:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Yes, there she sits in al her glory.
In my case the charge might be malice inducing mass vomiting in the populace.
Printable View
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Yes, there she sits in al her glory.
In my case the charge might be malice inducing mass vomiting in the populace.
Blaze of Glory- 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.
ftil- I am glad that your brought your perspective on that subject. It is interesting how some westerners may take Indian culture, particularly the art of the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple and make assumptions how your culture view sexuality and nudity. How it is misleading.
Nepal is not India and it most certainly isn't the whole of the "East". I wouldn't make presumptions of what the "East" is like based either upon art or upon one man's experiences from one corner of a continent. Obviously the open eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of the era in which it was conceived. Let's face it, there is nothing like this in the whole of the "decadent" West. Eroticism in art exists... but blatant eroticism is largely hidden away... and still is. One can almost imagine the Victorian-era British colonels first coming upon this temple... their monocles popping out of their eyes as they exclaim, "Bloody 'ell!"
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?
This touches upon something of the hypocrisy I have spoken of. Once an image of style of representation has been absorbed into the artistic traditions it no longer has the ability to shock. The sophisticated late 19th century Parisian gentlemen could view this painting at the Louvre without the least discomfort:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6223/...af2eba6aa2.jpg
But this painting left him outraged!
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6237/...c28c4eb076.jpg
Naked women carousing in the park with fashionably dressed men?! What was the artist thinking?! But isn't that exactly what the first artist (Titian/Giorgione) has shown as well? But the Renaissance painting is acceptable because it has been perfumed with the passage of time and blessed with the sanctity of art.
But let's take a look at another pairing of paintings by the same two artists. Again, no sophisticated and educated Parisian gentleman would have been the least bit nonplussed at coming upon Venus d'Urbino in the Ufizzi:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6101/...106f8090_b.jpg
But again he was absolutely shocked and appalled at Manet's Olympia:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6120/...9a162b40_b.jpg
The absolute audacity of that man! To paint a prostitute... in all her nakedness... her hand touching her self THERE... and the shameless hussy staring back at us... lacking even the decorum to look away. And the cat at her feet... a rude sexual pun.
But how is this different from Titian's Venus? She also is a prostitute... albeit an upper-class courtesan. She is equally naked. Her hand is placed in an equally suggestive manner. She also boldly returns our gaze. At her feet, a lap dog... a symbol of fidelity... is surely an ironic pun upon fidelity itself. Manet has simply looked at Titian's Venus and pointed out just how shocking the painting really is... in spite of the perfume of art history. Intriguingly, it took an unsophisticated American, Mark Twain, to recognize the real shock and blatant sexuality of Titian's painting, as he ranted against it as the most obscene painting in the whole of Western art.
Steve Martin, himself a knowledgeable art collector and writer on art (as well as comedian) discussed Canova's famed Three Graces by pointing out that the sculpture has long been known as representing the "three finest asses in the history of art".
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6213/...72d6be11_b.jpg
Martin admits, however, that he would not expect to come across this fact in a scholarly tome on art history or Canova. The general art lover browsing the art historical tome doesn't want to be told that Giorgione painted this...
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6035/...fe48a0b1_b.jpg
for the simple reason that he wanted to paint a naked woman...because he could think of nothing more beautiful... nothing more exciting. No, art history will tell us that the Renaissance artists approached the body through a complex philosophy of Neo-Platonism, and that Giorgione, as a Venetian, was drawn to the female figure as less sculptural and linear and more organic and atmospheric... like the landscape of Venice itself which was better suited to oil paint. The figure itself, obviously represented Venus... in spite of the fact that there are no attributes whatsoever to suggest that she is anything more than a hedonistic representation of a beautiful naked woman for her own sake... the first example of such in Western art since the classical age.
Every culture has its standards of what is or is not acceptable with regard to the representation of the human body and human sexuality. Even in our culture... which embraces sexually suggestive dress and behavior among celebrities, legalized pornography (in the privacy of one's own home), breast implants, and Viagra commercials on prime time TV, there are limitations of what is acceptable within the public dialog of art. The most graphic violence is allowed in films and even video games accessible to minors... but the image of someone caressing a breast... or the appearance of any genitalia will immediately earn a film a NC-17... or worse rating. Is it surprising that artists are continually pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable? The goal is not to shock. (At least not among the efforts of artists of real merit. There will always be artistic juveniles for whom shock is an easy path to gaining attention.) The goal is to draw attention to the hypocrisy between that which we embrace in our private lives and that which we stigmatize and hide away as "filthy" in our art. The goal is also to allow the artist the freedom to explore the whole of human experience without the notion that some aspects of human experience are unworthy... or taboo.
