Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Thoreau, Oct 11, 2007.
Maybe Asguard will weigh in.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
LOL, a link to google! LMFAO. How lame is that!
If I went around the forum following your every post and posted some idiotic LOL crappola behind it, you'd be freaking out and reporting right now. Pester people elsewhere, orleander. No one likes ugly, stupid anklebiters with nothing meaningful to say.
Correction: that is a link to google listing documentation of nudity in ancient Egypt. You being unable to contend with that any single scrap of that searched information doesn't change that.
Especially if they're on the same person.
You seem to be under some mistaken impression that I denied there was nudity in ancient Egypt.
I think it should be a choice. If people dont want to wear clothes then they dont have to and vice versa. The only time that people should be forced and get in trouble is if they commit some kind of a sex crime. I cant stand wearing clothes. I was always like that and i wish i could go everywhere naked. We was born naked so y arent we.
Nudity in daily life is frowned upon because your junk is ugly and undisciplined and you leave skidmarks on the furniture.
Nudity in society is forbidden because rich people would have no way of maintaining their superior social status.
Nudity when swimming is forbidden because religious people have psychological problems. They'd like to ban swimming entirely.
Nathan69 where do you live?
Forget whatever the roots were in the context of the Old School of Prude that retro or senior folk still confusedly hand-wave at as if it anachronistically matters. This is the New School of Prude, dude. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let's take a mere glimpse at its complicated landscape...
We live in an era where being offended on both personal and group-identity grounds is not only a trend, but almost regarded as some kind of civic duty. As well as an unofficial right with respect to legal enterprises -- and the reactionary fears of businesses, communities, politicians and the organizing influence of social media -- now enabling the average person to initiate action against what they are offended by. (Which is to say, having that manipulating influence is no longer just a power of potent, traditional institutions).
There's no dodging that many individuals dislike the idea having to routinely observe certain kinds of human body types (i.e., "ordinary" or ranging from obese to elderly) when such are unclothed. In addition, some also suffer hygiene related phobias. Like an unreasoning(?) fear of flatus that is unimpeded by even the slim filter or barrier of underwear and outer apparel. Or when numerous bare buttocks have contact with ordinary seats due to the etiquette of bringing along a towel being frequently neglected (never mind that their horror seems to abruptly vanish when it comes to a toilet seat's encounters with multiple posteriors).
So just as a word like "assimilate" can easily make the rapidly growing list of vulgar expressions to be avoided via the input of a couple of complainers... It would certainly be no challenge to keep a long-time favorite taboo like nudity under wraps. Without even having to appeal to the Old School of Prude and its puritanical sensitivities. In this age where being offended is broad-based in diversity and a mere handful of citizens can wield the superpower to do something about their pet peeve... When such features its own secular sacredness and philosophical aura of blessing hovering about it.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nudity depends on how a person see it and relies specifically on the motive of the person exactly displaying his or her body. Nudity can be an art. On the other hand, it can be seen as a negative impact for others. So it can be wrong and its neither right because the implications can affect and confuse most people.
We are born naked. You have just walked in the room!
Ironically, in Islam, the blame for being sexually provocative has fallen on the female.
In response to the inability of men to control their baser instincts, it was decided to make the female form altogether invisible and make women wear clothing that covers the entire body in black (even to eye covering).
The result acknowledges that men are beasts, but women are punished (protected) from the male procreative instincts.
That is half the truth. All women know men are beasts, with the male procreative instinct often thinking for the male. Men call this their lower brain. Mothers teach this to their daughters and women teach this to each other. They all have similar stories and observations. They also teach each other and learn how to take advantage of this, to gain leverage. Withholding and offering sex, from/to a sex starved male, can be used like a training tool; stick and carrot, to help a women change her man into what she thinks he should be. All wives try to do this, with some more successful. Women will use sex and sex appeal like a tool to gain leverage.
As an analogy, consider the situation of women who like shoes, to an exaggerated degree. Say each day, I brought a new pair of designer women's shoes to work and display them on my desk, like a knickknack. I could create a pleasant distraction in the work place, for all the women, that can further induce the shoe obsessed women. They will want to look and hold the shoes each day. Once they are hooked, I could then use that distraction, to leverage and even undermine some of these women. Some may even start to cross lines; steal the shoes. If I stop bringing in the shoes, I lose my leverage and my ability to undermine and play the innocent victim.
In Islam, women are not allowed to induce and manipulate men, in public. The wife is only allowed to leverage her husband at home, with her leverage even stronger, than in western cultures. The reason is, she owns all the sex appeal, her husband can see and have, to trigger his inner beast. I bet there is less divorce there. There is no reason for the male to wander. When women are allowed to leverage men, beyond their husband, divorce goes up and men will start to cross the lines in public. They start marking territory beyond their own.
The women do not want to admit this, because this is one of their aces in a hole, that they assume men don't see. They fear that without the leverage to undermine the men and help alter behavior, they will not be able to keep up.
Another consideration is, from the POV of a male, a beautiful woman can look sexy in anything. You put a super model in a potato sack and she is still sexy. If all women had to dress down, the pretty girls will still be able to leverage the males, however, the majority of women will be at a disadvantage. Under the current rules of the game, makeup, cosmetic surgery and clothing can enhance the appeal of even average women, so there is no pretty girl monopoly on leverage. The problem with this is it cranks up the inducement of the males, with the males being blamed for acting natural to the cause and affect. It is a female competition, with men the victims of the game. It is very predictable. It is not healthy for the men to become unnatural to cause and affect, even of this benefits the women. Sex drive is natural to men.
