Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 10-25-2005, 05:56 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A dumb joke.
Posts: 1,403
Nudity everywhere: does it make everything worse or better?

One of the things that shocked me most when I first came to Europe was the different attitude toward nudity. I've noticed it especially in France, where there is nudity on billboards, in movie previews, and on television. Honestly, I think it's great (no, not just the fact that it's nudity, but that's it seems more accepted or appreciated).

It seems to me that a lot of Americans would think that having nudity everywhere would lead men to be more sexually excited all the time, and thusly lead them to treat women more violently.

Am I wrong?

If this assumption is correct, do European countries have a worse sexually motivated crimes than the US?

Is this a stupid question?

I think about this a lot in terms of alcohol as well. One can walk on the street with a bottle of wine and no one cares here. The laws are so much more lenient than in the States, but are there more problems (alcoholism, drunk driving, etc.) here or in the States?
#2
Old 10-25-2005, 06:26 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Near the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 27,571
I've been to nudist places, where clothes were definitely optional.

After the first ten minutes of shock, you get used to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gitfiddle
It seems to me that a lot of Americans would think that having nudity everywhere would lead men to be more sexually excited all the time, and thusly lead them to treat women more violently.
You also realise that 99% of people do NOT look like models. I suspect that this is the real subconscious reason for the Us nudity taboo: it keeps the fasion indystry from having its props knocked out from under it.

In my experience, nudity led to less sexual arousal. There was less mystery.

Of course, there were a number of women who did interest me, but since there was no way to hide that interest, there was more embarassment and apology, more inconveniece to other interactions with them, so even that worked against sexual excitement.

Really, concealment, the art of temptation and the lure of the forbidden, is what breeds excitement.
__________________
Rigardu, kaj vi ekvidos.
Look, and you will begin to see.
#3
Old 10-25-2005, 06:33 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by gitfiddle
a lot of Americans would think that having nudity everywhere would lead men to be more sexually excited all the time
An argument could be made that the opposite would occur: if nudity were commonplace, the "mystery" of what's under the clothes would disappear, and men might become less aroused.

The fashion industry learned a long time ago that teasing men (by not fully revealing what's under the clothes) is often more effective than baring all.
#4
Old 10-25-2005, 06:35 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I don't......know.
Posts: 2,807
I cannot give you cites at the moment as I am at work and don't want to search for anything with the words "sex" or "nudity" but I can offer an opinion and a WAG.

Your question is not stupid at all. I think that this very question is at the heart of varying degrees of tolerance and acceptance of nudity and sexuality throughout all cultures. (We'll leave religion and righteous indignation out of it for now. )

It seems to me that the issue of nudity acceptance and a relation to sex crimes do not neatly correalate. If a culture has laws and an overall social environment that has a very low tolerance for sex crimes then I don't think a high tolerance for overt sexuality and nudity will contribute to higher rates in sex crimes. I personally think that restricting sexual expression and creating an atmosphere where sexuality and nudity are tought to be "dirty" or "wrong" creates a breeding ground for sexual depravity.

Hopefully someone will come along with a more coherent and factual response to your question, however, I would imagine that there is no pat answer to this.
Sexual acceptance or lack thereof, sexually motivated crime (which are more about power than sex anyway), abuse and what not is a many splintered thing.
__________________
There is no theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact. The theory is of how it happened.

“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” -Dr. Seuss

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"-Diderot
#5
Old 10-25-2005, 07:10 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Claxby Pluckacre
Posts: 1,145
Mainland European nudity comes as a little bit of a jolt to us northwestern Europeans too, even though we can see bare female breasts in our daily newspapers. But you get used to it.

A lax attitude towards clothing can, however, lead to problems abroad: there is a story in today's (London) Daily Telegraph of a Finnish woman who took a skinny-dip in a sacred lake at Pushkar in Rajastan and then walked naked back to her hotel (doesn't say how far that was). She's facing 3 months' gaol for it.
#6
Old 10-25-2005, 07:16 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Near the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 27,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by seosamh
A lax attitude towards clothing can, however, lead to problems abroad: there is a story in today's (London) Daily Telegraph of a Finnish woman who took a skinny-dip in a sacred lake at Pushkar in Rajastan and then walked naked back to her hotel (doesn't say how far that was). She's facing 3 months' gaol for it.
Well, that's not so much a problem with nudity as with ignoring the local religious sites and cultural mores, eh? There's be the same kind of problem if she insisted in eating steak tartare at an vegetarian retreat.
#7
Old 10-25-2005, 07:28 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,536
It's unlikely to affect everything in the same manner, direction or magnitude; wider tolerance of nudity makes a lot of things different; some for better, others for worse.

On balance, though, I think it solves more problems than it causes; Living in England (which is still quite conservative, small c, compared to other European nations), the naked human form is just ordinary; it can be appreciated sexually, or aesthetically, or it can just be overlooked, at the option of the beholder.

The whole Janet Jackson incident, for example, just appears utterly absurd to me.
#8
Old 10-25-2005, 07:50 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout

The whole Janet Jackson incident, for example, just appears utterly absurd to me.
I've got a question and it is intended to be a part of the OP's question, not a hijack.

