Which is Worse, Nudity or Violence?

[Odetta]

OK, so a discussion in another thread lead me to start a new topic. How many of you feel that nudity is more offensive than violence? How about for your children? Which would you rather they witness? Or neither?



discuss

[jayson]

Which is worse? Violence by far. I'm not saying everyone should run around naked, some sense of shame is a good thing, but not so much that nudity should be considered "evil" or "porno" or anything like that. For my part, I'd sooner have my kid witness nakedness than violence [not that I can realistically expect that they will not see violence].

[Odetta]

Yeah, it would be nice to think we can sheild them from violence, but in our world, that's not really possible.

[Jean]

depends on their age. I think there's an age where violence can hardly impress too much because kids won't really understand what they see, or that it's for real (head off him, the queen shouted); while I think at this same age nudity may impress and cause questions which might distort the propotional perception of the world and normal step-by-step development. I mean, at that age I'd rather not expose kids to either, just in case, but violence may cause less harm; it's the other way with an older kid. (I can't specify which age I am talking about, it's different for every child.)

[jayson]

I think the best we can hope for is to try our best to explain it to them if and when they do see it. of course sometimes violence is inexplicable. i suppose the best we can do is hope we can explain it to them in such a way that they don't ever feel the need to commit violent acts in their own lives [unless of course their lives are at stake, i do believe in self-defense]

[jayson]

Those are good points Jean. It stresses again that the key is responsible parenting. When the inevitable questions come it falls to the parents to explain it in a way that doesn't exacerbate the potential pitfalls.

[Odetta]

depends on their age. I think there's an age where violence can hardly impress too much because kids won't really understand what they see, or that it's for real (head off him, the queen shouted); while I think at this same age nudity may impress and cause questions which might distort the propotional perception of the world and normal step-by-step development. I mean, at that age I'd rather not expose kids to either, just in case, but violence may cause less harm; it's the other way with an older kid. (I can't specify which age I am talking about, it's different for every child.)

I don't know if I agree with violence not affecting young children. Babies, maybe, but even then violence noises would affect them. If my 2 year old sees explosions on TV, for example, she gets scared.
If she were to see nudity, she might say... "mommy, does that girl have boobies?" to which the simple reply is yes. No fear there.

[Jean]

I don't think noise equals violence. If it was just a door slamming shut, I think the baby would be just as afraid; it's a matter of the wrong physical irritants rather than such a social subject as violence.

As for boobs, the baby in question is a girl... and even then, again, everything depends on what is being done with those boobs on the screen.

[Odetta]

VERY, very true, Jean. I'm not talking porn, here. Just nudity.

[Jean]

ah! I, as usual, misunderstood

(maybe it was intrinsic male wish to talk porn under slightest pretext)

then I agree with everything said above! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif

[Darkthoughts]

I agree with Odetta, Jean. (Edit: I did :lol:) There is a difference, even to a baby, between a door slamming - which would cause the baby to jump from the unexpected element of the noise - compared to the noise of say a violent film on tv, because that would no doubt encorporate screaming aswell as other loud noises - which would cause the baby distress due to the nature of the noise.

Nudity is not a problem as far as I'm concerned. I don't know the context in which this conversation started, but whether its nudity on tv or at home such as, your child sees you dressing - any questions that arise can be answered and understood by the child because they can relate to their own body.
Whereas violence, more specifically extreme/graphic violence, I'd say is frightening for a child because they have no context for it - there isn't always a comprehensive answer for the "Why are they doing that?" because most violence is senseless anyway.

[TerribleT]

I like nudity a LOT, are ya hearing me Kate Beckinsale, Evagaline Lilly, JLH etc...

But there's nothing like a heavy dose of The Colonial Marines taking on the Aliens, watching John McClane run over Mai with a freakin SUV, or just about any other really good action thriller. so I like em both, a LOT of both. For kids...once they're old enough to understand the difference between real life violence, and fake violence, I would let my kids, if I had any watch mostly whatever they want. I think we in the US make wayyyyy too much of the sight of a pair of boobs.

That said, I recognize that not everyone feels the way I do about things. I think a certain amount of decency and decorum needs to be observed, and I think parents should have times of the day, channels and shows during which they can reasonably expect that their children will not be exposed to violence or nudity. I think this is just basic simple courtesy that need to be observed in order to live in a society. I think the same for smoking, cussing, etc... I think certain places should be set aside where people should not be exposed to cigarette smoke (workplace) if they don't want to be. We all have to make some concessions to civilization.

[Darkthoughts]

As far as kids are concerned, a little fear is healthy - otherwise how would you learn to deal with it? But like you just said TT, I think its a parents responsibility to know what their child can handle and when to say "Ok, you're not watching that!" possibly despite the protests and bravado ;)

[Odetta]

I remeber once, we were in a restaurant for breakfast. There were TV's on every corner and it was Veteran's Day in the US, I think... the TV's had on CNN and were showing these soldiers in Iraq who had been injured... blood everywhere. Of course, my daughter (she was 5 at the time) got that look she gets when she sees something violent. It's like a mixture of fear and panic.

I was annoyed that it had to be on in a family restaurant in the morning... that being said, it was real life news, not some graphic movie or anything. I had to get our table moved to a location where I could block her eyes from the TVs.

[Darkthoughts]

I know what you're saying, and it annoys me sometimes when people say things like "Its real life, you can't shelter them from it!" Because sure, it is real life, but theres a difference between acknowledging that as a child and as an adult.

You find out theres so much crap involved in life when you're an adult, why not let your kid have extra helpings of all the good stuff while they can I say :)

[Matt]

I'll pull on the "real life" thread a bit. I think the important thing is to let kids know that what they see on the TV or the movies is fake. The violence is manufactured and some kids on this planet have to deal with the real thing.

If they are seeing the real thing as mentioned above, perhaps it could be an educational moment but I've always been clear to my kids that we are basically hairless monkeys, we hurt, we die.

My vote is always for nudity--I have zero shame and I think there is a big difference between natural nudity and sexual nudity. Find this strange if you want, but I could easily get naked at a party. :lol: Without sex being involved.

