Nudity vs "Indecency"

[havana1]

Burlesque is certainly not art.

Yes, it is…! Most contemporary burlesque performers are classically trained dancers and have a background in music or/and theater. From a burlesque web site:*

The literal meaning of burlesque is to “send up” and the term is derived from the Latin word burra. In 14th century Britain, Geoffrey Chaucer’s satirical The Canterbury Tales popularized burlesque in verse and prose. In 16th century Spain, poet, Miguel de Cervantes, popularized burlesque in his many satirical works. In 17th century France and Italy, burlesque became a widely known term and popularly known as the grotesque imitation of the pathetic or dignified.

In the early 18th century, burlesque combined with comic and serious elements became popular in Europe for a grotesque effect. In 19th century England, theatrical burlesque became popular in the form of musical parody and became a form of middle class entertainment. Burlesque gained its large appeal because of its penchant for casting female actors in the lead male roles and double entendre. The traditional British burlesque is now known as classical burlesque or musical burlesque and is very different from modern burlesque which focuses more on striptease.
*

 

[edwest2]

Yes, it is…! Most contemporary burlesque performers are classically trained dancers and have a background in music or/and theater. From a burlesque web site:*

The literal meaning of burlesque is to “send up” and the term is derived from the Latin word burra. In 14th century Britain, Geoffrey Chaucer’s satirical The Canterbury Tales popularized burlesque in verse and prose. In 16th century Spain, poet, Miguel de Cervantes, popularized burlesque in his many satirical works. In 17th century France and Italy, burlesque became a widely known term and popularly known as the grotesque imitation of the pathetic or dignified.

In the early 18th century, burlesque combined with comic and serious elements became popular in Europe for a grotesque effect. In 19th century England, theatrical burlesque became popular in the form of musical parody and became a form of middle class entertainment. Burlesque gained its large appeal because of its penchant for casting female actors in the lead male roles and double entendre. The traditional British burlesque is now known as classical burlesque or musical burlesque and is very different from modern burlesque which focuses more on striptease.
*

Uh huh. This is Catholic Answers.

In the 1950s, before marrying my dad, my mother went on a date with a guy who said he’d show her a good time. They ended up at a burlesque in downtown Detroit. My mom was upset that this man thought she would enjoy going to such a place. That was the end of their relationship.

And what is the purpose of striptease? Please - strippers are not performing anything even vaguely related to art. Like a certain stripper who was arrested at least twice and charged for a lewd performance in 1948 and 1951.

Indecency is still in the dictionary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mtoddm]

I think the Catholic Answer, as given by Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, is somewhere between the repressed prude who totally rejects the body with its God given sexuality, and the fornicator who wallows in lust and all things sexual like a pig in a mud bath -

One must learn to see all things as God sees them and love them as God loves them - and this includes the human body, which of course He made -
Our enemy wants us to either flee from it, as does the prude, or cling to it as an idol, as does the fornicator - either way our enemy wins

One more point: let us not forget that Our Lord himself commended those who “clothe the naked” (Matt. 25) - and “clothing the naked” is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy listed by the Church - these both seem to have some importance in this discussion -

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[edwest2]

I think the Catholic Answer, as given by Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, is somewhere between the repressed prude who totally rejects the body with its God given sexuality, and the fornicator who wallows in lust and all things sexual like a pig in a mud bath -

One must learn to see all things as God sees them and love them as God loves them - and this includes the human body, which of course He made -
Our Enemy wants us to either flee from it, as does the prude, or cling to it as an idol, as does the fornicator - either way our enemy wins

One more point: let us not forget that Our Lord himself commended those who “clothe the naked” (Matt. 25) - and “clothing the naked” is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy listed by the Church - these both seem to have some importance in this discussion -

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

“repressed prude”? There is no such thing. There was the constant question, repeated over and over since the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” Translation: You are making us feel uncomfortable! We want you to have sex just like we want it!

Catholics. Catholics who followed Church teaching, fully understood their sexuality. We were attracted to the opposite sex. We dated. We found someone we were compatible with, we got engaged and then we got married. As a famous actor said after he was criticized for not having enough sex, even though he had ten kids. “What? You think we only did it 10 times?”

