The Politics of Nudity

[Arval Va]

And I doubt it's just a Canadian thing, from how much I see it in American pop culture.

What, you mean fictionalised accounts of high school life recounted by adults who last entered a school 60 years ago?

[Dreria]

if there was not so much fat people I would agree that we should be a bit more relaxed

[Heavenly Assault]

Nudity should be banned for health and for human decency.

Please explain why you feel this way.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And I doubt it's just a Canadian thing, from how much I see it in American pop culture.

What, you mean fictionalised accounts of high school life recounted by adults who last entered a school 60 years ago?

What does the number of years that have passed have to do with anything? Are you implying that only old people watch anything depicting high school, or are you implying the writers' views matter at all when they're just catering to consumer demand anyway?

Customer demand for sitcoms suggests customer demand for at least a kernel of truth to its portrayal. If they wanted full fledged fantasy they'd watch full fledged fantasy.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Re: an incident described in the article I cited (abridged for the sake of PG-13)

A young male named Kako was blocking a female named Leslie from crossing a branch, while both were crossing over it. Leslie pushed him, but Kako being inexperienced in climbing, dug in. Leslie then ganwed on his hand, and he still did not move. Finally, she used sexual contact to calm him, and they both moved forward.

Again, you cannot prove analogous things are not happening among human beings.

Bonobos don't use it with committed partners. They often use sexual contact with anyone before the risk of conflict over food or resources even emerges.

Someone doesn't have to be a committed partner to owe child support, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Just a clarification, considering you didn't seem to process the behaviour of bonobos I was describing, as outlined in that article.

I very specifically pointed out that even the NSA doesn't claim to have 24/7 surveillance of every dorm room. If you weren't sure where I was going with that, you should have asked.

Of course political polls can be influenced by public pressure, though I would say this generally exaggerates that risk; but political polls are irrelevant in determining what constitutes normal human behaviour. That's the realm of anthropology, archaeology, and psychology.

Each of which, like political science, boil down to human nature itself. What puts a question mark on incentives for honesty within these fields puts a question mark on incentives for honesty within the others.

[Arval Va]

What, you mean fictionalised accounts of high school life recounted by adults who last entered a school 60 years ago?

What does the number of years that have passed have to do with anything? Are you implying that only old people watch anything depicting high school, or are you implying the writers' views matter at all when they're just catering to consumer demand anyway?

Customer demand for sitcoms suggests customer demand for at least a kernel of truth to its portrayal. If they wanted full fledged fantasy they'd watch full fledged fantasy.

I'm saying that the standard for "teen movie" as made by major companies are very loosely based on the school environment of the American 60s and 70s. The depictions of "school politics" in these films are generally very outdated and fantastical. Also, how are sitcoms relevant here?

[Arval Va]

Re: an incident described in the article I cited (abridged for the sake of PG-13)

A young male named Kako was blocking a female named Leslie from crossing a branch, while both were crossing over it. Leslie pushed him, but Kako being inexperienced in climbing, dug in. Leslie then ganwed on his hand, and he still did not move. Finally, she used sexual contact to calm him, and they both moved forward.

Again, you cannot prove analogous things are not happening among human beings.

If you want to propose that an average human would have sex with another during a road dispute between them, the burden of proof is on you. If highway sex between angry motorists was as normal as you suggest, you wouldn't have to resort to "Well, you can't prove it doesn't happen sometimes in some unspecified location!"

Bonobos don't use it with committed partners. They often use sexual contact with anyone before the risk of conflict over food or resources even emerges.

Someone doesn't have to be a committed partner to owe child support, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Humans generally need to be in some sort of sexual or romantic relationship to have children together. What you fail to grasp here is that bonobos will use sexual contact as reconciliation with other bonobos just as humans might reconcile in speech or other gestures, with fellow community members; bonobos don't have that prerequisite of existing relationships of that type. The situations aren't really comparable.

Of course political polls can be influenced by public pressure, though I would say this generally exaggerates that risk; but political polls are irrelevant in determining what constitutes normal human behaviour. That's the realm of anthropology, archaeology, and psychology.

Each of which, like political science, boil down to human nature itself. What puts a question mark on incentives for honesty within these fields puts a question mark on incentives for honesty within the others.

Archaeologists don't interview bones. Unless, of course, you're arguing that peer review and academic consensus are non-entities, in which case we need to turn to philosophy. Considering your distaste for well-established scientific fields on the basis that people can lie, I doubt you'd enjoy that.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I'm saying that the standard for "teen movie" as made by major companies are very loosely based on the school environment of the American 60s and 70s.