(I'm sure several people here will not be shocked by this)

When my kids were very little, their grandpa was an extra in a move about Huck Finn staring Elija Wood. We all went to see the movie when it came out and it was so wild to see them make the connection. Grandpa on the screen, Grandpa sitting next to me. Movie is fake.

So I guess my point is back to the parents if I have one.

[William50]

There is nothing wrong with either. Those are the things that make show entertaining.

[Daghain]

Overall, if you are talking about television, I would say I would rather subject kids to nudity vs. violence.

I think the Brits have one over on us Americans. They see the human body as no big deal, but violence is more censored. As Americans, we are the polar opposite.

Personally, in some bizarro world where I had kids, I would much rather they be exposed to nudity than violence. There is nothing wrong with the human body, IMHO, but blowing up people and viewing body parts flying all over the screen is not something I would want my kids exposed to.

Just my 2 cents. :D

[ZoNeSeeK]

In a roundabout way I think TT highlighted something I had never really considered - Screen Violence is staged violence and 99% of kids understand this difference on a fundamental level. Screen nudity is still nudity, however - maybe its this difference that gets everyone's tits in a fucking knot :)

But the underlying question is still there - why should non-aggressive nudity get up anyone's asshole? The human body is one of the most common sights on planet earth. Suppression of the naked form has deep roots in fundamental religious observance - evidenced by pagan religion's lack of concern about nudity. Its a form of historical rebellion, or if anyone is familiar with Hegel's theory of synthesis - it fits in with this aswell. There was the original thesis (nudity is natural and normal), followed by an antithesis (fundamentalist christian and muslim doctrine on the shame of nakedness) and we're at the start of a synthesis, I think - technology and science are replacing the role of religion in common sense, and the Hegellian triangle is almost complete.

Personally, the idea of denying the very form you inhabit is counterproductive. But it makes you wonder, from a common sense point of view, why religion incorporated the doctrine in the first place. Genuinely believing we became ashamed of our nakedness as punishment for falling from Eden is only seeing the analogy, not what it is supposed to serve. There is a practical societal mechanism behind every fundamentalist ideal (most of which are no longer relevant) - the stigma of clothing could have been related to UV exposure, climate change or sanitation, or perhaps to underpin more complex doctrine involving sexual propriety (which served to limit the spread of STD and produce many babies in male-female parent family structures). It gets bundled up in a Bible Story, imparted as gospel and tied to a fear-response, and bam! 2000 years later we balk at our own bodies and are not sure why.

*airs out his balls*

[Brice]

Nudity wouldn't trouble me at all. Violence does. I agree completely with Daghain regarding the polarization between the US and European countries re the whole sex/violence thing.

[alinda]

Ditto , this is just about exactly my answer.





Which is worse? Violence by far. I'm not saying everyone should run around naked, some sense of shame is a good thing, but not so much that nudity should be considered "evil" or "porno" or anything like that. For my part, I'd sooner have my kid witness nakedness than violence [not that I can realistically expect that they will not see violence].

[Matt]

Very few people give the rest of us a bad rap on that score I think. Most people I talk to (granted, I don't live in a religious community) are not overly uptight about nudity

[Brice]

Which is worse? Violence by far. I'm not saying everyone should run around naked (only the attractive ones), some sense of shame is a good thing, but not so much that nudity should be considered "evil" or "porno" or anything like that. For my part, I'd sooner have my kid witness nakedness than violence [not that I can realistically expect that they will not see violence].


:thumbsup:

[Darkthoughts]

:lol:

Year before last for my son's 8th birthday we had a garden party with a bouncy castle and all sorts of stuff. It was so hot my husband made a huge slip n slide thing with some plastic sheets and a hosepipe and all the boys stripped off to their underwear, totally unselfconciously (no one had bought swimming stuff as we hadn't planned on anyone getting wet) and had a whale of a time...all except this one kid. He was 7 years old and was embarassed to take his clothes off even though you could tell he wanted to join in. Afterwards when I handed round some towels, most of the boys took off their wet undies and he actually looked horrified.
I thought that was really sad to feel embarassed of your body at that age.

[jayson]

That is a kinda sad story Lisa. Part of being an innocent kid is not having to feel that kind of shame, especially over something so needless. How on earth will he deal with locker rooms and the like? It's telling to see our societal hang-ups reflected in such young children.

[Darkthoughts]

His mum is the biggest prude EVER!! My son usually sleeps in his boxer shorts, but if he sleeps over at their house he HAS to take pyjamas :rolleyes:

[jayson]

It's just sad. It's one thing that she has hang-ups about these things, but to pass them on to a child when the child is not even old enough to really grasp why someone would be hung-up on something like that, that's just wrong.

[Jean]

I see it in an entirely different light... seven years old isn't exactly a baby any longer, so it's entirely his right not to want everyone to stare at him naked. I know I wouldn't have gone naked in front of people at that age, and I would have expected people to respect that. Locker rooms are no problem when other people, however small, have some notion that someone needs privacy.

But, of course, we come from totally different cultures. For me, and most Russians, privacy, and other such things, like solitude, are of primary importance, and pudeur (sorry, forgot English word*) is a very important part of cultural context.

*it's not "shame", which has totally different connotations

[Darkthoughts]

They weren't naked though, they were wearing pants - some of the kids just took their pants off to get dry.

I know it is a matter of upbringing and culture too, but in the context I described it was sad - he seemed so isolated by his embarassment.

[Jean]

only because he was a white crow, not because his cultural tradition was worse than everybody else's.

I know that many people would call me a retrograde who speaks in favor of "repressions" and all such like which modern psychology uses to scare people, but this is something I could argue about - namely, it is highly arguable for me that traditional values are worse than "progressive" ones*.
(I could, but in all likelihood I won't... as I said, our cultures are way too different...)

*for example, early introduction to nudity and to how the other sex functions might relieve some "inhibitions" (if anybody knows for sure what the word means, of course; or if human practice has already proved that "uninhibited" people are happier or more acceptable socially than "inhibited" ones... which it hasn't), but might at the same time kill everything that is romantic (mystery and inaccessibility, and all feats of valor connected thereof...) about sex

[Darkthoughts]

What do you mean by white crow?