We totally accepted our bodies. However, we made a lifelong commitment knowing there would be good times and bad. Knowing that tragedy could come at any time. Knowing that God had brought us together. Having hope.

The falling birth rate in Western Europe and the United States is not based on a lack of sex. It’s based on selfishness and a lack of hope.

The 100% false notion that Catholics think sex is dirty or that we reject our sexuality is precisely what sexual deviants and perverts wanted us to believe.

That’s why the perverts and deviants got together with a handful of lawyers and judges in the 1970s to make their version of sexuality readily available to us - so we could wallow in the mud more easily.

Adult Bookstores everywhere.

Topless bars everywhere.

Strip clubs everywhere.

Did Catholics do this?

Abortion legal in 1973.

No-Fault Divorce legal in the 1980s.

Catholics were behind this?

They wanted their cheating on their wives, easy divorce, sexual perversions brought right in our faces, right in our neighborhoods. Here. Try it, you’ll like it.

Bought and paid for by who? Catholics?

Porn on cable in the 1980s.

Shock jocks and rap in the 1990s. More Catholic ideas?

Please. Self-restraint should be the norm. Do young people today even know what the word virgin means?

God bless,
Ed

 

[mtoddm]

“repressed prude”? There is no such thing. There was the constant question, repeated over and over since the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!” Translation: You are making us feel uncomfortable! We want you to have sex just like we want it!
…

Please. Self-restraint should be the norm. Do young people today even know what the word virgin means?

I never said Catholics were the prudes - true Catholic teaching has the right balance, between the two extremes as I said

Catholics did not found this country - the true archtypal prudes were the Protestant Puritan-types, the Quaker-types, the Shaker-types, of whom this whole country owes a great deal of its prudish patrinomy - The Shakers didn’t even believe in sex between married couples, didn’t allow men and women to associate, and only acquired children through adoption of outsiders - they died off, not surprisingly, but their ideas and those like them shaped this country in its infancy, and extreme prudishness, and I said extreme, always brings about the opposite effects, given enough time - hence our current culture as you outlined

Catholics have it right - that’s why I am Catholic, and not part of any of the Protestant groups, whose feet are on the shifting sands of the latest moral climate - and lack any moral authority in the relativism which they share a part in creating

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[cecilia97]

I never said Catholics were the prudes - true Catholic teaching has the right balance, between the two extremes as I said

Catholics did not found this country - the true archtypal prudes were the Protestant Puritan-types, the Quaker-types, the Shaker-types, of whom this whole country owes a great deal of its prudish patrinomy - The Shakers didn’t even believe in sex between married couples, didn’t allow men and women to associate, and only acquired children through adoption of outsiders - they died off, not surprisingly, but their ideas and those like them shaped this country in its infancy, and extreme prudishness, and I said extreme, always brings about the opposite effects, given enough time - hence our current culture as you outlined

Catholics have it right - that’s why I am Catholic, and not part of any of the Protestant groups, whose feet are on the shifting sands of the latest moral climate - and lack any moral authority in the relativism which they share a part in creating

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

Amen: Victorian Era, meet Roaring Twenties! Leave it to Beaver, meet Woodstock!

 

[BobObob]

I want to add that those cultures with the least amount of non-sexual, casual, nudity, are the cultures in which casual nudity and sexuality will most often be confused with each other. It is because of that that some media outlets can get away with certain seductive pieces of “art”, which are really just attempts to sexually appeal to people, work very well in the US.

It also seems that these cultures are most prone to lust and pornography. Just look at the statistics:

One good reason for photographing nude people is divorcing nudity from sexuality.

It seems to me that cultures in which casual exposure of nudity is most taboo are cultures which have the greatest problems with porn. The US, which is a lot more “puritanical” regarding nudity than many parts of Europe, tends to consume a lot more porn than those parts of Europe (where nudity may be displayed on public billboards). The US is in fact the greatest producer and consumer of porn. It’s also not surprising that the middle east (specifically Pakistan), which is even more “puritanical” than the US regarding nudity, has the highest per capita consumption rates for internet porn according to google trends.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php
google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex%2Ccamel%20sex%2Crape%20pictures&cmpt=q

Also, the US state with the US state with the highest per capita consumption of internet porn is Utah (which is probably more “puritanical” than most US states).

