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
Adamsm
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.
Which still goes back to the nudity taboo that's been instilled into most of USofA and portions of Canada. Yes, in a restaurant or other place where food is served, eating/cooking naked isn't a good idea(boiling spitting grease anyone?), but still, if it was actually 'normal' it would lose the taboo fairly quickly. Personally, as I said, I don't care one way or another for other people; when I have my own children, under the age of 12, wouldn't get away with it; but over 12 and if they buy it with their own money well..not much you can say. Over all though, it's still part of free will for the person who chooses that life style and all, but can be 'bleh' at time.
Post by
xaratherus
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.
Which still goes back to the nudity taboo that's been instilled into most of USofA and portions of Canada. Yes, in a restaurant or other place where food is served, eating/cooking naked isn't a good idea(boiling spitting grease anyone?), but still, if it was actually 'normal' it would lose the taboo fairly quickly. Personally, as I said, I don't care one way or another for other people; when I have my own children, under the age of 12, wouldn't get away with it; but over 12 and if they buy it with their own money well..not much you can say. Over all though, it's still part of free will for the person who chooses that life style and all, but can be 'bleh' at time.
Exactly. The point that people are trying to make, Jubilee, is that if you had been raised in a society that did not have a nudity taboo, you very likely would not have a nudity taboo. That reaction to nudity isn't inborn; it's taught and learned.
There's a segment in Robert Heinlein's "Number of the Beast" where the characters, who spend most of the novel hopping through alternate universes (and even 'fictional' universes such as Oz and Wonderland), decide to set up a home on a world very similar to our own, save that it is in the warmest part of its climate cycle. Because of the semi-tropical environment, people wear clothes only for decoration or protection - and they support the idea with the Bible (supposedly the same one we have on our own Earth - which makes sense: Adam and Eve donned clothes because original sin brought them a sense of shame, so clothes have a tie to that shame, while innocence could be said by extension to stem from the opposite - nudity).
Post by
Jubilee
First of all, that's a scientific question, for which you have provided no evidence. But that's really completely beside the point. As I said quite early on in this thread, whether a disposition is genetic or not really doesn't change the fact that it's my disposition. What society might have been like, what society was like, what society would be like - these are all questions that I really don't find relevant to what I'm saying. The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed).
Post by
Adamsm
Jesu Tap Dancing Christo!
That line about the California attorney, while not official or not, does give a shudder....and just makes me face palm at the really backwards thinking of that..... Seriously though, to go along with the topless 'law', it is true that since guys can go around bare chested and nothing is said about it, why is it so different for women to do the same? But yeah, the nudity taboo is still one of the dumber things that exist in the Western World...while, north of the Mexico/USofA border lol =P.
Edit: The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed).Then guys need to be held to the same standards, since, to quote Red Green about older men not putting on shirts when they go outside: Men! Wear a shirt! You are grossing us out, scaring the children and confusing the Babies! Remember, I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together.
Post by
Interest
No, it's their choice.
I'd ADVISE against dressing in such a way, but I wouldn't force it.
Post by
pezz
First of all, that's a scientific question, for which you have provided no evidence. But that's really completely beside the point. As I said quite early on in this thread, whether a disposition is genetic or not really doesn't change the fact that it's my disposition. What society might have been like, what society was like, what society would be like - these are all questions that I really don't find relevant to what I'm saying. The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed).
Without being too slilppery-slope-y, what about racist communities or communities with a deep distrust of muslims?
Post by
Jubilee
Then guys need to be held to the same standards, since, to quote Red Green about older men not putting on shirts when they go outside: Men! Wear a shirt! You are grossing us out, scaring the children and confusing the Babies! Remember, I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together.
Why do they "need" to? If the society has no problem with male chests but does has a problem with female chests, then that's exactly what they are going to regulate. If the society has a problem with both, then they will regulate both. As long as there is universal suffrage, then I'm even okay with a society that would be run like many places in the middle east that requires women to be completely clothed when in public. I wouldn't live there, but I don't fault other people from living that way.
First of all, that's a scientific question, for which you have provided no evidence. But that's really completely beside the point. As I said quite early on in this thread, whether a disposition is genetic or not really doesn't change the fact that it's my disposition. What society might have been like, what society was like, what society would be like - these are all questions that I really don't find relevant to what I'm saying. The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed).
Without being too slilppery-slope-y, what about racist communities or communities with a deep distrust of muslims?
As long as basic human rights are not being violated, then I don't see much of a problem. If a community is full of racists, then it's probably no a good idea for someone of another race to move in because the community will treat them badly.
Take Amish communities. They have certain rules and regulations about things like clothing and religion. I have no problem with them, but I know it's not for me so I'll never live there.