I too was dumbfounded by the reaction to the JJ incident. I can agree with those who think the whole thing was inappropriate or in poor taste. However, we are subjected to public displays of inappropriatness and bad taste continually. Most of it hides in the TV and pops out when you turn on the power button. Much of the rest is in places like fast food restaurants and music stores.

To those who were morally offended by the JJ incident I ask:

What is it that you are afraid will happen to people, including children, who are exposed to the image of a female nipple? Specifically, what damage will occur? What are the horrible consequences that result from such exposure? I don't want a bunch of mish-mash about it being a "sign" of moral decay. I want to know what the specific fear is that will raise that kind of a reaction.
#9
Old 10-25-2005, 08:38 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 7,931
Perhaps other answers will be more illuminating, Sparkydog, but the Janet Jackson incident appeared utterly absurd to the majority of us, too.

In my experience, the prevalence of nudity during a visit to Italy made it much easier to masturbate to shampoo commercials, so I call it a win.

--Cliffy
#10
Old 10-25-2005, 10:02 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A dumb joke.
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man
An argument could be made that the opposite would occur: if nudity were commonplace, the "mystery" of what's under the clothes would disappear, and men might become less aroused.
That's pretty much what my question was.

Also, the first time I lived in France, I arrived just BEFORE the JJ incident. It was my first realization of the difference between the two perspectives. The French got a kick out it. It was such a foreign idea to them. For instance, outside the door of the cafe where I had the conversation about the incident, there was a life size billboard magazine ad showing Heidi Klum completely nude, breasts exposed...soooo I guess that was my FIRST realization, then I had the conversation, which solidified it.

I am interested in the question too about what exactly people are scared of. Being from the South, I know a lot of people are worried about causing local men to "stumble."

Have a good one...
#11
Old 10-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,770
Is the European nudify of which you speak one that includes people of all different ages, sexes, and body types? Or is it mostly nubile females?

(just curious)

As for the OP, I don't think unclothed women are more sexually provocative or arousing than women with their clothes on. You can't get any sexier than a pair of reasonably tight jeans.

In cultures that enshroud women so you can't see anything but ankles and eyeballs, men will find a glimpse of cheek or a wisp of hair or an inch of calf to be thoroughly erotic. And even the ankles and eyeballs will be sexy. Wrapping it up ain't gonna make it go away. Reciprocally, in a clothes-optional environment, nudity ceases to be a sexual-synapse provoking mechanism.
#12
Old 10-25-2005, 12:55 PM
MLS MLS is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,843
I was offended by the JJ incident, not because of the idea that a youngster might catch a glimpse of bare bosom, but because both the song and the action implied that aggressively tearing off a part of a young woman's clothing was an O.K. thing to do.

Nudity as such, if voluntary on the part of the nude person and those around him/her, is not offensive to me. Years ago I and my then 16-year-old daughter were on vacation in a locale where topless sunbathing was commonplace. She found it totally repulsive that middle-aged and older women with average or less-than-average physiques would lie around for all to see. I explained that it might be more a matter of personal comfort or preference and probably had nothing to do with whether it was appealing to others or not. After all, we don't expect those with, say, flabby arms or chubby thighs to wear burkas.

I also agree on the alcohol issue. IMHO, those raised with the idea that giving a sip of wine to a child on Thanksgiving is sinful and lawless behavior are more likely to want to binge away when they finally get access to same, legal or not. Kids raised with the idea that wine, beer and spirits are no big deal in moderation and that overindulgence eventually causes one to become boorish and ridiculous are far less likely to use alcoholic beverages irresponsibly.

However, I have also been told that in certain parts of the former Soviet Union, which tend to have more of the European than the American attitude, alcoholism is a genuine problem.
#13
Old 10-25-2005, 01:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartydog
To those who were morally offended by the JJ incident I ask:

What is it that you are afraid will happen to people, including children, who are exposed to the image of a female nipple? Specifically, what damage will occur? What are the horrible consequences that result from such exposure? I don't want a bunch of mish-mash about it being a "sign" of moral decay. I want to know what the specific fear is that will raise that kind of a reaction.
I wasn't so much offended as I simply thought it was stupid. An attempt to shock. If the thing really has no consequences or meaning, then why do it at all? For those who say that in Europe, nudity is a normal part of every day life, why not simply go in the nude all the time in countries where that would be more comfortable, due to the climate?

People do things for a reason. There is a societal taboo against nudity in the U.S. I have less of a problem with people simply being nudists naturally and unobtrusively than I do with attempting to project their belief that it is acceptable onto others in an aggressive way. Sort of the same way that I might not think being a Jehova's Witness harms anyone, but I don't want them showing up and proselytizing at my football game.

There are many things that we do not do that I can not give you a specific reason for. I don't scratch my nuts in public either, even though it doesn't really harm anyone if I do.
#14
Old 10-25-2005, 02:27 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not here. There.
Posts: 18,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
Is the European nudify of which you speak one that includes people of all different ages, sexes, and body types? Or is it mostly nubile females?

(just curious)

.
Judging by what I've seen in the limited clothing-optional (C.O.) world within the U.S., it's definitely all ages, sizes and sexes. It's just the same sort of people you see on the street or in the grocery store every day, except their naked.

