Concerns Regarding Clothing

[twocows]

I don't care what people dress like as long as it matches the setting. If you're in public, I expect that your private parts won't be dangling out for the world to see (which is against the law, by the way). Past that, I don't really care.

As for whether people should dress a certain way to avoid sexual assault, I think a more reliable method for preventing sexual assault (or any kind of assault) would be to learn self-defense and carry a defensive weapon like pepper spray. Dressing a certain way isn't really a good defense against much of anything.

 

[Dakotah]

I don't care what people dress like as long as it matches the setting.

Does the dress necessarily have to match the setting? Some people are comfortable in overcoats, despite it being so very hot and humid. Some people prefer to bear their midriff, even at work if the dress code permits. How we dress is a very personal preference. So long as decency laws are being adhered to, and there is no formal dress code, people should wear what they feel is most comfortable for them.

If you're in public, I expect that your private parts won't be dangling out for the world to see (which is against the law, by the way). Past that, I don't really care.

Nudity, actually, is one of the oldest forms of protests we humans have engaged in, and is actually not criminalized (as evidenced by the numerous World Naked Bike Ride events that take place in about 17 countries, from the United States to United Kingdom and Hungary to Paraguay, every year). It's one of the reason why when going to a Pride parade you will often find some participants doing just that. Participants are not arrested, ticketed, or cautioned by police, but in fact the events are sanctioned and protected by the police.

But also, there are places in public where being nude is totally acceptable, such as at a public nude beach or gated communities which are clothing optional, or even parks which are clothing optional. Here where I live, women do not have to wear a top at all if they don't wish. And some of them have indeed gone topless, just like the men have.

As for whether people should dress a certain way to avoid sexual assault, I think a more reliable method for preventing sexual assault (or any kind of assault) would be to learn self-defense and carry a defensive weapon like pepper spray. Dressing a certain way isn't really a good defense against much of anything.

I think an even more reliable method for preventing sexual assault is teaching our children right from wrong better. So much of the violence that goes on around us is because these values haven't been effectively taught to our children. We think we've done right by them, but we completely miss the signs that prove otherwise. We have to be ever vigilant.

A sexual assault occurs not because of the way a person dresses, but rather because the attacker gets pleasure from controlling and causing fear and pain in another person. It's selfish greed in its primal form.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Does the dress necessarily have to match the setting? Some people are comfortable in overcoats, despite it being so very hot and humid. Some people prefer to bear their midriff, even at work if the dress code permits. How we dress is a very personal preference. So long as decency laws are being adhered to, and there is no formal dress code, people should wear what they feel is most comfortable for them.

Dress is a lot more than just what you're wearing. There is a social context to dress. Dress says a lot about who you are as a person to others, not just in terms of choices, but also in terms of personality and professionalism. If you are in a private conference held by private individuals, they have every right to choose how they want their guests to dress. Of course, the public world doesn't fit this description, but there are many circumstances where someone does have the right to dictate how you dress.

Honestly, if you believe that clothes are just clothes, then why do many people who try to argue this try to fight against people wearing Native American headdresses (not saying you specifically but it's something I see a lot)? It's hypocritical to say that clothes only have cultural significance when it's convenient. NA's typically don't agree with people wearing such headdresses because it says things that are conflicting, because the headgear has it's own message and significance. All clothes have cultural significance. And that's why it's important to consider the cultural significance of the message that you're saying with the clothes that you wear.

The reason why it is reasonable to allow dress codes in private institutions, organizations run by individuals, or meetings, such as workplaces or parties, is because they allow you to be there under their rules. If you break their rules, you break the contract that allows you to be there, and you cannot remain there. Places where dress codes are mandatory make it clear what the person running the event or organization deems acceptable and unacceptable. It is in terms with what the person allowing you to participate in the first place wants - and they have every right to evict you for breaking their rules. Sure, you can be allowed to protest - but they are also allowed to kick you out.


I don't think dress necessarily causes sexual assault. Our clothes have been getting more and more skimpy as years have gone by, but sexual assault cases per population have actually been going down. Personally, I wish that teens wouldn't dress so scantily, and yes, I do believe that school dress policies override their personal rights because again, a school is run by individuals, but really, the real reason is because when you wear clothes like that, you are saying something about yourself that either these children may not be aware of or may not be aware of the consequences of wearing such clothing. The clothes are specifically designed to sexualize and people will treat people who wear clothes designed to sexualize as people who are attempting to sexualize themselves.

