Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
The Skeptics Society Forum • View topic - Why aren’t we all nudists?
No, I’m not a nudist.
And I am not suggesting that anyone should be, but the real question is: Why are we the only species that knows when we’re naked – and the only species that cares!
No thinking person would accept the Garden of Eden story as an explanation for this oddity, but it occurs to me that I have never heard any other explanation!
It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
There is something biological connect to it, though.
To my knowledge, we are the only species capable of blushing!
Why is that?
And it isn’t even a matter of modesty.
It would be if we all covered ourselves from head to toe, but some people dress in a fashion that is more provocative than they would be if they were buck-naked!
You may think it is a cultural thing, but such things change over time.
Our awareness of and concern about our nakedness has been a characteristic of humans for all time, and in all cultures.
So, if a snake didn’t whisper in our ancestor’s ear, why are we the way we are?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Religion is Man's reaction to his fear of the unknown.
Science is Man, overcoming his fear.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
I think those are interesting questions, but you are a little too sweeping when you say every culture has had the concern for nakedness.
I have seen lots of images of primitive cultures where people run around buck naked.
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.naturistsociety.com/resource ...
5ARGUE.pdf
I think it is cultural.
Children aren't concerend about it until they are taught.
Europe, which is less religious than the US, is more open about public nudity.
Maybe if so much of society wasn't brought up with those myths then we would see nude people all over.
Considering the current obesity rates in the U.S., however, I say bring me some of that old time religion, its good enough for me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : No, I’m not a nudist.
And I am not suggesting that anyone should be, but the real question is: Why are we the only species that knows when we’re naked – and the only species that cares!
No thinking person would accept the Garden of Eden story as an explanation for this oddity, but it occurs to me that I have never heard any other explanation!
It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
Dunno.
I'm guessing that clothing was a technological advantage which allowed hairless humans to successfully populate colder environments.
It also provides some degree of protection against physical harm;
Other predators would end up with a mouth full of sleeve instead of elbow.
That would have started the process.
Paul Quote: : And it isn’t even a matter of modesty.
It would be if we all covered ourselves from head to toe, but some people dress in a fashion that is more provocative than they would be if they were buck-naked!
Well, other animals 'decorate' their dens, peacocks show color and I assume the more colorful, the more successful.
Clothing (only recently cheap) would show success and the ability to provide protection (on the male side) and attact successful mates (on the female side).
Paul Quote: : You may think it is a cultural thing, but such things change over time.
Our awareness of and concern about our nakedness has been a characteristic of humans for all time, and in all cultures.
So, if a snake didn’t whisper in our ancestor’s ear, why are we the way we are?
Once it started, (again, guessing), it would have become cultural.
I've read reports that aboriginal populations in warm areas didn't dress until westerners introduced the practise.
All bow to higher technology...
But all this sounds a little like a 'just so' story;
I could be full of beans.
Ron L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically...it got cold outside.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM .
Help Robert S.
Lancaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron and Jim: I'm not saying you're wrong.
Clothing has some very practical uses, but that doesn't explain why we feel embarassed when we are naked - or why we are even aware of the concept of nakedness.
It also doesn't explain blushing.
DeusEx_Humana: Good point about children.
It does seem to be a learned response, but is the embarrassment only the result of religious training?
Religious dogma can be extremely convincing, but it hasn't the capability to alter our biology.
Why do we blush? People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Religion is Man's reaction to his fear of the unknown.
Science is Man, overcoming his fear.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : Ron and Jim: I'm not saying you're wrong.
Clothing has some very practical uses, but that doesn't explain why we feel embarassed when we are naked - or why we are even aware of the concept of nakedness.
It also doesn't explain blushing.
DeusEx_Humana: Good point about children.
It does seem to be a learned response, but is the embarrassment only the result of religious training?
Religious dogma can be extremely convincing, but it hasn't the capability to alter our biology.
Why do we blush?
I think you've got a couple of questions here:
Assuming religion is part of culture, even if it had religious basis, embarrassment would still be a result of culture.
Dunno about you, but I've sure been embarrassed by a cultural 'oops' which had nothing to do with religion.
I can only guess that embarrassment is a uniquely human response to particular stimuli.
My pooch won't answer (maybe he's embarrassed for me asking such a silly question).
As far as the blush response, again, it's unique to us (AFAIK).
And then clothing can be explained by utility followed by cultural reenforcement.