[Jean]

different than the others

[Darkthoughts]

Oh right, good expression!

It's more a family "tradition" than a cultural one, because we're from the same culture.

To your other point about progression, I understand the point you made - in this case though I'd say being prudish is more the progressive view (historically speaking) because nudity has been more acceptable in the past with "covering up" being more recent (Victorian times etc).

[Jean]

why, of course, I'm talking only about the latest spins of the spiral! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_wink-1.gif

[alinda]

:cry: Thats just plain sad ......





:lol:

Year before last for my son's 8th birthday we had a garden party with a bouncy castle and all sorts of stuff. It was so hot my husband made a huge slip n slide thing with some plastic sheets and a hosepipe and all the boys stripped off to their underwear, totally unselfconciously (no one had bought swimming stuff as we hadn't planned on anyone getting wet) and had a whale of a time...all except this one kid. He was 7 years old and was embarassed to take his clothes off even though you could tell he wanted to join in. Afterwards when I handed round some towels, most of the boys took off their wet undies and he actually looked horrified.
I thought that was really sad to feel embarassed of your body at that age.

[Odetta]

I know that many people would call me a retrograde who speaks in favor of "repressions" and all such like which modern psychology uses to scare people, but this is something I could argue about - namely, it is highly arguable for me that traditional values are worse than "progressive" ones*.
(I could, but in all likelihood I won't... as I said, our cultures are way too different...)

*for example, early introduction to nudity and to how the other sex functions might relieve some "inhibitions" (if anybody knows for sure what the word means, of course; or if human practice has already proved that "uninhibited" people are happier or more acceptable socially than "inhibited" ones... which it hasn't), but might at the same time kill everything that is romantic (mystery and inaccessibility, and all feats of valor connected thereof...) about sex


I wouldn't say that traditional values are worse than progressive ones either. Unfortunately, tho, with regards to sex, for example, it is getting to the point where if you don't educate your children at an early age, someone else will...

[Jean]

very, very true http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sad.gif

[Mattrick]

I love the south park movie: "Sex and deplorable violence in movies is okay! As long as they don't use any naughty language!!"

I think sex can be a very important part of the movie. If protestors are worried about child influence on sex they should look towards the music industry for that.

If violence isn't in movies or television it's on the news, in real life, in video games. Violence can be used to instill social values for learning. Bad people may kill and rob but in the end they get what's coming to them. Good people triumph. I was reading an article about a woman with two autistic children who hardly have the ability to socialize or communicate. She used wrestling storylines (good guy vs. bad guy) as a way to apply values to daily situations. Violence is a part of human nature. As long as people are taught it's fake, it's not real. It's a movie, it's exaggerated - it's entertainment.

Foul language is great when it's appropriate. You deal with mobsters, criminals, addicts or considered 'lowly people' they are expected to have a dirty mouth. But upper class people, you can get away with having a movie with no foul language, save the odd slur. Watch a Tarantino movie to see how language can supplement.


It doesn't need it, though. Look at a show like Lost. No foul language and no nudity and hardly even mentions of sex. The show has violence, actions and guns but it used sparringly. It's no means a show like 24 that would rely on gun fights and people dying.

[Darkthoughts]

No sex or nudity in Lost? I take it you didn't watch any of the Sawyer episodes then :P

[ZoNeSeeK]

I think there's a difference between the way a society handles nudity in the media or in public and an individual's attitude towards their own privacy. Everyone is entitled to personal privacy - there is nothing wrong with not wanting to strip down to your underwear around other people, the boy was obviously more self-conscious than the other kids and this could be for several reasons - being 7, he's probably hypersensitive about a feature of his body that kids may have pointed out as being different. By the sound of his folks I don't think he'd be getting much encouragement about his own body at home either. The poor kid is probably going to be incredibly self conscious growing up, espeically going through puberty, so lets hope he gets some positive and unconditional reinforcement from somewhere. I remember when i was a teenager and its always nerve wracking changing in front of other guys or flopping your willy out at the urinal but as you get older and are more confidant about your body its not really an issue.

In a roundabout way its linked to the media problem - not only should non-sexual nudity be used more in the media, more "everyday" bodies should be seen, alot more often. Its this stupid idea that young girls and young guys have of what the "desirable standard" is that causes plenty of grief. Its fine for the 15% or whatever who fit into it, but the rest have a hard enough time. Being a teenager sucks ass :)

[ATG]

Both are bad. Violence is worse as one creates life and one can end it.

[PedroPáramo]

For me...neither of both.

If a person is enough serious could understand that is just another one body and that's all. But persons usually go for the other path-the sex one. Nude= sex. Who the fuck imagined that first? Is like say: what was first: the chicken or the egg?
Then the violence. That's a delicate thing I know, and must of you would ask: why isn't violence bad for him? Wanna know the real answer? There are just like two or three things bad for me, and neither of them are violence or nude. First of all, I don't like it, but I don't hate it. It's like life. Bad grass never dies. Live in a city like mine (Culiacan Sinaloa Mexico, ladies and gentlemen, the strongest city with drugtraffic on world after the Colombian ones) is too read the newspaper and see more bad news and deads than good news. Violence has been always there, and will be always there. Violence is something with we have to learn to live(at least I think that), and if someone want to be violent good for him/her, or quietly, even better. Without all that violence we would have never seen the best part of life, like the little things that makes this world a better one.;) :couple:

[Darkthoughts]

Everyone is entitled to personal privacy - there is nothing wrong with not wanting to strip down to your underwear around other people, the boy was obviously more self-conscious than the other kids and this could be for several reasons - being 7, he's probably hypersensitive about a feature of his body that kids may have pointed out as being different.
I think perhaps I didn't explain it properly, if I put it in this context you'll see what I mean: we've taken Jake swimming plenty of times (theres nothing wrong with his body btw - he's a healthy, normally proportioned boy :) ) and at the swimming pool he has no qualms about being seen in just his trunks, it was more like at the party he was thinking, "Oh my goodness, you can't run around in your underwear - thats rude!" His embarassment seemed to have been imposed on him by his mother, rather than it being his natural attitude. The "sad" element was that he was visibly in a quandry - he really wanted to join in!

