This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Should young women stop dressing so 'slutty'?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
Not a very good way to put it. And I voted no, if a girl wants to look like a *!@# then so be it. Sometimes it can be hot, sometimes it can be a god awful sight (like the fat chicks who wear clothes way too small for them.) Is that a perverted statement? yes, yes it is but hey thats me. But after thinking about it, if a hot chick wants to walk around naked, hey thats fine with me...but only hot chicks.
See that's kind of what I was afraid of, with most of the people here being guys, that seeing neekid chicks is disposing you to lean towards answering no :P
Post by
Skreeran
See that's kind of what I was afraid of, with most of the people here being guys, that seeing neekid chicks is disposing you to lean towards answering no :PLol. That's a funny observation, and it may be mostly true, but that's not why I voted No.
Post by
Adamsm
I didn't choose either answer, since there is no 'meh' option: like I said, beyond the age thing, I don't care one way or another.
As for the naked comment; sure the girls/guys could walk around naked, and maybe at first it's 'cool' but after a while it would probably turn into 'meh' since the whole thing about nakedness is part of the nudity taboo, and if it becomes every day, is it really all that much of a big deal?
Post by
xaratherus
See that's kind of what I was afraid of, with most of the people here being guys, that seeing neekid chicks is disposing you to lean towards answering no :PLol. That's a funny observation, and it may be mostly true, but that's not why I voted No.
Ditto. For reasons that are probably obvious to regulars here (see the gay marriage thread :P), "seeing neekid chicks" doesn't play into my answer of "No" whatsoever.
While I wouldn't class myself as a nudist, I find entire idea of clothing as a necessity, for any reason other than protection from the environment, to be archaic.
Post by
Skreeran
I didn't choose either answer, since there is no 'meh' option: like I said, beyond the age thing, I don't care one way or another.
As for the naked comment; sure the girls/guys could walk around naked, and maybe at first it's 'cool' but after a while it would probably turn into 'meh' since the whole thing about nakedness is part of the nudity taboo, and if it becomes every day, is it really all that much of a big deal?Exactly... :P
Ditto. For reasons that are probably obvious to regulars here (see the gay marriage thread :P), "seeing neekid chicks" doesn't play into my answer of "No" whatsoever.
While I wouldn't class myself as a nudist, I find entire idea of clothing as a necessity, for any reason other than protection from the environment, to be archaic.Lol at first part.
And ditto on the second part. Like Adams said, it'd be incredibly sexual at first, that'd just become the new 'normal.'
Post by
pezz
Despite the fact that a lot of these comments have mentioned it, I don't think there'd be much nudity at all, even if all clothing decency laws in public places were removed. There are numerous reasons why:
1. Environment. Too much sun is bad. Too much wind is bad. If it's too cold that's bad. If you're walking along sidewalks that are poorly maintained by landscapers getting scraped by low-hanging tree branches is bad. Less protection from insects is bad. Most people like clothing for a lot more reasons than covering up.
2. Inhibition. People have
nightmares
about showing up places and realizing they only have their underwear on. It's a very scary thing to imagine happening. Most people aren't going to walk around in almost nothing or nothing just for the sake of it.
3. Private places (jokes!). We've all heard of 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.' Most restaurants (and any other private establishments) expect you to have at least basic attire on, and they'd probably carry on doing so, even if in theory people could walk past their storefront naked. And you can't (or at least shouldn't) legislate about what private businesses may or may not find acceptable when it comes to clothing on patrons.
4. Hygiene. A lot of people who live in big cities already feel squeamish about touching the pole (more jokes!) on the subway line with their
hand
, because they worry about who else has touched it with their
hand
. Do you really want your junk brushing up against such public surfaces? Or do you want to hold on to such surfaces when other people's junk has brushed up against them?
This is sort of off-topic but I think it frames the consequences of relaxing public decency laws.
Post by
Skreeran
Despite the fact that a lot of these comments have mentioned it, I don't think there'd be much nudity at all, even if all clothing decency laws in public places were removed. There are numerous reasons why:
This is sort of off-topic but I think it frames the consequences of relaxing public decency laws.Well yeah. We're not really promoting nudity, just making an observation about how most of our taboos about nudity are artificial social constructs, rather than being based on nature or even logic.
Post by
pezz
True, but the logical conclusion of getting rid of all of the taboo-based legislation and customs is permitting (though not encouraging) nudity. That could potentially sway someone's vote on this issue.
Post by
Jubilee
And culture is a bad thing? Whether my desire to not see half-naked or fully-naked people outside is genetic, cultural, or just something arbitrary, that doesn't change the fact that it's my desire. And if the community as a whole (or as a majority) thinks that way too, isn't it a perfectly human thing to do to impose that norm on the community so that the community can function cohesively?
Post by
Atik
Not a very good way to put it. And I voted no, if a girl wants to look like a *!@# then so be it. Sometimes it can be hot, sometimes it can be a god awful sight (like the fat chicks who wear clothes way too small for them.) Is that a perverted statement? yes, yes it is but hey thats me. But after thinking about it, if a hot chick wants to walk around naked, hey thats fine with me...but only hot chicks.
See that's kind of what I was afraid of, with most of the people here being guys, that seeing neekid chicks is disposing you to lean towards answering no :P
That is why I voted no...
