# The naked truth



## cuchuflete

What are the common perceptions of human nudity in your part of the world?

Mother/Father nature, or whatever god(s) you may choose to believe in, has created penises and nipples in abundance, around 18 billion of them at this time.  Given that impressive number of bits of anatomy, does it make sense to go to so much trouble to hide god's/nature's creations?


----------



## Brioche

Most people look _far nicer_ with clothes on.

Hand on heart - how many of those people wandering round Wallmart would look good if nude? 
Some of them have such big, saggy bellies that you wouldn't be able to see the gentlemen's wobbly bits, or be able to tell whether the ladies' curtains match the pelmets.

Now, would you want to cavort around in Maine in your bare nakeds?
I checked Yahoo for the weather in Sheepscot, Lincoln County, Maine, and it tells me the forecast is a high of 15 C or 60 F and a low 8 C or 46 F with light rain, and this is June.

Here in Adelaide (where it's officially winter), the sun is shining,  the max to-day is 60 F or 15 C and the minumum is 42 F or 5 C.

I don't know about brass monkeys, but I would not want to risk nudity in Maine in January!


----------



## mjscott

I had to live over half a century and be married for over 30 years (_and_ had to wait 'til the kids were out of the house) before I felt comfy walking from the bathroom to the downstairs laundry room exposing my curtains and pelmets to my husband on the way! It's a ridiculous modesty, but one that I think is ingrained early on, and has to do with shame at its roots.

We have Brazilian friends who say you see all shapes and sizes in thongs on the beaches in Brazil. It sounds refreshingly shameless. I believe the media would have us all believing that only the perfect of body should have the right to expose itself. I think after we all got over the shock that not everyone's curtains match or hang straight, we would get over it--but as long as the media is beating up on some movie star who hasn't lost the extra 3 pounds they've been carrying since the birth of their child, shame reigns.


----------



## Joelline

It's not all the penises and nipples, nor is it the extra 3 pounds that bothers me. It's the flab and fat ripples and extra 30-100 pounds that would give me nightmares! I've seen pictures of the beaches in Brazil; I didn't see any seriously overweight 65-year-old men or women in thongs--and I don't ever want to!  

It's quite a different matter with a spouse with whom one has grown older, I assure you. But strangers you've just met?  Please, spare me!

Then, too, where would some of the "beautiful people" hide their plastic surgery scars?


----------



## mjscott

Maybe I've seen too many mega-surgeries on the Discovery-Health Channel, or maybe all people see things differently. To me, scars--no scars, miniblinds or sash-curtains, it doesn't matter. You must remember, however, that I didn't feel this way 50 years ago--(And neither would I sashay what gravity has softened in a thong!)


----------



## se16teddy

It is now possible to walk the length of Britain naked (except for boots), but you are likely to get arrested a few times. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3420685.stm 

Naturism is gaining acceptance at beaches, but I still wouldn't recommend it at town beaches, except in clearly designated naturist areas. http://www.free-sun.net/ http://free-sun.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=4&Itemid=28 

I think that those who relax naked indoors are still in the minority.


----------



## emrah

i would never dare to cross Boshprus Bridge naked,  and Turkish people certainly will not be tolerant to sth like this including me. i think our penises and nipples are the part of our private life and sould be hidden. Also it is not pleasant to see 18 billion penises and nipples around.


----------



## belén

Here in Spain I think we are pretty liberal, nipple-wise, we don't "hide" them on tv (hey, Janet Jackson, move here, nobody will say a word to you), magazines or on the beach, I would say the percentage of people in top-less bikini is 50%, and yes, you can see fat, thin, perfect and non perfect bodies in their splendour all over the country. 

Penis-wise, we are a bit more demure, of course we have nudist beaches and you have frontal nudity (both men and women) in Spanish films, and it doesn't become a big deal when it happens, but you are not so exposed to it, so I guess "from the waist up" we don't really treat that part of the body as such a mistery 

Belén


----------



## mansio

In France we are very tolerant as to nudity in public. On every beach or in open-air swimming-pools women can go topless. In swimming-pools topless women put their tops on when they go into the water.
In Strasbourg we have several lakes in and around the city and one of them is for people who want to remain naked. In summer at a lake side you can see Muslim girls and women with hijabs sitting in the shade and a few meters away topless women.


----------



## moura

I think the naked truth is as question of time, conventions and religion.
For time, when mankind found that the furs might protect them from de cold, the only reason they used them was the necessity to warm themselves;
For time and religion it depends how man look at their bodies. In Greece man participated naked in all the disciplines of Olimpic Games. Time went on and religion, specially with its sexual severe restrictions, made the nackedness a sin. 
Also for convention and time, after the Abril revolution in Portugal the nudism as well as topless was widespread for two or three decades- the sense of liberty touched every single aspects of our lives. Times now have changed and also beach naked habits. It's very rare to see a topless woman - it is not forbidden and people look rather tolerantly the small isles of nudists, but we live yet in a kind of conservative/catholic country.
As also for time, nakdness became also a dangerous issue, in what regards children and babies. A recent and bombastic case of pedophilia in Portugal (caso "Casa Pia") leed people to avoid all kinds os public photos with children, specially naked - in particular on publicity.
So I think it's after all a question of mind. In sometimes of the future, it will be natural to hide just our head as only our toothfeet - depending of the conventiosn that shall exist (or not).


----------



## maxiogee

Don't get me started!  

