# Should nudity considered sexuality?



## Nath0811

OK, I have no problems with these movies I grew up with, where a man would get up from bed, naked (because he sleeps that way), wrap himself up in a rob and proceed to the shower.
This is something very natural, and I don't think there's anything sexual in the scene, if the fact that you may catch a glimpse of a human body part that's usually private.
I think it's healthier to consider nudity the natural consequence of removing our clothes than considering it sexual. 
Labeling a movie PG-13 just because you may catch the glimpse of skin seems so weird to me. All it conveys is nudity = sexuality = bad. 
What's your take on that?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

I guess it's kind of cultural... I don't think a naked body is sexual but in our Western culture it is not seen as a decent thing to do. Actually, if you walk naked in the street you get arrested...


----------



## Nath0811

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I guess it's kind of cultural... I don't think a naked body is sexual but in our Western culture it is not seen as a decent thing to do. Actually, if you walk naked in the street you get arrested...


 
Well, yeah! I didn't mean it in that context. But I do think it might affect people's perception, and maybe have an impact on the amount of crime and rapes in a country. If it's not a hidden, forbidden thing, then maybe it doesn't have a forbidden draw...


----------



## Isis

That really depends on the purpose! You have to know the genre of the movie, the plot and which part of the movie the scene was shown in order to have a concrete evidence to prove the purpose. But basing it on your example, it is not sexual at all because it was a scene with a man who just woke up and ready to take his shower (the purpose of this is to have a closer look on how people look and behave in the morning).

When the scene captures a man who is nude and doing something which is unusual, then this will be another story!


----------



## Isis

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> Well, yeah! I didn't mean it in that context. But I do think it might affect people's perception, and maybe have an impact on the amount of crime and rapes in a country. If it's not a hidden, forbidden thing, then maybe it doesn't have a forbidden draw...


 
But I think it only contributes about 10% of the reason why rape cases are high. Well, nudity is not really forbidden but it really selects the place where you can go nude right? Like in a competition, when they say it's a long gown competition, why should I wear a coctail dress? It's all about selecting the right clothing for a certain occasion.

Has there been a time when you just went around the house nude? Or, you did your chores nude? Our house is a private place and we can be nude there anytime we wanted! Therefore, there are still places where we can be seen nude and we will not be condemned at all!


----------



## modgirl

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> Labeling a movie PG-13 just because you may catch the glimpse of skin seems so weird to me. All it conveys is nudity = sexuality = bad.
> What's your take on that?


 
I think it's much, much healthier for anyone of any age to see a body in its natural state than it is to see lots of violence (I'm thinking specifically on the screen, but my opinion applies to any situation).

How many of us have seen pictures of sweet little babies' bottoms on bareskin rugs?  Only a pervert would find the images sexual.  Certainly, nudity can have sexual overtones, no doubt.  But the general topic of nudity is extremely broad.

Art classes frequently use nude models because of the complexities in drawing the human form.  There is a genre of nude photography that is non-sexual and well-respected.

This is an area where I think the United States is far behind Europe.


----------



## Amityville

I turn into a rampant sex-maniac if I see any exposed flesh.


----------



## Nocciolina

Amityville said:
			
		

> I turn into a rampant sex-maniac if I see any exposed flesh.



Well Benny Hill,

Firstly,  in western culture nudity is tied to sex in such a way that it is difficult to think about one without the other. Secondly nudity is often 'taboo', 'forbidden fruit' improper, not very christian blah blah. Things are much more exciting when they are uncommon, unaccepted, forbidden.Why do you think dieting fails for so many people? I know for example if I try to diet than I start drooling at the thought of chocolate when usually I wouldn't bother with it. The same with naked skin, add naked skin, an oppressed Brit and a bit of bare skin what you have is a sex-maniac.. AKA Amityville


----------



## modgirl

Amityville said:
			
		

> I turn into a rampant sex-maniac if I see any exposed flesh.


 
Aha, that was you on the tube a few months ago and upon whose drool I nearly slipped and fell as I was trying to mind the gap.....


----------



## astronauta

I agree with Noccio. (specially the chocolate part).

This is such a cultural thing... A Canadian friend of mine nearly kills his entire family by driving off the highway in France when he came upon a gigantic perfume ad with the naked torso of a woman...