[Odetta]

We have a lot of new members now... maybe with some new opinions????

[John_and_Yoko]

You even have to ask?

Violence, by far. Violence involves people getting hurt.

Nudity only involves people appearing the way nature designed them--no one is born wearing clothes.

Honestly I think the problem is that our society revolves around sex, which isn't a good thing--consequently it associates nudity with sexuality and pornography. At least, that's how it is with adults.

With kids, however, they're going to see nudity all the time--with themselves. You can't take a bath with your clothes on, can you? And little kids aren't going to be thinking about sex in those situations (and anyone who does is a pervert). And anyway, nudity provides a source of humor for kids that young--they think it's funny.

Not to mention that at a certain age, children are learning the differences between the sexes, and in an ideal world, I'd just as soon my kids learn the biological differences rather than cultural ones. I don't want my kids to feel they have to look a certain way, or act a certain way, or do certain things, just to feel like, or be accepted as, REAL boys or girls.

Honestly, as long as it's dissociated from sex, nudity ought to be a normal, healthy experience. Even sex itself is better than violence, but that's another argument entirely.

[Girlystevedave]

I think that for a child, violence is worse to witness. I mean, of course, you don't wanna sit your kid in front of the tv to watch a porno, but nudity isn't supposed to be a bad thing. My parents never sheltered us from movies just cause they may have had a boob shot in them. Hell, I aggravate my mom to this day because she had me watch Basic Instinct with her when I was about 12 or 13. Now that I think back on it, that was wrong to do just because of the quality movie it was, not the sex scenes. :lol:
It just wasn't a big deal to them. (shrugs) I guess it all depends on the parents/ children too. My parents wouldn't have allowed us to watch disturbing movies (like most scary movies now) but my brother and sister and I grew up on scary movies. And yet, I never had nightmares. And I didn't turn into some weird sex fiend because of some boobage in a movie.
:)

[theBeamisHome]

Ok this started in my cussing/cursing and i think it deserves its own.

so what is up with nudity over here in the states?
what do you think of nudity in general?

everything nudity related is allowed in here.

[William50]

I love to be naked. Makes me feel free. Great idea for a thread! :clap:

[theBeamisHome]

Thank you Lil Poe.

now, personally, i wear clothes... but it irritates the hell out of me that people around here think the body is somehow.... nasty i guess... like you can't see breasts or butts or whatever... and who sets these standards??? why is it ok to look at a breast as long as you don't see the nipple?!?!? who made the nipple different?!?! it's still a breast!!!:pullhair:

[William50]

Nudity has been labeled "bad" by religios people (no offence to religios people). And I agree that the nipple thing is stupid. :nope:

[jayson]

... why is it ok to look at a breast as long as you don't see the nipple?!?!? who made the nipple different?!?! it's still a breast!!!:pullhair:

For that matter, why is seeing a man's breast considered ok, but not a woman's? My neighbor walks around without a shirt all the time and he has rather large man-boobs. Why is that that is ok in our society, but it wouldn't be if his wife were to do the same? One thing I am most assuredly for is consistency. What kind of message are we sending about women's bodies if we make women feel that their bodies are somehow more obscene than a man's?

[alinda]

I feel like untill I can walk the streets "topless" I am being denied
freedom of expression assured to me by the constitution!! :wtf:

[Jean]

actually, we have a similar thread (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=1796).

I think I'll merge them, is that ok with you?

[theBeamisHome]

hmmm... yeah, i guess that's ok. i kinda wanted this to be about the good parts of nudity too... and maybe some funny nudity stuff... but i leave the decision :)

[Jean]

yes, but the titles are deceptive - it already is a thread of good sides of nudity, too! I just don't think we should have two nudity threads

(also, I am afraid as soon as we mention TV censorship etc, the parallel topic of violence will creep in... so let them be together, as they started!)

[theBeamisHome]

k! :thumbsup:

[John_and_Yoko]

... why is it ok to look at a breast as long as you don't see the nipple?!?!? who made the nipple different?!?! it's still a breast!!!:pullhair:

For that matter, why is seeing a man's breast considered ok, but not a woman's? My neighbor walks around without a shirt all the time and he has rather large man-boobs. Why is that that is ok in our society, but it wouldn't be if his wife were to do the same? One thing I am most assuredly for is consistency. What kind of message are we sending about women's bodies if we make women feel that their bodies are somehow more obscene than a man's?

That's just it--there's no logic to it at all. I've said this before, but I don't know if it was here....

If it's the nipples that are taboo, why allow a man's nipples to be seen (as when a man is topless)? And if not--if it's the breasts themselves that are taboo (the things a man doesn't have), then why are their curvature (and cleavage) okay to show? Like the girl in a bikini--only her nipples are covered and the rest is exposed, so why is that okay?

It's a double standard, and there is no argument supporting it other than that men tend to have sex on their minds more often than women, but why can't women have the right to make that decision (regardless of what men or anyone else thinks) if men have it?

[theBeamisHome]

exactly! i think i have sex on my mind more than most men i know.... well at least i used to... i'm like a domesticated lion as Nigel says... about himself :lol:

[alinda]

Really think it depends whos nude too, I mean I'd rather be beaten with a stick than see say my neighbors grandfather naked! :lol: Graphic violence is not only unnessasary but
it is plain horrible. Nudity for the most part can be viewed as beautiful whereas
the violence can not unless you happen to be a scociopath or something, nudity is not only nessasary at times, but it has often many pleasurable aspects. I guess what I am trying to say is nudity is my preference in this poll as long as it is not "pornographic" in nature. I have little tolerence for that either.

[Matt]

I'm all for nudity and I think it should be applied across the board. Its not sexual to me at all so I don't mind an old man or a little chub, I don't stare in any case.

I believe the reason many people aren't comfortable with their nudity is because their body type doesn't fall into what is considered "beautiful" by society. To me, its all good but not in a sexual way by any means.