I have no shame.
If someone looks in my windows and is disturbed by the sight of any dangly bits, or are bothered by the fact that I have more stomach than the rest of me might forecast, then they shouldn't be looking in my windows. I don't have net curtains on my windows. Maybe people might hang some from the outside!  

My wife is considerably more shy, and nothing gets shown.
My son seems to have taken his cue from my wife.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

One of my first lessons in Bolivia was how to relieve myself in the company of absolute strangers.  The men would stand on one side of the bus and examine the horizon; the women would squat on the other side of the bus.  After this, nothing much embarasses me.

However, rural Ontario is fairly conservative (although we're doing better - I nursed my babies publicly without criticism or comment).  My children are far more modest than I am, to the extent that they consider my cycling clothes a mortifying blot upon the family name.  

I've been disinclined to wander about in the nude here because of my mother's only experience of outdoor nudity.  She was recovering from surgery, and settled comfortably down in a deck chair with a gin and tonic to air her sutures.  No sooner was she comfortable than the eight horses we owned at the time thundered down the hill at full gallop.  Instead of stopping at the rail fence, which they had done every other time they felt silly, they _jumped _it one by one and clattered off down the road.

The resulting drama has put us both off even back-yard nudity on a permanent basis!


----------



## emma42

Wow, Chaska!  Your poor mother.

This isn't really about nudity, but about showing parts of the body that are considered below par by the body fascists:  I often hear people complaining when, for example, they see fatter women (or just women who are not built like fashion models) wearing, say, cut-off tops which show their midriffs and bellies.  Honestly, what is wrong with a nice bit of belly?  And why should fat people have to go around wearing kaftans?  
Obviously this does not apply to me as I am 17 with the body of an olympic gymnast (female).


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> Obviously this does not apply to me as I am 17 with the body of an olympic gymnast (female).



That's nothing to boast of. The last time I looked they all seemed pre-pubescent and anorexic, and their shoulder blades stuck out further behind them than their, eh, em, … ah, forget it!


----------



## tvdxer

As you all probably know, the U.S. has a rather conservative attitude considering nudity, but not necessarily with modesty.  Nudity in the U.S. (and this is something that I believe varies greatly from culture to culture), as it pertains to TV, movies, etc., can be considered to be the bearing of the nipples (for women), or the, err, reproductive region (for both sexes), and to a lesser extent, the rear.  Generally, I think this a good thing.  Nudity in art is not necessarily a bad thing - the Sistine Chapel and beatiful paintings and sculptures prove this.  However, it seems that a great amount nudity seen today in movies, or semi-nudity on TV, is directed solely at sexually arousing the viewer and causing lustful thoughts.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What are the common perceptions of human nudity in your part of the world?
> 
> Mother/Father nature, or whatever god(s) you may choose to believe in, has created penises and nipples in abundance, around 18 billion of them at this time. Given that impressive number of bits of anatomy, does it make sense to go to so much trouble to hide god's/nature's creations?


Mother Nature has created many other things too, which doesn't mean I'm ready to walk around showing my intestines!  .........  

To be honest, I think the human body is a rather ugly thing. Now don't get me wrong: of course there are bodies that are better-looking than others, but imagine you were an extraterrestrial spirit with no substance, looking at earthlings objectively: wouldn't you think that these human things are odd-looking, with bits and pieces hanging here and there with no particular harmony? I mean, when you think about it, a rock, a tree, or even a cat, are much more pleasant to look at. It really takes a good sculptor to make the human body look nice!  

Enough with the rambling: So clothes are _ornaments_, too. 
Also, the good thing about wearing clothes, is that you can then _take them off_. You can make the people you _choose_ to be naked with, feel special. [oh yeah, I'm sure there's an easy joke here]

As for the situation of nudity here, Janet Jackson would be welcome in France too. She can be friends with all the movie stars whose dress straps have snapped just when they were waving at the photographers down the steps of Cannes.


----------



## linguist786

omg.. _what_ a weird thread!! I must say some of the replies have made me laugh!!

The only thing i have to say about it is that the whole point of wearing clothes is for modesty. 

What would happen if women were to walk around naked? Men would just get hard-ons all the time and would keep comparing the breasts to "his girfriends" or "his wifes" - there's no excitement that way!!


----------



## emma42

Men have hard-ons all the time anyway!  Men don't have erections all the time in nudist camps, though.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> Men have hard-ons all the time anyway!  Men don't have erections all the time in nudist camps, though.


Excellent point. Just because some have problems controlling themselves is no reason for others to confuse the sight of a body with lust. As "Men don't have erections all the time in nudist camps..." then nudity is a logical antidote to lust. Thus if lust is bad {topic of another thread?}, nudity is good!

I've been to places where women did not cover their breasts, and the only males who seemed aroused by the sight of breasts were suckling infants.


----------



## Outsider

linguist786 said:
			
		

> What would happen if women were to walk around naked? Men would just get hard-ons all the time and would keep comparing the breasts to "his girfriends" or "his wifes" - there's no excitement that way!!


Primitive peoples don't seem to mind.

It's interesting how *Tvdxer* and *Linguist786* have just given two completely opposite reasons why nudity should not be seen. One says it would make people lustful all the time. The other thinks it would kill the excitement.


----------



## mansio

The origin of clothes is not modesty but protection of fragile parts.


----------



## emma42

I agree, Mansio. When you see certain peoples (say, in the Amazon forests) who hardly wear any clothes, they are usually wearing something to protect (and therefore cover) their penis (well, the men are).