What bugs the hell out of me about the taboo in the States is that it's so nearly total. If you want some nudity you can drive for 50 miles to get to C.O. club, or to a C.O. beach. But chances are that the beach is only quasi legal, and the deputies can swoop down at any time. Sometimes they're patrolled by helicopter; I don't mind somebody flying over me in an aircraft and seeing that I'm nude just by chance; but I definitely don't want people flying over me specifically to check if I'm nude.

You'd think that small secluded sections of beaches, Central Park, Griffith Park, etc., could be set aside for officially sanctioned C.O. use, but they aren't.
#15
Old 10-25-2005, 02:29 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
I wasn't so much offended as I simply thought it was stupid. An attempt to shock. If the thing really has no consequences or meaning, then why do it at all? For those who say that in Europe, nudity is a normal part of every day life, why not simply go in the nude all the time in countries where that would be more comfortable, due to the climate?

People do things for a reason. There is a societal taboo against nudity in the U.S. I have less of a problem with people simply being nudists naturally and unobtrusively than I do with attempting to project their belief that it is acceptable onto others in an aggressive way. Sort of the same way that I might not think being a Jehova's Witness harms anyone, but I don't want them showing up and proselytizing at my football game.

There are many things that we do not do that I can not give you a specific reason for. I don't scratch my nuts in public either, even though it doesn't really harm anyone if I do.
We already granted you that it was tasteless and inappropriate, just like scratching your nuts in public or a lot of other things. Yes, they did it to shock but why should anybody be so shocked? I am appalled by grossly overweight woman wearing skin tight pants and exposing rolls of fat on their midriff but I'm not calling for a Congressional investigation which is about what happened with the JJ incident. I am appalled that Ashley Simpson is able to make money in the music business but that doesn't mean that I should try to shut the record company down or refuse to buy any of their records. Getting an eyeful (or a sour earful) from classless, inconsiderate people may offend but it doesn't harm as far as I can see. Also, I'm not saying that "anything goes" or that there should not be rules and regulations requiring a certain amount of decorum in public places.

So, I'm back to my original question, what is the potential harm from anyone, young or old, being exposed to a female nipple. The big uproar was that "children" were watching. Factually speaking, just what was it about the stupid incident that had the potential to harm children?
#16
Old 10-25-2005, 02:49 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 17,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartydog
So, I'm back to my original question, what is the potential harm from anyone, young or old, being exposed to a female nipple. The big uproar was that "children" were watching. Factually speaking, just what was it about the stupid incident that had the potential to harm children?
An impromptu anatomy lesson?

For the record, it seems that the FCC quietly admitted that they recieved only 90 complaints from 23 individuals -- and that all but two of these letters were identical. The big Janet Jackson uproar appears to be nothing more than an overblown campaign by a noisy few.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
#17
Old 10-25-2005, 03:22 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A dumb joke.
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjung
For the record, it seems that the FCC quietly admitted that they recieved only 90 complaints from 23 individuals -- and that all but two of these letters were identical. The big Janet Jackson uproar appears to be nothing more than an overblown campaign by a noisy few.
I have my problems with the FCC in this regard, as I voiced here when I was a senior in college (it was only last year, but I'm still getting used to it)...
#18
Old 10-25-2005, 05:24 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartydog
So, I'm back to my original question, what is the potential harm from anyone, young or old, being exposed to a female nipple. The big uproar was that "children" were watching. Factually speaking, just what was it about the stupid incident that had the potential to harm children?
I thought I already answered that. Whether you think there is harm or not, people generally speaking do not want their children exposed to nudity. To accomodate this societal preference, we generally do not allow nudity on primetime, network television. The incident was effectively Janet Jackson saying, "Fuck you and your values," to those people. Yes it was tasteless, and it was intentionally done to shock and offend. That is harm in its own right. We have made choices for what we want our children to watch. We are told that those choices will be respected. Janet Jackson interjected her own beliefs and disrespected our choices. That is not very different from my agreeing to let my kid play with your kid on the condition that they don't spend the time sitting in front of a Playstation, and then coming over to pick up my kid and finding him sitting in front of a Playstation. I don't give a shit if you don't think it is harmful, I do, and it's not your job to make my decision for me as to the subject.