<---can easily be naked.

[alinda]

sex? whats that? :lol:

[stone, rose, unfound door]

I guess I think nudity is worse. After all, violence is all around us and somehow it seems to help kids becoming more careful about their surroundings and what could happen to them. I'm not encouraging the showing of violence on TV or in books or whatever form of information or art there is. Nudity is fine up to a point: a lot of works of art are nude sculptures and paintings, but I think it's still unnatural to be showing so much nudity in commercials, although I've heard we here have a lot more commercials with either obvious or suggested nudity than anywhere else on Earth, but that might not be true.
Anyway, I'm not sure my point makes sense since my sister says I've got a problem with nudity as a whole :unsure:

[Jean]

Little Gem: I expressed similar opinion at the beginning of this thread.

Jayson: do you really think that those who, like me, see difference between male and female nudity do that on the basis of "obscenity"?

I really, truly don't understand why all you partisans of nudity are so intent on eradicating eroticism. Do you really want to live in a sterile sexless word? That's where you are heading to, though, with no difference between man's and woman's nipples, and female breast being no different from female palm.

[John_and_Yoko]

Little Gem: I expressed similar opinion at the beginning of this thread.

Jayson: do you really think that those who, like me, see difference between male and female nudity do that on the basis of "obscenity"?

I really, truly don't understand why all you partisans of nudity are so intent on eradicating eroticism. Do you really want to live in a sterile sexless word? That's where you are heading to, though, with no difference between man's and woman's nipples, and female breast being no different from female palm.

I think you misinterpreted that....

The "no difference" doesn't refer to one individual's perspective, it refers to the general populace. Obviously someone with normal sexual urges (who isn't bisexual) is going to see a difference between the two, but that's just one person, not the entire populace.

[jayson]

Jayson: do you really think that those who, like me, see difference between male and female nudity do that on the basis of "obscenity"?

I was referring, for the most part, to American attitudes regarding nudity, as that was how the conversation with theBeamisHome began. Yet the point remains, why is a female's nipple/breast any more or less erotic than a male's? I am not proposing we eliminate eroticism, but the primary biological purpose of a woman's breast is to feed their young. Clearly this is not an erotic act. After that function, there is in my mind no difference between the purpose of a woman's breasts or a man's. Neither one is specifically a sex organ. Like I said, I'm for consistency.

[Wuducynn]

I was referring, for the most part, to American attitudes regarding nudity, as that was how the conversation with theBeamisHome began. Yet the point remains, why is a female's nipple/breast any more or less erotic than a male's? I am not proposing we eliminate eroticism, but the primary biological purpose of a woman's breast is to feed their young. Clearly this is not an erotic act. After that function, there is in my mind no difference between the purpose of a woman's breasts or a man's. Neither one is specifically a sex organ. Like I said, I'm for consistency.

Quoted for truth. It wasn't up until, what? The 50's in the US? That it was considered "okay" for women to show their legs in public. Now so many women do it, no one even thinks about it.

[jayson]

It wasn't up until, what? The 50's in the US? That it was considered "okay" for women to show their legs in public. Now so many women do it, no one even thinks about it.

What's interesting about that is that in some situations I feel the opposite to now be the case. For instance, when I was in high school I often wondered why girls were allowed to wear skirts but boys not allowed to wear shorts. If they put a restriction on the length of the shorts then they could assure that the same amount of leg would be showing so what was the difference? Now, I was perfectly happy seeing girls in skirts, but it'd have been nice on a hot day to be able to not have to wear long pants when every girl in school could wear a skirt. It's another example of arbitrary rules being applied inconsistently.

[Brice]

Little Gem: I expressed similar opinion at the beginning of this thread.

Jayson: do you really think that those who, like me, see difference between male and female nudity do that on the basis of "obscenity"?

I really, truly don't understand why all you partisans of nudity are so intent on eradicating eroticism. Do you really want to live in a sterile sexless word? That's where you are heading to, though, with no difference between man's and woman's nipples, and female breast being no different from female palm.

I'm not sure it would really have so great an effect (if any) on eroticism, even if anyone could go about nude in day to day life. For one thing there is nothing to say which parts are erotic. What arouses one might do absolutely nothing for another. I think we're far from a sterile sexless world. Sexuality is far too complex for that to ever happen. Sexuality is all in the mind it's not inherent in any one part of the body. While I'm not a proponent of public nudity, I'm also not opposed to it. I do however think it shouldn't be society or government's choice. I think it's rightfully the individual's choice. I'm certain most would choose not to...even if they could though.

Except for Matt, of course. He'd be showing up at the bank naked. :rofl:

[jayson]

I'm not sure it would really have so great an effect (if any) on eroticism, even if anyone could go about nude in day to day life. For one thing there is nothing to say which parts are erotic. What arouses one might do absolutely nothing for another. I think we're far from a sterile sexless world. Sexuality is far too complex for that to ever happen. Sexuality is all in the mind it's not inherent in any one part of the body.

Excellent points Brice. What's erotic to one is not to another so how do we make decisions based on that?

[Brice]

I'm not sure it would really have so great an effect (if any) on eroticism, even if anyone could go about nude in day to day life. For one thing there is nothing to say which parts are erotic. What arouses one might do absolutely nothing for another. I think we're far from a sterile sexless world. Sexuality is far too complex for that to ever happen. Sexuality is all in the mind it's not inherent in any one part of the body.

Excellent points Brice. What's erotic to one is not to another so how do we make decisions based on that?

Well, see if we don't (as a society) worry about such truly meaningless things our governments will eventually have to deal with REAL societal problems such as crime and poverty. We can't have that, now...can we? :lol:

[jayson]

Well, see if we don't (as a society) worry about such truly meaningless things our governments will eventually have to deal with REAL societal problems such as crime and poverty. We can't have that, now...can we? :lol:

Considering the ways the powers-that-be would probably go about "solving" some of these problems, it's probably better that they continue ignoring those issues.

[Brice]

I have little doubt you're right.


Just to get us back on topic.


*streaks through the thread* :lol:

[Matt]

:o

Nude Brice!!

