Desexualizing Nudity

I understand it looks suspect. Just didn't think this would turn into me having to defend myself as I know there's nothing to defend.
Also didn't expect such a firestorm at a forum that prides itself on freedom of speech.

 

The subject wasn't pedophilia in the original post though was it? geeez.

 

:willy_nilly:

 

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not NakedInfluence. I have seen (and promptly forgot about) his "Experiment" thread, but not the doll one. Looks like I was on the mark after all.

For what it's worth, people like myself and people like NakedInfluence are NOT on the same side. In my perfect world, I would see clothing, modesty and immodesty punishment standards rolled back to, perhaps, 1920s or so. You know, pre-Kinsey, and pre-"sexual revolution". In his perfect world... well, I shudder to think.

As for reacting differently to exposure in different situations. I don't believe it one bit. There's a reason why beaches are often referred to as meatmarkets. As I walk through the parks in my city, I see both men and women with barely any clothes on, sometimes without proper footwear, exposing themselves to the passerby and each other. It may look innocent, but if you think that there's no sexual subcontext to it, you were born yesterday.

 

Child abuse and pedophilia is not something I would even pretend to engage in, even as a joke or just to stir the proverbial pot. We may disagree on many things, but I think we can agree that child abuse ranks amongst the greatest objective evils in this world.

Less skin is definitely better, but I don't think it has anything to do with being of any particular faith. I would agree that Muslims tend to go with stricter and harsher enforcement of morality and dress code. However, if you are a Christian as you claim to be, you should know that similar provisions for modesty (if not for enforcement thereof) exist in the Bible as well. Whatever happened to "shamefacedness and sobriety"? (1Timothy 2:9)

Now, the readily-loaded argument against that passage is that, if interpreted literally, it means "do not be vain/over-decorate yourself". I would argue that "modesty" as a whole means appearing in such fashion that your attire (or lack thereof) does not scream "LOOK AT ME!" but rather says "there is nothing to ogle/desire/covet here".

And in that regard, perhaps some modern Christians do have something to learn from the Muslims. Compare a traditionally dressed Muslim woman (I'm not talking about a burqua here, but rather the head-to-toe garments that conceal the body) with a skimpily dressed "Christian" woman, or even yourself running about with no clothes on. Who do you think conforms better to Biblical standards - regardless of what religion they espouse?

And as far as "uncovering the truth" goes - sometimes that act is more dangerous than the truth itself. Kinsey made it acceptable to discuss sexuality openly, rather than be appropriately ashamed of the subject and keep it behind closed doors. That did more damage to American morality than perhaps anything else, ever. No, he didn't create the floodgates, but he most certainly flung them wide open - and decades later, we are paying for it.

 

I'm curious. Can you elaborate on why the act of making it a subject of discussion was more dangerous than the truth itself?

I just find it hard to believe that discussion on such a subject would lead to chaos. Is American morality so fragile that it can't even endure open discussion? endure hard facts? endure numbers? I certainly hope not, it's my home and I expect it to be able to take it. I certainly don't think ignorance equals strength of any kind.

I also would like to point out that modesty applies to much more than just state of dress. It mainly applies to behavior. Actions, reactions.

I hope you are not in the spirit of "LOOK AT ME!" when you engage in that most dangerous act of all, discussion.

Agreed.

Knowledge is power, maybe even the power to identify and combat the objective evils that do exist.

 

Great BBC Documentary about Real Dolls - it's pretty funny actually =P

 

Is morality (any morality, not just American) fragile?

Absolutely.

Temptation is easy. Discipline and virtue are hard. It's easy to give in and just go with the flow, and come up with endless justifications for your conduct even as it subtly ruins both you and those around you.

It's a lot harder to stop.

Discussion, you see, invites participation. While sexuality was something that was kept "under wraps" and discussed quietly between adults and behind closed doors, the tide of more egregious perversions was stemmed as well. Open the floodgates, and more people are tempted to "dabble" and "explore", and take their first steps on the road to ruin. Knowledge IS indeed power, and it should be well-guarded, less it is misused.

You may, of course dismiss it. After all, what harm can open discussion of sexuality bring? Right?

Well, look around you. Look at kids becoming sexual before they are out of early teens. Look at teenage pregnancies, STDs, children that are conceived and born out of wedlock. Certainly, it's fun to fantasize about an endless "summer of love", but remember how the real "summer of love" ended - in a whole lot of misery.

Like it or not, "free body culture", nudism, or as I prefer to refer to it, indecent exposure is a part of culture of all-permissive sexuality. You're a part of the problem, and people at large don't want the problem...

 

You are comparing a present reality to a myth of the past. There is not one part of the human psyche or experience that is not healed and allowed to thrive by a little light of day.

 

Well, I appreciate that you elaborated on that point.

Humans are by nature curious. We "dabble" and "explore" CONSTANTLY. This curiosity has led us to giant leaps in knowledge, and sometimes great follies. You are right knowledge should be well guarded. Just remember that the alternative would have us still believing that disease is caused by spirits, and that masturbation causes hair to grow on our hands.

Egegrious perversions, teenage pregnancies, STDs, etc. have been around WAY before we cast any light on their frequency. Ancient cultures (some which lasted far longer than our United States) had these problems as well, and they DEALT with them, just like we are now. But now that we know more about them we have come up with better education and much more efficient contraceptives (one of which actually saved my mother's life). Not saying we came up with solutions, but knowledge about the problems certainly didn't create them. They create themselves.

If you are concerned about any rise of these previously mentioned behaviors you should take your fight to oversexualized media. When you use sexuality as a tool (as it has been used) to sell, when it is commercialized as it has been, there are bound to be problems. A lack of education in such matters (such as our sexuality) and an abundance of ignorance results in more of THAT going on (STDs, Teenage pregnancies, etc).

I don't fantasize about an endless summer of love, as interesting as that period seems it was a product of its time. Its IN THE PAST. At least those people had a sense of adventure, at least they took a risk. It paid off in some ways, and not so much in others. But that's life. I just hope this attitude of yours only applies to nudity, because you might be missing out on a lot in life by not taking a risk.

Of course it is your life and it is not my job to dictate that. But I also don't think it is your job to dictate what I can and cannot do. As much as you think I am part of the problem, it is not your job to decide nor judge.

Discussion might invite participation, but it is usually a personal choice whether or not to partake.

I agree that morality is fragile. It is especially fragile if one was spoon-fed that morality. No elaboration, no discussion, no challenges, no thought involved. Just following a code makes that code that much weaker.

I am not saying that you were spoon-fed anything, but masses of people are. So any argument involving large numbers is moot to me. You say most people "don't want that problem," yet I say people don't know enough about it to be able to deem it a problem. Fearful reactions are common in masses of people, all too common.

I don't have to look for justifications. "Indecent exposure" is in the eye of the beholder, and the only eyes that see me (which aren't very many) don't really give a damn. My behavior doesn't change one bit. My impact on you is practically zero. If I am a perceived danger to "American Morality," then so be it. It needs to be challenged instead of suspended in a timeless vacuum, where it will surely perish under that weight of its own perceived righteousness. So what do you think, is American Morality a logical code of morals that can adapt to any situation while maintaining harmony, or just simply a brand used as a tool to shut down the freedoms of others in the name of decency?

If it is the former, it should have no problem surviving discussion. If it is the latter (and you know there are many examples, not just dealing with nudity) then you have a much bigger problem. My guess is it is probably neither, the issue is far too complex to think of in terms of black and white.

But alas, I am going off on a tangent again (a bad habit). Many thanks for your thoughts.