The Politics of Nudity

[Techocracy101010]

Nudity makes people uncomfortable because of the association between nudity and sex, and that association only exists because people only see nudity in a sexual context. It's a chicken/egg scenario.

I think it would be better for society in the long run if nudity was more normalized. There are studies like this one that show there are positive psychological benefits to social nudity, like an increase in positive body image, which in turn has strong positive effects other things like reported happiness and overall well-being. So there are benefits to casual nudity besides the convenience of not having to pack a swimsuit to go to the beach.

I'm guessing there are some nudist activists who have a better clue on how to shift public perception of nudity, but I guess increasing the number of clothing-optional beaches and other recreational areas would be a start. Campaigns to decriminalize public nudity would have to go hand-in-hand with challenging the stigma around it.

I would rather not have to see the unwashed disgusting flabby flesh of mericans my guy its bad enough im at 17 percent body fat let alone seeing most other folks in 25-30. The human body is gross

[Loeje]

I personally think nudity should be totally fine as long as you have a towel or something to sit on in public, because hygiene is an issue. People shouldn't be disgusted or horrified by people.

Nudity makes people uncomfortable because of the association between nudity and sex, and that association only exists because people only see nudity in a sexual context. It's a chicken/egg scenario.

I think it would be better for society in the long run if nudity was more normalized. There are studies like this one that show there are positive psychological benefits to social nudity, like an increase in positive body image, which in turn has strong positive effects other things like reported happiness and overall well-being. So there are benefits to casual nudity besides the convenience of not having to pack a swimsuit to go to the beach.

I'm guessing there are some nudist activists who have a better clue on how to shift public perception of nudity, but I guess increasing the number of clothing-optional beaches and other recreational areas would be a start. Campaigns to decriminalize public nudity would have to go hand-in-hand with challenging the stigma around it.

I would rather not have to see the unwashed disgusting flabby flesh of mericans my guy its bad enough im at 17 percent body fat let alone seeing most other folks in 25-30. The human body is gross

That's a very unhealthy perspective that would probably change if you were exposed to more public nudity.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

That's a very unhealthy perspective that would probably change if you were exposed to more public nudity.

The simple fact is that most people just don't want to be exposed to nudity for perfectly legitimate reasons.

It's fine if there are specific zones where it is permitted, like beaches marked as nude ones, but it should not be something which is allowed anywhere.

[Techocracy101010]

I personally think nudity should be totally fine as long as you have a towel or something to sit on in public, because hygiene is an issue. People shouldn't be disgusted or horrified by people.

I would rather not have to see the unwashed disgusting flabby flesh of mericans my guy its bad enough im at 17 percent body fat let alone seeing most other folks in 25-30. The human body is gross

That's a very unhealthy perspective that would probably change if you were exposed to more public nudity.

it would be one thing if americans looked like we did in 1900-50. We dont even me who is considered healthy is pretty flabby.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/456341374740617641/

https://www.insider.com/vintage-retro-p ... -us-2018-7

[Page]

I personally think nudity should be totally fine as long as you have a towel or something to sit on in public, because hygiene is an issue. People shouldn't be disgusted or horrified by people.


That's a very unhealthy perspective that would probably change if you were exposed to more public nudity.

it would be one thing if americans looked like we did in 1900-50. We dont even me who is considered healthy is pretty flabby.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/456341374740617641/

https://www.insider.com/vintage-retro-p ... -us-2018-7

People a century ago didn't have devices for instantly taking and developing and storing an infinite number of pictures. Used to be you had to pay for film, you only had a couple dozen shots before having to open up the camera and replace it, and then you had to take your camera to a store and pay money and come back later in the day to get physical prints of your picture.

You're wrongly assuming people used to be way fitter and hotter because of sampling bias. Photographs from long ago preserved on the internet today were taken with effort and were pleasant enough for somebody to care to preserve them.

[Ohio Men]

That's what I wanted to talk about. There's places where nudity should be restricted, like public transportation and inside private businesses (especially those pertaining to food) for practical reasons, but overall, there's no good argument against nudity for anywhere else that I can currently think of. I don't like seeing a lot of things, yet I do not advocate for their censorship/banning because that would be the result of personal fragility. "Because I don't like it" is not a valid excuse for trying to suppress the things that offend oneself.

