexual predetors, might as well never leave the house. Oh and make sure you bar your windows, tripple pad lock your doors and get somone to air drop you food into the bubble around your house. Make sure you live alone to. In my opinion, that is the only way to 100% garantee you will never get raped.

i mean we are technically forcing a small number of people not to kill others, and you cant claim that as taking away freedom.

That isn't a very good comparison. Not wearing clothes and killing someone are far different levels or taboo (for lack of better word), plus the number of people who would want to be nude aren't that few.

as for iron maiden, they are simply a insignificant bunch of disillusioned fools.

Well lets put it this way;

The majoraty of people say that you must all move around on pogo sticks. If you are not on a pogo stick, people will get arowsed by the natural state of movement that you do and therefor, you will be considerd in-decent and have a higher chance of being raped. And the only place you can not go around on pogo sticks are very isolated and hard to find zones far away from the public eye. Would you like that?

Now think about how nudists are treated in comparison to this.

that is laughable. for this to be relevant to anybody then they must forever choose to go against the majority whether the majority is right or wrong.
this is not a political statement, its just a fickle attempt to get angry outcast youth to buy their CDs, effectively giving them the illusion that its the against them world and the listening to iron maiden will somehow validate that.

I think you missed the point I was bringing up. It's not their intentions that matter, it's what the quote says and means. The majoraty could be ignorant and still hung up on old pointless traditions, and so it takes alot of people to change that.

[Crimson_Stigmata]

>_>" I prefer most people to be clothed. Even some people that are already clothed look disgusting don't need to see them without clothing. IE Fat chicks that have rolls of fat and what not hanging all over the place where their hips should be.

I see enough ugly naked people in my life drawing classes to last me a life time. I don't need to see any more of those people prowling the streets.

I don't have a problem with nudity cause I'm an art major and when I'm drawing all those fat people, it's my job to make them look 100X better than what they actually look like.

[Nightmare060]

>_>" I prefer most people to be clothed. Even some people that are already clothed look disgusting don't need to see them without clothing. IE Fat chicks that have rolls of fat and what not hanging all over the place where their hips should be.

Beuty is in the eye of the beholder. Plus these people aren't terribly common, so you can just look away if it realy disgusts you. I've seen an obese person do artistic nudity on deviant art and I have no problems with it. It's just another human body. Regardless of size or shape, it's beutifull in it's own way. I personaly think that the majoraty of reactions to these "fat people" are self inflicted.

I see enough ugly naked people in my life drawing classes to last me a life time. I don't need to see any more of those people prowling the streets.

You act as if they're all going to gang rape you and eat you like a pack of animals. Plus we all have different deffanitons of what is ugly and what is beutifull, so we shouldn't descriminate others from being nude because of their body size, which is somtimes inevitable.

I don't have a problem with nudity cause I'm an art major and when I'm drawing all those fat people, it's my job to make them look 100X better than what they actually look like.

Can't you aply this to real life though? Use your imagination a little! Plus it sounds like you have a problem with nudity to me.

[Quiet Demon]

Though the notions of decency, modesty and cleanliness are a strong factor in man being clothed, I believe that the true origin of clothing is necessity.

If it is cold, being naked could be downright dangerous (if not embarasing for guys). If you are in an enviroment in which you are at risk, clothing will provide at least some protection.
Even if it is hot, clothing will protect you from sun damage, etc.

I can assure you that in my field of work, a mechanic, the last thing I would want to be is naked. Not only am I working with heavy objects, sharp objects, but there is the dirt factor.

Thus, through these and many other examples the reasons why nudity is a fantasy.
Clothing is an evolution brought on by necessity, not by vanity.

[Nightmare060]

Though the notions of decency, modesty and cleanliness are a strong factor in man being clothed, I believe that the true origin of clothing is necessity.

If it is cold, being naked could be downright dangerous (if not embarasing for guys). If you are in an enviroment in which you are at risk, clothing will provide at least some protection.
Even if it is hot, clothing will protect you from sun damage, etc.

Well as you know from reading the first post (I hope), I am not against wearing clothing for protection from the elements or other practical perposes. Although how much you need to do that varies from country to country. Sun cream can help in the hight of summer, although during the spring it isn't so much of a problem.

I can assure you that in my field of work, a mechanic, the last thing I would want to be is naked. Not only am I working with heavy objects, sharp objects, but there is the dirt factor.

Again, practicality is fine.

Thus, through these and many other examples the reasons why nudity is a fantasy.

I disagree, nudity is not a fantasy. Nudity is the real human body coverd up for more situations than are nessacery.