I think that in public that the majority opinion rules, and if that opinion is "we don't want to see your junk", then that's that. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "sexuality" or "sexual assault" or anything; it has to do more with that people think that weiners are gross and hell, they do spit out some pretty gross things. So do lady bits. So eh. Me? I think women should be allowed to be topless at least, although I don't really care for public nudity, but that's my personal opinion. I'd rather have the majority of people's opinions come together since it's an issue that doesn't really cause that many problems outside of a pompous few who feel that they don't want to follow the rules. I'm willing to bet that 95% of people who refuse to wear proper clothes do so out of refusal and not out of inability to obtain clothes.

 

[Oryx]

Personally, I wish that teens wouldn't dress so scantily, and yes, I do believe that school dress policies override their personal rights because again, a school is run by individuals, but really, the real reason is because when you wear clothes like that, you are saying something about yourself that either these children may not be aware of or may not be aware of the consequences of wearing such clothing. The clothes are specifically designed to sexualize and people will treat people who wear clothes designed to sexualize as people who are attempting to sexualize themselves.

I think that in public that the majority opinion rules, and if that opinion is "we don't want to see your junk", then that's that. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "sexuality" or "sexual assault" or anything; it has to do more with that people think that weiners are gross and hell, they do spit out some pretty gross things. So do lady bits. So eh. Me? I think women should be allowed to be topless at least, although I don't really care for public nudity, but that's my personal opinion. I'd rather have the majority of people's opinions come together since it's an issue that doesn't really cause that many problems outside of a pompous few who feel that they don't want to follow the rules. I'm willing to bet that 95% of people who refuse to wear proper clothes do so out of refusal and not out of inability to obtain clothes.

Two points: I don't think it makes sense to say "the school is run by individuals so it's private". So is the government, therefore the government is a private entity? If you're required by law to go to a place that is entirely funded by the government, then it's a public place. Public schools are called public schools because....they're public. There are many arguments that can be made as to why schools have the right to apply a dress code to their students, but "they're private" isn't one of them.

My other point is that our country is designed not to be majority rules, but for freedom for everyone. If every right-handed person wanted to enslave left-handed people, even though it would be a majority, it would be struck down because no human beings are allowed to be enslaved in America, even if the majority wants it. With that in mind, it seems strange to say "if you are in the minority, doing something that doesn't harm anyone, you still can't do it if the majority would prefer not to see you doing it." My mouth spits out gross things as well, as does my nose, as do my armpits at times, but none of them are banned; this is a ban not based on health reasons, but based on cultural norms socialized into us from the second our parents refuse to let us run around naked outside. People think it's gross because we were raised to think it's gross, nothing to do with reasons like "gross things come out of it sometimes".

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

My other point is that our country is designed not to be majority rules, but for freedom for everyone. If every right-handed person wanted to enslave left-handed people, even though it would be a majority, it would be struck down because no human beings are allowed to be enslaved in America, even if the majority wants it. With that in mind, it seems strange to say "if you are in the minority, doing something that doesn't harm anyone, you still can't do it if the majority would prefer not to see you doing it." My mouth spits out gross things as well, as does my nose, as do my armpits at times, but none of them are banned; this is a ban not based on health reasons, but based on cultural norms socialized into us from the second our parents refuse to let us run around naked outside. People think it's gross because we were raised to think it's gross, nothing to do with reasons like "gross things come out of it sometimes".

This actually isn't true. The country has evolved through a balance of majority rule and minority rights. The reason why is because sometimes minority rights are not able to be compensated at a certain time (such as refusing blind people driver's licenses) or because they represent something that would either harm others or be a waste of resources (such as claiming that girls require more time in school because they are a minority). The reason why many (radical) minority protests are scoffed at are not necessarily because of oppression but because ignoring the entirety of a system for one small group's own personal benefit is not beneficial to society and actually can hurt it in the long run, depending on how radical the change is.