I think that for Latin Europe that is such a common sight that sometimes we don't even notice, but when a foreigner has even come to the point of jeopardizing his safety and his family that's when we notice.

One more thing; morvosity. In many European beaches it's quite common for all women of all ages and shapes to go topless and no one stares. But when you go to a nudist beach in North America, everyone stares, it's quite unconfortable.

I guess it all a matter of perspective and how you were brought up. 
When it comes to rating movies, I'd prefer to see scenes of nudity (which to my point of view does not necessarily count as sexual) than a movie that is PG13 and has full blown violence in it.


----------



## LV4-26

Just imagine how we would go walking in the street if it was our nose that was a sex organ .


----------



## astronauta

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> maybe have an impact on the amount of crime and rapes in a country


 I disagree with this. It has been proven that rapists rape out of a need to control or dominate. On the other hand, the most horrid crimes against women are perpetrated in countries where women are all covered up.


----------



## Nath0811

modgirl said:
			
		

> This is an area where I think the United States is far behind Europe.


 
The kids in college are so crazy about going to topless bars, and spring break,s they grow up being so oppressed by what they could never see... I bet it has a coleration.


----------



## Nath0811

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I disagree with this. It has been proven that rapists rape out of a need to control or dominate. On the other hand, the most horrid crimes against women are perpetrated in countries where women are all covered up.


 
So there's a contradiction in what you wrote...

If women's flesh was not considered or viewed or perceived as a forbidden fruit, then the men would perhaps react differently. Do you know what I mean? 
They won't be all excited or frustrated if they see the woman's naked body as being just a body with no clothes on...


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I disagree with this. It has been proven that rapists rape out of a need to control or dominate.



Perdón... but proven by whom? 

Where does thanatos meet eros? I think that taking out the sexual element to explain rape just gives you part of the picture.


----------



## Nath0811

modgirl said:
			
		

> I think it's much, much healthier for anyone of any age to see a body in its natural state than it is to see lots of violence (I'm thinking specifically on the screen, but my opinion applies to any situation).


 
I agree with you 200% on that! I don't understand how it's ok to see people shooting each other and not ok to see people laying down in their beds with no clothes on.  
Our society is really not improving much, is it...


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

modgirl said:
			
		

> I think it's much, much healthier for anyone of any age to see a body in its natural state than it is to see lots of violence (I'm thinking specifically on the screen, but my opinion applies to any situation).


 
That's true... it looks that many of the violent movies that are made nowadays are for children. Parents wouldn't want their children to see a movie where there is nudity but many times they don't mind if they see or play violent movies/games. It makes no sense to me...


----------



## swift_precision

Well as far as the violence is concerned, I'm used to seeing it.  Many of the violent images that are depicted be on it on TV or otherwise I've seen so I am rarely affected.  With regards to the nudity issue: I agree with those who say that is a cultural aspect.  I personally, if I had kids, would NOT want them watching some damn porno-like movie on TV whether they are either engaging in any sexual acts or just lying there.  They have enough time in their lives to see someone naked....why should they have to see it sooner? I suppose the same could be said for violent games, images on televsion, whathaveyou, however, as was explained earlier, there is some allure in the forbidden and for that reason people at least in Western society like to keep this aspect as it is....behind closed doors.


----------



## timpeac

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I agree with Noccio. (specially the chocolate part).
> 
> This is such a cultural thing... A Canadian friend of mine nearly kills his entire family by driving off the highway in France when he came upon a gigantic perfume ad with the naked torso of a woman...
> 
> I think that for Latin Europe that is such a common sight that sometimes we don't even notice, but when a foreigner has even come to the point of jeopardizing his safety and his family that's when we notice.
> 
> One more thing; morvosity. In many European beaches it's quite common for all women of all ages and shapes to go topless and no one stares. But when you go to a nudist beach in North America, everyone stares, it's quite unconfortable.
> 
> I guess it all a matter of perspective and how you were brought up.
> When it comes to rating movies, I'd prefer to see scenes of nudity (which to my point of view does not necessarily count as sexual) than a movie that is PG13 and has full blown violence in it.


