Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's interesting to wonder if the bikini had never been invented, and people allowed, circa 1960, to just go "au naturel," if the population of at least the western world would now be bursting at the seams. I remember hearing from more than one boyfriend back in the 70's--one, gay--that it was too erotic for women to wear bikinis, because they incited ten times more...desire (this is City Data) than a totally naked female. And I imagine this pertains to waxed or unwaxed.
Gah, this thread is grotesque.
Interestingly, most clothing optional resorts have rules prohibiting provocative attire. While there wouldn't be any problem with an ordinary bikini or Speedo, they don't want people wearing thongs or g-strings, for example. Yet you can go completely nude, that being the whole point of the enterprise. On the face of it, it seems counterintuitive, yet I suppose it does make a sort of sense.
We have too many people in this culture with unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality to be carefree about nudity, I think. I recently returned from a foreign country where I saw a number of children playing on the beach without clothing and all I could think was that I hoped their parents didn't let them out of their sight. Pedophiles paradise.
It's really saddens me that was my first thought. In a perfect world everyone would protect the well-being of children. But public nudity can be used by sick people as an excuse to cross personal boundaries and it becomes those of us who are aware that realize they must be the responsible ones.
I'd like to also bring up a subject that was touched on earlier - hygiene. Our current world is much more polluted than it was when people wore little or no clothing. Clothing is excellent protection for your body's largest organ - your skin.
Just a couple of days ago I read an article that said that archaeologists have found a piece of hand-woven material that predates the previously known human manufacture of clothing by thousands of years. No surprise to me. Laboring in the jungle, the dessert, the forests or the mountains without clothing could have been problematic and hazardous.
The "harm" that one thinks about, when it comes to public nudity, is manufactured by what we have been taught from a young age. Think about it this way, if we were raised in a society that never wore clothing, then we saw someone with clothing on , it would be shocking. We would all point and talk about that person because it was so foreign. Because we have created a society where clothing is required, it is against societal norms to be naked.
This is the same argument I have about so called vulgar language. Cursing is just a type of slang. But when I say "whats up bro", no one is offended. If I say "I need to take a P***" people start acting like it is the end of the world.
We have too many people in this culture with unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality to be carefree about nudity, I think. I recently returned from a foreign country where I saw a number of children playing on the beach without clothing and all I could think was that I hoped their parents didn't let them out of their sight. Pedophiles paradise.
Empirical data is needed here, and I would love to hear from anyone who can offer any references to data concerning nudity and safety, but for whatever it may be worth, I like to offer a different theory: I think that allowing nudity on some beaches would have no statistically significant impact on the rates of sexual abuse of children. I'd say that rates of abuse are mostly governed by unmonitored access to children, and I suspect that parents on a nude beach are, on average, more likely to be more attentive than on a regular beach, making the ease of access lower on a nude beach than on a regular beach. Overall, I would predict the child abuse crime rates would be actually be lower on nude beaches, not higher (assuming there is any statistically significant difference in rates at all).
Quote:
I'd like to also bring up a subject that was touched on earlier - hygiene. Our current world is much more polluted than it was when people wore little or no clothing. Clothing is excellent protection for your body's largest organ - your skin.
Yes, but individual freedom of choice should be of primary importance here (unless you can reference scientific data showing significant harm done to public health caused by nudity - which I would invite you to share, if you know of any). Without data, it's just a matter of personal opinions and personal values - generally not the sort of thing we want to use as the basis for restricting individual liberty. Common sense suggests that clothing is obvious protective in many situations, but there are plenty of situations where the "extra protection" is virtually irrelevant and should be a matter of personal liberty.
One obvious source of possible health/safety data could be rates of skin cancer, but that is generally the sort of things we leave to personal choice (and, of course, sun screen is always an option). On the "dangers of skin cancer" logic, most average swim attire should be banned and people should be requires to wear full body-covering swimwear.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-20-2018 at 02:09 PM..
I am not saying to go out and expose yourself to children, but what I am saying is in many different countries there are different laws about public indecency and the like, especially when it comes to children. However, do you really believe there's really anything wrong with it, that it can somehow cause harm? Up until very recently, it was par for the course for everyone, including children to see naked men and women and view it as no big deal. Nowadays at least in the US you will get arrested for showing your "private" parts.
Honestly though, do you think beyond the puritanical views there really is anything wrong with it? If both adults and children were to regularly see naked men and women all the time out and about or otherwise do you honestly believe it would harm them in some way (assuming they weren't brought up with said puritanical views)?
You may not be saying go out and expose yourself, but that is what things will devolve into, creeps exposing themselves. And you would be culpable when it happens in society. Opinions and views, are not innocuous things, they are the heart speaking out. That is what I think about it.
I will take a leap and say that you are a person who thinks that people are naturally good, aren't you? Well, they ain't.
You may not be saying go out and expose yourself, but that is what things will devolve into, creeps exposing themselves.
Again it comes down to a lack of any significant evidence. If, in fact, public nudity leads to higher crime rates, or rates of any sort of tangible harm, then it should not be too difficult to offer evidence for this. Without evidence, it's just opinions. Personal liberty should not be legally restricted on the basis of mere personal opinions when the claim is that some tangible harm is being prevented. If there is harm, then produce some data showing the supposed harm. Otherwise, personal liberty should be the default (or, at least it ought to be the default in any society that claims to place a high value on individual liberties).
BTW: On tangent line of thought: At the very, very, very least, women should be able to go topless wherever men are allowed to go topless. The fact that this is not true in most places lends support to the idea that the anti-nudity sentiment is driven mostly by personal biases that have basically no foundation in any demonstrable evidence about public safety, since topless women are no more of a risk to the public health than topless men.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-20-2018 at 02:34 PM..