Well, I appreciate that Blazeofglory has brought her perspective. After all, she is more competent that any westerner who try to make own interpretation about the culture of India. I agree that eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of that era. We may argue as we have done before if it is eroticism or pornography. I don’t know if you looked carefully at sculptures. There is a sculpture that depicts sex with an animal, for example. There are sculpture that depict orgy. We may not agree what eroticism means but we have to accept that others may not see it as celebration of life. :biggrinjester:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
n fact at Khajuraho we come across many gods and goddess in their erotic raptures and these nude idols carved out in the Middle Ages in India had some historical significance. Sexual exploitation in India was rampant by earlier kings and princes and Rajas and Maharajas had so many wives and most of the temples in India were built by them.
Blaze has yet to understand some subtle realities. But my topic is different and this is about taking nudity from a rational and aesthetic standpoint not from a stained or colored lens. My argument is we try to masquerade what we are and try to show what we are not. What we are is a nude human and what we do is try to give an illusion of what we are not
I understand the subtlety or meaning of those erotically carved walls at the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple and what shocks me is you failed to understand my point. Nudity got for some reason covered down our evolutionary history and today if we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by osho
"I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. "
It is not a question of some people wanting public nudity. The weird thing is that any one would, in general, object to it. What anyone wears should be their own decision, and if someone wishes to be bare then it is absolutely not, in general, any one else's business. Likewise, if anyone wishes to wear clothes, of any other than deliberately offensive kinds, that too is entirely their decision.
I don't know where you live, but in England any public place is a place where people can practice naturism, provided that they have no deliberate intention to cause shock or distress.
I do not advocate nudity, I just happen to prefer it under certain conditions and am not afraid to say so. If I did advocate nudity, it would only be on the grounds that I think it is, within reason, healthy and good for people - exactly the same reasons for advocating a healthy diet. And if people object that they don't like eating greens, then that is their choice, on just the same level as people saying that they prefer to wear clothes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Well, I ask a question why people want public nudity. We have already lots of freedom. People can practice naturism if they choose.
We have a nudist beach where I live. I am not against nudity. As I wrote I like swimming naked or have a full suntan and I can find place where I can do it without offending anybody or being offended. Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked. :biggrin5:
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”
Western society is very far from being mature to understand it.
"Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked.
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”
Western society is very far from being mature to understand it. "
I've not said anything about human beauty, and nudity has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with seeing or being seen. Putting clothes on and deciding what to wear are all about seeing and being seen, presenting a particular image of ourselves to others.
Nakedness is neutral. As Osho has said, it is simply accepting ourselves for what we are. It is very sad that so many people find that difficult.
Well, I have heard many voice who emphasized and justified being naked as an appreciation of a human body. I agree that accepting ourselves is crucial for our emotional health. It is not healthy to carry shame about it. But it was not a subject of this tread. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say anything. People jumped from being naked to sexuality and being a body that is run by instincts. I have a very different idea what being a fully human means. :brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I don't know if anyone here is advocating public nudity. Personally, I don't live in the sort of climate where such is even possible outside 2 or 3 months of the year. In the summer months I tend to wear little more than shorts while working in my studio and I prefer to sleep naked... but it is just me and my wife. It is quite probable that those who make the decision to live as nudists are quite an emotionally stable and healthy as anyone else... and quite likely more so when it comes to being comfortable with the human body and perhaps even sexuality.
