Public Nudity

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."

Silly, silly, silly.

My (fairly extensive) experience is that general nudity, as on a nudist beach or campsite, has the effect of making bodies much less "voyeurable."
Clothes can be worn to attract the eye and inflame the senses. Deep cleavages, certain arrangements of socks & short skirts, mmmm.
But nakedness of, say, breasts or genitals, when it is general, is no more, or less, interesting than nakedness of faces or hands, when they too are general.
Hiding body parts, whatever part, makes them exciting. It's not so long ago that a writer could speak of the thrill of seeing a lady's well turned ankle as she stepped off the pavement at Picadilly, and as for seeing a grown woman with her hair loose - well! shock and ecstasy! No doubt, such a level of desire and shock still prevails in places where dress tends to be all-enveloping.

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, but it would be wrong. Simply, there is no logic in our attitudes and reactions.

"Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. "
There is no reason to suppose that rape rates would rise.
More certainly, if nudity were commonplace then "flashing" would become extinct, and "flashing" has been reckoned as a stage in the development of a rapist.

Possibly, if nudity were commonplace, then rape might be harder, since the woman wcould not be intimidated by the nakedness involved, and would then be better able to deal with the assault, which is surely the essential part of a rape.

"Everybody must be naked????? "
Absolutely not - anybody should be free to wear, or not wear, whatever he feels appropriate, except that which is deliberately intended to cause offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"Well, if women would walk naked, the rates of raped would rise. "
There is no reason to suppose that rape rates would rise.
More certainly, if nudity were commonplace then "flashing" would become extinct, and "flashing" has been reckoned as a stage in the development of a rapist.

---

Hm......it sounds that you are not are familiar with sex offender research.

Quote:

---

Possibly, if nudity were commonplace, then rape might be harder, since the woman wcould not be intimidated by the nakedness involved, and would then be better able to deal with the assault, which is surely the essential part of a rape.

---

Are you a woman? Or you speak on behalf of women. :confused5:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Everybody must be naked????? "

---

Absolutely not - anybody should be free to wear, or not wear, whatever he feels appropriate, except that which is deliberately intended to cause offence.

---

I agree. It is freedom, isn't it?

The issue is not of Voyeurism. It is about totally appreciating something we like deeply. I do not mean everybody likes his nude posture and I did not say we must start a move to expose our nudity in public. Not at all. I simply mean to say nudity is beauty and to see a nude woman and man is not a crime. If somebody wants to show his or naked body on a beach or in a park we should not look down on them. It is his interest or right, to show or see. In some culture girls have to hide their breasts before giving birth. Once she gives birth to a baby and even if she exposes her breast when milking her baby publicly it is not a shame. Most girls hide their breasts once they have their menstruations but prior to that they expose. I have seen a community in which girls married or unmarried wear only underwear and do not hide their breasts while taking bath.

This is our thinking or point of view not the thing at the end of the day

Osho, I am curious, Are you a female?

Does it make a difference whether I am male or female? Is there a borderline that makes an expression feminine or masculine? It is only on surface we are male or female. Gender differences are veneers and inside we are not different in terms of our feelings, likes or dislikes and capacities. Every female has maleness in their corpus and psyche or else how could she give birth to a male child. I never talk differently whether it is my boyfriend or girlfriend and even my subject won't change. I do not want subscribe to a traditional ideas of gender and I look at both from the same corner of my eye, my friend.

In fact this gender difference or bias is a manmade concept, very synthetic and just by looking at some physical distinctions we have made a broad class and this has created a big divide

Well, you didn’t answer my question. It make a big difference if you are a male or a female. I remember that you wrote having a dream about a beautiful woman so I assume that you are a male. If you are a male, why don’t you let women speak for themselves.

I heard so many time women complying that their husbands, partners, or male friends can’t understand them. Well, many man make assumptions and speak on behalf of women…….believing that their assumptions are true. :smilielol5: If men could invest their energy to listen to and to understand what women feel, think, needs, and wants, we would eliminate many conflicts.

You last post made me uncomfortable. I listen when you speak for yourself and I respect it.
Let us make own decision what we want to do with breastfeeding or mens.
There are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. At this point, everybody who has read this tread knows that you love nudity. :beatdeadhorse5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Well, you didn’t answer my question. It make a big difference if you are a male or a female. I remember that you wrote having a dream about a beautiful woman so I assume that you are a male. If you are a male, why don’t you let women speak for themselves.

