Another Look at Public Nudity

Wow, so many posts since I began writing mine !

Caught one a moment ago though that typifies how idiotic and perverted we've become, thanks to bans on nudity.

The knee jerk reaction to a big breasted topless woman.

THAT is the comment -- of a product -- of the exploitation of nudity.

That is the comment of a man (I assume) whose only exposure to breasts as a child was via television and movies .. of someone raised on a diet of silicone breasts presented as 'sexy' .. of someone who probably couldn't cope with the very ordinary sight of a female breast which has fed infants (and guess what .. that's what they're designed to do).

This descent .. spelled descent as in downwards .. into infantilism and 'mommyism' .. is what makes the pornography industry so lucrative. It's what destroys relationships and marriages and makes total idiots out of men.

It's what makes men believe women's only purpose on this planet is to 'serve' men sexually .. is to behave like animated sex dolls. And it's the product of a group (who virtually own and control all pornography) of men who are inherently misogynistic, who hate and fear women as does their religion.

THAT is why I would for nudity to be normal and an everyday reality.

I would love for these infantile men to be exposed everywhere .. on buses, trains, planes, the street, in shops, in gyms .. to naked women of ALL ages, shapes and sizes. It's the ONLY thing that would make them grow up and get their brains out of their groins .. to be exposed to 70 and 80 year old breasts, to flat exhausted breasts, to breasts that have been removed totally after failed enlargement and cancers, etc.

Only THEN would they start to begin to grasp .. that breasts were not created as suckling bags for man-sized infants. Anymore than you see silver backed apes standing in line wolf-whistling she-apes as they passed, or groping she-apes breasts in a crowded patch of jungle.

Apes are currently more sophisticated about sex than at least half of the allegedly 'human' race. Explains a lot







[edit on 18-8-2009 by St Vaast]

Originally posted by St Vaast
In the Victorian era...we're told they even covered table-legs beneath layers of cloth, in case the sight of that wooden stump (ok, some of those table legs were pretty shapely) turned men's eyes to other stumps and caused them to become wild, rampaging animals ... thrill, thrill, swoon.

My Grandparents kept the legs of all their furniture covered, from the piano to the end-tables, to the chairs. When I got older I had a conversation with my Grandmother and she seemed shocked when I told her that I considered her a prude. When she asked why I pointed out her practice of covering the legs of all the furniture in her house as the Victorians did, lest someone be aroused by the sight of them bare. My Grandmother laughed as she had never considered where the practice came from and had kept the house the same way it had been for many generations unwittingly knowing the reason why this was done. She assured me she wasn't a prude and informed me her and my Grandfather had been Swingers since the Roaring Twenties and still partner swap every Friday (EWWWWW!!!! Grandma! TMI!).

Originally posted by St Vaast
In between, we treat our nakedness as an aberration .. as something that's seen during a shower or bath and swiftly recovered before we face the world. Most of us only see our naked bodies in mirrors as we dress or undress .. especially as we age and the sagging appears and the veins, etc.

Because, if children were raised to view the human body for what it is .. a 'container' for the personality, character, soul of the individual inside ---- then it would be THOSE 'hidden' qualities upon which attention would focus !

Do you see what I'm trying (badly) to express ?

So, kids raised to regard nudity as the norm would value people for what they are, what they stand for. Society would develop new standards as to what is worthy. Abs alone wouldn't count for much and as kids would know (having seen old people nude) abs don't last for long either.

St Vaast, you did not express it badly at all. I applaud you. Once again you have shown yourself to possess remarkable insight and intellect!

I agree. Our bodies are temporal vessels that carry us as passengers through this life. When you take a journey to a distant shore, does how the ship look, or what color it is painted have any reflection upon who you are as a person? Of course it doesn't! Yet, why then do we put so much value on our temporal bodies?

World+Dog constantly points out the vanity and shallowness of Western Civilization, especially American Civilization (if you can call it a Civilization). Yet, we continue to perpetuate this vanity and shallowness rather than abrogate it.