There is no logical reason to expose anyone, young or old, to casual nudity. As someone who works in the media, I watch what the media giants are doing. They want some “stars” to appear on video as prostitutes. Once again, their goal has always been to hyper-sexualize the West.

If casual exposure to some nudity undoes this sexualization, than that is a very good reason for some exposure of the human body.

This hyper-sexualization is cultivated by the exposure to the human body being only a sexual thing. Cultures in which the human body is exposed apart from sexuality aren’t hyper-sexualized. In many places in Africa, women go around topless. Yet, men from those cultures don’t lust after topless women (note: I’m not recommending that women go around topless. I’m only noting a psychological phenomena).

In Catholic cultures in the time of St. Francis of Assisi, it wasn’t that uncommon for someone to be naked, even in public. Those cultures weren’t hyper-sexualized. St. Francis of Assisi stripped naked in public to make a point. He did this in front of his father, the local bishop, and a crowd, yet it didn’t cause a problem. In fact, the local bishop put his cloak around St. Francis to show support for his action (because of the reasons behind it).

 

[edwest2]

I want to add that those cultures with the least amount of non-sexual, casual, nudity, are the cultures in which casual nudity and sexuality will most often be confused with each other. It is because of that that some media outlets can get away with certain seductive pieces of “art”, which are really just attempts to sexually appeal to people, work very well in the US.

It also seems that these cultures are most prone to lust and pornography. Just look at the statistics:

If casual exposure to some nudity undoes this sexualization, than that is a very good reason for some exposure of the human body.

This hyper-sexualization is cultivated by the exposure to the human body being only a sexual thing. Cultures in which the human body is exposed apart from sexuality aren’t hyper-sexualized. In many places in Africa, women go around topless. Yet, men from those cultures don’t lust after topless women (note: I’m not recommending that women go around topless. I’m only noting a psychological phenomena).

In Catholic cultures in the time of St. Francis of Assisi, it wasn’t that uncommon for someone to be naked, even in public. Those cultures weren’t hyper-sexualized. St. Francis of Assisi stripped naked in public to make a point. He did this in front of his father, the local bishop, and a crowd, yet it didn’t cause a problem. In fact, the local bishop put his cloak around St. Francis to show support for his action (because of the reasons behind it).

If we lived in those cultures, that would be one thing, but we live in the manufactured Western culture. Like the opium dens, the goal is to increase addiction.

Your example does not work. Exposure to nudity has always been used to increase addiction. The media is unaffected by posts like this.

The only real Christian answer is a return to modesty.

God bless,
ED

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6953933:

In Catholic cultures in the time of St. Francis of Assisi, it wasn’t that uncommon for someone to be naked, even in public. Those cultures weren’t hyper-sexualized. St. Francis of Assisi stripped naked in public to make a point. He did this in front of his father, the local bishop, and a crowd, yet it didn’t cause a problem. In fact, the local bishop put his cloak around St. Francis to show support for his action (because of the reasons behind it).

If we lived in those cultures, that would be one thing, but we live in the manufactured Western culture. Like the opium dens, the goal is to increase addiction.

Lessons we can learn from those cultures are very relevant.

Today, we live in a culture where, increasingly, we have come to a point where it’s abnormal for people to be naked for 30 seconds in a locker room with only others of the same-sex present, yet we wonder why increasingly more people are experiencing same-sex attractions.

The fact that in those cultures seeing nudity was more common than today, yet sexual sin probably wasn’t as rampent, indicates that how people view “modesty” in today’s culture is flawed.

Your example does not work. Exposure to nudity has always been used to increase addiction. The media is unaffected by posts like this.

If this was so, than why would Pakistan, a country in which women must cover everything, have the highest rates of pornographic internet searches? Also, why is it that countries following Pakistan on per capita pornographic internet searches are countries in which there is little exposure to nudity allowed in the society?

foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material/
couriermail.com.au/news/world/pakistan-no1-in-the-world-in-pornographic-internet-searches/story-e6freoqf-1225891491204
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php
google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex%2Ccamel%20sex%2Crape%20pictures&cmpt=q

Also, why is America, a country in which nudity is always very taboo, the world’s largest consumer of pornography?

crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf

The only real Christian answer is a return to modesty.