I personally believe we put too much emphasis on the sexual side of nakedness. Obviously, when it turns sexual, that makes it something else.

But laying out in the grass to get an even tan is just about what it is imo.

[Jean]

I am beginning to realize that the meaning of words "erotic" or "sexual" is not the same for me and my American friends

I won't elaborate now, but will watch and analyze for some time, if nobody objects... some interesting cultural discoveries might lie that way.

[Brice]

As you will, but wouldn't they be more likely to appear sooner talking about it?

[Jean]

not unless some thought is given first... there's no hurry anyway

[Brice]

Okay!

I don't really think it's so much of a cultural difference as it is an individual lifestyle difference though.

[Jean]

No, not only that. I am not talking about the attitude to phenomena now (that is always influenced by too many factors), but only the meaning of the words we use, as defined within the context to which we belong. That's why I want to take some time, to separate the personal perception of what a word might mean from what it is generally supposed to mean within a specific tradition.

[Matt]

"Communicate"

from the Latin "to make common"

I totally get what you are saying Jean and I agree. I think this happens a lot even in cultures without language differences.

[Jean]

::nods::

ursine vs human, too, don't forget...

that's why every time our High Negotiating Sides disagree or misunderstand each other, it is so interesting to analyze the reasons why... as I said, I suspect interesting discoveries along that way

[Matt]

can someone please explain to me the meaning of what she said, then? There's no big difference between, say, Stalin and Churchill, or Hitler and John Kennedy, if we strip them naked, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would deny that the essential difference between them is great anyway? So, what is the point?

The point is that all humans are the same. We are a species and therefor pretty much equal under our cloths. I think all Yoko was trying to say is that most differences are basically removed in the nude.

I think the same thing happens when you watch someone have a baby...we all come in the same and the differences don't make much sense compared to that imo.

[kirin]

violence is a lot worse especially violence which is as a result of prejudice thats why i would rather they didnt read the bible my kids would probably start trying to stone our gay freinds to death or something :(

[John_and_Yoko]

violence is a lot worse especially violence which is as a result of prejudice thats why i would rather they didnt read the bible my kids would probably start trying to stone our gay freinds to death or something :(

Heh--that's another thread topic entirely: are books (or other media) inherently good or bad, such that some of them should be avoided/boycotted/banned?

Not to go off-topic, but I don't think it's a matter of not reading the Bible, just reading it with an open, thinking mind, and not just accepting everything therein at face value. It would be a good way to see where we came from--and I don't mean the Genesis creation story, just the history of the belief system that dominates today.

[kirin]

im not gonna go into that that would be the topic of "are all ideas including religious ones recycled ideas from somewhere much older?"

A: yes

[Darkthoughts]

There's a religious thread in Blue Heaven, if you do want to discuss it ;)

[VastOne]

This is a question that always disturbs me in the context that nudity is even seen as something that is bad or immoral. IMHO, nudity is a learned negative from the religious teachings here in the US, whereas other cultures do not have near the oppressive desire to make sure you do not see the nipples....

On the violence side, one needs only to read 4 seconds of history to know violence begot power begot control....

Another point...Watch any top 20 shows on TV (CSI's NCIS Criminal Minds) and you will see a near complete autopsy but not a breast?!?!?!?!

Point made?

VastOne

[John_and_Yoko]

This is a question that always disturbs me in the context that nudity is even seen as something that is bad or immoral. IMHO, nudity is a learned negative from the religious teachings here in the US, whereas other cultures do not have near the oppressive desire to make sure you do not see the nipples....

On the violence side, one needs only to read 4 seconds of history to know violence begot power begot control....

Another point...Watch any top 20 shows on TV (CSI's NCIS Criminal Minds) and you will see a near complete autopsy but not a breast?!?!?!?!

Point made?

VastOne

We oughta put--ah say, we oughta put pants on all the aminals, 'cause they's all runnin' around in the nude, and that ain't--ah say, that ain't decent! :P

[VastOne]

This is a question that always disturbs me in the context that nudity is even seen as something that is bad or immoral. IMHO, nudity is a learned negative from the religious teachings here in the US, whereas other cultures do not have near the oppressive desire to make sure you do not see the nipples....

On the violence side, one needs only to read 4 seconds of history to know violence begot power begot control....

Another point...Watch any top 20 shows on TV (CSI's NCIS Criminal Minds) and you will see a near complete autopsy but not a breast?!?!?!?!

Point made?

VastOne

We oughta put--ah say, we oughta put pants on all the aminals, 'cause they's all runnin' around in the nude, and that ain't--ah say, that ain't decent! :P

:excited:

Of Course! That will solve everything! MY Gosh, why didn't I think of that?

VastOne

[Matt]

I watched a Star Wars documentary one time where Lucas said the censors were getting him because the "Wookie wasn't wearing any pants" :panic:

:lol:

[kirin]

This is a question that always disturbs me in the context that nudity is even seen as something that is bad or immoral. IMHO, nudity is a learned negative from the religious teachings here in the US, whereas other cultures do not have near the oppressive desire to make sure you do not see the nipples....

On the violence side, one needs only to read 4 seconds of history to know violence begot power begot control....

Another point...Watch any top 20 shows on TV (CSI's NCIS Criminal Minds) and you will see a near complete autopsy but not a breast?!?!?!?!

Point made?

VastOne

We oughta put--ah say, we oughta put pants on all the aminals, 'cause they's all runnin' around in the nude, and that ain't--ah say, that ain't decent! :P

:excited:

Of Course! That will solve everything! MY Gosh, why didn't I think of that?

VastOne
yes its okay it seems to watch a young lady fall off a cliff and her brain come out of her head, but you have to keep that shot high when showing the body in the morque :D

[Jean]

We oughta put--ah say, we oughta put pants on all the aminals, 'cause they's all runnin' around in the nude, and that ain't--ah say, that ain't decent! :P
whether or not you accept the concept of decency, or find it false, repressive, and unnecessary, you still might remember that it applies solely to people and was invented by those who, like me, see difference between people and animals. I know that many of my friends around here tend not to; but why do you insist on confusing two opposite approaches is something I don't really understand. There have been attempts in human history to spread the concept of decency onto animals, but it was done in such specific historical contexts I don't believe any argument can be based upon that.

