DEBATE: Is this porn?

[dadevvtsvre]

Ah, but at the same time not everybody wants to see your clothes. [/devilsadvocateforthesakeofdebate] Indeed not everybody wants to see your face, your arms, your legs; not everybody wants to see you out of the house. Not everybody wants to see you eat or drink (equally considerable as disgusting) and not everybody wants to be next to black people (bringing in racism because debates always lead to raccism :p). Or something to that extent, it's 9am.

I get what you're trying to say but it doesn't really make sense. There is a very small minority of people that are offended when you leave the house. Or that are offended when they see your clothes. Compared to the very large majority of people that become offended when they see another dude's manparts or ladyparts. I find females as attractive as any heterosexual, but if I saw a woman strolling down the street with her breasts hanging out I'd be kind of offended! Weirded out, to say the least. At least by the fact that she thought her body was so beautiful/she was so self-important that she thought the world just had to take a gander at her chest.

I don't know a single person who finds the act of another person eating or drinking disgusting so I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. :?

Regarding the "clothes are a man-made invention" thing: Well yeah, duh. We've evolved over thousands of years to get used to clothes, have evolved to the fact that we wear them when we're around other people. (people we don't intend to have sex with) But we're supposed to feel uncomfortable seeing another person's genitals outside of a sexual context. We're not supposed to be constantly aroused 24/7!

I know nudity is kind of a hot button issue. But it comes down to how you've been raised and the people you grew up with. You can throw out things like "nudity is BEAUTIFUL :sad: " and "well we weren't BORN with clothes! " all you want, but most people find it offensive unless they're about to have sex.

 

[Twirly]

We're not supposed to be constantly aroused 24/7!

if you are aroused from just seeing naked people i feel sorry for you :x

 

[dadevvtsvre]

We're not supposed to be constantly aroused 24/7!

if you are aroused from just seeing naked people i feel sorry for you :x

I'm talking about society as a whole, not just me :x

 

[Twirly]

huh i doubt that a lot of people would get aroused 24/7 from seeing other people naked you'd build up tolerance in no time

 

[dadevvtsvre]

which brings me back to the point that if we're so desensitized to nudity that we don't become excited by it when we see it, then what's the point?

 

[united washcloth express]

Nudity is only a piece of the pie in terms of sexual excitement. Much of it is psychological, not to mention that becoming accustomed to nudity will not stop people from having sex if they want to have sex. If it feels good, people will continue to do it. Viewing the human body is not the only way to spark an erection.

 

[dadevvtsvre]

Well yeah, for sure. That's why you don't have kids getting excited when they look at an anatomy textbook. What I'm trying to say is that a society in which we are constantly looking at naked people is one where we are likely to be even more distracted and directionless than the one we're in now. Maybe I'm being an idealist but we have more important things to focus on, and the constant sight of naked people is not all that conducive to getting there.

I keep trying to argue that it comes down to a mutual respect between people but I guess modesty is a strange concept?

I think I forgot what the original argument was supposed to be.

 

[Venetia]

That's why you don't have kids getting excited when they look at an anatomy textbook.

nah when i was in school, it was quite a thing for a lot of kids.
so long as it wasn't like one of those "visible man" type illustrations where the body is all bisected.

i don't care. i think people flip out too much over it. especially over boobs.

i remember when Janet Jackson's boob (it even still had a pasty on) was flashed for a split second at the super bowl. people FREAKED OUT.

largest outcry was, "my son/daughter was watching! how do i explain that?!"

and my response is: uh, how do you explain that chicks have tits? i don't know man. i guess it's harder to do if they're blind, but then how were they watching television?


that said, i appreciate dadev's comments too. he's right, if there were no taboo about genitals, they would be less arousing. take tribal people in hot/humid climates. they often let their whatsits dangle about--well, it's damn hot. but it's not special or unique or arousing. it's just parts.

additionally, if we never wear clothes, we lose physical sensitivity. your doodads are made up of very delicate skin, like your lips, but unlike your lips, are not at such a strategic location on your body. they're on places which are frequently sat upon, brushed, smacked, etc. (in totally non-sexual ways).

doesn't matter that we can physically SURVIVE without clothes. there are benefits to them. over time, we developed a social stigma about them.

religion plays a part in that certain religions demonize sexuality and/or women. the more prevalent the religion, and the more a region's main religion demonizes sexuality and/or women, the less tolerant of nudity that region's culture becomes.

in many european countries, it's OK to show boobs in certain contexts in public media. in the U.S., it causes massive uproarious backlash. in Iran, the chick gets stoned to death and everyone who saw it is probably punished somehow too.
(a digression of laxness of religion in each region.)


makes sense WHY certain cultures' religions developed these social morays.
in the middle east, it's the desert. the sun will burn you to a crisp. you have to wear a lot to avoid becoming burnt tarpaper. people became used to seeing women covered in lots of clothes. whenever they saw outsiders strolling about wearing less, they were hit with xenophobia. it was weird, so it was wrong. eventually, radical islam would take that centuries-old sentimentality and morph it into laws & "morality".

christianity (as it's known today) developed all over the damn place. originally, the desert (again: gotta wear clothes). later, all over europe--especially cold or rocky places, where, again, concealing clothes were expected.

in either religion, and in several others, women are portrayed as lesser/subservient beings. for a LONG TIME, doctors were not allowed to study them (seriously). 90%+ of their bodies were off-limits to everyone but midwives and husbands (and were not discussed). forbidden fruit. their doodads became a mystery, and thus, a taboo.


i mean yes, moral reservations regarding nudity are all dumb as hell. but perfectly understandable as to why they exist.

