Why is nudity still such a big deal in 2003? [Archive]

S.M.A.

11-04-2003, 06:45 PM

I'm not a philosopher, though I am an amateur observer of the human condition, so here goes:

There's always going to be an antagonistic force that tries to ruin everything. When someone attempts to do some good or enlightened, there is always the threat that someone or something will sabotage that particular effort. In the case of nudity, ignorant and closed-minded individuals will always be our most irritating obstacle.

Maybe someday, nudity will gain mainstream acceptance. For now, we should face any conflict that comes our way head-on, and hopefully, through thick and thin, we shall eventually succeed.

Griffin

11-04-2003, 07:18 PM

Surely, "Naked World," the newly released 80-minute documentary about photographer-artist Spencer Tunick that began showing Sunday Nov. 2 on HBO and has been shown across the various HBO channels since is a powerful and palatable look at the human body en masse. His globe-trotting photography, gettng as many as 4,000 people for a shoot of bodies in Melbourne, Australia, and notable assemblages and expanses of bodies in Montreal, Sao Paulo and London give casual, non-naturist viewers a wonderful, narrated examination of how natural the body is. The large still photos that eventually make art galleries are awesome. What adds to the power of the documentary are the many shoots of a single individual or a small group in poses that showcase the beauty, infinite variety and textures of bodies. Hope you get to see it. It is a great follow-up to Tunick's "Naked States" produced a couple years back in which he photographed nudes in all 50 states. We cannot underestimate how many will see either documentary and be disarmed of their objections about nudity -- or at least gain a new awareness and consciousness. Tunick is an important force, even if in the "Naked States" project when he photographed a naturist group at an Atlantic beach, many participants turn him off by being such obnoxious exhibitionists and not understanding his art intents.

Ren

11-04-2003, 07:35 PM

Any time something is different, ignorance will swat it down. It's an easy escape, because it allows one never to have to put deep thought into a subject. The Philippines and Pakistan would get mocked by closed-minded people who think the US is all that great, but those two countries have had women heads of state.

The US was built by Puritans who were too pious for England, learned to oppress natives of this land, believed any woman who wasn't staid to be a witch (killing them), brought slavery to the fore, leading to suppression of a people here for a couple hundred years, stole almost all the land from the Indians and took what they wanted from Mexico, suppressed women till the 1920s, chose prohibition for a while, granted civil rights just forty years ago after finding loopholes to suppress even more, and will not elect a President who isn't a WASP (no minorities, gays, Jewish/Muslim/Buddhists, 1 Catholic).

The only enlightenment in the US comes from the piles of theoretical gold that makes us rich. So, in our society, everything will be blown out of proportion to the issue at hand. And if it's different, it will be shot down.

We still have to discuss nudity in 2003 for the same reason we have to discuss anything that involves a freedom: no one wants to think or be logical.

If ignorance is bliss, why bother?

namedun

11-04-2003, 07:56 PM

That was way off topic, but I totally agree with you Ren. The US is one of the largest, most succesfull paradoxes of all time.The land of the free, who's "founding fathers" were all white protestant slave owners who just wanted to get away from paying English taxes.
Is it so surprising that in "the land of the free" one can be arrested, fined, jailed for excersising the most fundamental form of freedom (body freedom)?

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

11-05-2003, 04:40 AM

S.M.A

"I'm not a philosopher..."

That fact became evident when I read the rest of your posting.

"There's always going to be an antagonistic force that tries to ruin everything."

That's a distortion. The reality is that for every force for change there is a force working against that change. And this is how it should be because not every change is for the better.

"When someone attempts to do some good or enlightened, there is always the threat that someone or something will sabotage that particular effort".

Good for who? The change you want may be good for you and your particular interests but it certainly isn't good for me and those of my persuasion. And "enlightened"? About what? Your preference for engaging in social nudity is just that - a personal preference. The fact that my preference is to avoid nudity doesn't make you any more enlightened than me.

"In the case of nudity, ignorant and closed-minded individuals will always be our most irritating obstacle".

In other words you and those who agree with you are right and those who dare voice a contrary view are, by definition, ignorant and closed-minded. That attitude portrays the worst form of chauvinism and intolerence.

"Maybe someday, nudity will gain mainstream acceptance".

Maybe. And maybe not. Hopefully it won't.

"For now, we should face any conflict that comes our way head-on, and hopefully, through thick and thin, we shall eventually succeed."

There are plenty of us who don't share your dream and we too have voices and will be heard. As for eventually succeeding..dream on!

Griffin

Victoria artists painted nudes. Photographers have taken pictures of nudes since the inception of their art. Please don't confuse an acceptance of nudity portrayed in an artistic medium as a signal that most people will begin to accept nudity in public. They won't.