The virtue of modesty has to do with dressing appropriately. According to CCC 2524, modesty takes on many different forms in different cultures. I think there’s ample evidence that suggests that the approach to dress taken nowadays in the US is unhealthy and leads to more problems with lust and pornography. I think there’s also ample evidence that making mere nudity as taboo as it currently is has been part of the problem.

Yes, media appealing to people sexually hasn’t helped either. However, nudity itself aught not be considered absolutely immodest and taboo. A more balanced approach is needed.

BTW, do you think it is indecent for there to be nudity painted on the walls and ceiling of a chapel? If so, what do you think of the Sistine Chapel, which is fulled with nudity (deitchman.com/mcneillslides/unit4c.htm )?

 

[edwest2]

Your argument does not hold water.

Prior to the 1970s, there were:

No Adult Bookstores everywhere. Porn was difficult to get. You might find a few girlie magazines at the liquor store, behind the counter, which was usually manned by a surly looking gentleman that was going to take no guff from no kids.

Playboy was more widely available but appropriately considered dirty and not to be bought by God-fearing people. The same was true with the girlie magazines.

There were Vice Squads, Strippers were arrested for lewd performances.

There were a few burlesques but no topless bars or strip clubs.

What is required in Western culture:

An appropriate sense of shame.
An appropriate sense of modesty.
An appropriate sense of guilt.
Good examples in public. For example, no more young women walking around in stupid thong bikinis.

More nudity will not help.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

Your argument does not hold water.

I hope that you understand what my position, and my arguments for that position, really are.

I’m talking about casual, non-sexual nudity, not strippers.

Your argument does not hold water.

Prior to the 1970s, there were:

No Adult Bookstores everywhere. Porn was difficult to get…

What’s your point? Mere nudity is even more taboo now than it was then. At least back then it wasn’t taboo for people to be naked for a few seconds while changing in a locker room around others.

There might be more nudity on tv now than thirty years ago, but that’s because it appeal to people sexually, and thus catches their attention. That’s much different than casual nudity you might see on tv on the other side of the Atlantic. The problem is not nudity in culture, but sex in culture. However, because even casual nudity is taboo in this culture, mere nudity has been hyper-sexualized.

I would say that even in America, the depictions of non-sexual, social nudity in culture have decrease in the last several decades, while sex in media has increased. Why do you think the US government, in 1933, commissioned the statue, Spirit of Justice, a statue of a lady with one breast revealed? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_Justice ) Surely, you don’t think this was a sexual thing, do you?

In the past social nudity was acceptable in various contexts (such as all-male YMCAs banning clothes in pool areas decades ago), yet in other situations they were stricter than today’s standards of modesty (wearing suits to Mass). That’s not the case today. Other cultures, where situational public nudity is more acceptable, seem to have less problems with lust. A priest who my brother met at Ave Maria said that he thought the prudish approach to nudity people tend to have in the US has lead to more sexual sin in the US than where he came from in Europe (remember, he’s heard confessions on both sides of the ocean).

Also, the experiences of professionals in the medical field back up my view that viewing nudity in non-sexual settings can divorce lust from nudity, and lead to less problems with lust overall. According to my father’s childhood best friend, who is a practicing MD, doctors get so used to seeing bodies that it’s no big deal (thus, easy to be professional about it). The following article is by a male nurse about how working with naked ladies had “de-sexualized” what our culture over “sexualized”.

pastordavidrn.homestead.com/files/nakedness.html

Scholarly research confirms that the meanings and effects of nudity vary greatly from culture to culture.

versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1933-02865-001&CFID=9249663&CFTOKEN=16651498

Some research shows that nudity among nudists does not stimulate eroticism (scribd.com/doc/30328401/Sexual-Modesty-Social-Meanings-And-the-Nudist-Camp ), which is probably because nudists don’t view nudity as a sexual thing. Note: I do not condone “nudism” or “naturalism”.

Other studies regarding the social effects of nudity:

accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34711618_ITM
sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJN-4G7JXXW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01/31/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6883&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fee01b9b4a0b185375bc154173c7690b
dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34711618_ITM

I noticed you didn’t answer my question about the Sistine Chapel.