Ron L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't find the question of "why aren't we all nudists?" any more baffling than a question such as "why is it socially unacceptable to pick your nose and eat your snot in public?"
These are just social/cultural artifacts...
Nothing more... The meaning of life...
Is to defer entropy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I don't find the question of "why aren't we all nudists?" any more baffling than a question such as "why is it socially unacceptable to pick your nose and eat your snot in public?"
It *isn't* acceptable!?
Ooops.... Ron L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no qualms with people eating their own snot in public.
I consider that "thoughtful disposal".
It's the smearing it on the train seat next to them that grosses me out.
Or flicking it against the back of the door in the public toilets so I have to sit there and look at it, and the cleaners never seem to notice it, so it might stay there for years.
Now, imagine if people walked around starkers with easy access to several other orifices...
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : Clothing has some very practical uses, but that doesn't explain why we feel embarassed when we are naked - or why we are even aware of the concept of nakedness.
All through college and grad school, I had shoulder-length hair and a beard.
After graduating, I cut my hair and shaved for job interviews.
I felt embarrassed and naked each time I went out in public.
I knew it was silly, but it felt like everyone was staring at my face that I could no longer hide.
Aside from the practical aspects of clothing (keeping warm, protecting our skin from the sun, parasite control, etc.), it's something we can hide behind.
Most everyone wants to have a perfect body and perfect looks.
We hide our physical imperfections behind clothing and are ashamed and embarrassed when our real selves are exposed.
Those with near perfect appearance tend to display themselves in clothing (or lack of clothing) that reveals or emphasizes their sexual and physical attractiveness.
Paul Quote: : ...is the embarrassment only the result of religious training?
Religious dogma can be extremely convincing, but it hasn't the capability to alter our biology.
Why do we blush?
Religious-based modesty seems mostly an attempt to inhibit adolescents from advertising their sexuality.
Other reasons for modesty and embarrassment might stem from cultural norms, parental instruction and from the reasons I mentioned above.
There might even be an inborn, hardwired component to it all that just shows up I don't know.
Blushing is interesting, though.
First of all, darker-skinned people (from whom we are all descended) blush, but it's much more difficult to detect, so a body language origin for it seems harder to establish.
Even so, I suspect that it's a secondary physiological response (with unknown origins) that has been co-opted as a body language mechanism having to do with displaying submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : Ron and Jim: I'm not saying you're wrong.
Clothing has some very practical uses, but that doesn't explain why we feel embarassed when we are naked - or why we are even aware of the concept of nakedness.
It also doesn't explain blushing.
DeusEx_Humana: Good point about children.
It does seem to be a learned response, but is the embarrassment only the result of religious training?
Religious dogma can be extremely convincing, but it hasn't the capability to alter our biology.
Why do we blush?
Even dogs know shame...and I think shame is closely related to fear.
Clothing and modesty must have served some evolutionary advantage.
Probably it's a result of increased socialization and cultural complexity that developed over the ages, and I speculate that the primary motivator was the rise of autocratic leadership and, dare I say it, religion, which in my opinion developed as a means to rationalize the edicts of the autocracy.
We knuckle under to the socially-approved autocracy and social mores in order to maintain our position in the social structure, in order to gain a survival advantage and avoid ostracism, which could adversely affect our survival.
Picture a village;
The village elders decide that everybody must be clothed;
The naked are cast out to fend for themselves.
Humans can and will compromise their values in order to get their share of the bananas.
And that's all I'm capable of guessing at tonight.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM .
Help Robert S.
Lancaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a nudist for a few reasons:
1.
I live in Michigan, and it's cold here a lot.
It's warmer to wear clothing.
2.
Clothing allows me to outwardly display how I'm feeling.
3.
The place where I work would fire me if I walked around naked.
Read in broader terms, society would shun me if I walked around naked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No thinking person would accept the Garden of Eden story as an explanation for this oddity, but it occurs to me that I have never heard any other explanation!
It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
Garden of eden story may contain the explanation for this oddity.
I'm not, however, suggesting that it be taken literally.
It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
It was a story.. poetry.
It has to do with the acquisition of concepts of good and evil and male and female and birth and death (all of these are described in the story).
It signifies the activation of human society.
We develop right/wrong and thus can apply the idea of free will (myth that it is) to drive our actions.
If you just wiped out all the penguins and then genetically cloned some and re-introduced them into the wild without their population, they would all die.
If you've ever seen that movie "march of the penguins" then you'll see how they have this massive array of learned behaviors that is continually propagated from generation to generation.