There's always a possibility, on the other side, that I just don't know how far traditional Protestant sanctimony, propped by more recent achievements of political correctness, has gone in the United States. Maybe it's exactly one of those "specific historical contexts" now, and the majority of people have actually lost all common sense and ability to orient themselves in categories of culture; then, of course, I can understand your irony.

[Matt]

Obviously there is a huge difference and I feel like there should be decency in the world. That there should be a time and a place as with all things.

I just believe that our society has made the time and places way too vast and the idea of a naked form is seen as taboo when it really never has been in the history of our species.

[Jean]

That there should be a time and a place as with all things.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_thumb.gif

[John_and_Yoko]

We oughta put--ah say, we oughta put pants on all the aminals, 'cause they's all runnin' around in the nude, and that ain't--ah say, that ain't decent! :P
whether or not you accept the concept of decency, or find it false, repressive, and unnecessary, you still might remember that it applies solely to people and was invented by those who, like me, see difference between people and animals. I know that many of my friends around here tend not to; but why do you insist on confusing two opposite approaches is something I don't really understand. There have been attempts in human history to spread the concept of decency onto animals, but it was done in such specific historical contexts I don't believe any argument can be based upon that.

There's always a possibility, on the other side, that I just don't know how far traditional Protestant sanctimony, propped by more recent achievements of political correctness, has gone in the United States. Maybe it's exactly one of those "specific historical contexts" now, and the majority of people have actually lost all common sense and ability to orient themselves in categories of culture; then, of course, I can understand your irony.

I'm not sure what it is that's confusing you--I was joking with that statement.... It wasn't meant to express my true feelings....

Anyway, I think we overemphasize the differences between humans and other animals--not saying they don't exist, or should legally be considered identical, but they're not as great as we imagine....

[VastOne]

QUOTE=

I'm not sure what it is that's confusing you--I was joking with that statement.... It wasn't meant to express my true feelings....

Anyway, I think we overemphasize the differences between humans and other animals--not saying they don't exist, or should legally be considered identical, but they're not as great as we imagine....[/QUOTE]

Ditto...This was only brought up as a reference to the CONTROL over human beings there is and NOT on animals, ERGO, I'd rather be an animal...

Clear?

Sorry for the confusion.....

VastOne

[Jean]

I'm not sure what it is that's confusing you--I was joking with that statement.... It wasn't meant to express my true feelings....
I do not see where I sounded confused, or where it wasn't clear that I interpreted your words as a joke. It's that I found the joke to be beside the point, and directed at a nonexistent clay adversary; of course, I repeat, if I don't totally misjudge the current situation in the United States, in which case the joke makes some sense.

[VastOne]

The point is the irony within the joke makes it exactly the point

Ergo, we need to be more like animals and not be so fickle.....and feckless

And most assuredly, if you do not live here in the US, then by all means you have missed the point... Which is good for you and bad for us....

[Ka-tet]

Violence by far.

Nudity in most of the sense is n natural, even when we consider porn. Sex is still a natural thing that most individuals will experiance.

Violence on the other hand is not, violence is mostly a thing conjuerd by man as a way of gain. And is mostly morraly wrong.

[kirin]

Violence by far.

Nudity in most of the sense is n natural, even when we consider porn. Sex is still a natural thing that most individuals will experiance.

Violence on the other hand is not, violence is mostly a thing conjuerd by man as a way of gain. And is mostly morraly wrong.

here here

[Darkthoughts]

Whilst I also dislike violence, it's as natural as sex/nudity. Man is, by nature, a violent creature - it's been omnipresent in our history and evolution.

[VastOne]

Whilst I also dislike violence, it's as natural as sex/nudity. Man is, by nature, a violent creature - it's been omnipresent in our history and evolution.

Whilst I agree...I will also note that the thinking brain is what (and thumbs) separates us from animals...Which is, by nature, the evolution.....

If it's music we can use it we all need to dance....

Think, Man, Think

[jayson]

It's not as if there isn't violence in the natural world. Predators don't euthanize their prey. I understand the point being made about human violence, but it's a stretch to say violence is a man-made phenomenon.

[Darkthoughts]

VastOne - My main point was made more succinctly in Jayson' statement, it's a stretch to say violence is a man-made phenomenon.

As for evolution, I'm not intending that you should think that far back, the evolution of society was also very violent - at the point when man had been living with his opposable thumbs for many, many generations.

And for the record, it's "Think woman, think!" ;) :lol:

[Matt]

Such a woman :wub:

Speaking of that, I think all violence is on behalf of beautiful women. :lol:

<joking>

[Darkthoughts]

:D :couple:

[VastOne]

VastOne - My main point was made more succinctly in Jayson' statement, it's a stretch to say violence is a man-made phenomenon.

As for evolution, I'm not intending that you should think that far back, the evolution of society was also very violent - at the point when man had been living with his opposable thumbs for many, many generations.

And for the record, it's "Think woman, think!" ;) :lol:

Madam DarkThoughts,

That was not slung at you and my apologies for not making it clear, it actually is a quote from something I read....

And for clarity on my evolution point, if we can think, why not think smart enough to see that violence is evil and horrible and get over ourselves?

I think we may be saying the same thing:panic:

In any event, I am enjoying this palaver.

VastOne

[VastOne]

Such a woman :wub:

Speaking of that, I think all violence is on behalf of beautiful women. :lol:

<joking>

No Joke actually.....

Three things all wars are based on

Land
Woman
Religion

:unsure:

VastOne

[Darkthoughts]

Madam DarkThoughts
:rose:


That was not slung at you and my apologies for not making it clear, it actually is a quote from something I read....
No apology necessary, I was attempting to be witty :P


I think we may be saying the same thing:panic:

In any event, I am enjoying this palaver.

VastOne

We are and so am I :couple:

[bangoskank1]

nudity is beautiful

violence is ugly

nuff said.