I actually have a rule for evaluating people: Everybody should be able to name 5 things that they personally find immoral or disgusting but that they don't think the government should prevent other people from doing. If you can't, I find you sus.

Thinking Among Us memes are still funny, liking Epic Zero, thinking Ohio memes are dead, reading Harry Potter, and setting fields you own on fire

[Bovad]

I actually have a rule for evaluating people: Everybody should be able to name 5 things that they personally find immoral or disgusting but that they don't think the government should prevent other people from doing. If you can't, I find you sus.

Thinking Among Us memes are still funny, liking Epic Zero, thinking Ohio memes are dead, reading Harry Potter, and setting fields on fire

Isn't setting fields on fire arson?

[Techocracy101010]

it would be one thing if americans looked like we did in 1900-50. We dont even me who is considered healthy is pretty flabby.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/456341374740617641/

https://www.insider.com/vintage-retro-p ... -us-2018-7

People a century ago didn't have devices for instantly taking and developing and storing an infinite number of pictures. Used to be you had to pay for film, you only had a couple dozen shots before having to open up the camera and replace it, and then you had to take your camera to a store and pay money and come back later in the day to get physical prints of your picture.

You're wrongly assuming people used to be way fitter and hotter because of sampling bias. Photographs from long ago preserved on the internet today were taken with effort and were pleasant enough for somebody to care to preserve them.

looks at 1990s obesity levels notices its much lower. In 60 years it tripled so uhhh yeah dawg were all disgustingly fat .
https://usafacts.org/articles/obesity-r ... -50-years/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/commen ... 0_vs_2018/

edit
We also are vastly weaker with male grip strength now nearing the level of women in 1980. There is nothing to envy about this when you realize post 2012 we noticed a decrease in iq as well . Were growing fatter dumber and more unhealthy. A dysgenic society .

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a195 ... ker-today/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/ ... hreatened/

edit: I just see no pride in showing sickly weak bodies . Beauty is found in perfection not flaws.

[Gaybeans]

There is nothing to envy about this when you realize post 2012 we noticed a decrease in iq as well.

Hoo boy, this is so not the right thread to pick apart the reasons why IQ tests are fundamentally flawed in a way that renders them more or less meaningless and that they're a pseudoscience at best. But IDK, maybe read actual scientific journals instead of the conservative clickbait you linked?

[Techocracy101010]

There is nothing to envy about this when you realize post 2012 we noticed a decrease in iq as well.

Hoo boy, this is so not the right thread to pick apart the reasons why IQ tests are fundamentally flawed in a way that renders them more or less meaningless and that they're a pseudoscience at best. But IDK, maybe read actual scientific journals instead of the conservative clickbait you linked?

Conservative clickbait?? You do realize the marines complained about folks being to fat to fight. and the data is from the cdc. So i guess the increasing amount of deaths caused by obesity is just conservative clickbait. Also iq is a valid metric of testing intelligence. You might be able to argue its overly focused on crystalized intelligence vs fluid but if you do well on an iq test usually you perform better overall. Find me someone with a 70 iq that can hold a candle to anyone with a 110.
https://www.military.com/military-fitne ... -fight/amp
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_Too_ ... ight-1.pdf

[Arval Va]

Look at the response to a film like Tall Girl. Most of these movies are being made by

Right off the bat, the trouble with this phrase is that so long as there is competition among TV/movie producers to cater to the moviegoing public, the wishes of the moviegoing public are more relevant than those of TV/movie producers. You can cater to them or get swept away.

Does this mean it's catering to an accurate perception of real life? Not necessarily. Pellets in plastic aren't as viable an alternative to warning shots as The Wire pretends. But that makes The Wire more of a reflection of its fans' biases than those of its producers.

Absolutely. The problem here is that the people making these films seem to be deluded.

(Or maybe they're just farming for hate-watchers; who knows). The alternative? I dunno, maybe start judging people by how they act in reality.

