FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[FerrariFan63]

I see nothing wrong with people covering up their bodies if it's their choice, that doesn't offend anybody. Exposing your body obviously does offend people and therefore the situations are different.

Yes, but my whole question is whether or not there is a real reason for people to be offended. I believe that being offended by nudity has developed as a tradition, with no real basis in fact and logic. I don't believe that it's sufficient to argue from people being "offended" by nudity, without dissembling their reasons for being offended, and seeing whether this is justified.

As a comparison, consider rules/regulations/laws/cultural traditions concerning incest. Particularly in the time before reliable contraception, there is a real logical basis for rules (etc.) against incest, due to the increased likelihood of genetic defects. Since our (as a culture) understanding of the basis of disease, there is now a developing cultural poscription of public defecation and/or the open disposal of fecal waste. Again, there is a reason for this quite recent developing poscription. But nudity? I don't see it.

You can't honestly believe that a man's breasts share the same connotation with umpalumpa that a woman's do

I believe there is no logical reason why a woman's breasts should be given a larger sexual role than men's breasts. Again, this is a social construct that has been created. The whole point of what I'm discussing is to investigate the fundamentals of these social constructs. Taking social constructs as givens and then arguing from there doesn't work in this context.

[Amanda]

I think the distaste many people have for the Burqa is far more complex than you're allowing for here. In our society both women and men are required to cover body parts associated with sexuality. The Burqa is limited to women and, in large part, is the result of sexism and a way of subjugating women.

It is more complex than I'm allowing for here, because I am discussing one particular question. That is nudity. If we were to discuss the moral implications of burqa, then we'd need to discuss a large number of points, and the degree to which clothing rules, regulations, and traditions interfere with women's opportunities to lead a free and fulfilling life would become crucial, not incidental.

There is a much less oppressive set of rules and regulations for male clothing in the conservative muslim world, but it's generally accepted that men must cover themselves from the navel to the knees. This covers regions, particularly the thighs, which are not directly associated with sexuality, i.e. not the sexual organs themselves.

By the way, women's breasts do not play a direct role in umpalumpa, any more than men's breasts do. Although both are frequently given much "attention" during umpalumpa. Yet women's breasts are still required to be covered while men's breasts are not.

For reasons that should be easy to understand, I ask people to note that I'm discussing these things in the context of a discussion of whether or not nudity itself should be poscribed or not. In different contexts, my arguments would look quite different.

In regards to the Burqa, that's still inequality and if we're not going to discuss the many reasons behind the general dislike many people have for it then I don't think it's fair to use it as an example, for either side of the argument.

Women's breasts are more closely related to s e x because they have a purpose in reproduction. I'm afraid I don't agree with you if you're stating that a man's breasts are considered in the same way as a woman's. Surely the fact that a woman's breast tissue develops around puberty, while a man's does not, is proof of that.

[Denthúl]

I can't really see any logical reason for someone to be offended by nudity...

[Amanda]

I see nothing wrong with people covering up their bodies if it's their choice, that doesn't offend anybody. Exposing your body obviously does offend people and therefore the situations are different.

Yes, but my whole question is whether or not there is a real reason for people to be offended. I believe that being offended by nudity has developed as a tradition, with no real basis in fact and logic. I don't believe that it's sufficient to argue from people being "offended" by nudity, without dissembling their reasons for being offended, and seeing whether this is justified.

As a comparison, consider rules/regulations/laws/cultural traditions concerning incest. Particularly in the time before reliable contraception, there is a real logical basis for rules (etc.) against incest, due to the increased likelihood of genetic defects. Since our (as a culture) understanding of the basis of disease, there is now a developing cultural poscription of public defecation and/or the open disposal of fecal waste. Again, there is a reason for this quite recent developing poscription. But nudity? I don't see it.

I've stated several times that I believe the reason to be the association nudity has with umpalumpa.

[FerrariFan63]

In regards to the Burqa, that's still inequality and if we're not going to discuss the many reasons behind the general dislike many people have for it then I don't think it's fair to use it as an example, for either side of the argument.

It wasn't me that introduced it.

Women's breasts are more closely related to s e x because they have a purpose in reproduction. I'm afraid I don't agree with you if you're stating that a man's breasts are considered in the same way as a woman's. Surely the fact that a woman's breast tissue develops around puberty, while a man's does not, is proof of that.

You're missing my point here. You say "if you're stating that a man's breasts are considered in the same way as a woman's.". I'm not talking at all about current social norms, which is what seems to be implied by "are considered". Nurturing is a very different activity than umpalumpa, and I would think that any person, man or woman, who thinks that only parts of their bodies are involved in reproduction are in for a big shock when they reproduce. The greater role that a woman's breasts play in child rearing to me provides no formal justifcation for the sexualisation of women's breasts. This does not mean that I am saying that woman's breasts aren't more sexualised than men's breasts. They clearly are.