Are you suggesting that there needs to be some form of physical harm in order to have it be a problem? You can come and piss on my lawn every morning. It's probably not going to cause me much if any "harm," but that doesn't mean I'm not going to come after you at some point.
#19
Old 10-25-2005, 06:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
Is the European nudify of which you speak one that includes people of all different ages, sexes, and body types? Or is it mostly nubile females?
In my experience at European nude beaches, nobody whom you'd want to see naked is actually naked.
#20
Old 10-25-2005, 07:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University Place, WA
Posts: 322
When everybody is nude, nobody is nude!
#21
Old 10-25-2005, 07:49 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: My Own Private Iowa
Posts: 15,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by aamco
In my experience at European nude beaches, nobody whom you'd want to see naked is actually naked.
Yes, it's become largely a fuddy-duddy thing to do, if you can imagine.
#22
Old 10-25-2005, 10:44 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
I thought I already answered that. Whether you think there is harm or not, people generally speaking do not want their children exposed to nudity. To accomodate this societal preference, we generally do not allow nudity on primetime, network television. The incident was effectively Janet Jackson saying, "Fuck you and your values," to those people. Yes it was tasteless, and it was intentionally done to shock and offend. That is harm in its own right. We have made choices for what we want our children to watch. We are told that those choices will be respected. Janet Jackson interjected her own beliefs and disrespected our choices. That is not very different from my agreeing to let my kid play with your kid on the condition that they don't spend the time sitting in front of a Playstation, and then coming over to pick up my kid and finding him sitting in front of a Playstation. I don't give a shit if you don't think it is harmful, I do, and it's not your job to make my decision for me as to the subject.
So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them?
#23
Old 10-26-2005, 12:51 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
I the European nudify of which you speak one that includes people of all different ages, sexes, and body types? Or is it mostly nubile females?
In my part of the world (which probably has somewhat less public nudity than France, but a lot more than US), the nudity in advertising tends to be mostly young women with the "anorexia + silicone" body shape that's currently in fashion. There are exceptions, though, such as an IKEA campaign some time ago, with lots of ordinary people, completely naked, viewed from behind. (The message was supposed to be that IKEA sofas fit every ass, as I interpreted it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gitfiddle
If this assumption is correct, do European countries have a worse sexually motivated crimes than the US?
Let's see - here's a statistic over rapes per capita.

US: 0.30 per 1000 people
France: 0.13 per 1000 people

OTOH, Norway's marginally better than France, at 0.12. Ireland is on 0.05, and I'd guess there's less public nudity there than in France, and Australia and Canada are both worse off than US, with numbers in the 0.7's. And, of course, there's the problem of rapes occuring versus rapes reported. Colour me sceptic at Saudi Arabia's 0.00, for instance. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot of factors which influence the numbers of sexually related crimes, and I'd guess that it's impossible to find any factual answer on how public nudity influences a society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSL
IMHO, those raised with the idea that giving a sip of wine to a child on Thanksgiving is sinful and lawless behavior are more likely to want to binge away when they finally get access to same, legal or not. Kids raised with the idea that wine, beer and spirits are no big deal in moderation and that overindulgence eventually causes one to become boorish and ridiculous are far less likely to use alcoholic beverages irresponsibly.
What I've seen of research contradicts you. Such as this one:
Quote:
Early debut seems to lead to high alcohol consumption and increased risk of alcohol-related problems (Forney et al., 1988; Rachal et al., 1982; Tennant et al., 1975).
According to this article (in Norwegian), children who get alcohol early ("to Sunday dinner" etc.) get drunk more often and have a greater risk of alcohol problems later in life.
#24
Old 10-26-2005, 01:22 AM
MLS MLS is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,843
Interesting. I'm sure there are other factors in play as well.
#25
Old 10-26-2005, 02:25 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Synaesthetic Glide
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
What I've seen of research contradicts you. Such as this one:
This study examined Norwegian teens. It seems the minimum age to buy beer over there is 18 and for harder drinks (sold exclusively through state outlets and heavily taxed), 20. The outcomes of early consumption debuts must factor in the background conditions in which it occurs. If the average age of initiation is 17, then the early starters are abnormal. If the average age of initiation is 15, then such a study as you cited above would say something new.
#26
Old 10-26-2005, 03:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 389
You're quite correct about the legal drinking ages i Norway, II Gyan II. However, the average age of initiation here is between 14 and 15 (14,6 for beer, 15,3 for wine, and 15,2 for hard spirits).

Now, I haven't read the complete article I linked to -- it was just the first cite I found to support something I've heard from several sources. There might be other problems with it for all I know. However, I've never heard of any research that supports the idea that children who are given alcohol in controlled amounts at home are less likely to drink irresponsibly when outside of parent supervision. If you've got anything, I'd be interested to see it.

Oh, and sorry for misspelling your name, MLS. I'd have thought that three letters wouldn't be too hard for me to get right. I'll have to blame it on distraction from all that public nudity
#27
Old 10-26-2005, 04:22 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 7,920
I'm trying to understand if there is a correlation. How does nudity relate to rape and alcohol consumption? Last time I was in Europe, there wasn't nudity "everywhere." And what nudity there was couldn't have made "everything" "worse" or "better."

Also, I don't recall seeing men nude in the European press--it was always women, and it wasn't your workaday Madame Soandso, but usually some kind of model type. And it's only in the press, anyway. I don't think anyone walks around Paris without clothes.