I believe that dress became an element of society.
It became a way to distinguish us from one another.
To indicate rank.
It also added protection from the elements and things like armor protected us from enemies.
It allowed us to modify our external appearance to aid in communication (i.e.
Mark a mate as your own to discourage others re: engagement rings).
I think it aided in adding diversity to the human society which helped in selection and application of evolved concepts of morality and to increase things like fitness (ability to reproduce) by wearing some really flashy stuff to attract mates.
Camouflage may also be an explanation for some clothing in the same way that armor protects as well.
It's clear that puritanical clothing beliefs are an added concept that just arose in our society based on other factors like control by social groups.
The idea of guilt and body image are some very core things that have to do with exerting control over other people.
It's a big part of the patriarchal society in this sense.
I think there are lots of reasons why we started decorating ourselves and adding on top to protect ourselves.
I can see many reasons for it...
I guess an important realization is whether the idea controls your behavior or not.
I've been to nudist beaches and colonies and have been totally fine with it in some cases when i was older and kind of awkward when I was younger (because I lived in a clothing + body image guilt society and was very much formed by those ideas).
I think there's a lot of value to clothing.
They can accentuate natural beauty...
Protect the body..
Increase your ability to stand out in a crowd and thus attract mates.
Physical appearance to the world is our fundamental initial interactions with anything when dealing with physical situations of physical interaction (i.e.
Ancestors didn't have the internets).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : No, I’m not a nudist.
And I am not suggesting that anyone should be, but the real question is: Why are we the only species that knows when we’re naked – and the only species that cares!
No thinking person would accept the Garden of Eden story as an explanation for this oddity, but it occurs to me that I have never heard any other explanation!
Plenty of thinking people accept the story as a poignant, poetic account of the human condition.
Ironically, the fall of man is precisely his discovery of religiosity (the knowledge of "good" and "evil").
Paul Quote: : It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
Domesticated dogs seem to experience something like shame after pooping on the carpet.
Cats are shameless but poop less on the carpet.
Basically, clothing is beneficial to humans, just as a human's house or teepee is beneficial to a dog.
So we feel insecure or "wrong" without clothing.
If we had more hair, we wouldn't need this experience.
Not to mention the fact that some of us are much uglier than others.
Paul Quote: : There is something biological connect to it, though.
To my knowledge, we are the only species capable of blushing!
Why is that?
I don't think we're the only species capable of blushing.
Maybe, without hair, our blushing is more noticable.
To spark debate here, I am "pro-Intelligent Design";
However, I define "intelligence" and "design" in precise, information theoretic terms, and I am not anyone's Creationist straw man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I consider the strange evolution of humans there are three things that sadden me: the loss of fur, (I personally would love a nice silky coat, perhaps with a cats tongue and flexibility to use it), the loss of a long tail from which we could swing tree to tree and the extreme loss of opposable thumbs on our feet (bipedalism is such a sacrafice)
Personally I'd love to be a nudist if it weren't illegal where I live but that hasn't stopped me from the occasional rainforest hike sans apparel.
The first thing to note about not wearing cloths on a hike, and especially for males, is the question of protection.
There is a far greater caution called for when climbing through barbed-wire fences or passing through tropical thorny vines.
At such times, I envy the kangaroo's evolved ability to retract their genitalia as if it were landing gear.
So first I think clothes came about simply for protection.
Even the once called 'primatives,' usually natives of tropical lands normally had 'something' covering their groin.
Understandibly, more extensive clothing developed in colder climates presumably faster than evolution could grow a lovely warm coat for us.
Curiously, the much faster evolution of clothes (and tools in general) would seem to have in this way circumvented our own evolutionary development while allowing us psudo-dominion over the world.
To be dependant upon 3rd party protection in such climates over the thousands of years by which evolution adapted the northern races with lighter skin tones than their equatorial brothers would concievably shape the mindsets and cultures of those races to a perhaps genetic predisposition to wearing cloths.
Genetic changes have been observed in experiements into the domestication of wild dogs, where the generations of a chosen pedigree are raised and studied in captivity.
At about the 10th generation, there was observed genetic and behavioural changes which were seen to be more in line with domesticated dogs.
Over many generations being constrained by the real neccessity of clothing could likewise 'domesticate us' in such a manner.
Anything after is simply that cultural nusance known as fasion.
Now that we're on the cultural note, I think clothes have developed a great power of offense.