 
This reminds me of one of those emails that come round with funny (real) adverts from around the world. It shows a beach with lots of pretty women (with bikini tops on) and two guys somewhere in Latin America who say to each other (forgive the translation if you know the advert if I get it wrong) "You know in Spain the women aren't allowed to where bikini tops it's the law!" and they both look around longingly. Then we see a beach in Spain where a supposedly unattractive women stands up and takes her top off and two guys wince and say to each other "you know in America the women have to wear bikini tops, it's the law" and they both look wishful.

Just goes to show it all comes down to perception I suppose.


----------



## GenJen54

In short, I believe most Europeans have a much healthier attitude about themselves and their bodies than we do in the US, where "Barbie" and "Miss America" have been the standard-bearers of American beauty for almost fifty years. Hollywood has taken these images and morphed them into standards of beauty which are nearly impossible to breach, especially by those of us who are just "normal, everyday" folk.

When I lived in France, it took me some time to adjust to the number of commercials and other materials where I would see near-naked women. Once I got over the initial "shock" however, I did not notice it at all and thought it a perfectly natural part of life. 

I think showing women (and men) in their "natural" state of living is completely acceptable. Nudity, in this regard, does not have to be sexual. For most Americans, however, the accepted attitude towards nudity is that the naked body is only supposed to be exposed for sexual purposes. Therefore, showing even some skin is seen as sexual in nature, even if this is not the case. It is all a matter of perception. 

While Louis XIV and his courtiers were enjoying themselves in all sorts of perverse manners during the sixteenth century, America's founders and forefathers were busy forging a new nation under Puritanical rule. This influence has not changed much in the past three centuries. 

As has been discussed in various other threads, approximately 80% of the U.S. population claims themselves to be protestant. Of these, 75% practice some type of protestantism, where nudity is equated with sexual "sin." 

It is no wonder America has such an obesity problem. Aside from our bad habits of fast food and little exercise, the fact that we are often raised with a distorted view of the human body is enough to keep anyone closet-eating for decades.

Another subject: For those who wish to debate the psychology behind rape - sexual v control matter, you might wish to take a look at this.


----------



## astronauta

Ever, is more than well known. It is never the goal of a rapist to engage in a consensual sexual intercourse when he sees a beautiful woman that bears a bit of skin. 

If that was not the case, why are there women that are raped everyday that do not dress provocatively, that are unsightly, or just plain undesirable?

Nath, no, I do not consider it a contradiction. Women that are covered up are indeed controlled to the limit, and those covers are just another form of it. I don't think it has to do with bearing skin, is about abiding an imposed nonsense law cause it goes from anything from not being able to attend school to not being allowed to go anywhere unnacompanied.


----------



## modgirl

swift_precision said:
			
		

> Well as far as the violence is concerned, I'm used to seeing it.......
> 
> I personally, if I had kids, would NOT want them watching some damn porno-like movie on TV whether they are either engaging in any sexual acts or just lying there.


 

This is an unusual perspective. You seem more bothered by simple nudity than by violence. Is violence more acceptable in our society? Unfortunately, in the US, I think it most likely is. 

It's my understanding that the discussion isn't about "sexual" nudity. I think that kind of nudity is highly inappropriate for children! I can't imagine any adult who would advocate children being exposed to sexual content. However, sexual (or erotic) nudity is not the same as simply not wearing clothes.

Have you ever seen any nude photography by the master Edward Weston? His work is stunningly beautiful. Also, it's fascinating to see nudes of muscular men and toned women to see the differences in their muscular and skeletal ssystems that isn't possible when the models are fully clothed. Oddly enough, in an artistic nude photograph, the private body parts are about the last place the eyes look.

Quite honestly, in a film, I don't really notice nudity itself unless it is more of an erotic nature, which is an entirely different ballgame.


----------



## astronauta

I agree with you Mod. I have taken my nephews and nieces to countless museums, parks and piazzas where there are plenty of beautiful bodies sculpted or painted, and has never caused any polemic. I also think it depends on the parent's reaction, most children ALWAYS look up to how adults react to react themselves.


----------



## Amityville

Quite a few posts have been about the difference between sexual nudity and just nudity. Does this have its apotheosis in breast-feeding ? It is purely between mother and baby, it is functional and necessary every few hours, and so, unless the pair are confined to the home, has to be done in public, but does 'society' accept it - not fully in my experience. Why could that be ?