In the U.S., I bet that in any given city if you go out and walk around without clothes (perhaps in summer, when it's really hot) you'll be ticketed for "indecency," or some such thing. By the same token, I suppose a muncipality could generate more revenues by going to every maternity ward and ticketing women for giving birth to "indecent" children. I

In Latin America (well, Colombia and Mexico, at least), they'll publish photos of murdered, mutilated bodies in the newspaper, but in the U.S. they won't do that.
#28
Old 10-26-2005, 05:08 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by gitfiddle
One of the things that shocked me most when I first came to Europe was the different attitude toward nudity. I've noticed it especially in France, where there is nudity on billboards, in movie previews, and on television
And in clothing catologues too. Our french teacher in school had a few clothing catologues from France at the back of the class room, I wondered what the appeal was until I saw the lingerie section
#29
Old 10-26-2005, 05:11 AM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,806
One question about U.S. "clothing optional" venues/beaches: is being clothed really optional i.e. allowed there? I ask because my understanding at least regarding regarding the German FKK (nudist) explicitly designated beaches/explicitly designated parts of public pool areas being clothed is usually discouraged/banned (because you'd be considered a peeping Tom), i.e. if you wear bathing trunks you'd be asked to strip or leave.
#30
Old 10-26-2005, 06:12 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 7,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by tschild
One question about U.S. "clothing optional" venues/beaches: is being clothed really optional i.e. allowed there? I ask because my understanding at least regarding regarding the German FKK (nudist) explicitly designated beaches/explicitly designated parts of public pool areas being clothed is usually discouraged/banned (because you'd be considered a peeping Tom), i.e. if you wear bathing trunks you'd be asked to strip or leave.
Hmm. I never looked at it that way. I'm not sure how many "clothing optional" beaches there are in the U.S. I do know that there is/was one in San Diego (Black's Beach). I think it is/was hard to get to, and even so was considered a controversy. What I don't understand is why any state or municipality would feel the need to designate such a place. It's not that I have anything against public nudity; it's just strange. Imagine a member of a city council, thinking: "Well, everywhere in this city it's normally 'indecent' to be nude in public. So I guess we should have a beach where it's not indecent." Even more confusing to me is why it can only be at a beach. Maybe the idea is that being nude in public is really about getting a complete tan. Well, okay, if that's what you want, I have no problem with it. I don't really understand why anyone would be so concerned about being tanned everywhere on their body. Besides, you could probably just go in your back yard or on your roof and accomplish the same thing. (BTW, a chlorine pool will tan you almost as much as the sun==if you swim every day.)

I think the OP's point was about a certain kind of nudity--that is, "fashion model" nudity, or cosmetic nudity. There are other people who just like to go around without clothes, which is a different thing. Either they are protesting clothing, or they live in a place where the weather is very hot. I believe there are places where people wear little if any clothing because of the weather.
#31
Old 10-26-2005, 06:47 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Soplicowo
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by seosamh
A lax attitude towards clothing can, however, lead to problems abroad: there is a story in today's (London) Daily Telegraph of a Finnish woman who took a skinny-dip in a sacred lake at Pushkar in Rajastan and then walked naked back to her hotel (doesn't say how far that was). She's facing 3 months' gaol for it.
Well, that's not so much a problem with nudity as with ignoring the local religious sites and cultural mores, eh? There's be the same kind of problem if she insisted in eating steak tartare at an vegetarian retreat.
No, it's more like strolling naked through St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. That's just appalling. Makes tales of the ugly American pale in comparison.
#32
Old 10-26-2005, 07:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Claxby Pluckacre
Posts: 1,145
Certainly: the stupid cow's error was not just being in the nuddy, but being in the nuddy at a place sacred to someone (even if it wasn't sacred to her).

I am speculating that either the lax attitude to nudity in Finland caused he to "forget" about the sacrilegiousness of her actions or she was just a nutter.
#33
Old 10-26-2005, 07:35 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A dumb joke.
Posts: 1,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot
I think the OP's point was about a certain kind of nudity--that is, "fashion model" nudity, or cosmetic nudity. There are other people who just like to go around without clothes, which is a different thing. Either they are protesting clothing, or they live in a place where the weather is very hot. I believe there are places where people wear little if any clothing because of the weather.
Nope, all of it. When my friends (mostly females, and mostly from Asian countries) would go have a picnic at the lake in town (When I lived in Angers), I had a lot of trouble paying attention to what was going because women just kept showing up and taking off their clothes. There were families with little boys and girls and there were adolecent groups, but it was I (a 22 year old American) who was red in the face.

I admit, I am exaggerating a bit. I wasn't stupified, just distracted.

But, the point is that there were all of those families and school groups there, and no one seemed to think it was interesting at all.
#34
Old 10-26-2005, 07:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: My Own Private Iowa
Posts: 15,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by tschild
One question about U.S. "clothing optional" venues/beaches: is being clothed really optional i.e. allowed there? I ask because my understanding at least regarding regarding the German FKK (nudist) explicitly designated beaches/explicitly designated parts of public pool areas being clothed is usually discouraged/banned (because you'd be considered a peeping Tom), i.e. if you wear bathing trunks you'd be asked to strip or leave.
<SATIRE>
Becauss vat iss not kompulzory iss verboten! *TWEET* Excusing mein Herr! Display please your Schwanzstücker! Nein? Zen you must Raus! Raus! *TWEEEET* Excusing please Fräulein! Your Geknockers iss not matching size as by federally approved regulationz! Please remove ze zmaller one at once! Or you must leaf mit Dickless hier!...Ja, iss true Fräulein, zis Mann has no dick. Zat I can see anyvay. Now Raus! ze both of you. *TWEEET*
</SATIRE>

But where does he wear his whistle?
#35
Old 10-26-2005, 07:55 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
I thought I already answered that. Whether you think there is harm or not, people generally speaking do not want their children exposed to nudity. To accomodate this societal preference, we generally do not allow nudity on primetime, network television. The incident was effectively Janet Jackson saying, "Fuck you and your values," to those people. Yes it was tasteless, and it was intentionally done to shock and offend. That is harm in its own right. We have made choices for what we want our children to watch. We are told that those choices will be respected. Janet Jackson interjected her own beliefs and disrespected our choices. That is not very different from my agreeing to let my kid play with your kid on the condition that they don't spend the time sitting in front of a Playstation, and then coming over to pick up my kid and finding him sitting in front of a Playstation. I don't give a shit if you don't think it is harmful, I do, and it's not your job to make my decision for me as to the subject.