Clothing is an evolution brought on by necessity, not by vanity.

That is true, although vanity seems to have become the more prominent perpose in wearing clothing rather than practicality.

[Mobius]

That is true, although vanity seems to have become the more prominent perpose in wearing clothing rather than practicality.

that vanity is an evolution of the practicality. when people acheive something they tend to o further rather than stay stagnant. and if the majority of people want others to be clothed, and i wholeheartedly believe this to be the case, why should the majority suffer for the "free will" of a few. i dont know bout you but i would rather not see people naked. esp the ones most likely to do it: hairy middle aged guys.

[Nightmare060]

that vanity is an evolution of the practicality. when people acheive something they tend to o further rather than stay stagnant. and if the majority of people want others to be clothed, and i wholeheartedly believe this to be the case, why should the majority suffer for the "free will" of a few. i dont know bout you but i would rather not see people naked. esp the ones most likely to do it: hairy middle aged guys.

The first thing I would like to point out, is that sociaty teaches us to think that way, and we act like robots. We only do what we are programed to do and never think why.

Second of all, if you look at the statistics I posted you will see the number of people who would wish to be nude are only just in the minority. It's something like a 3% difference. That is a VERY narrow margin. But for those who don't mind seeing nudity in a none-sexual context, they are a somewhat larger majority. So why do such a large number of people have to comform to an un-nesacery standard of having your body covered all the time outside, except in a few, select, hard to reach zones far away from the public eye?

Thirdly, Beuty is in the eye of the beholder. Sociaty teaches us that far is "Ugly" although it wasn't always that way. In tudor times, being fat meant that you were wealthy and could aford it. Today, each and every person has a different idea of what beuty is. I have seen a few artistic nudes in deviant art of somone who is, to be polite, very over-weight. And yet even she got comments of beuty and prais for her work. In Todays sociaty, if you are to be beutifull, if your female you have to be stick thin with huge breasts. If your male, you need to have big biseps and a large penis. These standards are very hard to achive and can damage self esteem. So why the hell do we fallow them? There is no law on what is realy beutifull and what is not, and as such people of all, and I mean ALL, shapes and sizes should be allowed to choose wether or not to clothe themselves (using their heads for practicality OFC).

Finaly, think of it like this;
Imagine that if you are to go around outside anywhere, you have to go about on pogosticks. People often show off and have different styles of pogo sticks, but if you do not go on a pogo stick you will be arrested. If you go without a pogo stick in public or are seen without one, the natural movement of your body will arouse people, and you will be labled in-decent, dirty and even perverted. If you do not have an absalout perfect body, nobody would want to see you off a pogo stick. The only place you can go without pogo sticks are slective, hard to reach places that you don't know that you can get into or even find, because they are so far away from the public eye.

It sounds ridiculouse doesn't it? Well it's the same kind of manner that people without clothes are being treated with. Many people just feel more comfey natural, but sociaty says everyone who is naked is not decent. I can't see how this makes sense, just as you would not be able to make sense of someone going around on a pogo stick all the time.

[Dexter]

i dont know bout you but i would rather not see people naked. esp the ones most likely to do it: hairy middle aged guys.
The first thing I would like to point out, is that sociaty teaches us to think that way, and we act like robots. We only do what we are programed to do and never think why.
Just have to interrupt this point

It's not because we're "programmed by society" to dislike a disgusting male body, and like an attractive female body.

It's biology. Our physical human bodies.


We would be disgusted by it (unless your gay - even then if a hairy fat man) regardless.

Our body naturally reacts. This is the main argument against the topic. It's got nothing to do with sexualising or de-sexualising things. Natural reactions by the human animal.


Unless you're claiming that gay people aren't really gay.


Thirdly, Beuty is in the eye of the beholder. Sociaty teaches us that far is "Ugly" although it wasn't always that way
Yeah true. Don't think I'm arguing this part. The part before is biology, not society.

[Nightmare060]

Just have to interrupt this point
It's not because we're "programmed by society" to dislike a disgusting male body, and like an attractive female body.
It's biology. Our physical human bodies.

To some extent, I could see why. But even so, it can be over-ridden.

In primative man, breast size was probobly a sign of maturaty and fit for mating. Because then they would pass on health geans to the next generation.

But with modern medical practices this is rarley an issue.

We would be disgusted by it (unless your gay - even then if a hairy fat man) regardless.

I know numerouse people including myself who wouldn't be desgusted.

Our body naturally reacts. This is the main argument against the topic. It's got nothing to do with sexualising or de-sexualising things. Natural reactions by the human an