The right to be naked in public is, at most, a dubious right. There is little need to be nude in public. If you don't have clothes, there are places where you can get something to cover your back. Most people who go nude in public do not do it out of necessity, they do it out of rebellion. Focus on such a subject actually harms other very real disparities that happen every day, by shifting focus away from them for something that, for all practical purposes, is useless. There is no reasonable reason to make public nudity outside of specified areas a "right" because the lack of it does not 1) oppress anyone, in the sense of making their lives worse due to society, 2) is not needed, and 3) an extremely high majority of people agree that at best it is unnecessary.

If every right-handed person wanted to enslave left-handed people, even though it would be a majority, it would be struck down because no human beings are allowed to be enslaved in America, even if the majority wants it.

This is a horrible analogy. Can you explain to me how enslaving people can even be compared to being allowed to not wear clothes? You're practically trivializing slavery with such an outrageous comparison.

With that in mind, it seems strange to say "if you are in the minority, doing something that doesn't harm anyone, you still can't do it if the majority would prefer not to see you doing it."

First off, your analogy clearly does harm someone, it harms people who are left handed. Not allowing people to go nude is not harming anyone.

Second, the majority has power in this situation due to the fact that preventing public nudity literally harms zero people. There is no reason to even beginning to advocate for something like this. The fact that the majority is offended by such a display holds far more credence to something that would have a neutral effect on society at best, and at worst, you are harming the majority because they do not like it.

My mouth spits out gross things as well, as does my nose, as do my armpits at times, but none of them are banned; this is a ban not based on health reasons, but based on cultural norms socialized into us from the second our parents refuse to let us run around naked outside.

There are actually social restrictions on how you can use your mouth, nose and armpits. By going against these social restrictions in extreme situations you can even get charged with a civil, or even criminal, violation.

People think it's gross because we were raised to think it's gross, nothing to do with reasons like "gross things come out of it sometimes".

So? What benefit does revoking bans on public nudity do for anyone? The fact that it makes most people uncomfortable, regardless of origins, in addition to the fact that lifting the ban would not stop any sort of oppression in the slightest implies that not only is it a waste of people's time, but you are going against the majority's lack of wanting to see people buck naked on the street. In a way, that's actually oppression too - regardless of what they were raised to believe. It's like saying that because some people that are raised as Christians and have certain beliefs that may conflict with science, that they should have equal time to discuss these things in competition with science. The majority of people would disagree with this idea completely, regardless of the first ammendment.

 

[Dakotah]

First off, your analogy clearly does harm someone, it harms people who are left handed. Not allowing people to go nude is not harming anyone.

And suppose there is a person (and I'm sure there is) who is allergic to cloth touching their skin (including bed sheets). Clearly this is a medical issue, and current U.S. law forbids discrimination against people due to their illnesses, of which an allergy is. So, in this case should such a person be physically restricted to their own residence, never to be allowed outside to interact with others, never to shop, never to go on vacation someplace, never to enjoy a public beach or park?

There are actually social restrictions on how you can use your mouth, nose and armpits. By going against these social restrictions in extreme situations you can even get charged with a civil, or even criminal, violation.

Kissing in public is allowed. So is spitting. Eating in public is also permitted. Swearing is permitted. In fact, about the only thing about your mouth that is prohibited is engaging in oral sex in public, but even there, there are some exceptions. What exactly about your mouth do you suggest is prohibited?

And what about your nose? You're not prohibited from letting your nose drip. You can blow it any time. You can even sneeze which involves your mouth as well! Again, about the only thing you're not allowed to do is use your nose in an overtly sexual way, and even there there are exceptions.

And armpits. Oh boy. Human being sweat. We do this to cool our bodies down. The drawback to this sweat forming on various parts of our bodies is that it winds up smelling. But, as has been pointed out before, no law in the U.S. protects someone from being offended. So smelling bad is not something that can even remotely be prohibited. You don't want to shower, don't. You might not make many friends, but hey, if you like the way your BO smells, all the power to you. And certainly you can't make illegal someone using their arm pits to create rude noises.