As for Mr Tunnick's work - I don't regard it as art at all. He just takes bizarre photographs and titilates interest (and media attention) by getting his subjects to be nude. I don't think most people would want his pictures in their homes. When the novelty wears off people will, I predict, lose interest in him.

namedun

"Is it so surprising that in "the land of the free" one can be arrested, fined, jailed for excersising the most fundamental form of freedom (body freedom)?"

That's because one man's freedom is another man's restriction. All laws are restrictions on freedom in one way or another.

Society doesn't stop you being naked - it just says that you shouldn't impose your nudity on others who prefer not to see it when in public. If that seems unreasonable then I'm sorry - I don't think it is.

Stu

soofreeemateomanian

11-05-2003, 08:56 AM

Namedun, you have no idea what you are talking about with the founding fathers thing. John adams had no slaves and risked his life for freedom. They could pay the taxes, but it was the principle. It was taxation without representation and as we pleaded they wouldn't stop. You should be more appreciative for them or you couldnt even sit in your house nude with the shades down without being arrested and hung. If the founding Fathers were so selfish, how come they didnt make themselves king and gotten all the money they wanted?

11-05-2003, 09:04 AM

"You should be more appreciative for them or you couldnt even sit in your house nude with the shades down without being arrested and hung."

Yeah! Here in Olde England if you sit in your house nude with the shades down you will be arrested and hung (or should it be hanged?). So there!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

soundman

11-05-2003, 09:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
...you shouldn't impose your nudity on others who prefer not to see it when in public.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay.
I prefer not to see you. You are imposing yourself on me just by being your clothing obsessed self.
Do I have a right not to see you and make to go away? Or should I just look the other way and let you be?

11-05-2003, 10:20 AM

soundman

If you can see me all the way from Bakersfield, CA, then you either have an extraordinarily powerful X-ray telescope, or you have secreted yourself somewhere in my private study.

Have you NO respect for my privacy? Shame on you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Stu

aunaturelone

11-05-2003, 04:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>and will not elect a President who isn't a WASP (no minorities, gays, Jewish/Muslim/Buddhists, 1 Catholic) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You missed Jefferson who wan't a Christian by any measure. In fact he created the "Jefferson Bible" which has all references to Christ's divinity deleted. He considered the Bible to be entirely history and phlilosophy.

Quite a number of the founders were not Christians in any practical sense although they would have all be born into Christian families. They subscribed to a branch of religious philosophy called Deism which holds that God does not interfere in the affairs of the material world and man has to figure out for himself the way to go.

Off hand, Franklin was another and Thomas Paine was an out and out atheist at times. I think there were some Unitarians - and one got elected president along the way - but I'm too lazy to do the research to find out who.

While we were nation of Christians and certainly the Ten Comandments were an important basis for our laws, we were never meant to be an officially Christian nation. Much of the thought behind the first amendment came from the excesses and abuses of the Puritans and the witch trials in New England.

BTW, the famous phrase, "wall of separation between church and state" came from a letter by President Jefferson to a local religious college. It isn't in the Constitution but is used as a guide to the intent of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment.

aunaturelone

11-05-2003, 04:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>John adams had no slaves and risked his life for freedom. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite right. The founders who were residents of Virginia and points south were usually slave holders since that was how one could accumulate wealtrh and influence. Not all however, and there were still southerners at this time who owned property and hired free blacks to do the labor. Those from the north were usually NOT slave holders, they were members of the new merchant class and most opposed slavery. John Adams, Sam Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Tom Paine, Paul Revere were all not slave holders and favored an abolitionist stance.

All slaves who fought in the revolution on the colonists side were given manumission. They then were able to work to buy their families out of slavery.

Many, like Jefferson, who did own slaves bitterly regretted it later in life. They knew it was wrong, they knew it was a cancer on the United States but they were weak. Some freed their slaves (like Franklin) and repented while some (like Washington and Jefferson) didn't.

The issue of slavery very nearly scuttled the new republic before it even got started. Ben Franklin raised the abolition of slavery during the constitutional convention and only his death prevented a fight that could have led to the disintegration of the union almost as soon as it had started.

I don't believe anybody had a profit motive in fomenting a revolution since most leaders were rich to begin with. It was entirely ideology and a desire for self determination. The people were ready for a change and the revolution almost created itself. Attempting to seize the guns of the colonists at Concord and Lexington was just the last straw.

Most of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence lost everything they owned and many lost their lives but none lost their sacred honor.

Trailscout

11-05-2003, 05:21 PM

Still_Boreas,

Your opening comment is a very astute one and has not been successfully refuted by our opponents.

We see ourselves nude daily and do not object.
We are nude and among nude people of our own gender as we undress in locker rooms.
Couples are frequently nude in the privacy of their home.
We see our children nude when we bathe them.
Doctors, nurses, and many artists see nude people on a regular basis.
Nude photographs, nude sculpture, and paintings of nude figures abound in art galleries, books and the media and few if any object.

