Meaning of Nakedness

[Ifat Glassman]

I would think that someone who ignores you so fundamentally...

The ignoring person in this case would be me as I walk naked by the perv.

...me walking past him as if he doesn't exist, I would think it is a sufficient turn off...

And suppose I was talking to him while being naked (assuming this is someone that I don't appreciate), it should be even more of a turn off for him...

This is off topic, but still important for me to clarify: I realize that my post might send out the wrong message about me:

I do not treat people as if they don't exist, generally: That type of fundamentally ignoring someone behavior is only the result of either being focused on some goal I have, or if I don't appreciate the person and they bring me no value.

The default for me is a friendly inquiery, when I am interacting with someone.

I do not consider a general "ignoring attitude" (meaning to treat people as if they are worthless/don't exist before knowing them, as the default option for a stranger) as something good: I see it as indifference to potential values. I hope it is clear that indifference to values is the vice of a virtue.

I did write in my post "assuming this is someone that I don't appreciate" but perhaps it wasn't enough to make the entire context clear.

In the "perv in the kitchen" example I would ignore him because my nakedness is non of his business, and also because I would be engaging in the important goal of getting to the towel. If I was clothed, and wasn't extremely busy, I would not have the same attitude.

Just one last thing: "?I'm thinking like a woman" ! This is a new one.

Gonna post some questions tomorrow about men's sexuality (on a thread where this belongs). Got real issue with this picture of men's sexuality you're drawing here Inspector...

[Time_Maker]

After reading this entire thread (all 4 pages of it) there seems to be some confusion on everyone's part. Let me illustrate the confusion before I state it right out.

Let me change the topic of this thread for a moment. Instead "Meaning of Nakedness" this thread will now be known as "Meaning of Time_Maker Holding a Gun to a Person's Head". The basic question that I will ask is "is that action moral, or not, and why?"

Some may respond with a "No! It isn't, Time_Maker has no right to hold a person up", another may respond with "Yes, it is! Time_Maker has every right to defend himself". These two groups will then spend their time arguing and fighting, trying to defend one another's viewpoints.

Of course, everyone in this forum (should) know the answer to this question: They are both right - GIVEN THE CONTEXT. If the context of me holding a gun to a person's head is to rob them, of course such an action is immoral. If the context of me holding a gun to a person's head is because they entered my house late at night to get free stuff, then yes, I'm completely moral. But if I didn't clarify it, both sides would be right, and both sides would be wrong.

Now, lets change this thread back to its topic: The meaning of nakedness. Like the fictional thread I gave above, the information that this topic is missing is "in what context".

There are two contexts in this thread about nudity: Sexual and Non-Sexual. Those in the sexual camp is (basically) arguing that, because they are nude most of the time in others in a sexual context, that being nude around others in such a context is morally bad (I don't want to restart the polygamy thread at this time here, so lets leave it at that). The other camp, who see nudity as a function (either as non sexual pleasure, or as artistic device) doesn't see nudity as immoral, nor should it be. Quick question to everyone - how many people here shower with their clothes on?

So, what is this thread about? Sexualness, or nonsexualness?

[Time_Maker]

Ifatart, in post number 66, you asked "Is there something wrong with masturbating to a picture of a beautiful woman one knows nothing about?. "

The answer to this question is yes. What exactly would the man be masturbating to? I never really grasped the concept of "fantasy" (both sexual and non sexual) so I don't exactly see what the appeal is. Is it because the men are projecting their ideal woman on that woman's body? And if so, doesn't that mean they are deceiving reality (because the woman may not be such a person that they think?) And, is that moral in this case? Then why is morality in flux?

You also asked "Should the actual value gained by the one buying the magazine be of interest to the woman who is considering the deal?"

I'm going to assume your referring to "Body in Mind" magazine. I don't really see why. I am sure some pervs got sexual pleasure seeing you in a bikini. I am also sure some people get turned on by the fact your face isn't covered either. Are you going to base your choice in life on what another person might think??

[Inspector]

Gonna post some questions tomorrow about men's sexuality (on a thread where this belongs). Got real issue with this picture of men's sexuality you're drawing here Inspector...

Keep in mind that you are discussing a perv, here. Not everything I am saying would apply to men in general. But I think I told you elsewhere that you give men in general too much leeway. Most of them are pervs just like most people have bad philosophies. And the latter is definitely responsible for the former.