In terms of Linguist's view, most 18 year old men will get an erection at the sight of a table leg!  Of course, I have no idea whether this applies to Linguist.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I've been to places where women did not cover their breasts, and the only males who seemed aroused by the sight of breasts were suckling infants.


It makes sense. Would most men today be aroused by the sight of an ankle? 
There were times and places where it might have been sufficient.

If the breasts of all women were exposed on a 24/7 basis, chances are that it wouldn't be considered as such an interesting thing to look at. (poor Janet!)


----------



## Outsider

emma42 said:
			
		

> When you see certain peoples (say, in the Amazon forests) who hardly wear any clothes, they are usually wearing something to protect (and therefore cover) their penis (well, the men are).


It depends. Many tribes in the Amazon, Africa and in Papua New Guinea wear _cache-sexes_, but others wear nothing. In some tribes the men cover their groin but the women don't; in others, it's the opposite.


----------



## maxiogee

What is rare is valued.
Concealment increases the rarity of revelation.
Were women to walk around stark naked save for a pair of gloves, fingers would rapidly become fetishised and men would lurk around nail-bars, drooling!


----------



## emma42

But you do that anyway, Maxi, don't you?

Hi Outsider.  I wasn't purporting to be an expert in the sartorial choices of peoples of the Amazon.  It was just an example.


----------



## emma42

I wonder if some "traditional" Muslims find women's head hair really sexy?  Well, sexier than cultures which don't cover the head.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> It depends. Many tribes in the Amazon, Africa and in Papua New Guinea wear _cache-sexes_, but others wear nothing. In some tribes the men cover their groin but the women don't; in others, it's the opposite.


I saw a documentary where the (clothed) western TV crew all had to show their chests to the (naked) native tribe (Amazon, I think) so they could tell which was male and which female - they couldn't tell otherwise (not knowing our fashions etc, I suppose).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Geve's comment about not showing our intestines brings back interesting memories.

When I was studying anatomy, I used to spend a fair amount of time in the university's excellent anatomy museum.  It had an extensive collection of everything except for penises .... which had all been stolen.  (Inevitably, the blame fell on the engineering students.)  Nobody stole the bits that we see every day, like fingers and hands.

I've seen my fair share of nudity, but I had difficulty working with nude cadavers for some reason.  I could trace nerve and muscle paths, examine organs, study tendons, all without being bothered; but I felt that I was invading people's privacy when they weren't covered up.  (The other thing that bothered me, for some reason, was painted fingernails.)  These people had all consented to this use of their bodies, so their nudity was quite voluntary .... but I still felt uncomfortable.


----------



## Outsider

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> When I was studying anatomy, I used to spend a fair amount of time in the university's excellent anatomy museum.  It had an extensive collection of everything except for penises .... which had all been stolen.  (Inevitably, the blame fell on the engineering students.)  Nobody stole the bits that we see every day, like fingers and hands.


LOL. Why the engineering students?...


----------



## emma42

Engineering students were notorious at my university too! and agriculture students (The Agrics) - Newcastle University, England. Early 1980s.

I imagine penises were stolen because they are funny and rude.


----------



## geve

It's always the engineering students!
(Personally I would have liked a few toes from the museum. But I'm just weird)


----------



## ElaineG

> It makes sense. Would most men today be aroused by the sight of an ankle?
> There were times and places where it might have been sufficient.


 
Indeed, in Victorian times, it was often sufficient.

In strictly Orthodox Jewish culture, which forbids a married woman to show her hair because she might arouse lust in men not her husband (see, Tvdexer, where do you draw the line?), married woman go around with head scarves and wigs.  A male Orthodox friend of mine has explained to me that seeing a woman of the community with her natural hair (because her scarf slips off or whatever) can be very erotic because it is forbidden and private.  On the other hand my hair and that of our other female colleagues which he sees every day does nothing for him.

It's all mental.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Elaine, that just about answers my question about traditional Muslims.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

A naked body is beautiful... when young. 
The desire makes it prettier than it is.
If always shown, I guess the desire will be less.
But, in the other hand... if always shown, maybe others signs will be used for seduction, and body will become a minor artifact of the human being. It will be cool if we could tend to go there.


----------



## emma42

Oh, Karine, you are such a sweet bunny rabbit.  I don't think your wish has much chance of coming true, though.  We are but animals.  Well, I am.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

emma42 said:
			
		

> Oh, Karine, you are such a sweet bunny rabbit. I don't think your wish has much chance of coming true, though. We are but animals. Well, I am.


This was a joke, of course.
And I'm not a rabbit (but you said YOU are ), but well, I'm an animal too. Not ashamed of my body.  This is truth. Naked truth.


----------



## cuchuflete

It seems curious that we haven't yet veered off into a discussion of hypocrisy.  In the US, there is a great deal of public modesty, yet it seems as if millions of people look at pictures of naked bodies in private.  The sales of pornographic and "art" magazines continues strong, while web sites with naked bodies are among the most popular on the internet.

I wonder why so many people pretend to be offended by what they really enjoy seeing.


----------



## blue-eyes

emma42 said:
			
		

> Men have hard-ons all the time anyway!  Men don't have erections all the time in nudist camps, though.



I've been on nudist beaches, and saw no hard-ons !