What is required in Western culture:

An appropriate sense of shame.
An appropriate sense of modesty.
An appropriate sense of guilt.
Good examples in public. For example, no more young women walking around in stupid thong bikinis.

Regarding shame and guilt, neither are good unless they happen to lead a person to repent or prevents a person from ding evil. Also, John Paul II, in Love and Responsibility, said:

Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty…Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness…Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful …Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.

books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=immodesty+is+present+only+when+nakedness+plays+a+negative+role&source=bl&ots=sx1n0BAWAX&sig=0CyJAFZeCJdLD70_YKD62-7I0JE&hl=en&ei=x1EiTKbyB8T8nAfz-_jADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=immodesty%20is%20present%20only%20when%20nakedness%20plays%20a%20negative%20role&f=false

Regarding the virtue of modesty, it does not mean more clothes=more virtuous. It rather means being dressed appropriately. In the quote above, JPII said “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person.”

Also, what about God telling Isiah to strip and walk around naked for three years (presumably in public) in Isiah 20:2-4? Was that immodest? If not, than lack of clothes, even in public, is not, in itself, immoral or opposed to the virtue of modesty.

 

[edwest2]

1933, the Sistine Chapel, Pope John Paul II, other cultures. You’ve done some research.

What’s your point?

Nudist Camps and Nudist Colonies were fenced off. You can bring up exceptions, other cultures and art all you want. I was never taught casual nudity was OK. And before you jump to conclusions about me.

I was at College in life drawing class and saw plenty of nude people. Just like being a doctor, there was a necessary reason.

I worked in a hospital for almost 10 years and saw some nude people. In the course of treatment, there was a necessary reason.

There is no necessary reason here.

God bless,
Ed

 

[colmcille1]

Re; the Sistine Chapel. An interesting book on this great work of art: The Sistine Secrets(Unlocking the codes in Michelangelo’s defiant masterpiece) by Benjamin Bleech and Roy Doliner, 2008.
I would qualify this recommendation by saying that the great artist had his own “agenda”, as it were, in depicting the many figures. Therefore it may not be altogether appropriate to consider his depiction of the human form without understanding his reasoning behind said depiction.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[havana1]

I worked in a hospital for almost 10 years and saw some nude people. In the course of treatment, there was a necessary reason.

I thought you worked in the media. To have worked in a hospital to the extent that you are entrusted with evaluating “necessary reason,” that would mean you would have had to be a physician or nurse (since other hospital staff don’t/can’t make those determinations, let alone see patients naked.) Why would anyone leave the medical field to work in the media?

 

[edwest2]

I thought you worked in the media. To have worked in a hospital to the extent that you are entrusted with evaluating “necessary reason,” that would mean you would have had to be a physician or nurse (since other hospital staff don’t/can’t make those determinations, let alone see patients naked.) Why would anyone leave the medical field to work in the media?

God opened a door for me.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

1933, the Sistine Chapel, Pope John Paul II, other cultures. You’ve done some research.

What’s your point?

My main points are:

1 Exposure to nudity, in the right context, may undo “over-sexualization” of the human body as well as reduce lust and consumption of pornography. The extreme opposite may have cause problems with lust.

2 Considering nudity itself taboo has caused “over-sexualization” in this culture. In this culture there is little casual exposure of the human body. In this culture, there is virtually no exposure of the human body apart from sex. This is a huge part of the reason, IMHO, that America is the largest producer and consumer of porn (Pakistan is highest per capita for internet porn searches).

3 Our culture would have even more problems with lust if we go in the direction of the middle east, where women have to cover every square inch of their bodies (and where the highest per capita internet porn searches are). Our culture would have less problems with lust if the next generation would develop a more balanced and healthy view of the human body and how it aught to be clothed in various situations.

4 Nudity itself is not immoral per se (several factors may determine the morality of dress or lack of dress).

Nudist Camps and Nudist Colonies were fenced off. You can bring up exceptions, other cultures and art all you want. I was never taught casual nudity was OK.

Regarding nudists being separated from the rest of society, at least one of the studies I gave a like to (psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1933-02865-001&CFID=9249663&CFTOKEN=16651498 ) was talking about the affect nudism had on people who were new to it, and trying it out.