[Inspector]

It's not the same as worrying about other people enjoying something private to me. In the money case, I loose money. In the case that someone used my art to pleasure themselves, what do I loose? Nothing! (Or do you have a suggestion?)

One thing to add here:

By showing your art for free, you are allowing people to benefit (or engage in perversion) without compensating you for your efforts in creating it. That's probably worth it to you in this case as you recieve an intangible value in return, but the fact remains that you do expect a value of some kind in return for showing your art. Of course, it should be the same with your body, only your body has a different price to it. All I am saying is that a person of self-esteem wouldn't sell their body for so cheap a price, and to such a perverted audience.

Pearls before swine and all that.

[aequalsa]

So what makes breasts into a sexual organ, that is more sexual than the ankles?

I take "directly related" to mean the organs that are specifically used in the physical act of sex (and not in other activities).

Breasts are not such an organ more than the arms, tummy, legs, etc' are. Are they just chosen arbitrarily as "sexual"?

If Edmond Morris(auther of The Naked Ape, Intimate Behaviour,etc) is to be believed, the breasts on humans are more important as sexual characteristics then they are mammary glands. His reasoning was that when we moved around on all 4's the buttocks we're of primary interest sexual since sex took place from behind. But as we began to walk upright and frontal sex became primary, it was important for sexual arousal to have breasts that looked more like hips. So women with more fatty depostis on their breasts tended to do better on the evolution train. So they are sexual characteristics because a major function is the inducement of sexual arousal.

[Ifat Glassman]

Being naked in public does not necessarily imply sexual communication.

Here is an example of a society of people who get together, naked, without sexual intentions.

Does anyone disagree that showing one's naked body to another human being is not-necessarily sexual communication?

(And if so, what are your arguments that it is necessarily a sexual situation?)

[Moebius]

Being naked in public does not necessarily imply sexual communication.

Here is an example of a society of people who get together, naked, without sexual intentions.

Does anyone disagree that showing one's naked body to another human being is not-necessarily sexual communication?

(And if so, what are your arguments that it is necessarily a sexual situation?)

The fact that it's possible for people to get along naked means that equating nakedness with sexuality is rooted in culture, and hence more or less arbitrary. That does not mean it is irrational however, since clothing does blunt potentially sexual gestures, whether or not the act is intentional. The de-sexualization of the body (particularly the female body) may be important during historical periods dominated by force.

[Moebius]

Here is a historical point.

Consider that in the most rational society before America, Ancient Greece, nakedness was not a problem at all. It was praised in many forms in art, and in sports (the great Olympic games). Rome carried some parts of this culture and view on naked body.

Nakedness was allowed only for men. Athenian women for example had to cover themselves and are rarely allowed out -- unless you were a professional prostitute.

Here is another interesting point, this time from USA: length of shorts in basketball. It used to be pretty short in 60s, but then it came back to longer shorts as they have now. (Food for thought.)

That is really more about style (particularly the hip hop style) than it is about revealing flesh. Akin to wearing your belt just under the ribs versus right on the hips, or having your pant leg end above your ankles versus covering your shoes.

[Inspector]

Does anyone disagree that showing one's naked body to another human being is not-necessarily sexual communication?

In what context? Before the invention of clothing? We can't un-invent clothing. And I certainly hope we don't become so poor that it is commonplace to not be able to afford it...

[IAmMetaphysical]

Does anyone disagree that showing one's naked body to another human being is not-necessarily sexual communication?

I hope not, I'm going to the nude beach today, that would be totally inappropriate and embarrassing.

[miseleigh]

It certainly isn't sexual in the locker room, so no, I don't disagree.

Inspector, she was asking about contexts and intentionally not specifying any... although she did word it somewhat awkwardly. I would translate that as 'does anyone think showing one's naked body to another human being is necessarily sexual?' Ifat, correct me if I got that wrong...

[Inspector]

I would translate that as 'does anyone think showing one's naked body to another human being is necessarily sexual?'

If she means it as in "in every possible context no matter how bizarre" then no. But I'm wary of that kind of thing. I don't want the admission of a technicality to be taken as some kind of "anything goes" endorsement. 99.999% of the time, the answer is "yes."