It is certainly no laughing matter that the religious practice of waring burrkas or hajabs is being resticted in countries such as France.
I think it deeply wrong to prevent ones personal expressions of their own cultural or religious identities based on obscure notions of suspicion.
If clothing is to be restricted, then I would say humanity has much to gain by getting it all off and seeing that nature made us pretty much all the same, but then, it's rarely our differences that bring us to war, but more our similarities.
I'd often wondered about the sexuality of groups who live essentially naked, thinking that there wouldn't be much difference to clothed people.
The idea being that the familarisation with nudity would cease to titilate the mind unto sexual desires.
Anecdotaly, I've had some support from a friend who did live in a nudist collony in the 70's.
Her experience was that there was no elevated levels of sexuality.
It was just as normal as waring clothes.
So get it off I say!
But I'm in sunny Queensland
Darryl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Quote: : Domesticated dogs seem to experience something like shame after pooping on the carpet.
Cats are shameless but poop less on the carpet.
I've had several dogs...
And from my experience, I think that the shame dogs feel after pooping on the carpet is predicated on the fact that in the past, they were scorned by their masters for doing so.
So when they are found out, or know that they will eventually be found out, they become nervous and scared, because they know that they are going to be punished.
Dogs may be particularly ashamed of such things, more so than say, chewing up the couch, because they are helpless in the scenario where they poop inside - because they endure pain trying to avoid going to the washroom, and are forced to go inside only when they can no longer hold it in....
Whereas when they chew up the couch or something like that, they did so out of frustration, or angst...
So in on case, the dog feels just remorse, whereas in the other case, the dog feels remorse, but also with a sense of helplessness at the situation.
And I think the same interplay of emotions would come into effect if it had been a human child that had done likewise.
But I don't think the shame comes about because of some innate sense of right and wrong, but because of past experiences where they were punished for doing something similar.
The dog is intelligent enough to remember that they were punished for doing this thing before, and so they feel a sense of guilt and of brooding...
Because they know what is going to happen next.
This is why dogs can be trained, much like humans, based on a system of rewards and punishment.
The meaning of life...
Is to defer entropy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
By that logic, we have *every* trait in common with all other life-forms.
We do not have the same genes as fish;
Otherwise, we would be ...
Fish.
Paul Quote: : It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
Many non-physical characteristics have evolved, like emotions, behaviors and instincts.
Also, clothing = protection.
Perfect example of a survival aid.
Paul Quote: : There is something biological connect to it, though.
To my knowledge, we are the only species capable of blushing!
Why is that?
Same reason the whites of our eyes are so big.
Man is a social animal.
We give and receive visual cues to our internal state.
If a female blushes around me, I might think she wants to mate.
Paul Quote: : And it isn’t even a matter of modesty.
It would be if we all covered ourselves from head to toe, but some people dress in a fashion that is more provocative than they would be if they were buck-naked!
Clothing can be used to communicate as well as protect.
Paul Quote: : You may think it is a cultural thing, but such things change over time.
Our awareness of and concern about our nakedness has been a characteristic of humans for all time, and in all cultures.
Many human traits are common to all cultures.
There's a good list of them at the end of Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Martin Quote: : Domesticated dogs seem to experience something like shame after pooping on the carpet.
Cats are shameless but poop less on the carpet.
I've had several dogs...
And from my experience, I think that the shame dogs feel after pooping on the carpet is predicated on the fact that in the past, they were scorned by their masters for doing so.
I agree.
Quote: : But I don't think the shame comes about because of some innate sense of right and wrong, but because of past experiences where they were punished for doing something similar.
I'm not suggesting that dogs are born feeling that carpet pooping specifically is shameful.
There is an inate sense of "right" and "wrong", but it is subject to training.
Cats are relatively shameless and also less trainable.
To spark debate here, I am "pro-Intelligent Design";
However, I define "intelligence" and "design" in precise, information theoretic terms, and I am not anyone's Creationist straw man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be a nudist if I lived in a warm place that wouldn't stone me to death for public nudity.
I live in a cold country and am born of people who came from cold countries (Norway and Russia/Ukraine).
I wonder why some people are very hairy while others barely have any hair.
It just isn't fair.
I come from Ol' Hairy Legs Lars, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would not be naked even if I was paid lots of money to do so.
I could not stand it, not one bit.
Ugh! I am so hideous without any clothing on (although I am okay looking with clothing on, I guess).
But, if others want to be wandering around without clothing, that is okay with me, I have no problem with it.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a world of nudists would be far less decepive.