I heard so many time women complying that their husbands, partners, or male friends can’t understand them. Well, many man make assumptions and speak on behalf of women…….believing that their assumptions are true. :smilielol5: If men could invest their energy to listen to and to understand what women feel, think, needs, and wants, we would eliminate many conflicts.

You last post made me uncomfortable. I listen when you speak for yourself and I respect it.
Let us make own decision what we want to do with breastfeeding or mens.
There are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. At this point, everybody who has read this tread knows that you love nudity. :beatdeadhorse5:

---

I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free.

---

It was clear that you are male and have a male's attitude. It's all very well for someone to say Im not looking at you in a voyeuristic way - just appreciating your beauty, but I don't see much difference at all. Even if it were true of some males, how can anyone tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It was clear that you are male and have a male's attitude. It's all very well for someone to say Im not looking at you in a voyeuristic way - just appreciating your beauty, but I don't see much difference at all. Even if it were true of some males, how can anyone tell?

---

Every individual is different and to put them into one mold is wrong. You cannot define my attitude and my inclination based on what you read of me and such generalization or judgment becomes flawed. Your point of view is born of one social or religious milieu or of the kind of education you got or the kind of books you have read and contemplated over certain facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Every individual is different and to put them into one mold is wrong. You cannot define my attitude and my inclination based on what you read of me and such generalization or judgment becomes flawed. Your point of view is born of one social or religious milieu or of the kind of education you got or the kind of books you have read and contemplated over certain facts.

---

Yes every individual is different. To label them all the same is incorrect. You are right: I cannot discern your attitude or inclination either, and I wouldn't be able to even if I met you. This agrees with my point that you can't tell the hidden impulses and reasonsoning of any person. Therefore nudity gets a no from me despite what someone might claim. No-one can tell whether another is a voyeur or sincerely interested in beauty. While that state remains, I think anyone, particularly women, should be suspicious of someone who claims that they are looking only with the highest of motives.

It reminds me of Michael Jackson claiming he was innocently sleeping with young children in that notorious documentary. I would no more believe that from him than I would from any bloke who lived down the road, and I would be much more suspicious of them for claiming it was so. I'd ask - "What's this guy's motives really?"

By the way - I'm not trying to question your motives - which is impossible - or smear you in some way. I'm trying to establish that such trust is untestable.

To be honest I find little beauty in the naked body compared to the clothed naked body. I would wager to say that 9 out of ten times, when I get a naked woman into my bed I find my self disappointed as she was more beautiful with clothes on. Clothes create an image, an illusion which (if done right) heightens ones sensuality and beauty - when naked there is little illusion and thus almost always less beauty.

For example I was at the Frieze art fair the other day in london, and it seemed to me that all the women in there were extraordinarily beautiful. However If I had removed their rich and well-thought out clothes and put on them the clothes of common people in east-london, they would have appeared quite ugly. Those women were beautiful to me because of the illusion of beauty their clothes created. Naked they would have been for the most part quite normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."

Silly, silly, silly.

My (fairly extensive) experience is that general nudity, as on a nudist beach or campsite, has the effect of making bodies much less "voyeurable."
Clothes can be worn to attract the eye and inflame the senses. Deep cleavages, certain arrangements of socks & short skirts, mmmm.
But nakedness of, say, breasts or genitals, when it is general, is no more, or less, interesting than nakedness of faces or hands, when they too are general.
Hiding body parts, whatever part, makes them exciting. It's not so long ago that a writer could speak of the thrill of seeing a lady's well turned ankle as she stepped off the pavement at Picadilly, and as for seeing a grown woman with her hair loose - well! shock and ecstasy! No doubt, such a level of desire and shock still prevails in places where dress tends to be all-enveloping.

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind, but it would be wrong. Simply, there is no logic in our attitudes and reactions.

---

The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos.

I still would question why anyone would want public nudity. The inner motivations of people are unknowable, and it raises questions as to why anyone would advocate it.

I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children.

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

Quote:

---

"People who want public nudity are exhibitionist voyeurs...."

---

Maybe they are just environmentally conscientious and would like to save energy by wearing less clothes, which would mean doing less laundry... Hence, less water and electricity consumption.