[Amanda]

In regards to the Burqa, that's still inequality and if we're not going to discuss the many reasons behind the general dislike many people have for it then I don't think it's fair to use it as an example, for either side of the argument.

It wasn't me that introduced it.

Women's breasts are more closely related to s e x because they have a purpose in reproduction. I'm afraid I don't agree with you if you're stating that a man's breasts are considered in the same way as a woman's. Surely the fact that a woman's breast tissue develops around puberty, while a man's does not, is proof of that.

You're missing my point here. You say "if you're stating that a man's breasts are considered in the same way as a woman's.". I'm not talking at all about current social norms, which is what seems to be implied by "are considered". Nurturing is a very different activity than umpalumpa, and I would think that any person, man or woman, who thinks that only parts of their bodies are involved in reproduction are in for a big shock when they reproduce. The greater role that a woman's breasts play in child rearing to me provides no formal justifcation for the sexualisation of women's breasts. This does not mean that I am saying that woman's breasts aren't more sexualised than men's breasts. They clearly are.

S e x and reproduction are intrinsically linked, it is perfectly natural that we should associate (a woman's) breasts with s e x. Are you suggesting that you'd find it more reasonable for both men and women to only cover their sexual organs?

[texasmr2]

Society's uptight views are depriving me of more breast exposure and I'm not happy about that, just trying to ease the tension, yet when I see a woman breast feeding her child in public I have nothing but respect and admiration for her and her child. Why has that natural event become so unnatural? That view is what truelly frightens and saddens me !!!!!!!!!!

[FerrariFan63]

S e x and reproduction are intrinsically linked, it is perfectly natural that we should associate (a woman's) breasts with s e x.

S e x and reproduction are intrinsically linked, biologically and on other levels. There are several reasons for associating, in some way, breasts with s e x. But, that doesn't in itself provide, in my eyes, any particular reason to cover up these parts of the body.

Are you suggesting that you'd find it more reasonable for both men and women to only cover their sexual organs?

This doesn't quite follow on from my argument. I'm talking about freedom to cover or not cover, not what people should or shouldn't cover.

I would find it more reasonable for both men and women to only be required to cover their sexual organs compared to the current situation where the required degree of coverage is larger and inequal between the sexes. But I would think it even more reasonable for there to be complete freedom for both men and women to cover or not cover whichever parts of their odies that they please.

[FerrariFan63]

Society's uptight views are depriving me of more breast exposure and I'm not happy about that, just trying to ease the tension, yet when I see a woman breast feeding her child in public I have nothing but respect and admiration for her and her child. Why has that natural event become so unnatural? That view is what truelly frightens and saddens me !!!!!!!!!!

No problems about breastfeeding in public in (at least much of) Europe. And that, in my opinion, is how it should be. There's the occasional person who might have an issue with it. But on the whole, they can be ignored.

[Rivelution]

I dont find anything wrong with nudity. I dont get why people get so offended by it, but then again people get offended by the littlest things these days.

I miss guys like this. RIP

[Hanwombat]

Yeah, nudity hmmm

If everyone was always nude where would the fun be ?

The joys of wearing sexy underwear So you can tease somebody who wants to see whats underneath .. If they always saw what was underneath then where would the fun be ?

[al4x]

Yeah, nudity hmmm

If everyone was always nude where would the fun be ?

The joys of wearing sexy underwear So you can tease somebody who wants to see whats underneath .. If they always saw what was underneath then where would the fun be ?

you naughty girl

but thats exactly how i feel, with no clothes everywhere.. wheres the surprise?!

[Hanwombat]

Yeah, nudity hmmm

If everyone was always nude where would the fun be ?

The joys of wearing sexy underwear So you can tease somebody who wants to see whats underneath .. If they always saw what was underneath then where would the fun be ?

you naughty girl

but thats exactly how i feel, with no clothes everywhere.. wheres the surprise?!

Okay yes ... you dont complain

[al4x]

Yeah, nudity hmmm

If everyone was always nude where would the fun be ?

The joys of wearing sexy underwear So you can tease somebody who wants to see whats underneath .. If they always saw what was underneath then where would the fun be ?

you naughty girl

but thats exactly how i feel, with no clothes everywhere.. wheres the surprise?!

Okay yes ... you dont complain

quite the opposite

[Hanwombat]

Yeah, nudity hmmm

If everyone was always nude where would the fun be ?

The joys of wearing sexy underwear So you can tease somebody who wants to see whats underneath .. If they always saw what was underneath then where would the fun be ?

you naughty girl

but thats exactly how i feel, with no clothes everywhere.. wheres the surprise?!

Okay yes ... you dont complain

quite the opposite