How would you measure that? Teachers are as close as it gets to having witnessed a representative sample, and they have every incentive to avoid telling it like it is if they want to keep their job. (Or in retired teachers' case, to at least not throw away the competitive advantage their sons and daughters have in teaching from having grown up immersed in the lingo.)

If you have no way to gauge how kids act and all the teachers are pathological liars, don't take a few people's experiences from decades ago as a good representation of modern children at large. Admitting you don't know is better than using anecdotes from high school as evidence against 25% of the world population.

They express themselves in the same way a clothed person might express themselves with their attire. Political or social views, lifestyle, some religions, etc.

Not every religion needs to be accommodated. What happens when one religion comes into conflict with another?

Religious views should only be accommodated as far as they apply to believers. Just like how Christians shouldn't be able to force a Hindu to participate in communion, a religion against public nudity should not force a nudist non-believer to go against their beliefs. Both religions are still accommodated, they just cannot impose their ideas over each other.

If the political view is "nudity should be public," you can already express it in a myriad of other ways.

Give an example that actually shows commitment to that cause.

My problem is that you're trying to prove your claim that public nudity would cause incredible harm with genetic reasoning.

I'm trying to argue that when in doubt, we should err on the side of caution and keep it prohibited. Genetic reasoning isn't slam-dunk (and isn't my only line of reasoning; see also my points about the risks people take out of lust as it is), but for the purposes of sticking with the status quo, it's more than enough.

Your other points just emphasize "lust happens," not that you can draw a connection between lust and public nudity. Your reliance on genetic reasoning also fails here, considering every wild animal except humans is nude.

If you want to err on the side of caution, give some findings that actually apply to humans that support your points. What neither biological nor psychological finding have substantiated is a clear association with public nudity and increased lust. Maybe get some psychological evidence to prove that your hypothesis applies to humans?

Others have emphasized hygenic concerns. These are also a factor. I'm emphasizing the lust factor because it isn't emphasized enough, and it's less predictable.

Okay. Are you interested in giving an argument regarding hygenics?

I'm not talking about medicine. Genetic reasoning relies on taxonomy, and in this case, animal psychology and primatology as well. Considering how important the human relation to animals and the environment can be to people (re: α-β-ω dynamics; various chimpanzee-related pickup artist theories; creationism), your assumption of ultimate dishonesty would put primatology into jeopardy.

I don't think it's in biologists' own interest, even for PR reasons, to lie about how many chromosomes humans have in common with bonobos. To cut a hole in geneticism would, if discovered, cut a hole in the credibility of DNA evidence in criminal cases and paternity tests. That is somewhat related to, but still distinct from, whether or not it's in their own interest to downplay the ramifications of human-bonobo genetic similarities in a culture biased against admitting how limited humans' willpower in the face of lust can be. (See also; risking ruined life in one's teen years, being unable to fathom why some don't see it as being worth the risk, turning around and pretending the willpower to not commit adultery with lesser consequences is strong.)

I'm not solely referencing DNA, but animal behaviour and society in general. But lust is really more the domain of psychology, which has provided lots of insight into human characteristics generally conflicting with human self-image before, but not a connection between public nudity and extreme lust. Either way, yes, this is the mess you get into when assuming that anyone with any possible reason to lie will always lie in the most egregious way possible. You've made my point for me. (Though denying that plenty of people would love to hear that humanity's close relatives are free-loving peaceful pan poly libertarians, just as much as some like to think that lupine misinformation is a justification for abusive dating practices.)

I'd still like to see your opinion on Skinner's Box. After all, anyone who has access to an animal can do it, and it has been tested numerous times, even on humans.

Been a while since I took 1st year psychology. I assume this is what you're referring to?

I can attest to being an exception to that narrative of psychology, having been so resentful of attempts to manipulate my behaviour through reward and punishment I did the opposite of the intended outcome on principle. I wouldn't claim to know whether or not this applies to anyone else, though.