If that differed from now, wouldn't there be demand from younger viewers for something more reflective of modern day?

If you want to propose that an average human would have sex with another during a road dispute between them, the burden of proof is on you.

No it isn't. The burden of justification is on those who seek to stray from the status quo.

The context of this conversation was whether or not humans could "de-sexualize" nudity. I pointed out that our evolutionary cousins are raging horndogs despite supposedly being accustomed to naked bodies. Even human beings risk ruining their whole lives by having sex before they're done school, much less can afford children as it is, and that's before we've normalized nudity. Given that risk, they haven't a leg to stand on in condemning road-rage-defusing public sex between strangers on the highway.

Humans generally need to be in some sort of sexual or romantic relationship to have children together.

No they don't. Any woman can impregnate herself off a random man and raise the kid herself with his child support money. If people really had a problem with that, they'd treat "he promised he'd stay" and "he didn't promise he'd stay" very differently for the purposes of how much of that money is owed by him and how much is owed by the state.

Archaeologists don't interview bones. Unless, of course, you're arguing that peer review and academic consensus are non-entities

False dichotomy. I'm arguing that the peer review process is just as beholden to the biases of the public that is funding one's peers as the original study was.

[Arval Va]

I'm saying that the standard for "teen movie" as made by major companies are very loosely based on the school environment of the American 60s and 70s.

If that differed from now, wouldn't there be demand from younger viewers for something more reflective of modern day?

Those films are frequently criticised for their lack of realism, yes. The genre of the traditional "teen movie" in general is waning.

If you want to propose that an average human would have sex with another during a road dispute between them, the burden of proof is on you.

No it isn't. The burden of justification is on those who seek to stray from the status quo.

You made a truth claim about the status quo. Substantiate it. I'm simply questioning your interpretation of what the status quo is.

The context of this conversation was whether or not humans could "de-sexualize" nudity. I pointed out that our evolutionary cousins are raging horndogs despite supposedly being accustomed to naked bodies. Even human beings risk ruining their whole lives by having sex before they're done school, much less can afford children as it is, and that's before we've normalized nudity. Given that risk, they haven't a leg to stand on in condemning road-rage-defusing public sex between strangers on the highway.

And my point here is that our evolutionary cousins (who actually diverged from chimps after us) don't engage in sex because of lust, but because it's an effective method of social cohesion for them. I personally don't like nudity, though I recognise a person's right to express themselves in that way; I just object to genetic reasoning in regard to human society. I don't think road-rage sex is somehow especially bad compared to other ways of expressing anger at motorists (as long as it's consensual), I'm just pointing out that it's highly uncommon and is not proven to be part of the human social status quo.

Humans generally need to be in some sort of sexual or romantic relationship to have children together.

No they don't. Any woman can impregnate herself off a random man and raise the kid herself with his child support money. If people really had a problem with that, they'd treat "he promised he'd stay" and "he didn't promise he'd stay" very differently for the purposes of how much of that money is owed by him and how much is owed by the state.

To "impregnate herself off a man" and get child support she first needs to be having sex with him. This is a specific relationship already requiring sex involved. A more accurate comparison to average bonobo use of sexual contact would be the examples provided in the article, which it should be noted that they don't have that prerequisite of sex. Like having an orgy with some minor acquaintances just so everybody gets in the mood to share the cake evenly, no lust involved.

Archaeologists don't interview bones. Unless, of course, you're arguing that peer review and academic consensus are non-entities

False dichotomy. I'm arguing that the peer review process is just as beholden to the biases of the public that is funding one's peers as the original study was.

That's effectively what you're saying. Taking a study's conclusions at face value without scrutinising its process is unwise, but to assume that academic peer reviewers are so dishonest as to invalidate the entire fields of archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, sociology, and psychology is plainly idiotic. If that is truly the case, then shouldn't biology be invalidated as well, and your genetic reasoning be put into equal question? If testable, repeatable psychological experiments like Skinner's box are invalid because peer reviewers all have a mob with pitchforks clamouring outside their offices, shouldn't biological findings about human nature be disregarded too?

[EuroStralia]

Nudity should be banned for health and for human decency.

Please explain why you feel this way.

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

[The Black Forrest]

Please explain why you feel this way.

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

Walking around clothed has the same chances.

[Jubiloso]

I wish I could be a nudist in real life. Alas though, I don't live close to any such nudist colonies, and I'll admit I have some concerns regarding the self-control of my male extremities. After all, I don't have any experience with being naked around other people. I also don't have a partner in real life, so even if I went to one, it would be done alone and likely be even more awkward. I suppose for now, my nudism will remain on the computer either through video games, or through NationStates issues and possibly future roleplays.