My interest in the nude and in eroticism in art... in this discussion... is rooted in what I perceive to be a certain inconsistency or hypocrisy concerning sexuality and eroticism in art. It is a simple fact that the nude is one of the more difficult subjects to sell as an artist... in spite of its long tradition or history and the fact that in many ways it is recognized as the most respected and challenging subject for the artist. Indeed, it is not merely a difficult subject to sell... it is a difficult subject to get displayed in may venues. I have experience such prejudice myself. After having been selected by a university art department to exhibit in a group show, the dean of the same university overruled the faculty and removed all but one of my paintings from exhibition in spite of the fact that the work in question was far from the level of eroticism of Eric Fischl, Egon Schiele, the late prints of Picasso, the Japanese Shunga or the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6096/...4e6481d5_z.jpg
The reality is, that there is still a great deal of Puritan attitudes concerning nudity (let alone sexuality) in art in the United States. We have the example of the US Attorney General, Edwin Meese with his obsessive "witch hunt" for pornography in the arts. We have Attorney General John Ashcroft ordering that the Neo-classical statue representing Justice be covered with curtains because of her bare breast, as well as his public statement during talks concerning the possibility of Michelangelos' David visiting the US to the effect that the Renaissance masterpiece would need to be affixed with a fig leaf of loin cloth before such a visit. And we have mayor Giuliani's attempt to shut down an exhibition in New York with the notorious Yo Mamma's Last Supper:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6238/...e873ab6d_b.jpg
If we delve deeper we find examples of the art teacher fired for the paintings he made on his own time in which he used various body parts as opposed to brushes... in spite of the fact that he kept his art career separate from his teaching career to the point of using a pseudonym:
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2...with-buttocks/
Then there is the 28-year veteran teacher who was fired for taking her students on a school sanctioned field trip to the art museum where some of the students saw (gasp!) nudes, and one of the parents complained:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...acher_fir.html
Lest we miss the point that Puritanism is alive and well in America, we have this almost unbelievable instance:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2339673&page=1
Now no one is calling for the display of genitalia on billboards, nor irresponsibly exposing minors to images of nudity or sexuality in museums, galleries, or anywhere else, but there is a certain something warped in a culture that allows for the portrayal of graphic violence in films and in video games that are often accessible to minors, while treating the portrayal of the nude and human sexuality in art and film as something far worse... something shameful or "dirty" that needs to be hidden away. There is something wrong with championing the notion of liberty and free-speech... embracing the suggestiveness in pop videos and advertising, breast enlargements, Viagra commercials, and pornography (in the privacy of one's own home) while censoring that art which deals with the nude or the erotic... even labeling it "pornographic".
A question one might raise upon this board is how it is that the graphic sexual imagery found in Portnoy's Complaint (or many other novels by Philip Roth), the novels of Bukowski, Celine, Genet, certain poems of Baudelaire, Rimbaud etc... are recognized as ART while the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple, Japanese Shunga prints, Egon Schile paintings etc... can even begin to be defined as pornography?
Hm..but this tread is about public nudity not erotisism in art. :biggrinjester:Quote:
stlukesguild wrote:
My interest in the nude and in eroticism in art... in this discussion... is rooted in what I perceive to be a certain inconsistency or hypocrisy concerning sexuality and eroticism in art.
this tread is about public nudity not erotisism in art.
Is it? Truly?
It seems to me this thread has touched on a great array of topics... very seldom the question of public nudity... largely because almost no one advocates walking about with it all hanging out. Most of us recognize that the reality of such would in no way live up to the fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Hm…… I know that you love art. I love art too but I may stop liking nudity in art. :biggrin5: When we overdose, it becomes boring. Sometimes, I couldn’t resist posting art on other treads. But when OP asked politely not to hijack a tread I realized how inappropriate it was. Firstly, not everybody likes art. Secondly, not everybody may like eroticism and nudity in art. Thirdly, when you post art depicting eroticism and quote Kenneth Clark, it may create unnecessary confusion what this tread is all about. Finally, I know that you have opened an art tread as you were inspired by discussion about nudity. I wouldn't say a word if you posted nude or erotic art on your tread. :biggrinjester:
If you glance through this entire thread you will find that one person posted a song having nothing to do with the OP in the least. The thread has mutated into discussions of how an individual is "valued", questions of tattoos and body piercings, a debate upon obesity, a brief digression touching upon designer clothes and cell phones, and repeated explorations of the issue of nudity... in real life and in art. The great majority of threads go through such digressions if they last any period of time... like most discussing in real life. These digressions rarely become an issue of contention unless they touch upon politics or religion or some such topic likely to result in arguments having nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. You will notice that the original poster hasn't made any requests that any of us return to the original topic... which without digressions would quite likely have run it's course long ago.:seeya:
I hear you ftil, but with this one you take the good with the bad, and it wouldn't be LitNet without him all over the place. He's one of the best contributors. He grows on you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Well, I mentioned another thread where you and I posted art and OP asked ask politely not to hijack a tread. I have already expressed my feelings and thoughts and I am not going to repeat myself. :p The issues is boundary and respect. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The issues is boundary and respect.
Respect for who or what... your desire to dictate who posts and how? I don't see anyone else complaining that my postings were off topic. I t would seem that this little debate is far more off-topic than anything I posted concerning the issue of nudity in art.
