What's the problem with nudity?

[Shaft]

NOTE: This is NOT, I repeat, NOT about the practicality of clothing. This is about the moral attitudes towards nudity in general.
NOTE 2: Nobody is saying you should be forced to be naked. Remember, optional menas YOU CAN CHOOSE!
NOTE 3: Please read ALL of the first post before you reply!

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". As a nudist, I never did grasp why this fear of the human body exists. 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.

Ugly People shouldn't be naked

This argument fails because the notion of beuty is entirley a subjective standard. There is no objective measure of beuty, and so it would be very unfair to force people to cover up just because of one persons standard of beuty. Plus you could always LOOK AWAY!

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!

Yes, this is a real argument people have braught up against nudity.

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.

Even the conditions which can be passed via skin to skin contact would be clear and the person with them clearly wouldn't be trying to spread it!

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.

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 16. 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 n****e (even close ups show a n****e 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 n****e, 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 unfortunatly lost)

[Xray]

Nudity is one thing, sex is another.

[Zen_ish]

I agree that we should all be able to control ourselves and not care if someone was naked or not but I can tell you in very few words why that's never going to be the case...
1. Sexual attraction means that you are looking for sex ALL THE TIME. (if you can still get it up... and Viagra if you can't)
2. Jealousy... I don't care who says "I'm not jealous". Nobody wants their mate to be looking at another man or woman naked. (in case they might want them more)
3. Attraction has an opposite side... repulsion. It's an evolutionary thing. This is how we choose a mate and choose other things that we "like" and avoid things that we don't like.
It all comes down to why we are attracted to another person and what we are going to do with that attraction.
Sexual attraction is a highly controlling, genetic part of a human being and you couldn't stop it even if you tried.
If nudity wasn't so uncontrollably attractive it wouldn't be the most profitable industry.

[steely]

I'm a nudist and at first it was uncomfortable for me but now I don't give second thought to getting naked in a social setting. There is a big difference between sexual provocation and being nude.
You can think anything you want about me but you're only welcome where you're invited. I have boundaries I expect others to respect and i respect theirs. Where nudity is the norm these boundaries are just a given and those who violate them are dealt with.
Unless you're involved sexually you look a nude woman in the eyes when you speak to her as you should if she's clothed.
Do a search for AANR and read the rules. You might be enlightened.