[EuroStralia]

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

Walking around clothed has the same chances.

Yes, but the possibility is reduced.

[Ethel mermania]

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

Walking around clothed has the same chances.

Not true, covering your butt keeps the pathogens away.

https://www.quora.com/Does-farting-spre ... -in-my-bed

.full disclosure: I am radically anti pants.

[EuroStralia]

Walking around clothed has the same chances.

.full disclosure: I am radically anti pants.

Why, what did pants ever do?

[Ethel mermania]

.full disclosure: I am radically anti pants.

Why, what did pants ever do?

To horrible to tell in these dark times.

[Heavenly Assault]

Please explain why you feel this way.

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

Right, that's the "health" part, now what about "decency"?

[Rary]

Walking around naked in big cities or rural towns leaves the most sensative parts of your body exposed with can cause damage or lead to infections.

Right, that's the "health" part, now what about "decency"?

I don’t think people would like to see a penis when going shopping.

[Ethel mermania]

Right, that's the "health" part, now what about "decency"?

I don’t think people would like to see a penis when going shopping.

If its a nice one, why not?

[Heavenly Assault]

Right, that's the "health" part, now what about "decency"?

I don’t think people would like to see a penis when going shopping.

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.

[The Holy Therns]

Right, that's the "health" part, now what about "decency"?

I don’t think people would like to see a penis when going shopping.

'Less that's what you're shopping for, I guess.

[Page]

I don’t think people would like to see a penis when going shopping.

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.

[Stellar Colonies]

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.

Prostitution, kissing, some drugs, toplessness, and most sexual fetishes.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Fundamentalism, adultery, pig meat, 10 million dollar homes, most drugs.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Those films are frequently criticised for their lack of realism, yes.

According to whom, and are we certain they don't have their own incentives to lie?

I'm under no illusion TV is right about everything, the question is simply what the alternative is.

And my point here is that our evolutionary cousins (who actually diverged from chimps after us) don't engage in sex because of lust, but because it's an effective method of social cohesion for them.

These two are not mutually exclusive. He wouldn't so easily forget his grudge against the girl who bit him for taking too long to cross a branch if his desire to make love to her didn't in the moment outweigh that grudge.

I personally don't like nudity, though I recognise a person's right to express themselves in that way

What exactly can one "say" via nudity that one cannot also "say" via other means?

I don't think road-rage sex is somehow especially bad compared to other ways of expressing anger at motorists (as long as it's consensual), I'm just pointing out that it's highly uncommon and is not proven to be part of the human social status quo.

I was not saying that was the status quo. I'm saying that prohibition of nudity was the status quo, and yet, even under present circumstances, it is also the status quo that the desire for sexual pleasure is intense enough to motivate at least one of the sexes to risk ruining their whole lives if she falls pregnant and keeps the baby. If you wish to legitimize public nudity and risk taking people's desire for sexual pleasure even further to lead to perhaps yet-unknown harms, it's on you to say it won't do more harm than good. For such purposes our uncertainty as to whether or not road rage sex is occurring is the point, not whether or not I can prove it is.

But yeah, I'm not going to take on faith that people who take that risk for such a myriad of reasons and various combinations thereof would consider defusing road rage a completely off limits reason.

That's effectively what you're saying. Taking a study's conclusions at face value without scrutinising its process is unwise, but to assume that academic peer reviewers are so dishonest as to invalidate the entire fields of archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, sociology, and psychology is plainly idiotic. If that is truly the case, then shouldn't biology be invalidated as well, and your genetic reasoning be put into equal question?

Biology is more so one of those "grey area" fields, given its ties with psychology through the medical sciences, but I would think the more directly medical side of biology has more incentive to get it right since they'd be in a lot more trouble for getting it wrong than for getting it right in a way that pisses the public off. Take anti-vaxxers. Frustrating as they are, even they don't get as pissed off over people disagreeing with them as people seem to over accusations that respondents are lying. (Well, depending on the survey and what respondents are saying, of course. For some survey results, the public will say "yeah, we think everyone else is lying too!") People are at least marginally closer to rational when the subject matter isn't as emotionally charged.

If testable, repeatable psychological experiments like Skinner's box are invalid because peer reviewers all have a mob with pitchforks clamouring outside their offices, shouldn't biological findings about human nature be disregarded too?

You don't need a mob with pitchforks outside their offices any more than teachers need a mob with pitchforks outside the school board office to scare them out of saying how they really feel about a particular habitually violent student. Public services being beholden to the public entails being beholden to their biases too.

Genetic reasoning isn't perfect, but at least it circumvents this.