I tend to think that what is strategically covered is more suggestive than what is strategically uncovered.
The unfair part is that female nipples are consistently used in advertising, often for products that have nothing whatsoever to do with the body, whereas naked men very rarely. In Spain Schweppes are currently advertising their tonic water with the view of a naked man (from the back of course), and very tasty it is too....
                                    ...... the tonic water is also pretty good  
saludos@todos


----------



## emma42

Cuchuflete, because it's "Do as I say and not as I do" and we can't upset the great god Money.  I, too, am surprised that this has not come up before (if I may make a small pun).


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

emma42 said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete, because it's "Do as I say and not as I do" and we can't upset the great god Money. I, too, am surprised that this has not come up before (if I may make a small pun).


Rhooo! Emma17! 
Cuchuflete, there are places where hypocrisy regarding nudity (Can I make pun too?) is less "shouting". Especially in south of Europe. On the beaches you can always see topless women, and nobody cares...


----------



## ElaineG

> Nudity in the U.S. (and this is something that I believe varies greatly from culture to culture), as it pertains to TV, movies, etc., can be considered to be the _bearing _of the nipples (for women), or the, err, reproductive region (for both sexes),


 
Hmmm. I've been _bearing_ two nipples since the day I was born, and I suspect you have too, unless you are descended from Anne Boleyn.

The distinctions in the U.S. with regard to television have become ever more absurd. On the one hand, Janet Jackson and co. are excoriated for a "wardrobe malfunction" and ER is castigated for showing an 80 year old women's breasts during a resuscitation scene (how sexy!), on the other hand, on pay cable you can see anything you like and even basic cable has ads for strip clubs and the like.

I'm not sure what the theory (in this technological day and age) is whereby it's harder for Junior to find the "bad stuff" on the cable channels than it is on network TV. Junior's probably known how to use the remote control since he was 2! 

Anyway, why is Junior going to be scarred by it anyway? Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how a child of any age could be damaged by a fleeting glimpse of a breast. Don't we spend the first year of our lives doing nothing much _other _than gaze adoringly at a naked breast?


----------



## emma42

Indeed we do, ElaineG.  I am in total agreement with you.  I have also been bearing two nipples for many years.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It seems curious that we haven't yet veered off into a discussion of hypocrisy.



Tsk tsk, is a mod trying to promote off-topicness.
I've been "chat-edited" for suggesting that good sex is always mental. Maybe I didn't explain. It wasn't a throwaway remark - I was deadly serious.
Nudity soon palls in excess, or with familiar skin. It loses its appeal.
Much of our sex lives are played out in our heads long before our bodies get involved.

Is there anything more tedious than pornography, all those acres of exposed flesh, and pictures which even a gynaecologist would find excessive! No, for me, for sexual 'value', the little revelation is always more interesting than the overkill.


----------



## Seana

Hi,
Don't you think that the whole fuss of the naturism is nothing else as fulfilling the exhibitionism of some people?
I have been there several times without pure revealing (top less- only), and I must to judge this sort of activity as totally unhealty for skin, eyes, my aesthetic experience and above at all for my... husband who had reacted as the normal male.

Quote
Were women to walk around stark naked save for a pair of gloves, fingers would rapidly become fetishised and men would lurk around nail-bars.

I agree with it.


----------



## gato2

Es cierto que en las peliculas españolas suele salir gente desnuda, pero siempre son gente joven con cuerpos perfectos,


----------



## emma42

Ah, Seana (hello!) this is because your husband is not used to it.  If he became used to it he would not "react as the normal male".

It could be unhealthy unless you used a lot of sun cream.


----------



## Seana

Ladies, the main point of my post was: 



			
				Seana said:
			
		

> Don't you think that the whole fuss of the naturism is nothing else as fulfilling the exhibitionism of some people?
> quote]
> 
> Not my awful shameless husband.


----------



## emma42

But we want to talk about your shameless husband!

Seriously, I honestly do not think naturism is anything to do with exhibitionism by and large.  I believe it is to do with feeling natural and completely unencumbered by clothing and all that clothing represents.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I just tried to introduce the Bonobo ape behaviour --which is naked by definition, into this "debate". This ape race has sex many times during a day instead of making any war. I thought this was an interesting point...
Sorry if my English is that awful I can't make me understood.


----------



## emma42

Karine, what comparison are you making?  I don't quite understand.


----------



## Benjy

i justed wanted to echo (at least partially) what maxiogee said esp. with regards pornography. i personally don't want to see acres of flesh everywhere because i _don't_ what the desensitizing influence that it seems to bring into  relationships. where would be the fun if you saw it all all of the time?

something becomes special not necesarily because of its intrinsic value but because of the way you treat it. i'd much rather think of the human form as something special rather than just to be hung out on display at all hours.


----------



## Seana

Do you think that the man without the fur above "17" years old is able to relax so much that without the self-consciousness will be kept oneself and behave in natural way.  In my opiniom the men of course - yes but women unfortunately not. Every woman knows, that showing  her body she must be attractive, otherwise - it could be totally defeat. It is my point of view.


----------



## emma42

I really understand what you are saying, Seana, but naturists just don't seem to care whether they are attractive or not.  They say that after a while it just becomes natural and you don't even think about it.

There is NO WAY I would do it, though, unless my body was in really good condition.  So I am obviously not suitable to be a naturist.


----------



## Seana

I think that you understood me partially. I think that the undressed woman ( every woman not only fat, old or totally unattracive ) couldn't feel neither safely nor relaxed and certainly not naturally ( in public place of course ) unless she  has the big dose of the exhibitionism.