With all these instances of acceptable nudity and depictions of nudity, one simply cannot blanketly assert that nudity is objectionable.

It is very difficult to explain why we regard nudity as good, beautiful and wholesome in many situations, but not at the beach, where as you say, nudity is nearly achieved in today's minimal swimwear.

Bob S.

11-05-2003, 06:20 PM

The Founding Fathers had their good qualities as well as their bad.

"You should be more appreciative for them or you couldnt even sit in your house nude with the shades down without being arrested and hung"

Ever been to Arkansas? You may not be hung, but just don't let their be anyone else in your house other than your immediate family while you are naked or you are a criminal.

"Off hand, Franklin was another and Thomas Paine was an out and out atheist at times. I think there were some Unitarians - and one got elected president along the way - but I'm too lazy to do the research to find out who."

Both Adams, Filmore, and Taft were Unitarians. We have even had 2 Quakers; Hoover and Nixon.

And Boreas, I also do wonder why nudity is regarded as so much more taboo than any other topic.

Bob S.

johny

11-05-2003, 10:33 PM

RE: Trailscout
""""It is very difficult to explain why we regard nudity as good, beautiful and wholesome in many situations, but not at the beach""""

Perhaps due a two dogmatic standpoints we overgrew:

1)textilers dont learned the "body acceptance" paradigm, so they are aware about their own body dont pass a slim bone-chamber status with "high chassi" and "plank-like breasts" from fashion editions (which we know are heavely controlled by most perverted of homosexuals, as most of high-fashion designers are, sadly to cach a fact).

So they are deadly afraid someone may laugh about their shape. Really laughful fear, You know /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

2)textilers have learned that public places are too little controlled by police and general public is unable to organizing themself to make a sel-defence structures, and still world is full of perverts as gawkers, shakers, exhibicionists, rapers etc damn brainless people-seem like creatures. So they think those creatures may be somehow "provocated" by nudity.

Of course it is one of most satanic lies, for fashion lingery may happen more sexy as simple nakedness, but those perverts really are hunting the nakedness, I know it well, we here smear them noses each day in the c/o beach perimeter, but each other day they come again with their telescopes and cameras and "heroically" overstep their deadly fear of pain and blood. It shows that the magnetism is too far stronger as fear from become clapped.

The same persons (and law against them is absolutely teethless as newborn mouth), I quess, they have very low selfesteem as a core of own problem, so they cannot to date with a woman in the normal way so all they have rest in their beggarly lifes is to cach a "daily wood" from that dirty spionage (one of them here often comes to gawk with widely open jeans and that allways cause him problem to bunk when we attach him /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

So they are at least one important reason why textilers afraid to undress, while we have a open war against them and therefore feel in safeness in our supervised places.

11-06-2003, 07:24 AM

johny

I agree with everything you said (I think /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif )

Stu

Fresh Air

11-07-2003, 09:23 AM

Throughout history the rules a society lives by are built up behind them. What we are today is just a byproduct of choices made in the past. There is no way to pinpoint what caused us to be how we are, there are too many factors. We can just accept where we are now and try to move the future in the direction we desire.

I'm just happy that we can have the nude freedom we do have. Other countries are not so lucky.

Fresh Air

aunaturelone

11-07-2003, 09:47 AM

I was watching the Travel Channel last night. Two episodes in a row, showing three African and one South American tribe. All showed complete fromntal nudity of adults of both genders. There was just a brief and easily missed warning at the very beginning indicated the following show contained nudity. Which is fine except....

When the Travel Channel does their shows involving nude recreation the people are all carefully positioned as not to show nipples or genitals or too much bottom. The difference of course is that the people in the former are nonwhites while the people in the latter are mostly white. We have an obvious case of National Geographic style racism here.

Why is the Travel Channel obviously racially bigoted against Caucasians? I think we need to launch a letter writing campaign, maybe even a boycott, to point out to them the error of their ways.

DoubleRK

11-07-2003, 10:59 AM

I believe it's more of a "civilized" thing rather than racial. Those tribes are "primitave" and therefore not subject to the same "rules" that apply to "civilized" people.