 

[Oryx]

This actually isn't true. The country has evolved through a balance of majority rule and minority rights. The reason why is because sometimes minority rights are not able to be compensated at a certain time (such as refusing blind people driver's licenses) or because they represent something that would either harm others or be a waste of resources (such as claiming that girls require more time in school because they are a minority). The reason why many (radical) minority protests are scoffed at are not necessarily because of oppression but because ignoring the entirety of a system for one small group's own personal benefit is not beneficial to society and actually can hurt it in the long run, depending on how radical the change is.

I agree, if something that a minority wants harms another person then the person harmed should be taken into consideration. Nudity does not harm anyone so this point is irrelevant. There are no resources to waste, other than a one-time time cost on the part of Congress which to be honest they're doing nothing anyway at this point.

The right to be naked in public is, at most, a dubious right. There is little need to be nude in public. If you don't have clothes, there are places where you can get something to cover your back. Most people who go nude in public do not do it out of necessity, they do it out of rebellion. Focus on such a subject actually harms other very real disparities that happen every day, by shifting focus away from them for something that, for all practical purposes, is useless. There is no reasonable reason to make public nudity outside of specified areas a "right" because the lack of it does not 1) oppress anyone, in the sense of making their lives worse due to society, 2) is not needed, and 3) an extremely high majority of people agree that at best it is unnecessary.

I never said it was a right at all. It's not a right. That being said, there's very little need for a lot of things that are legal - there's very little need for motorcycles. People don't generally ride motorcycles out of necessity, but out of want. That doesn't mean we should ignore motorcycle safety because it's not a right and people can just stop riding motorcycles and we have more important things to worry about.

This is a horrible analogy. Can you explain to me how enslaving people can even be compared to being allowed to not wear clothes? You're practically trivializing slavery with such an outrageous comparison.

This is a debate tactic. I'll explain it to you: you said clothing laws in public should apply to what the majority wants. I gave an extreme example of when what the majority wants is not necessarily a good thing. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is that just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it's a good thing for everyone.

First off, your analogy clearly does harm someone, it harms people who are left handed. Not allowing people to go nude is not harming anyone.

It's harming the people that would prefer to be nude by not allowing them to be nude. Basically, you have two minor harms here: the discomfort of the people who might see the person nude, and the discomfort of the person who might wish to go nude. In my estimation, these are probably about equal amounts of discomfort (give or take a bit from person to person). Therefore, we should err on the side of more freedom.

Second, the majority has power in this situation due to the fact that preventing public nudity literally harms zero people. There is no reason to even beginning to advocate for something like this. The fact that the majority is offended by such a display holds far more credence to something that would have a neutral effect on society at best, and at worst, you are harming the majority because they do not like it.

It's quite convenient that the you seem to see the discomfort of a group that you can't empathize with as "neutral" and "harm[ing] zero people" while the people who can literally walk away or avert their eyes with minimal muscle movement to avoid the sight they don't wish to see are so upset that they should always be catered to. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that you relate to one group and find the other abhorrent? Hmmmmm.

There are actually social restrictions on how you can use your mouth, nose and armpits. By going against these social restrictions in extreme situations you can even get charged with a civil, or even criminal, violation.

Okay, I'm down for "if you use your genitals improperly in extreme situations while nude you can get charged with a civil or criminal violation." :) Sounds good to me!

So? What benefit does revoking bans on public nudity do for anyone? The fact that it makes most people uncomfortable, regardless of origins, in addition to the fact that lifting the ban would not stop any sort of oppression in the slightest implies that not only is it a waste of people's time, but you are going against the majority's lack of wanting to see people buck naked on the street. In a way, that's actually oppression too - regardless of what they were raised to believe. It's like saying that because some people that are raised as Christians and have certain beliefs that may conflict with science, that they should have equal time to discuss these things in competition with science. The majority of people would disagree with this idea completely, regardless of the first ammendment.

Why do you keep acting as if I think nudists are oppressed, and why are you acting as if the only reason to make a law is to protect someone oppressed? That's not the case at all. Your example of Christianity is irrelevant, because people are allowed to speak about their beliefs in competition with science. You can walk into a public museum and talk about how it's all fake all you want!

People are so pro-freedom until it comes to something that makes them uncomfortable. Then they suddenly become incredibly restrictive. Logic, guys!