----------



## emma42

If you mean anywhere in public, not just in naturist places, then yes!  You wouldn't feel comfortable because everybody else would be dressed and you would probably be arrested.  It would be a different matter if everybody else did it, though.  I have the feeling I am still not understanding you, Seana.


----------



## Seana

emma42 said:
			
		

> If you mean anywhere in public, not just in naturist places, then yes!



Of course I think about beach.
But look, all this situation - you as undressed woman amongst men, children, company of much more younger and attractive females. 
So, say but frankly whether it can be relaxed for you and more over be so natural? For me it is embarrassing and very far, far  from perhaps of not a nature generally but the natural way of my behaviours. 
Do you understand me now?


----------



## emma42

Yes, I understand now, seana, thank you.  No, I would not feel relaxed in that situation because I am far too vain.  I might have considered it in my 20s, but not now.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

emma42 said:
			
		

> Karine, what comparison are you making? I don't quite understand.


I just wanted to say that without clothes, and for a race really close to human than Bonobo (98% of our genetics shared), having sex all day long is the solution they found against war.
Don't want to say that WE are apes. But maybe we have to learn from them. Who knows? 

I let you think about that now, as I don't feel comfortable to debate in English that much...

(it was just to please you, Emma*17*!  )


----------



## tvdxer

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Hmmm. I've been _bearing_ two nipples since the day I was born, and I suspect you have too, unless you are descended from Anne Boleyn.
> 
> The distinctions in the U.S. with regard to television have become ever more absurd. On the one hand, Janet Jackson and co. are excoriated for a "wardrobe malfunction" and ER is castigated for showing an 80 year old women's breasts during a resuscitation scene (how sexy!), on the other hand, on pay cable you can see anything you like and even basic cable has ads for strip clubs and the like.
> 
> I'm not sure what the theory (in this technological day and age) is whereby it's harder for Junior to find the "bad stuff" on the cable channels than it is on network TV. Junior's probably known how to use the remote control since he was 2!
> 
> Anyway, why is Junior going to be scarred by it anyway? Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how a child of any age could be damaged by a fleeting glimpse of a breast. Don't we spend the first year of our lives doing nothing much _other _than gaze adoringly at a naked breast?


You know what I mean . Generally speaking, toplessness "crosses the line" in the U.S.  To other cultures, female breasts are as sexual as necks or eyebrows.

I would make a distinction between E.R. and Janet Jackson.  E.R.'s nudity is acceptable in my opinion; it serves a purpose and there is nothing eroticized or sexualized about it.  The Janet Jackson incident is a bit different.  While the excitement over it was a bit over the top in my opinion, it and the half-time show itself (especially the latter, in my opinion) helped to show how indecent the culture has become, especially youth / pop culture.  It was indeed less than a second, but it was just so misplaced.  Her and Justin Timberlake, both waning stars, come on TV screens across America, and in front of an unsuspecting live audience of tens of thousands, have what approaches clothed sex to a horrid, un-melodic song, and then she decides to flash the audience of millions upon millions.  This is terribly disrespectful, showing a complete lack of manners or regard for viewers.  Children see these things, and while one or two are unlikely to affect their behavior, seeing them time after time does often do exactly that.


----------



## danielfranco

After reading so many posts, I had forgotten what was the original question for this thread...
Over here, in Dallas, Texas, USA, I've noticed a strange dichotomy going on: many people are of the country-western conviction and do all the rancher-cowboy thingy, including the fundamentalist approach to nudity (which I would guess means they are against it). But it is also a large cosmopolitan city, and many people are rather fashionable and dress provocatively. But no nakedness or nudity, just plunging cleavages and mini-skirts so tight and short that could be used instead as chokers.
Personally, though, I don't hold much with getting naked in public, mostly because I have mirrors in my bathroom that make it plain to me that it would be in bad taste...


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Daniel,

The original question was,



> What are the common perceptions of human nudity in your part of the world?


The question was not whether some super-bowl watchers were titilated  or were mortally wounded by a sub-second glimpse of an entertainer's nipple, while other super-bowl watchers were deeply bored by the same. The original question did not solicit personal judgments about any aethetic aspects of
the music or choreography of the setting in which said nipple was momentarily revealed. However, context is useful in helping to understand why a person declares something to be "common".

That said, nudity is one thing, and a brief exposure of a small part of the body is quite another. Flashing is not nudity. A former holder of high office displaying one bit of anatomy to an intern of the opposite sex is not nudity, while that same person being totally undressed during a press conference, cabinet meeting, or welcoming ceremony for a foreign head of state is. 

 I don't think there is much room for doubt that
either Bill or "W" would be commonly perceived as ridiculous in those latter settings, if so un-attired. But who knows, some people might find it amusing. What's obvious is that it isn't done because most people consider it unacceptable. 

Your comments about provocative dress seem to support the idea, expressed by many others here, that we would rather imagine a body than actually have to look at it.


----------



## emma42

I remember, in the 1960s, being aware of a conversation about two neighbours.  I couldn't  hear what was being said, but I gleaned that I was not supposed to hear and that the conversation was about something deeply shocking, possibly perverted and not for the ears of a child.  It transpired later that the neighbours were naturists!  I think attitudes may have changed in the last 40 years.  But I may be wrong!


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What's obvious is that it isn't done because most people consider it unacceptable.