Looking at how various levels of dress have affected individuals in various cultures may show us how it may affect individuals in our own culture. Same thing with professionals in some fields where there is exposure to nudity. If people within this culture are exposed to nudity in their field of work and it doesn’t cause them to lust, than it’s probable that that can be the same for other individuals.

There is nothing inherently wrong with nudity. In America, it’s a parent’s typical reaction to get their children as far away from nudity as possible (because in the US, nudity has been coupled with sex, lust, and shame). However, this censoring that parents in the US typically do, leads to the notion that casual nudity is inherently wrong (wrong for intrinsic reasons). If social nudity is wrong in a given situation, it’s wrong because of extrinsic reasons.

Extrinsic reasons why nudity is wrong in various settings may be that it may tempt others to sin (at least in cultures like the US and the middle east with little exposure to nudity), it may be uncharitable (people may strongly dislike seeing others naked), or it may be disrespectful (such as being naked at a wedding). With more time, I’m sure I could think of more extrinsic reasons. If there isn’t an extrinsic reason why being naked would be immoral in a given situation, one doesn’t need to have a reason to be naked for that nakedness to be morally licit.

BTW, I have a handful of friends who are homosexual but are trying, but struggling, to live a celibate life. As far as I know, none of them has really been exposed to nudity outside of sex (not even in locker rooms and changing rooms for some). These people also have really poor body images, which, along with chastity being especially difficult for them, is IMHO related to their lack of casual nudity. I also find it interesting that some homosexual males who are living a chaste life find casual, non-sexual nudity around other males helpful in both reducing their same-sex attraction and making chastity easier.

 

[edwest2]

I find your thesis untenable. In the 1960s, the nuns required all Catholic girls to wear skirts that covered the knee. This was appropriate.

What you claim ‘may’ happen in different scenarios amounts to experimentation. I’ll use this example: In the late 1990s, some ‘expert’ convinced a school to give all the members of a little league team trophies - the winners and losers. The expert somehow convinced them that significant harm would occur if their self-esteem were damaged at that young age.

Almost needless to say, the experiment failed. After school, the kids experienced other real life scenarios that taught them that failure meant failure and the answer was to learn from your mistakes and carry on.

What is functional should remain as it is. It was not the public but “fashion designers” that insisted in introducing the miniskirt, which I recall was regarded as shameful and a scandal. I recall hearing rather often in the 1960s and 1970s, about how much more ahead of the United States Europe was. How they were so progressive. I later found out that their progressiveness revolved around nudity and casual nudity - topless beaches and clothing optional beaches.

Thong bikinis are bad enough.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

I find your thesis untenable. In the 1960s, the nuns required all Catholic girls to wear skirts that covered the knee. This was appropriate.

How do you find my thesis untenable? Think about this carefully…Specifically what about it makes it untenable?

Also, which fashions are appropriate and which are not is a somewhat different topic.

What you claim ‘may’ happen in different scenarios amounts to experimentation. I’ll use this example: In the late 1990s, some ‘expert’ convinced a school to give all the members of a little league team trophies - the winners and losers.

It isn’t just what ‘may’ happen, it is what does happen in many cultures and what has happened in many previous cultures.

Experiments sometime are good ideas, sometimes are bad. They sometimes work out, but sometimes not. Considering this, how is the experiment you mentioned relevant to what I’m talking about? What I’m talking about has already been the case in many cultures. It’s not something that hasn’t been done before (that is, allow some casual exposure of the human body in certain situations).

What is functional should remain as it is.

Considering that America is the largest consumer of porn (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf ) I’d say that something’s wrong. I say that part of what’s wrong is that lack of healthy body image and non-sexual exposure of the human body has largely caused general curiosities, and later lust, in many people growing up. It seems you think the human body should be covered up more.

Why do you think it is that America and all the countries with less casual nudity have the highest rates of porn consumption, while the opposite is generally true in countries with more non-sexual casual nudity?

BTW, I don’t totally disagree with you about fashions. If people dress a certain way to grab people’s attention (because in this lustful society any lack of clothing will cause people to lust), than that’s immoral. Those fashions aren’t immoral because exposing the body is immoral in itself, rather, they’re immoral because of the intent and the effects. Those fashions would be less likely to incite lust in cultures with a more healthy view of the human body.