For the record: seeing someone nude in public would make me uncomfortable too. I just recognize that while if I'm uncomfortable I can avert my eyes, if they're uncomfortable in clothing they can't just avert their sense of touch every second they're out. You'll have to back up this claim you've made that it's not a comfort issue and is in fact a rebellion issue if you want it to hold any credence.

 

[twocows]

Does the dress necessarily have to match the setting? Some people are comfortable in overcoats, despite it being so very hot and humid. Some people prefer to bear their midriff, even at work if the dress code permits. How we dress is a very personal preference. So long as decency laws are being adhered to, and there is no formal dress code, people should wear what they feel is most comfortable for them.

What I meant was that society expects certain kinds of dress in certain settings, and if you run afoul of those expectations, you're liable to tick people off or run into problems. If you really want to dress in a tank top and pink shorts that say "kiss me" on the butt at your job interview, be my guest, but good luck getting hired. Likewise, nothing's stopping you from wearing a shirt that, for example, implies something really awful about the people around you out in public, but you shouldn't be too surprised if someone complains (or worse).

You can talk about ignoring society's expectations all you want, the fact is that while most people don't care about most things you might wear in most situations, there are still limits and if you break those limits, you're likely to cause problems.

Nudity, actually, is one of the oldest forms of protests we humans have engaged in, and is actually not criminalized (as evidenced by the numerous World Naked Bike Ride events that take place in about 17 countries, from the United States to United Kingdom and Hungary to Paraguay, every year).

Michigan has obscenity laws and laws about lewd and lascivious conduct, and it also specifically allows townships to enact ordinances outright forbidding public nudity. Most public displays of nudity are banned under obscenity laws, as far as I understand. Nudity that can justifiably be deemed a form of political speech is likely exempt. However, I am not a lawyer, so I might be wrong.

I do know if that you go nude in a public place in Michigan and it's not as part of a protest or something, you're going to be arrested for creating a disturbance at the very least.

The rest of what you said about this completely and utterly misses the point, which was (again) that different social contexts have different expectations of behavior and dress. Being out in public has a somewhat low expectation but it's still expected you're not going to be completely naked. Being in a job interview has a high expectation. Being at a nude beach has no expectation. That's what I was saying.

I think an even more reliable method for preventing sexual assault is teaching our children right from wrong better. So much of the violence that goes on around us is because these values haven't been effectively taught to our children. We think we've done right by them, but we completely miss the signs that prove otherwise. We have to be ever vigilant.

A sexual assault occurs not because of the way a person dresses, but rather because the attacker gets pleasure from controlling and causing fear and pain in another person. It's selfish greed in its primal form.

I hardly think that most sexual assaults arise from people being ignorant of the ethical implications. However, even if we assume that what you said is absolutely true (and that's quite a leap), that won't help anyone here and now. Self-defense will, and not just in sexual assault cases; it helps in any kind of assault, like a barroom fight for example. It's not something anyone needs to learn or should be expected to learn, it's just a helpful thing to know that people would benefit from learning. Like CPR, for example.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I never said it was a right at all. It's not a right. That being said, there's very little need for a lot of things that are legal - there's very little need for motorcycles. People don't generally ride motorcycles out of necessity, but out of want. That doesn't mean we should ignore motorcycle safety because it's not a right and people can just stop riding motorcycles and we have more important things to worry about.

However, it is important to recall that again, in society, people do find it offensive. Most people do not find motorcycles in of themselves offensive. However, if you made your motorcycle so loud that people didn't like it, you could also get a civil infraction for that.

This is a debate tactic. I'll explain it to you: you said clothing laws in public should apply to what the majority wants. I gave an extreme example of when what the majority wants is not necessarily a good thing. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is that just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it's a good thing for everyone.

A debate tactic does not work if it is ineffective, especially if it relies on a logical fallacy (in your case, a false analogy) to work. It is perfectly reasonable to question other people's tactics. Your extreme example is completely unnecessary and does nothing to actually prove anything. You don't need to explain anything. I understand what you tried to do. It didn't work because it has no relevance to the discussion and it was a terrible analogy.

Later in your post you even attack one of my "tactics". I guess addressing problems in the opponent's discussion is okay, as long as the opponent isn't doing it back.