[JASKN]

I don't want the admission of a technicality to be taken as some kind of "anything goes" endorsement. 99.999% of the time, the answer is "yes."

I think this is baseless. There is plenty of evidence, historical and modern, that people can get along interacting naked just fine, without sexual undertones. It is obvious to me, at least, that the "need" for clothing is a social construct, and that had things gone differently in history, clothing-optional could easily be the norm in warmer climates. In fact, in some places it is, and in others, it may as well be!

I am utterly perplexed by the notion of nakedness signifying "sex-ness," so to speak, "99.999%" of the time!

[Moebius]

The bottom line is I think people should be allowed to go around naked if they so desire. At the very least, they shouldn't be punished by the law for being naked. A person should be allowed to rationally weigh for himself or herself the pros and cons of being naked and act accordingly. The freedom to choose rationally outweighs any arbitrary societal construct, and should not be punished by force.

[DavidOdden]

The bottom line is I think people should be allowed to go around naked if they so desire.

Go around naked where? Everywhere?

[mrocktor]

Go around naked where? Everywhere?

Everywhere the owner allows it. I, for one, would not allow it of strangers in my home or anyone in my business - but thats me exercising my property rights, not the government taking them away by forbidding me to let naked people into my shopping mall.

[DavidOdden]

Everywhere the owner allows it. I, for one, would not allow it of strangers in my home or anyone in my business - but thats me exercising my property rights, not the government taking them away by forbidding me to let naked people into my shopping mall.

Okay, but if I go to a shopping mall and find that they've allowed people to run around naked without posting warning signs on the outside, then I can sue the owner, and the courts should find against the owner (if it is allowed by policy) assuming that the nudity tolerance plicy wasn't posted. Because I clearly have a right to be free from imposed nudity. This would encourage mall owners to strictly enforce their no-nudity rules or to clearly post their nudity-tolerance policies, and it doesn't involve the government taking away anybodies property rights via criminal prohibitions, rather it involves the government doing its job in civilly punishing rights-violators, forcing nudists (or their enablers) to take responsibility for their actions.

I note that Moebius still has to reply to the challenge since he made the erroneous statement, though he may agree with you. Your answer also does not address the question of government-owned property, where the right to irrational policy does not exist.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Okay, but if I go to a shopping mall and find that they've allowed people to run around naked without posting warning signs on the outside, then I can sue the owner, and the courts should find against the owner (if it is allowed by policy) assuming that the nudity tolerance plicy wasn't posted. Because I clearly have a right to be free from imposed nudity. This would encourage mall owners to strictly enforce their no-nudity rules or to clearly post their nudity-tolerance policies, and it doesn't involve the government taking away anybodies property rights via criminal prohibitions, rather it involves the government doing its job in civilly punishing rights-violators, forcing nudists (or their enablers) to take responsibility for their actions.

I note that Moebius still has to reply to the challenge since he made the erroneous statement, though he may agree with you. Your answer also does not address the question of government-owned property, where the right to irrational policy does not exist.

I take a different tack. When I go to a -privately owned- but public place I assume that which is not forbidden by the owner or the laws, is permitted. Thus if the owner of a mall does not forbid nudity (and if the law did not already forbid it) I would assume the risk of being exposed to unwanted nudity if I went there. Being offended by unsolicited nudity is -my- problem, not that of the naked person. My expectations and aversions are NOT sovereign. Let the buyer and the browser beware.

If one does not wish to assume the risk then one ought to order what he needs by mail, phone or internet and it will be delivered, all nicely wrapped to one's door. Easy peasy. No law suits, no offense, no imposing one's will on a private owner. He who stays at home will never be offended by the non-violent doings of others.

As long as it don't scare the horses or keep folks (especially me) awake at night it is o.k. with me.

Government owned property in a democracy inherits the irrationality of the laws and the majority de jour. In a proper social order there would be no government owned property other than military bases, armories, court houses and police stations. And what goes on at such places should be strictly related to their proper function.

As a related question, which do you prefer as the default rule (generally speaking):

1. That which is not forbidden is permitted

OR

2. That which is not permitted is forbidden.

Bob Kolker

Edited June 22, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Robert J. Kolker]

The rational idea that keeps us clothed is, I think, that your fully naked body is a gift, to be shown exclusively to only those that have earned such intimacy.