One last consideration can be seen by looking at male dogs. When a female goes into heat the scent is in the air and all the males nearby get worked up. The males become more aggressive and more obsessed, to where even none fertile females will approached as though fertile.
The lesson learned is women who dress down and try to avoid any inducement, can become still victimized, due to the scent trails of the women trying to leverage, using sex appeal. Women can place other women at risk. This results in two layers of victims.
I wouldn't want that around my family, and I don't want my family to participate in public nudity. Whatever you do, do it privatley. Ultimately I see it as an act of infidelity.
Lol, I am from Holland and in summer our family regularly went to the beach in a nudist colony. I don't see myself as a sexually deviant as a result of this exposure. On the contrary, I see a penis as just another extension of the body, like ears or a nose. No inhibitions as far as the human body goes.
I have been faithfully married to the same woman (a nurse) for 50 years, and yes as an artist I appreciate the female form. But civilized men are able to control their baser instincts. There is the difference.
Of course women (even in muslim countries) have found ways to exert influence. But is that an honest recognition of equality as humans with equal strengths and vulnerabilities, or just another manipulative adaption to gain an advantage.
As humans we can do better, IMO.
Clothing, it would seem, makes for a damned fickle determinant of morality?
If you look at rape and sexual harassment, the statistics for assailants, does not break down equally between men and women. This is not a human compulsion, but is more slanted toward an attribute of men. Men are visual animals, while women are verbal animals. Women prefer their nudity in written or spoken form; romance novels, dirty and sweet talk and little lies. Men prefer visual cues; nudity, sexy dress and body language. Men can get into trouble for saying the wrong verbal cues to women, but women are exempt from the affect of visual triggers.
Picture if we reversed the situation and we make verbal nudity; off the cuff remarks, legal, so men can say anything to women, that other men find not offensive. Locker room talk is funny to guys, since they are not slaves to verbal noises. If the women complain, complaining becomes the issue, subject to disciplinary action. The men get to induce, bringing the locker room to work, while the women get accused if they react. In this scenario, women would be defined as the primary assailants. I am trying to put this into perspective based on male and female differences and how cultures defines each in terms of good and evil.
In the bible story of Adam and Eve, they originally walked around in the nude, until they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After they ate, they felt the need to cover up. In other words, before nude was socially defined as evil, nude was natural and morally neutral. The different propensities of men and women are both natural. They become evil when one or the other or both is defined as evil. Currently, only the natural reaction of men is evil, by liberal definition. It would be better if all was natural, but if one is defined as evil, then to be fair, both should be defined that way.
This is an artifact of the irrational left. They have a one side mind. For example, everything that Trump does is defined as evil according to the left. Everything they do, even if criminal, is defined as good, if it helps their cause. The left tends to make everything lopsided in their favor. This is why inducement is less important than the reaction. All I am saying is, balance is fair, but balance but may not be defined as good to left, since it does not give liberals the cheater's advantage.
I liked the way it was back in the hippy days. Liberal back then, did away with many of the stupid laws of social conduct. It replaced it with love, like Jesus taught. It was OK for women to dress sexy; lose the bra, and it was OK for guys to speak up. Modern liberals are more Puritan, but only against the other side, but not to themselves. It is no longer the party of free thinkers, creators and innovators, but is more like an intolerant pseudo-religion of dogma, that sets itself up, by making laws to undermine others.
You know that , there are cultures that nudity is just par for the course . Or close to it , is not a big deal .
This part i agree with because there are slutty women and all manner of pornography and playboy bunnies etc to where many men seem to have the idea that women are loose or should be as sexually loose as they are. But then again, there really is no excuse for males, especially in modern societies to prey on women because there are plenty of women who advertise themselves for sex as well as prostitutes. I've noticed men just tend to be opportunistic and don't care who they hit on and will do that even if you are clearly not interested. Or if you do not seem to be as flamboyant, narcissistic or high-maintenance as the ones who focus on looks 24/7 and post selfies all day, they think you are an easier target because you may appear 'humbler' or more down to earth. as if someone on the hunt for meat deserves more than just a pretty face, it's fuking insulting. it is the predation nature. they enjoy making someone uncomfortable and harassing, it's some type of sick ego boost.
men are also extremely obnoxious too. they never self-reflect or gauge their level of attractiveness in relation to the person they are hitting on. i've seen 70 yr olds try to hit on 20 yr olds or someone totally of a different style hit on another etc.
people advertise themselves or show who they are in overt and subtle ways from their style of dress, how they carry themselves, their interests, lifestyle etc so not as to mislead others and also just for themselves. You can't always tell with everyone but if their style veers extreme from what you are, then chances are very high, you are barking up the wrong tree. people with a modicum of intelligence realize this. a girl sporting numerous tatttoos, ballcap on backwards etc is probably not going to go for the preppy type etc. if i listen to r&b as well as current music and you like country or just old school, why the hell would you think i would be interested in you? among other clashes? if you are uglier than the other person, they probably will not be interested and vice versa. but why would you want to? they are not for you and even if you see they are physically attractive, compatibility is more than that. these are common sense things that an adult should have learned by now. these are cues. but there are more men who do not read any cues whatsoever. i can only assume they are perverts or like to clash with others or just trying to see if one might pretend and not notice just like they do.
the most disgusting thing about men is all they notice is you physically and ignore all else. if you look physically attractive, then that will be the reason for hitting on you.
now imagine if i were to hit on a male just because they physically look attractive yet i don't have anything in common with them, don't know how to approach them so will say anything ridiculous or forced, it is obvious why i am doing it and that is objectifying them and continue even if there is no chemistry as if none of that matters. it's as if they are trying to get over. that is creepy and disrespectful.
Separate names with a comma.