It's harming the people that would prefer to be nude by not allowing them to be nude. Basically, you have two minor harms here: the discomfort of the people who might see the person nude, and the discomfort of the person who might wish to go nude. In my estimation, these are probably about equal amounts of discomfort (give or take a bit from person to person). Therefore, we should err on the side of more freedom.

• Almost all people would rather not be nude, protest excluded. This is not just because of norms of society, although it does play a big part of it - it is also because in most conditions clothes are more desirable than being nude.
• The harm of someone becoming uncomfortable from being nude is far greater than someone wanting to be nude. There are almost no circumstances in western society where being nude is more beneficial than being clothed. In fact, there are many situations physically which being clothed would be preferred.
• The level of discomfort is likely not equal because while exposing oneself is a choice, being exposed to is not a choice.
• "Erring on the side of caution" is not saying that two possibilities exist and we must go with the more individualistic one. Erring on the side of caution is taking into consideration the entire situation, in which most people disagree with it and the few who do agree do not find it necessary, thus "erring on the side of caution" would actually be to not permit it.

It's quite convenient that the you seem to see the discomfort of a group that you can't empathize with as "neutral" and "harm[ing] zero people" while the people who can literally walk away or avert their eyes with minimal muscle movement to avoid the sight they don't wish to see are so upset that they should always be catered to. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that you relate to one group and find the other abhorrent? Hmmmmm.

It is not that I do not sympathize with them, necessarily, it is that this group of people is an extremely small group of people who's wants are actively disrupting the community. Erasing the social context and the opinions of pretty much most people in a community because of the fact that you have an opinion means that you do not care about anyone other than yourself. In a way, the unsympathetic ones here are the ones trying to impose something that clearly most people do not agree with that does directly affect their lives.

Not only this, but the community already provides quite a few options for people who still want to be nude in public to satisfy this extremely small minority.

Why do you keep acting as if I think nudists are oppressed, and why are you acting as if the only reason to make a law is to protect someone oppressed? That's not the case at all. Your example of Christianity is irrelevant, because people are allowed to speak about their beliefs in competition with science. You can walk into a public museum and talk about how it's all fake all you want!

Nudists are not oppressed. The people in this thread, multiple times, imply that they are, based on the way that they should be discussing their rights. Even in your post that I'm quoting, you imply this:

It's harming the people that would prefer to be nude by not allowing them to be nude.

You cannot paint people to be oppressed for your argument and then turn around and claim that other people are acting like they are when you are called out. You are essentially saying that nudists are oppressed by society for not being allowed to be nude.

However, even if we go with that assumption, as silly as it is, their requests would still be deemed unreasonable. Public nudity is a choice of the person being nude, but is not a choice for the people who are exposed to that person's nudity. With similar logic, you can argue that people who have loud subwoofers on their cars are oppressed, because they are not allowed to have their music loud in certain areas. The reason why most people do not sympathize with individuals' causes like this is because 1) they are entirely self oriented, and care little about the other individuals affected 2) others are exposed to the disturbance without a choice to say no and 3) the disturbance harms individuals by either disgusting them or otherwise making them feel uncomfortable.

This is much unlike, say, gay marriage because gay marriage does NOT affect others, does NOT cause a disturbance to people just for existing (more disturbance is caused by people who disagree with it frankly) and you do not unwillingly have to be EXPOSED to most things related to gay marriage (outside of seeing a gay couple, but that's just two guys/gals hanging out to most people).

I will take back my analogy though.

People are so pro-freedom until it comes to something that makes them uncomfortable. Then they suddenly become incredibly restrictive. Logic, guys!

This sounds like a completely reasonable analysis of your opposition

For the record: seeing someone nude in public would make me uncomfortable too. I just recognize that while if I'm uncomfortable I can avert my eyes, if they're uncomfortable in clothing they can't just avert their sense of touch every second they're out. You'll have to back up this claim you've made that it's not a comfort issue and is in fact a rebellion issue if you want it to hold any credence.

While you can avert your eyes, you are still exposed to it against your own will. I assume that through the same logic that you support the "plights" of the poor people with large subwoofers playing their dubstep on maximum volume throughout the neighbourhood? You can listen to earphones or put in ear plugs, or even just go somewhere else, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want through the neighbourhood?