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Ever, is more than well known. A rape is a crime, and while many rapists will link this with other sexual traumas, generally thier motive and objective, concious or unconscious is to satiate that need to punish, to control, while mentally sound men, when exposed to nudity, will experiment an arousal, a desire to experience a consentual sexual intercourse and the pleasure associated with it.
> 
> If that was not the case, why are there women that are raped everyday that do not dress provocatively, that are unsightly, or just plain undesirable?



Astro,

Let's not forget about something very important: rapists are men. You talk about "mentally sound men". Most of the women I know believe that men that fit that category can only be found in fantasy world. (Ah, and some in Hollywood!) 

My point is that all men can be placed on a continuum from sicker to healthier. Again, for some weird reason, most of us tend to gravitate to one of those extremes. (No. the other one.) But we all share a strong sexual drive. Men are far less discriminating than women when it comes to sleeping with someone. Women are more picky. Men can separate love from sex. Women can't. (Well, prostitutes can but that's what they do for a living.) 

My point? Healthier guys can put their sexual needs on hold or seek the services of a prostitute. Sicker guys can't so they use violence to meet their sexual urges. I think that feminism needs to revisit any theory of rape --as a means men use to control or abuse women-- that ignores or minimizes the sexual component.


----------



## astronauta

I disagree with you Ever. I honestly don't think that a woman bearing skin alone can prompt a crime; long-gone are the days when a rapist can get away with the "she provoked me" excuse. And this is not a feminist or a fantasy view, look at the link posted by Gen.

Funny how you say that a healthy guy will hold his needs or seek a prostitute.
I would think that most mentally sound guys would just engage in consensual sex, with whomever.


----------



## modgirl

Amityville said:
			
		

> Quite a few posts have been about the difference between sexual nudity and just nudity. Does this have its apotheosis in breast-feeding ? It is purely between mother and baby, it is functional and necessary every few hours, and so, unless the pair are confined to the home, has to be done in public, but does 'society' accept it - not fully in my experience. Why could that be ?


 
We're just uncomfortable with our bodies.  Anyone who's ever been around a mom who is experienced in nursing her baby knows that skin rarely shows.  It's only when women drape huge blankets around them (that act as billboards to announce the attraction underwraps, so to speak) that seems to draw attention.   The "sterilized" view of the nude body is lent to how babies should be fed (which is sad because nursing is the natural and best way to feed a baby).


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I disagree with you Ever. I honestly don't think that a woman bearing skin alone can prompt a crime; long-gone are the days when a rapist can get away with the "she provoked me" excuse. And this is not a feminist or a fantasy view, look at the link posted by Gen.



You are putting too much emphasis on the external  stimuli. Wrong approach! It has to do with how f*cked up a guy is. It's what's going on in his mind what counts, in other words the internal  stimuli. Again, if you are really, really f*cked up, the woman can be covered from head to toes but you'll rape her anyways. La procesión va por dentro!



			
				astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Funny how you say that a healthy guy will hold his needs or seek a prostitute. I would think that most mentally sound guys would just engage in consensual sex, with whomever.



Consensual sex is great. But if no woman wants to go to bed with you, you either pay a prostitute or you resort to manuela. In terms of your last sentence, I fully agree with the word "whomever". Women are guilty of discrimination. Guys are always ready to love and be loved regardless of the woman's educational background, marital status, etc.


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> Guys are always ready to love and be loved regardless of the woman's educational background, marital status, etc.


 
Whoa, what a loaded (pardon the expression) statement!


----------



## astronauta

Exactly Ever, I am simply disagreeing with what Nath said regarding nudity and rape. 





			
				Nath0811 said:
			
		

> ...and maybe have an impact on the amount of crime and rapes in a country


 And I also disagree a bit with your last sentence; men discriminate in their own ways; but that's another subject.


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> Whoa, what a loaded (pardon the expression) statement!



If you aren't old enough to be my candidate to the vice-presidency of the USA, you should stay away from this conversation...


----------



## cuchuflete

The overabundant sexism in this conversation reflects the antiquated view that only men engage in intercourse for purely sexual reasons, while assuming that women do so only for affection.  I'm not aware of women being provoked to rape men because of the sight of their naked flesh, but women do have biological urges too, or so I've been told.

Some of this conversation seems like it was written for a 1950s movie script.  Where are the proponents of equality?