Are you suggesting that there needs to be some form of physical harm in order to have it be a problem? You can come and piss on my lawn every morning. It's probably not going to cause me much if any "harm," but that doesn't mean I'm not going to come after you at some point.
No, you didn't answer the question. You told us again what you like and don't like and what you thing is appropriate and/or tasteless. That's not my point and I told you of some things that I find inappropriate and tasteless.

I am asking for a rational explanation why so many people in this country find it necessary to make sure that children are not exposed to a female nipple. The JJ incident is one of many examples. Magazine covers, swimwear, TV and movies are full of exposed female flesh but when the nipple is exposed all hell breaks loose and censorship to a greater or lesser degree is exercised (such as movie ratings). It only makes sense that for something to cause that much of a reaction there must be a fear of some underlying harm. I want to know what harm is feared.

I have asked this question before in several other forums and have either gotten complete silence or an emotional, almost angry response such as yours that amounts to little more than just not liking it.

Can anyone point to any example that indicates that anyone was the least bit damaged by exposure to a female nipple?

I'm not really asking for a response as we are into the area of Great Debates or IMHO. I'll just drop it at this point and go on scratching my head every time one of these controversies erupts.
#36
Old 10-26-2005, 08:29 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tschild
One question about U.S. "clothing optional" venues/beaches: is being clothed really optional i.e. allowed there? I ask because my understanding at least regarding regarding the German FKK (nudist) explicitly designated beaches/explicitly designated parts of public pool areas being clothed is usually discouraged/banned (because you'd be considered a peeping Tom), i.e. if you wear bathing trunks you'd be asked to strip or leave.
At the few clothing-optional beaches that are owned by governments here in the US, "clothing optional" means just that - you can wear clothing if you want to. At most private clubs, "clothing optional" means you can wear clothing inside, at dinner, due to weather conditions, for medical reasons, if a woman is having her period, or if a baby isn't toilet trained. Other than that (and particularly by the pool or where circumstances don't reasonably dictate that you be clothed), you're expected to be nude. Yes, you can be asked to remove your clothing (I've seen it happen on more than one occasion).
#37
Old 10-26-2005, 08:32 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Near the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 27,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by zagloba
No, it's more like strolling naked through St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. That's just appalling.
That's what I said. Ignoring the local religious and cultural mores.
#38
Old 10-26-2005, 08:41 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tschild
One question about U.S. "clothing optional" venues/beaches: is being clothed really optional i.e. allowed there? I ask because my understanding at least regarding regarding the German FKK (nudist) explicitly designated beaches/explicitly designated parts of public pool areas being clothed is usually discouraged/banned (because you'd be considered a peeping Tom), i.e. if you wear bathing trunks you'd be asked to strip or leave.
The only "explicity designated" clothing-optional beach I've seen in the US is in Sandy Hook, NJ, part of a national recreation area. When I first went there some 20-odd years ago, the nude beach was kind of in an out-of-the-way spot and had apparently been semi-tolerated by the park rangers for years. At some point the shoreline straightened out and that beach was less hidden, and so the Park Service put up signs warning people that nakedness was ahead. I don't think it's actually legal to be naked there, but that the rangers have just given up on the idea of dragging a few thousand naked people to jail. I'm not joking about the thousands -- the beach is so popular that the nearest parking lots fill up, and people park a mile away and walk down the "regular" beach to get there. I'm sure the Park Service gets their share of complaints, though. (Like another poster above, I'd rather not put the relevant terms into a search engine at work, so I apologize for the lack of citiosity.)

I've been to this beach quite a few times (it's debatable whether anyone wants to look at me or not) over the years and there are always people who still wear bathing suits, maybe 10% or so. You will also see the occasional Creepy Guy fully clothed and just walking up and down the beach with his tongue hanging out. But the only people I've ever noticed being made to leave are those caught taking pictures on the sly.

The other nekkid beaches I've been to (a few in California and Hippie Hollow on Lake Travis outside of Austin) are not officially designated, they're just located off the beaten track, and it seems that folks just sort of ignore the clothed Creepy Guys. I know there is mass nakedness on Fire Island in New York and there's a beach in Rhode Island, too, but I've never been. I've seen handfuls of naked people on the beach at Fort Tilden in Queens -- there are probably dozens of little pockets like this all over the country. It is sort of surprising that an out-of-the-way area in Central Park hasn't been taken over for nude sunbathing. I guess in Central Park people still want to keep their wallets as close to their bodies as possible.