It would be acceptable if _everyone_ in the society did the same. 
That's why I'm not so sure about Seana's and Emma's comments on naturism: I don't think you would feel ashamed if you were living in a naturist society. It would just be the normal way to behave. 

Just like you're not ashamed to show your hair, or wear tight clothes, or show your ankles, calves, knees or even tights! whereas you would have been if you had lived in other times, or in other places.

I don't think there is any exhibitionism involved in naturism: the whole point of naturism is to accept that all human beings are equal. Once you have taken off the social tags that are clothes, and you've made the step to show yourself entirely, putting aside your fear of judgement, I suppose that means you've reached enough maturity to consider the other bodies around you with the same "unjudgmental" look. You should then be able to see the persons instead of focusing on particular details of their anatomy.
(these are just mere assumptions from my part, since I am not a naturist and wouldn't be able to be)


----------



## emma42

I have obviously not made myself clear, because I do agree with geve. If everyone were a naturist and it were part of the culture, then it stands to reason that it would be acceptable (to the majority) and I would happily disrobe and let all hang out (euurrgghh).


----------



## GenJen54

geve said:
			
		

> the whole point of naturism is to accept that all human beings are equal. Once you have taken off the social tags that are clothes, and you've made the step to show yourself entirely, putting aside your fear of judgement, I suppose that means you've reached enough maturity to consider the other bodies around you with the same "unjudgmental" look. You should then be able to see the persons instead of focusing on particular details of their anatomy.


You make a good point, but one which also brings up an important question:  How comfortable are you in your own skin.

People in countries where nudity is considered more "natural" from a moral and societal standpoint probably have fewer body "issues" than those for whom nudity is most often displayed in its "ideal" form.

People wear the "societal tags" of clothing to hide what they feel is shameful underneath. I'm not necessarily talking about sexual shame, but the simple shame of exposing what the effects of gravity and/or too many trips to the local ice cream shop have had on the human body. 

Society (read: advertisers) tell sus only certain types of bodies are "worthy" of admiration. If our bodies to not fit this type, why should we not cover them? This type of shame is far different from the one supposedly experienced by Adam and Eve after that first bite of apple.


----------



## DDT

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It seems curious that we haven't yet veered off into a discussion of hypocrisy.  In the US, there is a great deal of public modesty, yet it seems as if millions of people look at pictures of naked bodies in private.  The sales of pornographic and "art" magazines continues strong, while web sites with naked bodies are among the most popular on the internet.
> 
> I wonder why so many people pretend to be offended by what they really enjoy seeing.



I am personally not bothered by nudity - some of the most beautiful art masterpieces display naked bodies - yet I think it all depends on the approach towards nudity itself: I am tired of the bombardment of naked bodies being used in order to increase the audience of a TV show or the sales of a magazine or of a naked-babe-advertised product. Which is so terribly common in my native country, for instance. I don't think nudity should be exploited for commercial purposes, I think we human beings are not beasts to be turned on the whole time (I have the impression that those making such use of nudity consider us nothing but beasts to be fed with sex) 

Concerning pornography I agree it is mostly a matter of hypocrisy when it comes to people pretending to be prudish and "swallowing" lots of porn stuff at home...

DDT


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I'm not necessarily talking about sexual shame, but the simple shame of exposing what the effects of gravity and/or too many trips to the local ice cream shop have had on the human body.



Well if - instead of driving to the local ice-cream shop - they walked to the not-so-local one they'd be happier bunnies, proudly displaying their flopsies, their mopsies and their cottontails!


----------



## emma42

Re "the simple shame of exposing what the effects of gravity...have had on the human body". Yes, I am afraid that would be foremost in my mind if asked to "go naked" because I know I would be judged and, having been conditioned myself, would judge myself. Certainly, the prevailing Western attitude towards the naked body is that it should be (preferably) young, definitely NOT FAT, smooth, toned, hairless (in many instances) and should definitely not show any signs of (shock, horror) childbirth or operations.

This reminds me of a scene from the film, Shirley Valentine, in which a Greek waiter seduces a middle-aged, slightly overweight, mother. He tells her she should not be ashamed of her stretch marks, that they are part of her and therefore beautiful. She turns to camera and says "He kissed me* stretch marks!" and then jumps, unashamed, naked into the Aegean sea. Now that's great.

*colloquial English for "my"


----------



## cuchuflete

I just had an amusing thought. (Yes, my brain is amused by things that are scandalous to some of you, and evoke yawns in others.)

Scenario:  

Lisbon, Portugal, 2020: Olympic swimming competition, women's free-style. (No, NOT the breast stroke.)  A competitor from a tropical country, in which women normally do not cover themselves from the waist up.  She stands at the edge of the pool, awaiting the sound of the starter's gun.  She is wearing nothing more than male swimmers wear.  

This invented athlete is acting in keeping with her own sense of normality, and those observing broadcasts in her home country see nothing out of the ordinary.  Meanwhile, in far off
Gooberville, Somestate, USA, people are (1)Screaming for the government to fine the television broadcaster?; (2) awaiting the swimming race?; (3)ignoring the olympic event, and focusing their attention on the body of the swimmer?

Of course the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the advertisers are in a total turmoil, trying to decide if ratings will go up or down, and calculating financial consequences.


----------



## emma42

Cuchu, I know a really good therapist....

I know you will have to delete me.