----------



## luar

Everness said:
			
		

> You are putting too much emphasis on the external stimuli. Wrong approach!


 
I do not think that this approach is wrong, it is just that an approach. And there is a reason for its existence. If a woman is raped "because" she was walking down the street, almost naked, in the middle of the night, then there is something we can do to avoid being a victim of this horrible act. But, on the contrary, if the woman was raped because the guy could not control his sexual desire, then there is less she can do to protect herself. The external-stimuli theory gives a better sense of control, that is my hypothesis.


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> If you aren't old enough to be my candidate to the vice-presidency of the USA, you should stay away from this conversation...


 
Well, I'm not 35, but I'm certainly of legal age!


----------



## BasedowLives

Everness said:
			
		

> If you aren't old enough to be my candidate to the vice-presidency of the USA, you should stay away from this conversation...



age discrimination much?  this is the problem with politicians.


----------



## ps139

Nath0811 said:
			
		

> OK, I have no problems with these movies I grew up with, where a man would get up from bed, naked (because he sleeps that way), wrap himself up in a rob and proceed to the shower.
> This is something very natural, and I don't think there's anything sexual in the scene, if the fact that you may catch a glimpse of a human body part that's usually private.
> I think it's healthier to consider nudity the natural consequence of removing our clothes than considering it sexual.
> Labeling a movie PG-13 just because you may catch the glimpse of skin seems so weird to me. All it conveys is nudity = sexuality = bad.
> What's your take on that?


In your example, it is not sexual because there is no sexual intent. 

Intent would have to be taken into account to give it a proper rating.


----------



## rob.returns

Is it true that shampoo commercials in Europe show breast exposure?(I heard this from a friend).


Here in Asia we are very discreet about nudity.


----------



## anangelaway

rob.returns said:
			
		

> Is it true that shampoo commercials in Europe show breast exposure?(I heard this from a friend).
> 
> 
> Here in Asia we are very discreet about nudity.


 
Yes absolutely. Imagine a woman having a shower with her bra on?! 
Perhaps some do in real life, and I not see anything really wrong with that, only she must have her reasons I suppose.


----------



## BasedowLives

anangelaway said:
			
		

> Yes absolutely. Imagine a woman having a shower with her bra on?!
> Perhaps some do in real life, and I not see anything really wrong with that, only she must have her reasons I suppose.



they don't shower with a bra on in our commercials. 

they just skip the camera around on her.


----------



## rob.returns

YEs. Same here.





			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> they don't shower with a bra on in our commercials.
> 
> they just skip the camera around on her.


----------



## anangelaway

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> they just skip the camera around on her.


 
Oh, this how they do?  Please forgive me, I only found it funny and so sweet in fact. 
As it has been said, in my native country, they do show breasts on commercials.
When I actually moved abroad, some 12 years ago, from one country to another, I was stunned to see all those bras suddenly... 
To me, it was the opposite!


----------



## Benjy

but then there is the old adage: familiarity (sp/sic/i know i have spelt it wrong??) breeds contempt. i dont think constant nudity is a good thing whether in a sexual context or not. i think the human form is something to be admired and studied, but i don't know, constantly putting it on display somehow makes it less special. i am sure i couldnt say what i mean less eloquently if i wanted to haha..


----------



## cuchuflete

Once upon a time, in most of Europe and the three North American countries, women covered much more of themselves.  If literature is any guide, the sight of a woman's leg could get a man aroused in those days.  Now that much more is generally on display, ankles and calves seem only to arouse those with the associated fetish(es).  

I wonder if people in tropical places where little clothing is used could tell us their view...no pun intended...of exposure of the body and its effects, or lack of same, on sexual arousal.   I suspect we get titilated more by the novelty of what we see, than by the objects themselves.  

If that is true, then total nudity would presumably result in fewer rapes, for those who believe that the sight of flesh is even a partial cause of violent acts against women.


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> You are putting too much emphasis on the external  stimuli. Wrong approach! It has to do with how f*cked up a guy is. It's what's going on in his mind what counts, in other words the internal  stimuli. Again, if you are really, really f*cked up, the woman can be covered from head to toes but you'll rape her anyways. La procesión va por dentro!