I doubt very much there is a public pool in the US (outside of a nudist colony, anyway) that allows people to be naked in designated areas, but I could be wrong.
#39
Old 10-26-2005, 09:08 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them?
So in summary you are saying you have difficulty reading? Or would you like a NAMBLA member who doesn't agree with what you think is harmful for your kids to decide to ignore the decisions you've made?
#40
Old 10-26-2005, 09:14 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartydog
I am asking for a rational explanation why so many people in this country find it necessary to make sure that children are not exposed to a female nipple. The JJ incident is one of many examples. Magazine covers, swimwear, TV and movies are full of exposed female flesh but when the nipple is exposed all hell breaks loose and censorship to a greater or lesser degree is exercised (such as movie ratings). It only makes sense that for something to cause that much of a reaction there must be a fear of some underlying harm. I want to know what harm is feared.
Oh, you want to know that? I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to know why it is harmful.

I think there are a few explanations, though I agree that a lot of it is not rational. One is that it potentially leads to the objectification of women. Again, with Janet Jackson, we are not talking about casual nudity on a beach, we are talking about an event that shocks for a reason. You are supposed to be excited at seeing her breast, not treat it as "so what." That's part of the reason why I have less problem with casual nudity than "shock" nudity.

Second is that if it is prohibited or disapproved by your religion, it is by default harmful, as it is by default harmful to not obey your religious code. You might not agree with that, but then I'm sure there are plenty of things that you find "harmful" that others would disagree with. The point is that if your religion states that it is wrong, by the fundamental nature of religion, it is wrong.

Otherwise, I generally agree with you. It's not so much the nudity, as the attempt to intentionally offend/shock/turn Janet Jackson into a set of breasts and a hole as opposed to a singer that is harmful in my mind.
#41
Old 10-26-2005, 09:17 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Up in Rottenchester
Posts: 6,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS
I was offended by the JJ incident, not because of the idea that a youngster might catch a glimpse of bare bosom, but because both the song and the action implied that aggressively tearing off a part of a young woman's clothing was an O.K. thing to do.
Yes, that is problematic, but that message has been presented before and while there is usually some outcry, it doesn't lead to every live broadcast being put on a 3-second delay.

Like every Red-Blooded American Male, I was in the can at the time, but my kids saw it and I don't have a real big problem with that. I wish they hadn't had to see Janet Jackson in the first place, but the FCC won't do anything about that.
#42
Old 10-26-2005, 11:33 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 5,928
Mod note:

Off to Great Debates.
#43
Old 10-26-2005, 12:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS
I was offended by the JJ incident, not because of the idea that a youngster might catch a glimpse of bare bosom, but because both the song and the action implied that aggressively tearing off a part of a young woman's clothing was an O.K. thing to do.
Yes, bodice-ripping ... women hate that sort of thing. That's why it's so common in all those romances they read ...
#44
Old 10-26-2005, 02:01 PM
tdn tdn is offline
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
My limited experience at CO beaches is that a) You'll see far more wangs on fat old men than boobies on nubile young women, and b) nobody enforces the nudity. Optional means optional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gitfiddle
It seems to me that a lot of Americans would think that having nudity everywhere would lead men to be more sexually excited all the time, and thusly lead them to treat women more violently.
Hold on a minute -- what leads you to believe that male arousal automatically leads to violence? Or did I read that wrong?
#45
Old 10-26-2005, 08:35 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
So in summary you are saying you have difficulty reading?
Well, OK, so parse this for me then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
Whether you think there is harm or not, people generally speaking do not want their children exposed to nudity. To accomodate this societal preference, we generally do not allow nudity on primetime, network television. The incident was effectively Janet Jackson saying, "Fuck you and your values," to those people. Yes it was tasteless, and it was intentionally done to shock and offend. That is harm in its own right.
Because it wasn't the children who who were shocked and offended. It was the parents. So what you are saying in effect is it is harmful for children to see that others don't agree with their parents values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
Or would you like a NAMBLA member who doesn't agree with what you think is harmful for your kids to decide to ignore the decisions you've made?
Firstly, Spartydog's question, once again, is why is it harmful to be exposed to a nipple. No one here is questioning whether pedophilia is harmful, so your comment about NAMBLA is a non sequitur.

Secondly, the question, once again, is not whether parents decisions should be ignored.

Thirdly, it is a common phenomenon that when a person asks for a rational basis for another person's decision, if the latter person has none they will say "how dare you question my authority" or "are you saying I didn't have a right to make that decision?"

You might like to think about why it is that while Spartydog's question is and always has been "where's the harm?" you persistently try to segue into a defence of the authority of parents to make decisions for their children.

Quote:
Second is that if it is prohibited or disapproved by your religion, it is by default harmful, as it is by default harmful to not obey your religious code. You might not agree with that, but then I'm sure there are plenty of things that you find "harmful" that others would disagree with. The point is that if your religion states that it is wrong, by the fundamental nature of religion, it is wrong.
I'm not aware of any religion that says that if you are watching TV and someone unexpectedly flashes a breast you have not obeyed your religious code. I could be wrong, I'm not much up on religion.