----------



## DDT

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I just had an amusing thought. (Yes, my brain is amused by things that are scandalous to some of you, and evoke yawns in others.)
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> Lisbon, Portugal, 2020: Olympic swimming competition, women's free-style. (No, NOT the breast stroke.)  A competitor from a tropical country, in which women normally do not cover themselves from the waist up.  She stands at the edge of the pool, awaiting the sound of the starter's gun.  She is wearing nothing more than male swimmers wear.
> 
> This invented athlete is acting in keeping with her own sense of normality, and those observing broadcasts in her home country see nothing out of the ordinary.  Meanwhile, in far off
> Gooberville, Somestate, USA, people are (1)Screaming for the government to fine the television broadcaster?; (2) awaiting the swimming race?; (3)ignoring the olympic event, and focusing their attention on the body of the swimmer?
> 
> Of course the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the advertisers are in a total turmoil, trying to decide if ratings will go up or down, and calculating financial consequences.



lol

This reminds me that in Olympic Games in ancient Greece a rule forced all the athletes to be naked after a girl had tried to cheat by taking part to the games disguised as a man (since another rule didn't allow women to compete)

DDT


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Lisbon, Portugal, 2020: Olympic swimming competition, women's free-style. (No, NOT the breast stroke.)  A competitor from a tropical country, in which women normally do not cover themselves from the waist up.  She stands at the edge of the pool, awaiting the sound of the starter's gun.  She is wearing nothing more than male swimmers wear.



Wouldn't happen.
The logo of the sponsors which will be body-painted on competitors would obscure any "definition" of her assets. 
The MasterCard logo would probably suffice. 
Far better for the eyes of youngsters to be exposed to the corporate banking world than to see a b*o*s*o*m!


----------



## ElaineG

Get real, guys.  Nice fantasy, but a free flopping bosom would slow you down.

The whole challenge in swimming is to reduce drag in the water, and to be as smooth and streamlined as possible.  The new swimsuit fabrics offer less drag than even shaved skin and as a result even the men are now very covered up (remember Ian Thorpe -- I think only his nose showed!).

Now, if a few square feet of shaved skin is going to cost you those miraculous seconds, think what two free floating hemispheres are going to do.  You want your bosom tightly controlled for swimming (or any sport for that matter), but particularly swimming where not only drag, but unfettered arm movement is so important.

As any woman who's ever undertaken serious athletic activity will tell you, a bosom is generally speaking, a hindrance, and not a help.  There's a reason the Amazons got rid of one breast!! Luckily, we now have high-tech fibers to smush everything down and don't have to resort to chopping.

Believe me, if topless swimming ever becomes a competitive sport, it will be brought to you by Bob Guccione or similar, not by a serious female athlete.

But nice try, fellas.


----------



## timpeac

There is nothing incongruous about drag and swimming - as proved by my city of residence (well the second one is from Sydney - I couldn't find a photo of the Brighton ones).

http://static.flickr.com/24/48738823_b604fea67c.jpg?v=0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/890000/images/_893299_drag300.jpg

Clothing, or lack of it, is just a matter of culture and expectations really!


----------



## cuchuflete

timpeac said:
			
		

> There is nothing incongruous about *drag* and swimming


 Well, since we have brought aerodynamics into the discussion,
what about *lift*?  Anybody for *thrust*?
Or is it fluid dynamics?












Please, somebody call a moderator


----------



## GenJen54

Sorry to be such a DRAG myself, but it's time we stripped this thread of its fantasy clothing and get back to the bare basics: discussion on cultural acceptance (or lack thereof) of nudity!


----------



## geve

Social acceptance of nudity would probably imply that we find other ways to _express_ ourselves (ie., body paint, hair style, bracelets etc.)... because it seems hard to just _be_ ourselves.
It seems to me that the primitive people Outsider mentioned earlier, have that sorts of adornments, don't they? 
So nudity is ok, but it still goes with societal tags. Can a human society live without those?


----------



## Sallyb36

I go topless abroad on the beaches, but wouldn't walk around my neighbourhood naked. I walk around the house naked if it's just my boyfriend and I.  I would love never to have to wear clothes, just because it's so comfortable.


----------



## VenusEnvy

This thread is really interesting! I'm going on a cruise soon to some islands in the Carribbean, and wanted to find out if thong bathing suits were legal there. (This may seem like a silly question, but in my state, skimpy bathing suits, including thongs, are illegal.) While I live in Maryland, the boat leaves from Florida, so I had to do some research to find out if thongs were legal in Florida or not. It's a lot of work investigating the laws of another state regarding a subject which, according to the responses in this thread, doesn't worry the rest of the world!


........................................................................................................


¡Este hilo es super interesante! En breve, voy a hacer un viaje en crucero a unas islas caribeñas y quería saber si los trajes de baño de tanga eran legales allá. (Esta pregunta puede parecer tonta, pero en el esto donde vivo yo, los trajes de baño "reveladores", incluso las tangas, son ilegales.) Mientras que vivo en Maryland, el crucero sale de un puerto en otro estado, Florida, así que tenía que hacer un poco de investigación para ver si las tangas eran legales o no ahí. ¡Tanto trabajo sólo para saber las leyes de otro estado en cuanto a un tema que, según las respuestas en este hilo, no le preocupa a la gente de otros paises!


----------



## jimreilly

_I have just read this thread, having been alerted to it by GenJen's response on another thread._

I strikes me that there is a great variety of opinion as to what will arouse and what will not arouse (nudity will arouse, nudity will do the opposite, sexy clothes will arouse, hair normally hidden will arouse, it's all in the mind, pornography, etc).