 If I may interfere in your conversation, there's a lot of truth on what astro said. Women have been suffering from rape and other abuses since ancient times. Conquerors always took possession of the defeated, including raping women. Thus, rape is not entirely about men's sexual desires. Even those f*cked up enough to rape a woman have some issues with power, and feeling satisfaction subordinating another human being. 

 Also, as Cuchu asserted quite correctly, women have sexual needs as well. And allow me to go a little further. How often do you hear about us sexually abusing men?





> you resort to manuela.


 I haven’t heard that one in quite some time! 

Saludos


----------



## Everness

luar said:
			
		

> I do not think that this approach is wrong, it is just that an approach. And there is a reason for its existence. If a woman is raped "because" she was walking down the street, almost naked, in the middle of the night, then there is something we can do to avoid being a victim of this horrible act.  But, on the contrary, if the woman was raped because the guy could not control his sexual desire, then there is less women can do to protect themselves. The external stimuli theory gives a better sense of control that is my hypothesis.



¡Mil perdones a astro y a luar! ¿Quién soy yo, después de todo, para determinar qué es correcto o incorrecto? Fue un arrebato pasional.

Back to business. I categorize people from healthier to sicker in the following way: a) Messed up. b) Screwed up. c) F*cked up. This classification is much simpler and commonsensical than the DMS IV one. My point is that the stimuli can be the same but guys respond differently depending on where they are on that continuum. A naked woman can walk down the street at 11pm and not be raped by anyone. A fully dressed woman can walk down that same street and be raped by someone. The problem is that guys don't carry the above labels on their foreheads. I think that women have the right to wear any type of clothes. Even if a woman wears some skimpy outfit, men don't have the right to cross any type of boundaries by saying or doing something to her.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The overabundant sexism in this conversation reflects the antiquated view that only men engage in intercourse for purely sexual reasons, while assuming that women do so only for affection.  I'm not aware of women being provoked to rape men because of the sight of their naked flesh, but women do have biological urges too, or so I've been told.
> 
> Some of this conversation seems like it was written for a 1950s movie script.  Where are the proponents of equality?



Equal yet different. Men and women are sexual beings but they experience sexuality differently. As I stated above, I think that men tend to separate sex and affection and women tend to integrate them. Love has its roots in the biological but that doesn't mean that only the instinctual should inform our sexual life (the rest of the animal kingdom operates in that fashion but by design). But, on the other hand, you can't ignore the instinctual. (Now I understand why sex therapists never have openings!) In sum, men should learn from women to integrate sex and affection and women should be reminded that they are dating or married to pigs that will turn into princes if they are kissed...  

A word on rape. I don't know if its biologically driven or culturally sanctioned --maybe both-- but in general women don't rape men. It's the other way around.


----------



## anangelaway

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Once upon a time, in most of Europe and the three North American countries, women covered much more of themselves. If literature is any guide, the sight of a woman's leg could get a man aroused in those days. Now that much more is generally on display, ankles and calves seem only to arouse those with the associated fetish(es).
> 
> I wonder if people in tropical places where little clothing is used could tell us their view...no pun intended...of exposure of the body and its effects, or lack of same, on sexual arousal. I suspect we get titilated more by the novelty of what we see, than by the objects themselves.
> 
> If that is true, then total nudity would presumably result in fewer rapes, for those who believe that the sight of flesh is even a partial cause of violent acts against women.


 
I also was wondering. What some of you would think of Naturist Resorts (centre de vacances pour Naturistes), well spread in my native country for instance. I used to spend some holidays in one of those as a child and teenager. This is what I call Nudity in the most natural way as you can imagine. 
Apparently according to the *FFN*, French Federation of Naturism:

Le naturisme est une manière de vivre en harmonie avec la nature, caractérisée par une pratique de la nudité en commun qui a pour but de favoriser le respect de soi-même, le respect des autres et celui de l'environnement.»

Once you get ''bored'' at looking at forms, from all angles, you actually do not necessarely focused anymore on the ''parts'' that stimulate men and women's... You actually see a BODY, with those arms, legs, feet, neck... 

Was I embarrassed? No. Did it change my perceptions about sexuality? No. Did my male friends had any different behavior towards the women in their life? Not necessarely. Did my father jumped into another women's legs? No.

I do know that some people have strong opinions about Naturists, and I can understand it somehow. 