Clothes conceil and deceive.
Without them we'd simply have to accept the bodies we and each other have and there'd be a whole lot less hangups about our superficial images.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God bless you, my brothers and sisters...heee...
My, what a fine evolved batch you are.
The trouble with life is there's no background music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlgH7Oec__s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669JgdXu-u0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDToA6jpoWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQgGQgmA1Ic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I think a world of nudists would be far less decepive.
Clothes conceil and deceive.
Without them we'd simply have to accept the bodies we and each other have and there'd be a whole lot less hangups about our superficial images.
No, no, no.
They protect our images.
You see, with clothing, we can project any image of ourselves we want.
With clothing, we have the freedom to express who we really are in our minds.
Naked, we are forced only to project the image that cruel nature gave us, no more.
And if nature was very unkind to us, we have no choice but to reveal that to the world, and since people tend not to hate nature, they will hate those who nature was cruel to.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we were all nudists, I would never be able to sit on a park bench again.
Bird crap is one thing...
But chocolate starfish???
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
That is a conclusion I would not be hasty to jump to.
Evolutionary advances can be behavioral as well as physical;
Witness tool-using by various species and the mating practices of bower birds.
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. We would die of laughter to see everyone naked.
2.
Women look better with clothes on.
It accentuates thier better features.
Scott the surfing biker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : 1. We would die of laughter to see everyone naked.
2.
Women look better with clothes on.
It accentuates thier better features.
My first response was 'Queer!', but then I realized it may not be accepted in the best of light.
(And I'm on the wrong forum for that kind of MEANY-ness)
But I truly do not understand your second point.
I am honestly baffled.
Try frying bacon in the nude, then come back to me abou thte usefullness of clothing.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : No, I’m not a nudist.
And I am not suggesting that anyone should be, but the real question is: Why are we the only species that knows when we’re naked – and the only species that cares!
No thinking person would accept the Garden of Eden story as an explanation for this oddity, but it occurs to me that I have never heard any other explanation!
It can’t be genetic.
We share our genetic structure with just about all the other life-forms, and none of them have a propensity to cover themselves.
It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
There is something biological connect to it, though.
To my knowledge, we are the only species capable of blushing!
Why is that?
And it isn’t even a matter of modesty.
It would be if we all covered ourselves from head to toe, but some people dress in a fashion that is more provocative than they would be if they were buck-naked!
You may think it is a cultural thing, but such things change over time.
Our awareness of and concern about our nakedness has been a characteristic of humans for all time, and in all cultures.
So, if a snake didn’t whisper in our ancestor’s ear, why are we the way we are?
I see your points, but I don't exactly agree with them.
Many animals (including some micro-organisms, depending upon your point of view) from insects on up to lions use shelter.
I tend to think of clothing as portable shelter, and us wearing clothes is just an elaboration of a theme that occurs over and over again in the natural world.
Hermit crabs regularly change their shells when they outgrow or damage them and they don't survive for very long without them, so this may meet the criteria of clothing in the animal kingdom.
The discomfort of a crab without it's shell might even count as an analog of modesty.
All the best,
---Kevin "I'm allergic to B.S., and I think I need some Benadryl."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: :
I'd often wondered about the sexuality of groups who live essentially naked, thinking that there wouldn't be much difference to clothed people.
The idea being that the familarisation with nudity would cease to titilate the mind unto sexual desires.
Anecdotaly, I've had some support from a friend who did live in a nudist collony in the 70's.
Her experience was that there was no elevated levels of sexuality.
It was just as normal as waring clothes.Darryl
Actually, I did have some experience with this (when I was younger and, well....younger!)
I went to a "clothing optional" beach in Venice, CA and took off my clothes.
The first thing I noticed was a reluctance to look directly at anyone who was nude.
Everyone kept to themselves, as if they were the only person on the beach.
Then, a girl walked by wearing a bikini and every guy on the beach sat up and stared!
The second thing I noticed, as I was putting my clothes on over my sunburned body, is that there are some parts of the male anatomy that should not be exposed to bright sunlight for extended periods of time.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Religion is Man's reaction to his fear of the unknown.
Science is Man, overcoming his fear.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : The second thing I noticed, as I was putting my clothes on over my sunburned body, is that there are some parts of the male anatomy that should not be exposed to bright sunlight for extended periods of time.
LOL!
And applying sunscreen lotion to said parts may have other socially embarrassing repercussions.