If we truly value the immortal aspects of our being, or place traits such as kindness, humanity, moral fortitude, inner beauty, et cetera to be of greater importance than the temporal physical body with lifted breasts or a 6-pack of Abs, then by what reason do we cling to adorning the body as if it were a divine object to be hidden behind a veil from the gaze of the unworthy, and adorned with jewels and fragrances, and paraded before our beloved worshipers as if it were a deity? For that is truly what we do when we hide our nudity!

St Vaast I truly wish I could give you more than a Star for your post.

Some disadvantages to global nudity:

* Everyone looking the same (less individualised stylishness)

* Less excitement about sexuality

* Less protection from environmental factors (quicker aging)

Thank you, Frater

I don't think I'm allowed to be thanking you in a post .. against policy or something

So I thank you for raising this very important and overlooked issue, in this thread and in this forum

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Some disadvantages to global nudity:

* Everyone looking the same (less individualised stylishness)

* Less excitement about sexuality

* Less protection from environmental factors (quicker aging)

Global Nudity wouldn't be a requirement, so there is even more range for individualized stylishness!

Less excitement about sexuality = less sex crimes, exploitation, and social ills!

Less protection from environmental factors is a falsehood. If it is cold, people will cover up. If they sunburn easily, they will take precautions, but overall, more sun means more Vitamin D and a better base tan, so there will be less illness and less skin cancer!!

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Where are the pictures?!

Seriously, I'm all for public nudity for people that are good looking. You should have to apply for a license to display your flesh :p

And where exactly would these nudists keep this license? They have no pockets!

I have absolutely no problem with human nudity.

But animals...now that's a different story altogether. Male horses, Mules, whoa!!! Baboons, Oh please cover that rascal up!

Anyone interested in helping me out with some venture capital to start a nice line of barnyard haute couture??

Sort of off the subject, but not really in the end, but this reminds me of a conversation I was having with my husband the other day.

I find myself surprised that I am so incredibly offended by Burkas and even Hijabs. It, to me, seems as much an article and symbol of oppression as chains. It's a slap in the face; forcing women to cover themselves that because MEN cannot control themselves, that showing their hair, or any semblance of femininity which can include showing themselves at ALL!, is a sin worth death or pain.

So, in order to understand my own feelings better, I tried to understand how I might be wrong.

And it occured to me that, at least in the case of the hijab, that we're talking about 'modesty' here, which is this arbitary value.

And in that case, while I see covering your hair as an affront, isn't also, making a big deal about short skirts, tight pants, low necklines and so on, isn't that just this 'modesty' thing too?

'We' all sit around and decide what is beyond acceptable norms, but in the end, it's all nonsense, born of our fear of the power that the urges of sexual reproduction.

There is nothing shameful or wrong about our bodies, nor about sex.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I live in Europe, and here its already a reality. Nudes live alongside dresseds in peace

Especially in the summer its not uncommon to see plenty of nudes in public parks and at lakes...in Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Denmark,, Sweden, Norway, TheNetherlands especially.

In Europe public nudity has nothing to do with whether there is a liberal or conservative government in power either. There is just a generally more accepting attitude of it.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I find it ironic that in America in many places it's OK to wear a gun but people are threatened by the site of a breast, or package.

reply to post by St Vaast

You talk a lot of sense, I agree with what you say but I wonder how much of a person's like for breasts is innate. I earlier said I think forbidden fruit is the sweetest (ie that which is covered up)... however for the human race to carry on we need some innate attraction to physical bodies to make procreation possible.

Look at Peacocks, the male's tail feathers are a physical attractant to the female. A good experiement would be to see is sexual deviency could evovle within animals.... not sure how you'd go about it... maybe get a cage of rats and dress the females in corsets? :-)

reply to post by Jadette


Very astute and intelligent observation!!

Congrats on the ability to look internally for your answers as well!

I think you are right on point. It is subjective, and it doesn't harm anybody other than the individual making the decision of what to wear (excluding the religious penalties and irrational laws regarding the issue). Why do we feel we should be able to dictate someone else's modesty?