As for my views on little clothing in Tropical places, all I can tell is that the girls over here wear more clothes than some in Tahiti, Bora Bora... 
Fashion drives women's way of choosing what to wear, and it could be really sexy. Girls wearing ''little clothing'' does not bother me, by the contrary (hot weather), and I do think it only has an effects on tourists, or newly residents perhaps... 
On the beach side, we're far away from the topless's attitude comparing to some Mediteranean beaches... 
What I can see, I beleive that men over here are more attracted by a girl's move while dancing, than what she actually wears. How gorgeous is a Latin girl when it comes to dancing?! Seriously... 
Now, would you imagine in that case how many rapists you could find only because of slight flesh around. 

I totally agree with modgirl concerning the nude sculptures. 
I just can see a man ''raping'' a sculpture for some reason...


----------



## Nath0811

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I wonder if people in tropical places where little clothing is used could tell us their view...no pun intended...of exposure of the body and its effects, or lack of same, on sexual arousal. I suspect we get titilated more by the novelty of what we see, than by the objects themselves.


 
Well... Funny you mention that because I grew up in the Caribbean. It's so natural to see women with no bra at the beach, little kids running around naked, nudism is also common, eoman breast-feeding... You just don't see it as being something more than what it is i.e. women with no bra, etc. 

Therefore...




			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If that is true, then total nudity would presumably result in fewer rapes, for those who believe that the sight of flesh is even a partial cause of violent acts against women.


 
... I believe there are fewer rapes in those places where the flesh is not something so taboo that when it's exposed, it triggers some crazy sexual arousement. I'm not talking about the rapes that are the results of sexual abuse as a child here. 

It was striking growing up to see the tourists' reaction... How they would stare, go back and forth near a woman on the beach, it's so pathetic. But come on, when do they see a woman's body besides their wife and/ or the strippers at teh club? 
That's why I don't think nudity should be banned from children. I don't think there's anything wrong with it if it's not associated necessarily with sexuality.


----------



## Nath0811

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> snip -  the accepted attitude towards nudity is that the naked body is only supposed to be exposed for sexual purposes. Therefore, showing even some skin is seen as sexual in nature, even if this is not the case. It is all a matter of perception.
> 
> 
> ...and that is the problem. Well put GenJen.
> 
> Well, I'm actually surprised that there haven't been more "puritans" reacting to this.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> If I may interfere in your conversation, there's a lot of truth on what astro said. Women have been suffering from rape and other abuses since ancient times. Conquerors always took possession of the defeated, including raping women. Thus, rape is not entirely about men's sexual desires.



Good point. Patriarchy creates the context that allows women to be seen as objects to be used and abused. Rape is just one more type of abuse inflicted on women by men. Soy medio duro pero aprendo...


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> Patriarchy creates the context that allows women to be seen as objects to be used and abused.


 
I don't have time for a huge debate right now, but please note that the above is your opinion only.  I think if you've ever academically studied the topic of patriarchy, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *cuchuflete*
> I wonder if people in tropical places where little clothing is used could tell us their view...no pun intended...of exposure of the body and its effects, or lack of same, on sexual arousal. I suspect we get titilated more by the novelty of what we see, than by the objects themselves.


I cannot speak from my own experience, but when I lived in France I served as a part-time au pair for a family who had once spent time in the Peace Corps in West Africa. In the tribal village where they lived, it was natural and normal for the women to walk around topless, but with their legs covered by long skirts. In this culture, breasts were not considered as sexual, especially as young mothers would walk around with babes on their breasts. 

Their legs, however, were considered highly erotic, which was why they were kept covered. 

When the wife of the French family (who was actually American) first went to Africa, she was used to wearing shorts and sleveless t-shirts. She was asked almost immediately to change to the local custom so as not to arouse desires in the local men. She obliged, but said that walking topless took a great time to get used to. At first, she tried wearing a bikini top, but was mocked, so eventually took to the native form of dress.

Even among different cultures, there are different ideas of what is considered "sexual" nudity versus "natural" nudity.


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> I don't have time for a huge debate right now, but please note that the above is your opinion only.  I think if you've ever academically studied the topic of patriarchy, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.



My opinions are always cut and dry... Ah, I always welcome any debate of ideas. I just want to warn you that 9 out of 10 times those discussions demonstrate that I was right...