In Skinner's box, some participants do figure out that the reward comes in intervals, but they're not generally in the majority. Of course, considering that it's a very specific scenario, especially by human standards, it's unlikely any person has completely avoided the effects of pareidolia. Your reaction does call to attention the fact that psychological findings so consistently conflict with most people's perception of themselves as logical and "different from all those other animals," which should put your idea of the dishonest psychologist inflating the public's ego into question.

Though, of course, your assumption that psychologist "intend" some response from people rather than calling attention to things that already happen due to the human brain's flaws betrays a pretty nasty misunderstanding of what psychology is.

Considering that you've disregarded several of my points in the earlier post, do you care to address them now?

[Arval Va]

I personally think nudity should be totally fine as long as you have a towel or something to sit on in public, because hygiene is an issue. People shouldn't be disgusted or horrified by people.


That's a very unhealthy perspective that would probably change if you were exposed to more public nudity.

it would be one thing if americans looked like we did in 1900-50. We dont even me who is considered healthy is pretty flabby.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/456341374740617641/

https://www.insider.com/vintage-retro-p ... -us-2018-7

You can't ban somebody's outfit because it looks ugly to you; why should that apply to nudists?

[Techocracy101010]

it would be one thing if americans looked like we did in 1900-50. We dont even me who is considered healthy is pretty flabby.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/456341374740617641/

https://www.insider.com/vintage-retro-p ... -us-2018-7

You can't ban somebody's outfit because it looks ugly to you; why should that apply to nudists?

Life is already gross enough before i have to see 350 lbs five foot six 50 years old karens tits or her husbands glock ( when your gut fat covers your c*ck) . Like also to i do not need to see folks erections nor do i need them to see my penis and its weird gross vein thing it has going on or the fact that the skin on my back and ass looks like red leather and cracks falling off.

[Moltian]

boobies scare me

[Arval Va]

You can't ban somebody's outfit because it looks ugly to you; why should that apply to nudists?

Life is already gross enough before i have to see 350 lbs five foot six 50 years old karens tits or her husbands glock ( when your gut fat covers your c*ck) . Like also to i do not need to see folks erections nor do i need them to see my penis and its weird gross vein thing it has going on or the fact that the skin on my back and ass looks like red leather and cracks falling off.

And how is it different from Betsy's fluorescent orange grass-stained cargo pants and "Live Laugh Love" crop top?

[The Phoenix Consortium]

boobies scare me

Cops scare me so they should be outlawed too.

[Techocracy101010]

Life is already gross enough before i have to see 350 lbs five foot six 50 years old karens tits or her husbands glock ( when your gut fat covers your c*ck) . Like also to i do not need to see folks erections nor do i need them to see my penis and its weird gross vein thing it has going on or the fact that the skin on my back and ass looks like red leather and cracks falling off.

And how is it different from Betsy's fluorescent orange grass-stained cargo pants and "Live Laugh Love" crop top?

It keeps us safe. If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks

[Dreria]

boobies scare me

Cops scare me so they should be outlawed too.

now were getting somewhere

[Arval Va]

And how is it different from Betsy's fluorescent orange grass-stained cargo pants and "Live Laugh Love" crop top?

It keeps us safe. If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks

How many women have breasts of solid oak wood?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If you have no way to gauge how kids act and all the teachers are pathological liars

Desperately wishing to preserve one's competitive advantage and/or those of one's sons and daughters in this economy is hardly "pathological." I've told far more egregious lies for far pettier reasons. Fishing for compliments by exaggerating my insecurities was unfair to those who needed the flattery more than I did, and I did it for a brief fleeting emotional fulfillment I still can't for the life of me comprehend caring about from people I mistrusted enough to feel they deserved to be lied to in the first place, and which I could've gotten a myriad of more honourable ways. If teachers are preserving their competitive advantage, by comparison, that could be the difference for multiple generations between gainful employment and dire poverty.

don't take a few people's experiences from decades ago as a good representation of modern children at large

Hardly that. It's simply that these directors are only catering to pre-existing consumer demand, and unless I'm missing something here, this doesn't particularly seem like a topic on which the consumer necessarily prefers to be lied to.

Admitting you don't know is better than using anecdotes from high school as evidence against 25% of the world population.

To which 25% are you referring?