Greek athletes ran naked in order to show the flow and beauty of form unimpeded and un-occluded by garments. The events were open to all male spectators (there were restrictions on attendance by females at the Olympics). Where does -earning- enter into the aesthetics of athletic grace and the viewing thereof?

The kind of nudity you allude to is sexually charged or sexually associated nudity, which many hold to be a private matter. This view is halfway on the road that leads to the burkah and the hijab.

Here is a general question: If X wishes to show his/her body and Y wishes to see X's nudity (this is all voluntary) why should there be anything that forbids it?

Bob Kolker

[mrocktor]

Okay, but if I go to a shopping mall and find that they've allowed people to run around naked without posting warning signs on the outside, then I can sue the owner, and the courts should find against the owner

Hell no! You chose to enter his property, you are in no way being "forced". If you have some extreme aversion to the human biology that causes you distress and were unlucky enough to not know about the strip mall's reputation - thats too bad, but its no one else's fault. The owner most certainly has no obligation whatsoever to "warn" you about what his rules are, although he can't expect you to abide by them if he doesn't.

Personally, in that situation, I'd probably exclaim "eek naked people" and either get whatever business I had there done or - if the people's appearance were distasteful enough - turn about and leave. Suing the owner? I'd sooner sue someone for saying grace over a dinner I'm invited to. Religion offends me more than nudity.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

You chose to enter his property, you are in no way being "forced".

The proprietor has made an implicit warrant of wholesomeness for his premise, just as a vendor of any goods makes a warrant of merchantability. To violate that warrant is fraud, which is civilly actionable. This is standard contract law stuff -- you have to deny the warrant in advance, to avoid responsibility (well, to shift responsibility). You have the wrong understanding of the concept "caveat emptor" -- it doesn't mean "The seller can get away with anything he wants as long as he doesn't use violence".

[K-Mac]

If you have some extreme aversion to the human biology that causes you distress and were unlucky enough to not know about the strip mall's reputation - thats too bad, but its no one else's fault.

I don't think I would go so far as to file a lawsuit, but have you seen a lot of people naked? I would guess that about 95% of the population, I would never want to see naked. Ick!

While vacationing in Jamaica and doing some snorkeling right off our resort's beach, the current kept pushing us over to the nude beach side. Without fail, every time we were ready to get out of the water and head back to the resort, we were on the nude side having to look at some nasty, unkept person. Why are there never any good-looking people on the nude beaches? I can appreciate nakedness without it being sexual...I appreciate the human form...but the distorted human forms we saw on that beach during that trip were not forms that I can appreciate.

[Robert J. Kolker]

The proprietor has made an implicit warrant of wholesomeness for his premise, just as a vendor of any goods makes a warrant of merchantability. To violate that warrant is fraud, which is civilly actionable. This is standard contract law stuff -- you have to deny the warrant in advance, to avoid responsibility (well, to shift responsibility). You have the wrong understanding of the concept "caveat emptor" -- it doesn't mean "The seller can get away with anything he wants as long as he doesn't use violence".

What is wholesomeness? I can understand an implied warrant of safety. He who opens his place to the public is responsible for seeing to it that the roof doesn't collapse and that there are ample exits in case of fire. He is also responsible to see that noxious and unhealthy fumes do not waft through his premises and that his toilets do not overflow. But wholesomeness? What is that? That which doesn't offend you? It sounds rather subjective to me.

Bob Kolker

Edited June 22, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[mrocktor]

The proprietor has made an implicit warrant of wholesomeness for his premise

The proprietor has in fact made no implicit warrant except that on his property you will not be killed, ensalved or robbed. You are assuming he has promised everyone will be dressed because that is what you are used to. There lies your error.

You are taking for granted that nudity is unwholesome. This is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Seeing naked people does a person no harm to life, liberty or property though - so you are wrong to make it an issue of government.

I would guess that about 95% of the population, I would never want to see naked.

Me neither, and would avoid places where I would be exposed to them. I will strongly defend their right to do as they please, though, and will insist on making abundantly clear that my wants, needs and value judgments place no obligations on other people in addition to respecting my life, my freedom of action and my property - which they must anyway.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mrocktor