A little off-topic, but my 3 yr old learned to cuss this weekend! He repeated something I said, and then he asked me why "we" said it! I told him it was because I had scraped my knuckle, so the rest of the day, he very appropriately inserted that word when something wasn't going his way! My wife says we have to make him stop, and I suppose I will try to get him to quit, but I refuse to punish him for it! It is descriptive and effective and it is just some letters put together for communication, so why should he get in trouble for it?

To be honest, it all needs to start with the basic thought of, why do all you poor gals have to keep your breasts covered at all times? Where is the fairness in it?

And where exactly is the difference between some fat guy with big ol' bewbies lounging around, to a woman who's just been graced with the fact she's a woman?

Does that make ANY sense at all? Why should a big ol' fat guy with huge breasts be able to bare himself at any and all times, and yet a woman cannot?

I think most states have legal precedent showing that indecent exposure/lewd behavior/etc only applies to baring genitals, and that the breast is not considered a genital. Therefore it's legal to be bare breasted for women. However, most do not "know" this, and, therefore, do not assert their right to be as they wish.

Check your local laws regarding it, you might be surprised by what's on the books.



This is a great topic, really, and one that is really important, because it gets into the basic psychology of why we think how we do, and why we react to others in the ways we do.


By the way, OP, i have to say I had a wonderful laugh at your daughter. She's not only smart about people's rights, but quick with the wit as well lol

Originally posted by whaaa
I find it ironic that in America in many places it's OK to wear a gun but people are threatened by the site of a breast, or package.

The aversion against nudity comes from Puritanism, a movement Europe was spared fortunately.

reply to post by Jadette

I find myself surprised that I am so incredibly offended by Burkas and even Hijabs. It, to me, seems as much an article and symbol of oppression as chains. It's a slap in the face; forcing women to cover themselves that because MEN cannot control themselves, that showing their hair, or any semblance of femininity which can include showing themselves at ALL!, is a sin worth death or pain.

Imo, you've touched on something fundamental to this thread topic, Jadette.

Most of us experience the same emotions as you do when we see women forced to adopt hijabs and burkas.

I'm confident we'd feel the same emotions if instead of women, it was men who were compelled to wear the equivalents.

It's the negation of one half of society by another, regardless of the claimed justification for it

It's about control. In the case of Muslim culture, it's transference of what should be self-control on the part of the dominant enforcers, to control of that which tests the controllers' self control. In other words, it's a cop out. It's refusal on the part of the controlling group to accept responsibility for their own potential lust. It's failure to address issues of carnal desire.

But of course, it's also about ownership, whereby the controllers (physically larger and stronger, therefore more powerful group) assume ownership of the females. It's very primitive. It's similar to placing boundary fences around property and signs which say, 'Mine ..no one touch'.

Public nudity would demand a massive overhaul of Islamic culture/beliefs/values (and I'm not suggesting such an overhaul would be a bad thing, either).

Originally posted by St Vaast
Caught one a moment ago though that really tells us how idiotic and perverted we've become, thanks to bans on nudity.

The knee jerk reaction to a big breasted topless woman.

THAT is the comment -- of a product -- of the exploitation of nudity.

That is the comment of a man (I assume) whose only exposure to breasts as a child was via television and movies .. of someone raised on a diet of silicone breasts presented as 'sexy' .. of someone who probably couldn't cope with the very ordinary sight of a female breast which has fed infants (and guess what .. that's what they're designed to do).

This right there poped out at me, I'll have to go back and read over the previous page but that sounds like a personal attack on the poster mentioned above.

This descent .. spelled descent as in downwards .. into infantilism and 'mommyism' .. is what makes the pornography industry so lucrative. It's what destroys relationships and marriages and makes total idiots out of men.

From your statement here I am assuming you are a female. I promise you that the pornographic industry does not always destroy relationships or marriages. It can be a cause but honestly if the two people do not agree on something like that then maybe they aren't meant for eachother. Lastly it doesn't always make "idiots" out of men, I know of some females that are way more into pornographic material than some guys I know. Assuming it's only men that look idiotic is a fallacy. Women can look just as stupid.