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> I just want to warn you that 9 out of 10 times those discussions demonstrate that I was right...


 
Big.....tease.....but I shall remain strong and not submit, or, well, something like that....


----------



## Eugens

Everness said:
			
		

> but in general women don't rape men. It's the other way around.


I think that, here, physical strenght has a lot to do as to why generally men rape women and not vice versa. Generally, the strong abuses the weak, and generally, men are stronger than women. When considering a man and a women that weigh the same, on average, men have a higher percentage of muscular mass and women a higher percentage of fat. I will go as far as to say that if women were generally stronger than men, we would hear of more cases of women abusing men. (I think once there was a case, but I'm not sure). Some men also rape other weaker men. And surely some women may rape weaker women.

I heard of a case of a female teacher that sexually abused her students. This case may be of a case of a different type because the students here were children, so this is a case of paedophilia as well, not rape only. But again, this was a case of someone strong (an adult) versus someone weaker speaking of physical strenght, which I think are the fundamental characteristics of the people involved in a rape (rapist and victim) must have. 

My point is that women don't have necessarily a "purer mind" than men. But we tend to think that because women that have a lot of sex not involving love are worse regarded by society than men that do the same. So women tend to hide that behaviour more whereas men tend to brag about it.


----------



## Everness

Eugens said:
			
		

> My point is that women have not necessarily a "purer minded" than men. But we tend to think that because women that have a lot of sex not involving love are worse regarded by society than men that do the same. So women tend to hide that behaviour more whereas men tend to brag about it.



My hunch is that you'll get some feedback about whose mind is purer. 

Good point about double standards regarding sexual behavior sanctioned by a patriarchal culture.  

If you are a woman and you have sex with many men, you are a slut. If you are a guy and have sex with many women, you are a macho.


----------



## Eugens

Everness said:
			
		

> My hunch is that you'll get some feedback about whose mind is purer.


Hmmm... Now that I think it again, I have also heard that there are more cases of male paedophiles than female ones. Why is that? Maybe... after all... very broadly speaking, women have "purer minds" (???)


----------



## modgirl

Eugens said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Now that I think it again, I have also heard that there are more cases of male paedophiles than female ones. Why is it that? Maybe... after all... very broadly speaking, women have "purer minds" (???)


 
Let's try......less testosterone!  

Women have testosterone but much less than men.  What propels libido?  Testosterone.


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> Women have testosterone but much less than men.  What propels libido?  Testosterone.



So that's why they have more headaches than men! I see...


----------



## Nath0811

modgirl said:
			
		

> Let's try......less testosterone!
> 
> Women have testosterone but much less than men. What propels libido? Testosterone.


 
I would think that this is a definite factor.


----------



## Jonegy

I was based in Japan in the middle to late '60's when public bath houses were still pretty common.  I do believe that our girlfriends planned the event but needless to say my friend and I  found ourselves in one on a very warm and sweaty afternoon.  Erotic ????  No way.   Embarrassing ??  You bet, considering that from the changing room we only had a towel the size of two joined-up faceclothes discretely placed to "protect our dignity"  -  The locals found our embarrassment highly amusing but once the early shock had wained  we found the whole experience refreshing and became regular visitors  -  and No  -  Sex was the last thing on our minds.  It was also a common occurance to see nursing mothers suckling their babies in public - even in the supermarket and quite a few times in Tokyo.

On a similar theme, on one of our regular routes in Tokyo we used to pass under a railway bridge with public toilets along one side which cosisted of "L-shaped" cubicles with no doors.

I have heard that Japan has become more puritanical of late  -  whether this is the American influence or not I couldn't say ,  but if true I do think it a great shame.

In the end I married a Brazilian  -  Could it be that the postage stamp size bikinis joined by dental floss were more erotic ????


----------



## Nath0811

Jonegy said:
			
		

> I was based in Japan in the middle to late '60's when public bath houses were still pretty common.


 
Talking of Japan, the cartoon Dragon Ball, and over cartoons are very much edited nudity-wise in the US.
The character in dragon takes his shower, well, naked in the Japanese version (a little child butt drawn) - and in the US he wears a bathing suit!!
Now isn't that pushing it? By the way - violence and bloody scenes aren't edited.
Who's in charge of that???


----------