It's just an issue with comfort, after all. Damn, those poor people with subwoofers really need their rights.

 

[Oryx]

Okay I'm just going to pull out individual things because these posts are getting way too long.

lmost all people would rather not be nude, protest excluded. This is not just because of norms of society, although it does play a big part of it - it is also because in most conditions clothes are more desirable than being nude.

• The harm of someone becoming uncomfortable from being nude is far greater than someone wanting to be nude. There are almost no circumstances in western society where being nude is more beneficial than being clothed. In fact, there are many situations physically which being clothed would be preferred.
• The level of discomfort is likely not equal because while exposing oneself is a choice, being exposed to is not a choice.
• "Erring on the side of caution" is not saying that two possibilities exist and we must go with the more individualistic one. Erring on the side of caution is taking into consideration the entire situation, in which most people disagree with it and the few who do agree do not find it necessary, thus "erring on the side of caution" would actually be to not permit it.

I never said "erring on the side of caution" so I'll ignore that - I said "erring on the side of more freedom." As far as whether it's more beneficial to be clothed than not clothed, really, that's irrelevant. It's not illegal to wear flip flops in a snowstorm just because it's more beneficial to wear snow boots. Whether you would be comfortable nude is irrelevant.

You cannot paint people to be oppressed for your argument and then turn around and claim that other people are acting like they are when you are called out. You are essentially saying that nudists are oppressed by society for not being allowed to be nude.

Harming someone is not oppressing them. Those are not synonyms. Saying "these people are being harmed" does not mean "these people are being oppressed." They're not oppressed, just made more uncomfortable so some people don't have to avert their eyes.

This is much unlike, say, gay marriage because gay marriage does NOT affect others, does NOT cause a disturbance to people just for existing (more disturbance is caused by people who disagree with it frankly) and you do not unwillingly have to be EXPOSED to most things related to gay marriage (outside of seeing a gay couple, but that's just two guys/gals hanging out to most people).

You're right, gay marriage and nudity are not the same thing. I'm very glad I never argued that point.

While you can avert your eyes, you are still exposed to it against your own will. I assume that through the same logic that you support the "plights" of the poor people with large subwoofers playing their dubstep on maximum volume throughout the neighbourhood? You can listen to earphones or put in ear plugs, or even just go somewhere else, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want through the neighbourhood?

It's just an issue with comfort, after all. Damn, those poor people with subwoofers really need their rights.

You can't avert your ears from sound. You can avert your eyes from a nude person. Unless peoples' genitals evolve the power to suddenly draw eyes to them against the will of the person looking, then sight and sound are not the same sense. To avoid sound, you have to avoid all sound, not just the sound you don't want to hear. To avoid a sight, you can still see everything else and just not look at the thing you don't want to see. That analogy falls flat.

 

[elnoor]

we should think about how we dress absolutely. It's like society is going backwards. Civilized nations looked down upon uncivilized nations of how they clothes themselves or lack of clothing. There was another thread I forget what it was about but once again media normalizing things that were definitely immoral 20 30 years ago. Honestly I don't know either people have lost how to feel but it seems like they don't care, they are willing to go out in public half naked for all to see. It's the type of culture that we live in that is driving this trend less clothes more attractive. Do people even know what modesty means anymore.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

we should think about how we dress absolutely. It's like society is going backwards. Civilized nations looked down upon uncivilized nations of how they clothes themselves or lack of clothing. There was another thread I forget what it was about but once again media normalizing things that were definitely immoral 20 30 years ago. Honestly I don't know either people have lost how to feel but it seems like they don't care, they are willing to go out in public half naked for all to see. It's the type of culture that we live in that is driving this trend less clothes more attractive. Do people even know what modesty means anymore.

Personally I find people wearing modest clothing to be more attractive than those showing more skin.

Though I don't have much of an issue with those wearing less, so long as they aren't naked. I like the different kinds of fashions thought up around the world, from those that cover a lot, to those that show leg. They are all good styles, and so long as the person wearing them feels comfortable in them it's fine. (Some girls feel uncomfortable in clothes that show a lot of skin but are pressured to wear them for usually social reasons. Same goes for those who wear a lot too. Even some of us men feel that. I for example like wearing clothes that cover me almost entirely (not necessary thick clothes though)).