Yeah ftil, I've been down this road, believe me. I used to be disgusted by a lot of the ugly art posted inappropriately, but then I realized that the posts aren't borderline, contentious, arrogant, morbid, sarcastic, passive/aggressive, and flippant - and they are instructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Well, it is not that much about the content of art but how it has been used. When I have reflected upon words of previously mentioned OP, I have opened my art tread. I am glad that OP expressed his needs and it was done with such a delicacy. I don’t hijack others treads any more. LOL I respect that not everybody may like art or art I choose. It applies to any other activity. It also requires having what some psychologists call a six sense to intuit the subtlety of others feelings and needs. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
I guess in this world any person who isn't arrogant, sarcastic and flippant is endearing to me. It's too much to ask for them to sense my feelings and needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Nudity is something that interests me artistically though physically and socially it is despicable and some gracious ladies born of a civil society and taught by some great scholastic parents, abbots and grown accustomed to living a certain lifestyle will feel chilled at this term itself and of course will be willing to retreat to their old, well defined conventional cover of society that renders a good degree of security and space.
I have read some forms of art, sculptures and a picturesque and mouthwatering depiction, the best and artistic way of presenting vulgarity clothing them in a fine art or whatsoever you choose to name it. I am shocked and could understand through these awe-inspiring presentations, their mythological connections and some truths that remain obscured down the straits of history fabulously presented. I like that form of nudity, and I like to see everything of humanity in its aesthetic presentation, and even conjugation in that art form is not obscene and we know many temples at which see erotically intertwined deities and deities in an orgy is something worthy of watching, of writing volumes of verse in praise of them, and when the same thing is deemed obscene. At times realities remain masqueraded and that becomes a piece of beauty and truth.
Well, some people are not capable of feeling and understandings what others feel. There is such an overwhelming emptiness and eloquent words can’t hide it. It is sad but we have a choice to be around them or not. I choose not! But there are others who feel and feel deeply and it is a delight to be around them. Hm…..how does it relate to being naked? They don’t need to take their clothing off to show the beauty of their souls. :hurray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
This is beautifully stated ftil! What you describe applies to many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
However, I tend to believe that this one really isn't empty. I wish you wouldn't leave the thread on account of a misunderstanding.
Oh, I said it all what I think about nudity or eroticism. I strongly believe that eroticism or sexuality is what we enjoy doing and experiencing but not talking. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
It make me sad to see that humans are limited to naked body, sexuality, and instincts. There are much more beauty within us and around us that makes our souls uplifted and our spirits flying high. :hurray:
I'm with you 100%. I think you said it perfectly! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
This must be a way that women are different.
We are different, no doubt about it. :wink5: I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
But there are men who understand women. Claude Steiner, Transactional Analysts therapist, said that he had a very high IQ but he was an imbecile in terms of emotional awareness. He has reached such a high level of emotional literacy and he was one of my teachers. I am still laughing that it should be otherwise. :lol:
But ftil, why is it that when I'm crossing the street in a crosswalk, women drivers usually won't stop for me but the men do?Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.
Yes. We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many women can't understand men at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as a lack of higher intellectual capabilities and grasp of logic. So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.
Same stereotypical sexist BS. Different gender.:eek2::frown2:
I think that they stop to appreciate your beauty whereas female drivers are in hurry …. to have a conversation with a friend or a partner. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
Well, I don't want to say that they are in hurry from the office ....... to clean and cook .:biggrinjester:
I often don't intuit others feelings and needs, myself. I mostly don't know what I feel or need, either. People ask me, "How are you?" I don't know how to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
I think the forum is a great place to work on developing the sixth sense.
ftil, I don't know how to answer, really. Why aren't the men in a big hurry to get to the strip club, because it certainly has more to offer than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Well, don’t feel alone. Many women can’t identify their needs and feelings. I see it as a result of female programming since women were trained to put others needs first. It takes time to achieve emotional literacy. I didn’t get it overnight but it took a considerable work even though I have always felt deeply. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
Oh, I can only give a female perspective that may be not valid at all. :ihih: Men need to answer it. Some men would be running to the strip club whereas others would not waste their time to do so as they enjoy their relationship.Quote:
ftil, I don't know how to answer, really. Why aren't the men in a big hurry to get to the strip club, because it certainly has more to offer than I do.
I have feelings that we hijack this tread. Why don't we let older boys enjoy conversation about nudity and sex. :brow: BTW, do we have a girls chat so that we can meet?
I have a different life experience than other people. My mother has an almost supernatural ability to intuit the subtleties of my feelings and needs. And then her understanding allows her an almost supernatural ability to inflict emotional pain on me, and to manipulate me. And because she's my mother, and I love her, I've been unable to get completely free of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
About hijacking threads, I'm one of the worst for doing it. I don't intend it, but I'm often unable to intuit the subject and reply appropriately.
There's a few women here that I appreciate, and quality makes up for quantity, but generally speaking, nearly everything of substance and originality on this forum is provided by men.
Vonny, you have always been positive and in many posts and some include mine too you saw something few did.