[VastOne]

Here Here

[Ka-tet]

VastOne - My main point was made more succinctly in Jayson' statement, it's a stretch to say violence is a man-made phenomenon.

As for evolution, I'm not intending that you should think that far back, the evolution of society was also very violent - at the point when man had been living with his opposable thumbs for many, many generations.

And for the record, it's "Think woman, think!" ;) :lol:

Madam DarkThoughts,

That was not slung at you and my apologies for not making it clear, it actually is a quote from something I read....

And for clarity on my evolution point, if we can think, why not think smart enough to see that violence is evil and horrible and get over ourselves?

I think we may be saying the same thing:panic:

In any event, I am enjoying this palaver.

VastOne


Here here.

[LadyHitchhiker]

I would rather see nudity than violence.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Even more so than being violent.

[Brice]

Violence is natural, but we have the mental capabilities to rise above it.

[Ka-tet]

Here here brice, but here is a question for you.

Why do most of us not rise above it?

[Brice]

Here here brice, but here is a question for you.

Why do most of us not rise above it?

Because of moral, intellectual, and emotional evolution.

[Jean]

by the way, I think most of us do.

[Brice]

by the way, I think most of us do.

I'd agree, at least at some point in our lives we do. It takes some longer though.

[Spencer]

The words worse and nudity should never go in the same sentence. :lol:

[Jean]

when we are talking about ladies' nipples viewed by grown-up men in appropriate context? of course not, it's perfectly innocent.

And if it is a man's cock whipped out in the face of a five-year-old girl?

I am afraid half the discussion here is because we haven't agreed on our main concepts to begin with

[VastOne]

when we are talking about ladies' nipples viewed by grown-up men in appropriate context? of course not, it's perfectly innocent.

And if it is a man's cock whipped out in the face of a five-year-old girl?

I am afraid half the discussion here is because we haven't agreed on our main concepts to begin with

Enlighten us then...

Voyeurism is not the nudity example I have ever been referring to and certainly not any child molestation (violent act) examples.

Look through the rich history of art in any era and you will see nudity used as a natural form

Violence is a decision. whether it is a passionate act or premeditated violence, it is still something to be held accountable to.

Should anyone be held accountable for their natural bodies?

[Matt]

I've never been in a fight in my whole life, I avoid violence at all costs.

(even when hicks were chasing me in 4x4's back in high school because I "looked funny")

I think all of humanity has the ability to rise above violence but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I really had to in order to save the life of my family.

[VastOne]

I've never been in a fight in my whole life, I avoid violence at all costs.

(even when hicks were chasing me in 4x4's back in high school because I "looked funny")

I think all of humanity has the ability to rise above violence but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I really had to in order to save the life of my family.

Here here...

agreed, never been chased but to protect my family, I would die.

And I am sure the hicks had a meeting on the other end of Ka that had them paying their dues...

[Spencer]

when we are talking about ladies' nipples viewed by grown-up men in appropriate context? of course not, it's perfectly innocent.

And if it is a man's cock whipped out in the face of a five-year-old girl?

I am afraid half the discussion here is because we haven't agreed on our main concepts to begin with

Oh I'm definitely with you there. I was talking about nudity as a general rule among adults. Your other example I'd classify as abuse, which has no place in society at all.

[Spencer]

I've never been in a fight in my whole life, I avoid violence at all costs.

(even when hicks were chasing me in 4x4's back in high school because I "looked funny")

I think all of humanity has the ability to rise above violence but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I really had to in order to save the life of my family.

I've been in one incident I'd classify as a fight my whole life, my stupidity was the reason, I got a split eyebrow for my trouble, and I learned my lesson. :lol:

[Jean]

when we are talking about ladies' nipples viewed by grown-up men in appropriate context? of course not, it's perfectly innocent.

And if it is a man's cock whipped out in the face of a five-year-old girl?

I am afraid half the discussion here is because we haven't agreed on our main concepts to begin with

Oh I'm definitely with you there. I was talking about nudity as a general rule among adults. Your other example I'd classify as abuse, which has no place in society at all.
quite; and if it is abuse, it comes under "violence" then rather than nudity. My main question I was trying to word at the beginning in this thread was whether it is good for a child to be exposed to grownup's anatomy even when no harm is intended, or the action can't be classified as abuse even because there's no sexual intent. (I don't know, unfortunately, what is regarded as abuse in the USA. Would parents' allowing kids to watch porn regarded as such?)

[Jean]

I've never been in a fight in my whole life, I avoid violence at all costs.

(even when hicks were chasing me in 4x4's back in high school because I "looked funny")

I think all of humanity has the ability to rise above violence but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I really had to in order to save the life of my family.

I've been in one incident I'd classify as a fight my whole life, my stupidity was the reason, I got a split eyebrow for my trouble, and I learned my lesson. :lol:
I've been in a lot, and I lost half my teeth.

I am not violent, but I still feel there are causes worth fighting for... alas.

[VastOne]

when we are talking about ladies' nipples viewed by grown-up men in appropriate context? of course not, it's perfectly innocent.

And if it is a man's cock whipped out in the face of a five-year-old girl?

I am afraid half the discussion here is because we haven't agreed on our main concepts to begin with

Oh I'm definitely with you there. I was talking about nudity as a general rule among adults. Your other example I'd classify as abuse, which has no place in society at all.
quite; and if it is abuse, it comes under "violence" then rather than nudity. My main question I was trying to word at the beginning in this thread was whether it is good for a child to be exposed to grownup's anatomy even when no harm is intended, or the action can't be classified as abuse even because there's no sexual intent. (I don't know, unfortunately, what is regarded as abuse in the USA. Would parents' allowing kids to watch porn regarded as such?)


Jean,

I know that not parent in their right mind anywhere would allow a child to watch any type of porn. As far as whether it is safe to expose a child to natural anatomy, I would say that within a family setting it is appropriate until a child reaches a certain age and then it is not. I do not know if I have ever heard of a mass murderer coming from a nudist colony family...:unsure:

Nearly everything you can do to harm a child in the US is considered abuse.. and unfortunately some forms of blatant abuse is disregarded or ignored.