But, at the same time, there is something oddly attractive about a girl in a long dress... something about the mystery of what you can't see...
Post by
Adamsm
And culture is a bad thing? Whether my desire to not see half-naked or fully-naked people outside is genetic, cultural, or just something arbitrary, that doesn't change the fact that it's my desire. And if the community as a whole (or as a majority) thinks that way too, isn't it a perfectly human thing to do to impose that norm on the community so that the community can function cohesively?
Again though, that's the nudity taboo; I don't want to see naked people(well....nah not going to say it heh), as there are a lot of over weight and out shape people who live in my town, and I don't really want to see that much flesh; it's bad enough when they walk around wearing things that just barely cover them. Also, my town has a large issue with teenage mommas; I actually saw a girl, wearing a belly shirt and short short jeans, with her large pregnant stomach making the shirt into just a boob cover; that's something I didn't need to see, since she was about 14 or 15.
Honestly, the biggest offenders are the fashion industry and the pop stars, who fill the minds of people that to look 'hot' you need to look like a stick and wear next to nothing...which is the opposite in all honesty; as I routinely tell my girlfriend: Seeing ribs on a chick is not sexy by any stretch of the imagination.
Post by
pezz
And culture is a bad thing? Whether my desire to not see half-naked or fully-naked people outside is genetic, cultural, or just something arbitrary, that doesn't change the fact that it's my desire. And if the community as a whole (or as a majority) thinks that way too, isn't it a perfectly human thing to do to impose that norm on the community so that the community can function cohesively?
There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't think it should be enforced by legislation. If a community wants to prevent the practice, they can do so without asking people to make laws about it. If you lived in a small town, 30 miles from the nearest town, and every business in town refused to cater to people without a shirt, pants (trousers, if you're not American), and shoes, how many nudists would that town have?
Post by
Adamsm
Then again, I'm in Southwestern Ontario, where it's legal for women to go topless if they want to so......
Post by
Jubilee
And culture is a bad thing? Whether my desire to not see half-naked or fully-naked people outside is genetic, cultural, or just something arbitrary, that doesn't change the fact that it's my desire. And if the community as a whole (or as a majority) thinks that way too, isn't it a perfectly human thing to do to impose that norm on the community so that the community can function cohesively?
There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't think it should be enforced by legislation. If a community wants to prevent the practice, they can do so without asking people to make laws about it. If you lived in a small town, 30 miles from the nearest town, and every business in town refused to cater to people without a shirt, pants (trousers, if you're not American), and shoes, how many nudists would that town have?
Why shouldn't you make laws? That's how society has operated since people thought up the idea of a law. If the community cannot make laws about what people wear on public property, can they also not make laws about how fast people drive on public roads, or laws about littering on public property, or laws about making loud noises on public property?
It all comes back to the idea of public property. I don't think the idea of public property has ever included the idea that you can do whatever you want on it (barring some anarchic positions). That's what private property is for. When it comes to public property, I would think that the good of the public, of the community, would allow for a certain amount of regulation so that the society can function in it's public capacity.
Post by
Adamsm
Interesting read as well
; and lists both public and private locations.
Post by
Kristopher
I can't answer either answer. It depends.
If people dress that way, and complain about being called a $%^&, then yes, of course, they're pretty much asking for it. I'm not saying that if someone dressed like a !@#$ and then was mistreated that it's their fault, as it generally isn't, but that dressing that way didn't really help them on that matter.
Younger children, however (I'm talking anything below highschool, and even some in highschool), yes. Sexualizing young children isn't really legal , the last time I heard about it (If it is, it sure as hell isn't moral, in my book), and I'm not entirely sure what young children (or their parents) are trying to accomplish dressing that way.
Otherwise, no.
Post by
pezz
Holy hell, you can take your top off some place in Utah. And Louisiana isn't on there, anywhere!
@Jubilee: Nudity doesn't really disrupt anyone else's activity on public property. All of your examples have the capacity to do so. Noise pollution, unsafe driving, the health hazard some litter presents, larger litter can be physical obstructions to certain amenities, etc.
Post by
Jubilee
It doesn't disrupt you. I think it's pretty obvious that it disrupts other people though, based on the fact that other people take issue at it.
Post by
pezz
You aren't 'disrupted' if someone is behaving in a way you don't approve of on public property.
Post by
Jubilee
If your sense of morality was such that your ability to remain pure or chaste is made to be impossible when you have naked people walking around, then I'm sure you would take issue too. And if a community agrees that such activity is similarly disruptive to the majority of the community, then why wouldn't they restrict that activity in a public setting? Obviously this could only happen with things that are relatively arbitrary (as opposed to like allowing murder or assault).
It's not about people not behaving the way you approve. It's the actual nudity that is disruptive to the person. Whether that person is "sinning" or being "immoral" or whatever the case may be isn't the issue. It's the fact that my (or whoever is the one taking issue) peace of mind is being disrupted.
And further you gave some great reasons why government does control those things. What I'm saying is that those aren't universal tenants. If a society finds a use of autobahns, then they can make them. If a society would rather keep everyone at a certain speed limit, they can do that. They might have scientific reasons, moral reasons, or any other type of reason imaginable.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.