There was one comment that an 18 year old (male) will get aroused at the sight of a table leg (ah, too true, and not just a table leg--I too remember being 18, dimly). People are "designed" (intelligently or otherwise) to want to have sex, and those who are young have these desires in some pretty insistent forms. Even some of us older folks do, too, thank goodness.

How these desires relate/don't relate to nudity varies tremendously from culture to culture, and even from person to person within any given culture. But the desires won't disappear whatever the cultural norms, whether one is surrounded by nude people, people dressed provocatively, or people dressed in garments which completely hide everything but the eyes...otherwise the human race would have died out a long time ago!  The desires lie, if you will, beneath the various cultural norms, always "looking" for an opportunity to come to the surface.


----------



## Maja

Brioche said:


> Most people look _far nicer_ with clothes on.


----------



## Lusitania

cuchuflete said:


> I just had an amusing thought. (Yes, my brain is amused by things that are scandalous to some of you, and evoke yawns in others.)
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> Lisbon, Portugal, 2020: Olympic swimming competition, women's free-style. (No, NOT the breast stroke.) A competitor from a tropical country, in which women normally do not cover themselves from the waist up. She stands at the edge of the pool, awaiting the sound of the starter's gun. She is wearing nothing more than male swimmers wear.
> 
> This invented athlete is acting in keeping with her own sense of normality, and those observing broadcasts in her home country see nothing out of the ordinary. Meanwhile, in far off
> Gooberville, Somestate, USA, people are (1)Screaming for the government to fine the television broadcaster?; (2) awaiting the swimming race?; (3)ignoring the olympic event, and focusing their attention on the body of the swimmer?
> 
> Of course the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the advertisers are in a total turmoil, trying to decide if ratings will go up or down, and calculating financial consequences.


 
Ohhh! She would be remember forever. We still haven't recovered from Cicciolinas boobs in the Portuguese Parliament in the 90's. 

In Portugal there are beaches for nudist, both women and men, some known as gay friendly and in general you can see women in topless in any beach. Although I think that this has been decreasing due to the fear of breast cancer. However, many bikinis left the swiming suits and prefer small, very small bikinis.

I think that in general nudity wasn't that well accepted culturally, probably seen as imoral. I'm a daughter of the April revolution in the 70's. Back then it was cool to be free of all this moral oppressions. So, my parents did walk around the house naked and still today I don't have any problems with that, at home, or at some friends place. I don't think that I'd wander around naked on the street, unless other people would as well.


----------



## UrsusMaximus

cuchuflete said:


> What are the common perceptions of human nudity in your part of the world?
> 
> Mother/Father nature, or whatever god(s) you may choose to believe in, has created penises and nipples in abundance, around 18 billion of them at this time. Given that impressive number of bits of anatomy, does it make sense to go to so much trouble to hide god's/nature's creations?


 
Common perceptions of nudity ... complex, to say the least. I come from UK, live in France, work in Switzerland and have lived in both Germany and the Netherlands, so have experienced a few different European environments.

One of the many ways of classifying our "perceptions of nudity" would be to divide them into "what we think about seeing others naked" and "what we think about being seen naked". Fortunately, there seems to be a reasonably high level of tolerance in Europe to other people being naked. High compared to the US, at least. For instance, I doubt whether any European country (and I include the UK, though many of my compatriots wouldn't!) would have made such a fuss about Janet Jackson's star-spangled nipple. There would have been amusement and/or ridicule, but I doubt anyone would have been fined.

At the same time, naturist and clothing-optional beaches are common, but still a minority interest. And where it's 'clothing optional', most people 'opt' to keep their kit on. A lot of people posting in this thread hinted that they were ok about seeing other people naked (even if they didn't find it too aesthetically pleasing to see beer-guts and sagging mammaries), but had no intention of exposing certain regions of themselves to public gaze.

My own experience has been that there are a lot of people who would like to be much more relaxed about being seen naked. I base this on the (admittedly somewhat narrow) situation of visiting the sauna in the Netherlands. The majority of my friends there were not Dutch. In other words, it may well be possible to extrapolate this situation to Europe and even beyond.
The story: For the last few years before I left NL, I made it my habit to start my annual (well, duh!) birthday celebrations in the sauna. The invitation would leave it open to people whether they came along to the sauna phase in the afternoon, or just for the more conventional party phase in the evening. Now, the majority did indeed skip the sauna and just come along for the booze and the grub, but each year one or two new faces (!) appeared at the sauna. And some of them were people I'd categorized as never dreaming of stripping in public. The sauna we used to go to (like all others in the Netherlands) was mixed, and all clothing was prohibited in the sauna cabin, points I mentioned in the invitation. Work colleagues, people I'd studied with, good friends, people I only just about knew well enough to invite to my birthday, the local English chaplain and his wife, young (18) old (fifties), politically conservative, politically liberal (in the US sense) ... they all rolled (and in the case of some, I use that word advisedly) along to the sauna, bared all and thoroughly enjoyed it. One or two had gorgeous bodies. The vast majority (me included) did not. But it didn't seem to matter.

Why was this? Why did people who would normally have been terribly embarrassed about being seen naked by the opposite sex put themselves in that position and clearly enjoy it? It'd be interesting to know if there's any research been done into when a specific individual feels ok about being seen naked and when they don't.


----------