 

[Dr. Wiggles]

The world is overly sexualized. In "medieval" times, they did not have access to the pornography we have today. Social media plays a big part in this too. Wearing skimpier clothing often gets you more attention than those who dress covered up.

 

[Dakotah]

The world is overly sexualized. In "medieval" times, they did not have access to the pornography we have today. Social media plays a big part in this too. Wearing skimpier clothing often gets you more attention than those who dress covered up.

Well, that figures, doesn't it? The Human race is, after all, a highly sexual species.

 

[Dr. Wiggles]

Well, that figures, doesn't it? The Human race is, after all, a highly sexual species.

It's forced on us by the media. Portraying sex as something it's not.

 

[Dakotah]

It's forced on us by the media. Portraying sex as something it's not.

What an absurd argument. Nothing is forced on you by anyone. It's not as if someone is forcing you to sit in front of a TV, or read that newspaper. If you don't like what you're seeing, turn away. And please, enough of this neo-con argument that the media is some all-powerful entity that controls people's lives.

 

[Dr. Wiggles]

What an absurd argument. Nothing is forced on you by anyone. It's not as if someone is forcing you to sit in front of a TV, or read that newspaper. If you don't like what you're seeing, turn away. And please, enough of this neo-con argument that the media is some all-powerful entity that controls people's lives.

Psychological adaptation. Why do you think we are constantly being watched? We accustom ourselves to daily activities and that itself is exploited by others to push an agenda.

 

[Dakotah]

Psychological adaptation. Why do you think we are constantly being watched? We accustom ourselves to daily activities and that itself is exploited by others to push an agenda.

As if I am so paranoid as to believe that I'm being watched! Well, I'm not. And if someone does want to watch me... who cares? It's not as if I have anything to hide. And if I don't want to be seen, I'll close the door. Really simple.

As for this supposed agenda you speak of, what is it exactly that the media is attempting to force upon people?

 

[Dr. Wiggles]

As if I am so paranoid as to believe that I'm being watched! Well, I'm not. And if someone does want to watch me... who cares? It's not as if I have anything to hide. And if I don't want to be seen, I'll close the door. Really simple.

As for this supposed agenda you speak of, what is it exactly that the media is attempting to force upon people?

Sorry, I meant the internet. Almost everything revolves around it nowadays, and to think you aren't being watched is a naive implication.

Ads, suggested content based on what you viewed previously, and so forth. Not trying to be a conspiracist, but a lot of people are puppets of the media who continue to push their hidden agenda for profit.

 

[Dakotah]

Sorry, I meant the internet. Almost everything revolves around it nowadays, and to think you aren't being watched is a naive implication.

Ads, suggested content based on what you viewed previously, and so forth. Not trying to be a conspiracist, but a lot of people are puppets of the media who continue to push their hidden agenda for profit.

You make a lot of claims, but offer little in the way of details. If you don't want to be followed on the internet, there are easily found ways of hiding your presence. It doesn't take much skill to do. Most people just don't care about the ads that appear on a website. It's just like most things in your life that you see but don't pay much attention to, because it's a regular occurrence.

For instance, you wouldn't pay much attention to your neighbour watering their lawn wearing nothing but their underwear if its something they do on a regular basis. One time it's a curiosity, twice an oddity. But the more times you see it, the less it affects you until you one day you'll have a conversation with your neighbour and not even notice that they may only be wearing a g-string. At that point you've grown so accustomed to it that you don't even notice it any more.

And saying that people are simply puppets of the media... well that's a claim that can't be substantiated with anything but conspiracy theories. There's no real fact to what you are suggesting, only fearful ways of interpreting what you do see. Again, I challenge you to present the evidence of whatever hidden agenda you believe these media outlets are out to force on people.

Yes, I agree, the internet has become a very important part of people's lives, but I suggest that this is mainly because it has become such an effective tool to provide what human beings instinctively need: contact with other human beings. The telephone, the light bulb, the television, the radio... these are all tools used to help people connect with other people. And the internet is no different. It's just that its capabilities are far more varied.