Quote:
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. It's not so much the nudity, as the attempt to intentionally offend/shock/turn Janet Jackson into a set of breasts and a hole as opposed to a singer that is harmful in my mind.
The whole "offend/shock" thing is all so "me, me, me". Just because someone does something that shocks or offends you, doesn't necessarily mean they did it to shock and offend you. Perhaps you just have an attitude that causes you to be shocked and offended.

There is no more reason why a child being exposed to a breast would then consider Jackson to be a "set of breasts and a hole" than would a child being exposed to her singing then consider her to be "a set of lungs and a larynx".
#46
Old 10-27-2005, 09:46 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
Because it wasn't the children who who were shocked and offended. It was the parents. So what you are saying in effect is it is harmful for children to see that others don't agree with their parents values.
No, I am saying it is harmful to disrespect a parent's decisions regarding how to raise his or her child. The fact that you seem to have great difficulty with that does not surprise me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
Firstly, Spartydog's question, once again, is why is it harmful to be exposed to a nipple. No one here is questioning whether pedophilia is harmful, so your comment about NAMBLA is a non sequitur.
Do you know what non sequitur even means? What I said was in response to your stupid and baseless comment:

Quote:
So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them?
which completely mischaracterized, and intentionally ignored, exactly what I was saying, which is that if I tell you that I do not believe my child should be playing Playstation games for hours on end, and you then let him play Playstation games for hours on end, that is wrong. You are trying to substitute your judgment for mine with respect to how my child should be raised. In so doing, you are an arrogant douche.

My comment, which you seemed to have intentionally ignored once again to try to make it fall into one of your "logical fallacy" camps so as not to have to try to understand a viewpoint different than yours, is that the same logic could be apply by a lot of people for things they think are acceptable that you do not. I don't need people second guessing my decisions for my children, and inserting their own. I don't do it to other parents, and do not expect them to do it to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
Secondly, the question, once again, is not whether parents decisions should be ignored.
No, it is why is it harmful for Janet Jackson to flash nip at a Superbowl. I gave an answer; ignoring a parent's decisions with respect to their children, and forcing your own in their place, is harmful.

I have since responded to the question of, "How is a child seeing a nipple in itself harmful."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester
You might like to think about why it is that while Spartydog's question is and always has been "where's the harm?" you persistently try to segue into a defence of the authority of parents to make decisions for their children.
You might like to question your arrogance over attempting to appear to have an open mind while dismissing without thought those who disagree with you.
#47
Old 10-27-2005, 10:32 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
No, it is why is it harmful for Janet Jackson to flash nip at a Superbowl. I gave an answer; ignoring a parent's decisions with respect to their children, and forcing your own in their place, is harmful.
No, actually, you haven't addressed the question. You have postulated your belief that a parent's rights over their children are so great that others are not allowed to even debate the issues of why a particular thing might or might not be harmful. This is demonstrably false. Here in Georgia we have had parents (a Christian religious cult) who honestly believed their children would be harmed if they were not beaten vigorously with sticks for minor misbehavior. They lost custody of their children.

Clearly, there is room for debate over what parents can and cannot decide on behalf of their kids.
#48
Old 10-27-2005, 10:43 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor
No, actually, you haven't addressed the question.
No, actually, I have. Go back and read, rather than presuming what I have and have not said so that you don't have to think.
#49
Old 10-27-2005, 03:02 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLS
I also agree on the alcohol issue. IMHO, those raised with the idea that giving a sip of wine to a child on Thanksgiving is sinful and lawless behavior are more likely to want to binge away when they finally get access to same, legal or not. Kids raised with the idea that wine, beer and spirits are no big deal in moderation and that overindulgence eventually causes one to become boorish and ridiculous are far less likely to use alcoholic beverages irresponsibly.
It's an interesting theory, but not one that is borne out in my experience. In my experience, people who are brought up with the idea that drinking alcohol is immoral in general turn out to have pretty much the same range of attitudes toward alcohol as everyone else as adults.
#50
Old 10-27-2005, 05:58 PM
Mod Rocker
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,587
SlyFrog, calm down. It did take you several posts (until #40) before you actually answered the question that was asked. Most to the replies to you have been legitimate paraphrases of your apparent position prior to that post. Rather than angrily blasting the posters who you claim had not read what you had written, you really should have noted that their basic point (that you had not yet replied directly to the question) was correct.
On the other hand, Evil Captor, in post #40 Slyfrog did provide a reason for his position, so your most recent post (#47) demonstrates that you have not (on this occasion) followed teh thread with sufficient attention.

Now, you can all have a merry donnybrook trying to decide whether Slyfrog's post #40 has any merit, but I want everyone to stop telling other posters what they have or have not said.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: solo flex vamos a chingar synonyms for rad chicken pox hsv duffy strode now lesbian etymology mining puns hurts to cough jack bauer bags scary worlds ace keys worst jeopardy score german redneck i like the fishes blood pressure 220 140 jennifer love hewitt big boobs how much nyquil is fatal why does romeo kill paris tape to use on car can spiders get fat what's up answer funny way will a grenade explode if you shoot it mole on face removal cost is cooking food a chemical change bottle in a bag soldering copper pipe problems