Some are too much obsessed with femininity or are feminists or activists in their voluble voices and they observe the shadow of what males are made up of and you said the flame that comes with the smoke too in males. While many activists talk brusquely about males as if they are machos only. In fact males are actively and engagingly interested in talking about love, romance, sex, nudity and the like and most women inertly support these ideas and there are others who with their negative mental frames or bends of thoughts see the dirty side of the males who candidly talk about such things. We talk about nudity more through art forms and we have books, and some are classics like D H Lawrence, Henry Miller, Nabokov and even Balzac talking about human vanity, social arrogance. Of course many persons have double standards though they privately enjoy talking about nudity and yet they want to the outside world prove they are austere, well-bred and gentlemanly or gentlewomanly. There are other societies that are matriarchal wherein women are more commanding and aggressive and they actively take the initiative to have an amorous relationship and matrimonial engagements.
People judge others by what they see around their environs and they suffer poor visibility or in fact are blinkered. They love to cocoon themselves in the shrouds of their narrow realties, educations or the experiences they have gathered from their elders or the values bequeathed down to them through their elders which they call culture.
We do have some issues with our parents, don’t we? It is much harder to free ourselves from manipulation done by parents than manipulation done but other people due to a quite high emotional intensity. It takes time to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
Well, I would never dismiss the contribution of men. In fact, I highly admire men who have brilliant minds. But brilliant mind is not enough if is not open. :ihih: Open-mind is closely associated with having a rich inner life and self awareness. E. Berne and Maslov have written about. According to Berne, most scientists are the most psychologically unbalanced people due to the dormant Free Child Ego state and Nurturing Parent Ego state. They have overdeveloped Adult Ego state and quite high Critical Parent (Brene called Pig Parent) and Adopted Child Ego state. Maslov wrote about compulsive and addictive traits that many scientists possess. I know a few scientists who possess both brilliant and open mind as well as high level of self awareness. :smile5:Quote:
There's a few women here that I appreciate, and quality makes up for quantity, but generally speaking, nearly everything of substance and originality on this forum is provided by men.
We need a few laughs. :lol:
Tale of Two Brains
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtUH_bHBxs
Men's Brain Women's Brain - Ram and Multi-tasking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fF9B0lukM4
Here is something of substance by a woman on the Forum (though, since I say this quite often, it rather lacks originality, for which I apologize profusely):
R e m i n d e r
The topic of the thead:Those who would like to discuss their childhood or how unfaily they have been treated by men or, come to think of it, any other issues - apart from the ones stated in the OP-, should do so in separate threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
You can also consider using the blogging facilities available, which would give you the desired flexibility while airing your thoughts and feelings.
Posts containing off-topic and/or personal comments will be removed without further notice.
There can never be enough nudity, I say. Unless it is old people... like really old people. I'm not too keen on that, but I would say that if you want to bare all, do it. As long as you are not some creepy flasher, walking around town in a trench coat, scaring children.
But seriously, I think the human body should be appreciated and not made into something taboo or dirty. I think that societies that are more open about nudity tend to have less sexual deviance (this is just a hunch, not based on statistics or facts), in the sense that children and adolescents are more prone to being open about it, discussing it, or just being comfortable with it (and not over-sexualizing everything).
Nudity is natural, my friends. But of course, it can be a bit shocking or offensive, if we are not used to it.
Nudity is one and public is another.
I see them as two separate things.
Nudity is something you do privately with other like minded people.
Public means people and that means some people would mind and some won't.
Public means everyone is different so one must not assume everyonbe will agree or disagree.
Therefore going nude publically can only be fine when the public whose one is exposing nudity to knows about it before hand.
For example if I was at a party and someone turned up nude or took their clothes I would find it offensive, not because of the nudity itself, but because that person who went nude assumed everyone enjoys it or is fine about it.
In other words don't expect everyone to go with the flowabout anything when in public places.
It is a bad thing, i am against of it....
Why? Some reasons behind your line of thinking might be of use.
Public nudity is a bad idea in the winter, especially in Siberia and Alaska. Although I have not done any scientific research on the subject, popular wisdom has it that the public nudist who braves such climes might actually freeze some of his body parts "off". I'm not talking about fingernails or hair, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Let's take a stand, one way or the other! People should greet the public naked, or they should wear full burquas. The middle ground is wishy-washy!
Personally, I support public nudity, when the temperature is reasonable, but think private nudity is obscene, and could lead to the sin of Onanism. Also, we should prevent environmental deprivation by bathing and showering fully clothed. This would save water and energy by simultaneously cleansing both our bodies and our clothing. The government should install video cameras in all bathrooms to ensure compliance. Naked showering would be punishable by either stoning or being forced to listen to an out loud reading of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", whichever the defendant prefers.