Religious views should only be accommodated as far as they apply to believers. Just like how Christians shouldn't be able to force a Hindu to participate in communion, a religion against public nudity should not force a nudist non-believer to go against their beliefs.

So where do you draw the line?

If someone's religion tells them patients waiting on cures from embryonic stem cell research should be left to die instead of being saved by said research, is a violation of their religious liberties to use their tax dollars to fund said research?

If someone's religion tells them it's sacreligious to save a temple of a rival religion from burning down, is it a violation of their religious liberties to use their tax dollars to fund firefighting services that include rival religions' temples?

"Religous" beliefs deserve not a shred of special treatment. Not now, not ever.

Give an example that actually shows commitment to that cause.

Being naked in public doesn't show commitment either, so the point is moot. Even facing arrest for it (an aspect that will be removed if public nudity is legalized) doesn't prove one wasn't just naked in public out of sheer narcissism about showing off one's body. Nor does having a body they claim to consider unattractive prove they actually consider it unattractive.

Your other points just emphasize "lust happens," not that you can draw a connection between lust and public nudity. Your reliance on genetic reasoning also fails here, considering every wild animal except humans is nude.

They have less to lose from knocking her up. They didn't exactly have school to drop out of in the first place.

If you want to err on the side of caution, give some findings that actually apply to humans that support your points. What neither biological nor psychological finding have substantiated is a clear association with public nudity and increased lust.

It's entirely plausible that some clothed methods of showing off one's body are as lust-inducing as outright naked ones, but that would raise the question of why any and all criticisms of these clothed methods of showing off are dismissed as "slut shaming" by the same voting public that has, for now, not legalized public nudity. If popular opinion characterizes increasing strictness of dress codes as a slippery slope to Iran-level strictness, how come they don't characterize decreasing strictness thereof as a slippery slope to public nudity? Why does the public appear to have this very attitude to the balance they themselves struck in their capacity as voters? (Unless the prison industry has their thumb on the scale...)

Okay. Are you interested in giving an argument regarding hygenics?

Others are handling the hygenics argument, hence my focus on the other arguments. It would be redundant for me to elaborate on hygenics when others already have. I focus on the arguments others aren't already making.

Either way, yes, this is the mess you get into when assuming that anyone with any possible reason to lie will always lie in the most egregious way possible.

What's the alternative, taking people's word for everything, even absent safeguards against lying?

plenty of people would love to hear that humanity's close relatives are free-loving peaceful pan poly libertarians,

Seriously? Did you see the reaction my thread about bonobos got?

Considering that you've disregarded several of my points in the earlier post, do you care to address them now?

To which ones are you referring?

[Stellar Colonies]

...

plenty of people would love to hear that humanity's close relatives are free-loving peaceful pan poly libertarians,

Seriously? Did you see the reaction my thread about bonobos got?
...

You got those reactions because you were exhibiting a textbook case of internalized misandry and implying that humans should emulate them by normalizing orgies as a mainstream practice.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

...

Seriously? Did you see the reaction my thread about bonobos got?
...

You got those reactions because you were exhibiting a textbook case of internalized misandry and implying that humans should emulate them by normalizing orgies as a mainstream practice.

If they admired the "peaceful pan poly libertarians," the latter wouldn't be something to complain about, now would it?

As for the former, they had yet to offer an alternative explanation for why ordinary males have sex before they can afford kids and in so doing risk having to drop out and spend the rest of their lives in dire poverty. Much less for why they treat as unfathomable that a few among them don't consider it worth the risk. I give each of the sexes credit for their positive traits, and each of them flak for their negative ones. (This time around, I even proposed ways to turn that negative into a positive.) If everyone else can't handle the truth, that's on them.

[Moltian]

*Goes on adult website*
“Bro why is there Cock on my screen?????”

[El Lazaro]

*Goes on adult website*
“Bro why is there Cock on my screen?????”

13 year olds aren’t allowed to look at that stuff, it’s illegal

[Jubiloso]

*Goes on adult website*
“Bro why is there Cock on my screen?????”

13 year olds aren’t allowed to look at that stuff, it’s illegal

I need an adult.