 

[Venetia]

a funny double standard: it's technically legal for a woman to walk around topless in New York. but if the film crew for the Today Show accidentally films some half-naked woman in the background, and it's televised, the show is fined $300,000.

very silly.

 

[psiclone]

That's why you don't have kids getting excited when they look at an anatomy textbook.

nah when i was in school, it was quite a thing for a lot of kids.
so long as it wasn't like one of those "visible man" type illustrations where the body is all bisected.

i don't care. i think people flip out too much over it. especially over boobs.

i remember when Janet Jackson's boob (it even still had a pasty on) was flashed for a split second at the super bowl. people FREAKED OUT.

largest outcry was, "my son/daughter was watching! how do i explain that?!"

and my response is: uh, how do you explain that chicks have tits? i don't know man. i guess it's harder to do if they're blind, but then how were they watching television?


that said, i appreciate dadev's comments too. he's right, if there were no taboo about genitals, they would be less arousing. take tribal people in hot/humid climates. they often let their whatsits dangle about--well, it's damn hot. but it's not special or unique or arousing. it's just parts.

additionally, if we never wear clothes, we lose physical sensitivity. your doodads are made up of very delicate skin, like your lips, but unlike your lips, are not at such a strategic location on your body. they're on places which are frequently sat upon, brushed, smacked, etc. (in totally non-sexual ways).

doesn't matter that we can physically SURVIVE without clothes. there are benefits to them. over time, we developed a social stigma about them.

religion plays a part in that certain religions demonize sexuality and/or women. the more prevalent the religion, and the more a region's main religion demonizes sexuality and/or women, the less tolerant of nudity that region's culture becomes.

in many european countries, it's OK to show boobs in certain contexts in public media. in the U.S., it causes massive uproarious backlash. in Iran, the chick gets stoned to death and everyone who saw it is probably punished somehow too.
(a digression of laxness of religion in each region.)


makes sense WHY certain cultures' religions developed these social morays.
in the middle east, it's the desert. the sun will burn you to a crisp. you have to wear a lot to avoid becoming burnt tarpaper. people became used to seeing women covered in lots of clothes. whenever they saw outsiders strolling about wearing less, they were hit with xenophobia. it was weird, so it was wrong. eventually, radical islam would take that centuries-old sentimentality and morph it into laws & "morality".

christianity (as it's known today) developed all over the damn place. originally, the desert (again: gotta wear clothes). later, all over europe--especially cold or rocky places, where, again, concealing clothes were expected.

in either religion, and in several others, women are portrayed as lesser/subservient beings. for a LONG TIME, doctors were not allowed to study them (seriously). 90%+ of their bodies were off-limits to everyone but midwives and husbands (and were not discussed). forbidden fruit. their doodads became a mystery, and thus, a taboo.


i mean yes, moral reservations regarding nudity are all dumb as hell. but perfectly understandable as to why they exist.

ven is so hot when she learns us

i'd totally diddle that brain

 

[BlueScope]

First, let me solve this topic: Porn is media where you can see people's privates (to be more specific, for a female it actually has to be the insides of their primary genitals, for some reason) illustrated in a way that suggests sexual action in order to arouse. There's a slight area which still goes as artistic nude, however lots of people - yes, from the US - like to confuse those.

That being said, the question if being naked all the time would be a good idea kind of has an obvious answer... the functionality of clothes - be it to warm, prevent injuries, stash stuff or be individual - is a bit too valueable to just throw it away for "being naked". I wouldn't say you build up a tolerance as much as it'd just not be interesting to you, because it's the default. There's always the exception to the rule, but yeah...

As for the question if little kids should see naked people, or if newspapers should print naked girls... seriously, I think it'd be for the better if they actually would. The world is such an uptight place about nudity that it hurts my brain... especially in the US-American communities I'm in where that's a topic (for example deviantArt), people act like seeing someone nude is a crime, and whoever shows their belly button in public is a whore. If people would stop that behaviour and sexual appearances would be more accepted, it'd definately be a better world for all of us, or at least I think so. You can still choose not to look at it, however you wouldn't get ranted upon anymore for being a person that likes to show themselves. Tolerance isn't only about skin color, mkay?

 

[Ellie]

Yeah. It's less "EVERYONE HAS TO BE NAKED" and more "Everyone can be naked". I'm totally not saying everyone has to go around without clothes on forever; just that if, for some reason, you need to remove your top, or don't want to wear pants, or whatever, you should be able to without it being a problem.