Especially if done more vigorously than warranted.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Paul Anthony, perhaps now you agree with Keith's assessment of clothing as portable shelter?
(Which by the way, Keith, I think is a true accurate and well said.) It seems that the more unbelievable the claim or story, the more people believe it and the more fervently they believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major Quote: :
LOL!
And applying sunscreen lotion to said parts may have other socially embarrassing repercussions.
Especially if done more vigorously than warranted.
Okay, okay, I HAVE to share this: My then-husband had an allergic reaction to a substance that ....
Brace yourself ....
Caused the skin on his penis to slough off.
The next part will come as no surprise: As I was ever so delicately applying the medicine in the form of a transdermal lotion ...
MEN!
Gotta love 'em
No, I mean you will HAVE to love them or else they ....
It seems that the more unbelievable the claim or story, the more people believe it and the more fervently they believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno--there's the sanitation thing...I mean wouldn't you feel squeamish sitting where you just saw someone else's rectum?
And there's the monthly string thing for the ladies-- And what if the freaky neighbor guy was aroused when you walked by--or worse, when your kid walked by--aren't there just some things you'd rather not know?
If, I want to see nudity, I'll go on the internet.
If you can't understand;
Maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I dunno--there's the sanitation thing...I mean wouldn't you feel squeamish sitting where you just saw someone else's rectum?
And there's the monthly string thing for the ladies-- And what if the freaky neighbor guy was aroused when you walked by--or worse, when your kid walked by--aren't there just some things you'd rather not know?
If, I want to see nudity, I'll go on the internet.
Actually, especially when it comes to our kids, we spend a lot of money because we specifically WANT to know that our neighbor has that reaction.
In all earnestness, when nudity isn't a social taboo, the gallant reaction doesn't occur from mere nudity.
As beautiful as women are, especially when naked, if it is a commonplace sight, it loses its ability to arouse.
Many fetishes are based directly on scarcity.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With nudity, you cannot hide anything, so I can see a big demand for cosmetic surgery since nothing else can be done.
But I stand my my original argument, what about those of us who just do not look "natural" naked?
What are we supposed to do?
We will not be able to hide that, so we will face even more discrimination.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I see it not as that everyone would be naked, but that society would be described as 'clothing optional'.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Well, I see it not as that everyone would be naked, but that society would be described as 'clothing optional'.
Except, that it is not "clothing optional," but "clothing need not apply." It should say "clothing not allowed."
Such a society would scare me.
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I would not be naked even if I was paid lots of money to do so.
I could not stand it, not one bit.
Ugh! I am so hideous without any clothing on (although I am okay looking with clothing on, I guess).
But, if others want to be wandering around without clothing, that is okay with me, I have no problem with it.
I'm sorry that you feel that way about your body, but--at the expense of a little irony--I'm skeptical that you're as physically unattractive as you say you are.
I think that 80% of how we look comes from how we carry ourselves, how we act, and how we feel inside.
There was an O.
Henry story (or maybe it was Saki) about a plain girl who bought a red hair ribbon, and got asked out by the high-school jock when she had never been noticed before .
. . only to find out--at the end of the story--that the ribbon fell off unnoticed before she left the store.
That story has haunted me for years, and I haven't been to find a copy.
I must have originally read it in an English class when I was maybe 12 years old.
Any leads?
All the best,
---Kevin "I'm allergic to B.S., and I think I need some Benadryl."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Quote: : I'm sorry that you feel that way about your body, but--at the expense of a little irony--I'm skeptical that you're as physically unattractive as you say you are.
Well, I suppose that I am not too physically unattractive, while clothed.
But without clothing it would be too much.
Clothing keeps me safe, and I need safety.
Such is life...
Reviewing the massive amount of unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims, testimony, non-validated observational data, and philosophical studies, they actually suggest the existence of such an entity as the "soul." Although it cannot be determined what it is or if it is factual or not, it is my personal belief that there may very well be something there, and that it is worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Quote: : It can’t be an evolutionary event.
Besides the fact that it isn’t a physical characteristic, it also doesn’t seem to satisfy any survival-of-the-species need.
Extended phenotype.
Beavers build dams to survive.
Better dam-builders survive better than inferior quality dam-builders.
People in cold areas need warmer clothes to survive.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg question, but maybe shame came after clothes from societal habit.
Babies aren't ashamed.
They have to be taught.
Just like sex in public.
(Don't know if any other species are ashamed about that.) I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|