Empirical data is needed here, and I would love to hear from anyone who can offer any references to data concerning nudity and safety, but for whatever it may be worth, I like to offer a different theory: I think that allowing nudity on some beaches would have no statistically significant impact on the rates of sexual abuse of children. I'd say that rates of abuse are mostly governed by unmonitored access to children, and I suspect that parents on a nude beach are, on average, more likely to be more attentive than on a regular beach, making the ease of access lower on a nude beach than on a regular beach. Overall, I would predict the child abuse crime rates would be actually be lower on nude beaches, not higher (assuming there is any statistically significant difference in rates at all).
Well, I haven't said that I think nude beaches have more sexual assaults so let's start there.
If you have a society which has become infected with sick people the cure is not exposure to more of what they already are misinterpreting. I imagine that's why in the USA we have outlawed possession of innocent-appearing pictures of children without their clothing. Legally it's called child pornography even though you and I would look at it as a child in its natural state. It seems crazy, doesn't it?
The difference, we know, is that someone who has that sick thinking uses looking at that child to achieve sexual satisfaction. The simple act of viewing is actually a part of an arousal ritual that has the very real potential of turning into action.
That may not occur where people are watching closely, but once the train of thought is triggered in someone with this compulsion he will find a place where people aren't watching children to achieve the rest of the ritual.
Those who are able to be satisfied simply with the viewing are very lucky people. And we, as a society are lucky that they are able to stop there. But it usually requires more graphic material and more risk taking over time. The illness is progressive. Most sex offenders have managed to abuse a number of children before anyone is even aware of their inclinations. But in all cases it starts with watching.
I am truly sorry we live in this atmosphere. Nothing could be more normal than people without their clothing. But we do live in this situation. People commenting that it's the way we have been conditioned are correct. It appears to have been a huge mistake to take this social direction but it's what we have to work with and we can't turn it around overnight by taking off our clothes.
Fortunately people who want to do that do have places where they are able to do so with no one dissenting.
If we change anything to improve our situation it may be when/if the Supreme Court and the Diagnostic Manual for mental health change the status of pedophilia to a sexual preference. That seems to be the way we do things these days.
In the meantime I wouldn't expose any children I were in charge of to the pedophilic gaze and if people knew what I know about sex offenders they probably wouldn't either.
We no longer live in innocent times and have a responsibility to educate ourselves about healthy behaviors that fit the times we are living in.
Well, I haven't said that I think nude beaches have more sexual assaults so let's start there.
If you have a society which has become infected with sick people the cure is not exposure to more of what they already are misinterpreting. I imagine that's why in the USA we have outlawed possession of innocent-appearing pictures of children without their clothing. Legally it's called child pornography even though you and I would look at it as a child in its natural state. It seems crazy, doesn't it?
The difference, we know, is that someone who has that sick thinking uses looking at that child to achieve sexual satisfaction. The simple act of viewing is actually a part of an arousal ritual that has the very real potential of turning into action.
That may not occur where people are watching closely, but once the train of thought is triggered in someone with this compulsion he will find a place where people aren't watching children to achieve the rest of the ritual.
Those who are able to be satisfied simply with the viewing are very lucky people. And we, as a society are lucky that they are able to stop there. But it usually requires more graphic material and more risk taking over time. The illness is progressive. Most sex offenders have managed to abuse a number of children before anyone is even aware of their inclinations. But in all cases it starts with watching.
I am truly sorry we live in this atmosphere. Nothing could be more normal than people without their clothing. But we do live in this situation. People commenting that it's the way we have been conditioned are correct. It appears to have been a huge mistake to take this social direction but it's what we have to work with and we can't turn it around overnight by taking off our clothes.
Fortunately people who want to do that do have places where they are able to do so with no one dissenting.
If we change anything to improve our situation it may be when/if the Supreme Court and the Diagnostic Manual for mental health change the status of pedophilia to a sexual preference. That seems to be the way we do things these days.
In the meantime I wouldn't expose any children I were in charge of to the pedophilic gaze and if people knew what I know about sex offenders they probably wouldn't either.
We no longer live in innocent times and have a responsibility to educate ourselves about healthy behaviors that fit the times we are living in.
You are right, one great example is to look at what material was considered 'hard core' 20 yrs ago, compared to what is 'hard core' today, its a HUGE HUGE difference, and I guarantee, in another 20 yrs, the hard core of today, will appear tame in comparison!
These things are progressive, I think thats what a lot of people do not get, its not like depravity reaches a certain low and then just stops or plateaus, its ALWAYS going to get worse and worse, and eventually we ALWAYS become tolerant to it, and accept it.
Again it comes down to a lack of any significant evidence. If, in fact, public nudity leads to higher crime rates, or rates of any sort of tangible harm, then it should not be too difficult to offer evidence for this. Without evidence, it's just opinions. Personal liberty should not be legally restricted on the basis of mere personal opinions when the claim is that some tangible harm is being prevented. If there is harm, then produce some data showing the supposed harm. Otherwise, personal liberty should be the default (or, at least it ought to be the default in any society that claims to place a high value on individual liberties).
BTW: On tangent line of thought: At the very, very, very least, women should be able to go topless wherever men are allowed to go topless. The fact that this is not true in most places lends support to the idea that the anti-nudity sentiment is driven mostly by personal biases that have basically no foundation in any demonstrable evidence about public safety, since topless women are no more of a risk to the public health than topless men.
the harm is in having poor personal boundaries, unhealthy boundaries.
not "anti nudity bias"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