I was watching Fox News today and they showed a photo that had a full frontal nude painting on the wall behind the subject of photo and made no attempt to hide any part of the painting, HOWEVER, they would NOT show any "exposed" parts of the SUBJECT without pixilating the "privite parts." I guess their idea being the model who posed for the painting was assumed to be long dead while the model for the photo was still alive. Now what difference THAT makes I have no idea, but that's the only reason I can come up with to show a full frontal nude painting IN a photo while not showing any nudity in the PHOTO itself... does anyone understand what I just said??? If so, please explain it to me... lol

namedun

11-07-2003, 11:29 AM

What's sad is that this society is no better than those "primitive" tribes. In fact, in the long run, those "primitive" tribes have been around longer (about twenty times longer) than "modern" society's, and if our culture only collapses (and it will) and doesn't destroy the world doing it, these "primitive" tribes will be the people that come through it all without any other significant threats to survival.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DoubleRK

11-07-2003, 11:47 AM

I'm afraid you are right there, on our current path it's not a matter of "IF", only of when. I doubt if it will happen in our lifetime or even our childrens lifetime, but I have no doubt the course we are on now will lead to collapse. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Boreas

11-07-2003, 03:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by namedun:
What's sad is that this society is no better than those "primitive" tribes. In fact, in the long run, those "primitive" tribes have been around longer (about twenty times longer) than "modern" society's, and if our culture only collapses (and it will) and doesn't destroy the world doing it, these "primitive" tribes will be the people that come through it all without any other significant threats to survival.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Somedays I do think that too. Then I see things like peace marches and the like. The fact that we do see a bit more nudity on TV without fanfare suggests that things may be changing. At one time it was unthought of to allow women, people of colour or native people to vote. Now it would be unheard of not to let them vote. We are exposing the very awful things some police forces (ie Saskatoon) are doing to aboringinal men....and speaking out against it. That tells me our society is improving. Perhaps we need a little chaos and conflict first?

I believe we can be a force for positive change if we choose. Maybe someday a person can be nude in their own backyard without getting flack.

BTW how is London these days. That is my home town! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aunaturelone

11-07-2003, 07:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I believe it's more of a "civilized" thing rather than racial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not completely sure about that but since there are no longer any "primitive" caucasians around and since extremely few modern "people of color" are to be found at the major nude beaches, I can't prove it. But whether it is racial or whether it is cultural, it is a form of prejudice.

namedun

11-07-2003, 07:47 PM

Boreas, speaking in a manner that sujests our society really isn't going to destroy itself and take the world out with it, a little chaos and conflict is exactly what Canada needs. Our freaken government system is full of corruption and in my opinion is ignoring the wants of most of the citizens of Canada.
Representative democracy has turned into a joke, where people vote not for governement officials who will represent their preferences for the way our society is governed. Rather, they vote for some faceless name who happens to belong to the political party that the individual believes will be the least likely to screw the country over financially.
I heard a quote once "a little anarchy now and then isn't so bad; keeps our politicians on their toes"

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

namedun

11-07-2003, 08:01 PM

As for the whole bashing ye olde america thing, I've got more points:
Britain abolished and soon after outlawed slavery long before the civil war, which as any historian will tell you was not even fought mainly for the whole emancipation deal (especially in the south).
Will someone please look into the matter of the founding fathers not all being rich white guys? I could have sworn that every time I went to any of thier houses that, relative to the wealth of America at the time, They were living like Kings back then!
You're founding fathers liked to talk, and it's obvious that they wanted to be remembered as all-around good guys. Some of them deserved their fame, but surely you must admit that despite all the freedom dogma, none of it was fully implemented until long after these men were long dead.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RIVERRAT

11-07-2003, 10:58 PM

most of the posts here in this topic, Have nothing to do with being naked, this day and age, I have walked and mowed my back yard nude, I don't know if it was legal I wasn't arrested, I know many people saw me as I'm at the parking lot for our arena. I wish for the time when I can walk downtown and go to the bank nude, I've been in my front yard nude, though a little more careful than the back, I would love to able to go out and hang my flag nude, wave to the neighbors nude, to mow the front lawn nude, though I have come close, I don't want to cause an accident but would like to do things free of clothes. I Guess the world will never accept total nude freedom, but think about the problems it would solve, rapes, and other clothing related problems, someone mentioned small bathing suits and the like, what about the so called sexy stars, if we were all aloud to be nude, what would that mater. oh well thats just me.

BareInBare

11-08-2003, 04:46 AM

The time has come...we need to put a nudist in the White House. Hey, maybe it would be a start...LOL

Naturist Mark

11-08-2003, 05:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JerseyNudist:
The time has come...we need to put a nudist in the White House. Hey, maybe it would be a start...LOL <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know we haven't already had one? John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were avid skinnydippers. Probably not the only ones.

Johnson even went skinnydipping in the the White House pool with evangelist Billy Graham.

-Mark

fns

11-08-2003, 09:28 AM

There was mention of primitive tribes, and the fact that some still spend time nude. We all descended ( or ascended if you prefer ) from primitive behaviour. If our modern societies were to lose their conveniences, like electricity, etc., who would be more likely to survive? I would bet on the more primitive cultures. They still know how to survive without all the so called improvements the rest of us take for granted. Seems we may be able to learn something from them, they have held onto a wisdom that allows them to survive, so maybe casual nudity isn't so farfetched an idea?