It's what makes men believe women's only purpose on this planet is to 'serve' men sexually .. is to behave like animated sex dolls. And it's the product of a group (who virtually own and control all pornography) of men who are inherently misogynistic, who hate and fear women as does their religion.

You sound like you know exactly what men are thinking. All men at that. I do not idolize females as sex prizes and I assure you there are many others out there that feel the same way. On a side note if all females are to serve men sexually, what's with the dominatrix thing? I never understood it but from what I can tell the guys are serving the females pretty much.

THAT is why I would for nudity to be normal and an everyday reality.

I think that's the first thing I agree with you on... oops maybe I'm being one of those infantile men now?

I would love for these infantile men to be exposed everywhere .. on buses, trains, planes, the street, in shops, in gyms .. to naked women of ALL ages, shapes and sizes. It's the ONLY thing that would make them grow up and get their brains out of their groins .. to be exposed to 70 and 80 year old breasts, to flat exhausted breasts, to breasts that have been removed totally after failed enlargement and cancers, etc.

Not sure how to pick this apart. If the discussion is about nudity in public then well everyone would have their own choice and men would be exposed to all of what you are talking about. I doubt that would "get their brains out of their groins" though. Aside from a personal attack on you, I would think maybe you had an experience with not so perfect cleavage area? Just my guess.

Only THEN would they start to begin to grasp .. that breasts were not created as suckling bags for man-sized infants. Anymore than you see silver backed apes standing in line wolf-whistling she-apes as they passed, or groping she-apes breasts in a crowded patch of jungle.

Again assuming all men are thinking the same thing. If we're talking full body nudity there's other things I would take over breasts anyday

I personally don't like the look of fake silicon breasts. You should not type so much about all men in general if you're going to be bashing everyone. The point of my post is not all men are the same and to lump them all into one category is just plain wrong. I believe you are wrong.

Apes are currently more sophisticated about sex than at least half of the allegedly 'human' race. Explains a lot

Any source to back that up?

reply to post by and14263


Quite a few years ago now, Desmond Morris had a best seller entitled 'The Naked Ape', in which he explained (and of course some would disagree) that during the process of humans beginning to walk on two rather than four legs, the sexual attractiveness of the female buttock was 'transferred' to the now visible female underbelly, after which, in the fullness of time, female breasts (previously possessing no sexual attraction for the male) developed to resemble the once prominent buttocks and became fuller and rounder.

Therefore, if we accept Morris' explanation for the breast fetish, female breasts are really buttock substitutes

Although decency does have a part to play in bans on public nudity, the reasoning is not limited to that.

Health and safety reasons also come into play. I personally would not want to sit on a public bench a nudist just sat on. There is a reason why swimsuit shops ask you to keep your underwear on when trying on bikini bottoms or why gyms or showers/saunas routinely wipe down equipment with antibacterials.

Abuse is another. I really don't want to 'accidentally' be rubbed up against a nudist with his junk hanging out. Or 'innocent nudists' conveniently walking by children playing on a playground.

Granted, we still have health issues with fully clothed people or the fully clothed gropers. But other factors do come into play besides it all being blamed on those pesky puritan values.

I think we have a pretty happy medium here. No burquas but no letting it all hang out either. I'm really not interested in seeing a pubic lice epidemic or fecal matter or any juice residue on public seating. Sorry to be crude but that is what it can come down to. I'm thinking of the germs over here. No thanks.

reply to post by AshleyD



Yet in other cultures, nudity is the norm -- Hawaiians for example, the peoples of the Brazillian and Indonesian rain forests.

As far as I've been able to learn, these people have nowhere near the incidence of sexual deviancy, paeophilia or other unhealthy sexual obsessions, yet they wear a basic penis gourd, or sheath, or leaf girdle.

These people have no higher incidence of contagious disease than Westerners. In fact, they had far less, until contact with Westerners