Post by
xaratherus
The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed)
Let's say that 75% of a community decides that their quality of their lives are improved if people don't kiss romantically in public; do they have that right to ban that action? What if it's only people of the same sex? Or people of the same skin color? What if it's just holding hands, rather than kissing?*
Who decides what is a "basic tenet of life"? What if you consider something a basic tenet of life and I don't? What if the majority in a given community considers something to be a basic human right, but you find the practice of that right abhorrent? You mention that such a community might not be a good place for you to be; what if it's where you've lived your entire life, where you have established employment and friendships? Do you really think that it's okay to say, "Well, it's fine if they do something like this; the person can always move"?
As long as there is universal suffrage, then I'm even okay with a society that would be run like many places in the middle east that requires women to be completely clothed when in public.
I'm not, because that concept rather starkly runs contrary to a number of rights protected by the Constitution.
I agree that states should retain certain rights, as should communities - but to claim that those communities should be given sovereign rights to pass laws that would contradict federal law? No, not a chance. If what you suggest were applied, then interracial marriage would rather likely
be outlawed in at least one state
.
*And before anyone mentions that this wouldn't happen,
it sort of has
, and recently.
Post by
Jubilee
The basic tenants would be defined in a constitution, based on what the creators on the country determined to be basic human rights. The the right to life and religion, the freedom of the press, right to a fair trial, the right to travel from point to point inside the country - those are some of what is found in most modern societies. The right to travel at 100 mph or the right to be topless in public are secondary issue that are decided by those in place to judge those things (which is why I think it belongs to the local community to decide something like public dress codes).
And to the marriage thing, if a community doesn't want to recognize a couple as married, that's their business. As long as they can do what they want in the privacy of their home, and they have a say in the community, and they are still able to retain whatever the country's laws give them, then I see no problem. They must be living in that community from some other greater reason that outweighs their desire to be recognized as married by the community.
Post by
Adamsm
Then guys need to be held to the same standards, since, to quote Red Green about older men not putting on shirts when they go outside: Men! Wear a shirt! You are grossing us out, scaring the children and confusing the Babies! Remember, I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together.
Why do they "need" to? If the society has no problem with male chests but does has a problem with female chests, then that's exactly what they are going to regulate. If the society has a problem with both, then they will regulate both. As long as there is universal suffrage, then I'm even okay with a society that would be run like many places in the middle east that requires women to be completely clothed when in public. I wouldn't live there, but I don't fault other people from living that way.Sorry Jubilee but I think the woosh just went past you there, or you don't have much interaction with older men who have the man bewbs which can be quite frightening. Still, the fact remains, there is really no difference at all with a man going topless or a woman going topless beyond the nudity taboo. I've seen a few women in major cities around here going topless; I looked once, to confirm what I was seeing, then went on, since I didn't really care. It's not that big of a deal in all honesty.
Post by
Jubilee
Sorry Jubilee but I think the woosh just went past you there, or you don't have much interaction with older men who have the man bewbs which can be quite frightening. Still, the fact remains, there is really no difference at all with a man going topless or a woman going topless beyond the nudity taboo. I've seen a few women in major cities around here going topless; I looked once, to confirm what I was seeing, then went on, since I didn't really care. It's not that big of a deal in all honesty.
I completely understand that you're giving your own personal views of the nature of public nudity. I'm just saying that not really relevant to anything I've tried to say.
You want my personal views on public nudity? I think everyone should be required to wear a top and a bottom in a typical public setting. But my personal views aren't relevant to the point I'm making either, which is why I haven't said them until now. So what I think of old men "man bewbs" is really here nor there.
The point I'm trying to make is essentially that everyone has a different outlook on life, and many of those outlooks and practices depend on a community. We are very social creatures. So, I don't see anything wrong with a community being built around that specific communities principles, as opposed to the principles of some diplomat or some majority of people who have no relation to the original community.
Post by
pezz
First of all, that's a scientific question, for which you have provided no evidence. But that's really completely beside the point. As I said quite early on in this thread, whether a disposition is genetic or not really doesn't change the fact that it's my disposition. What society might have been like, what society was like, what society would be like - these are all questions that I really don't find relevant to what I'm saying. The point is that if a group of people in the community find that regulating a certain activity in public improves the quality of their lives, then they have every right as a community to regulate that activity in the public sphere (again, as long as were talking about things that don't violate basic tennants of life like the right to not be killed).
Without being too slilppery-slope-y, what about racist communities or communities with a deep distrust of muslims?
As long as basic human rights are not being violated, then I don't see much of a problem. If a community is full of racists, then it's probably no a good idea for someone of another race to move in because the community will treat them badly.
There you go. Nudists who will be treated badly in a community won't move to that community. That's one of the reasons I'm saying you don't need laws like this. Also what xara said.
Also, 'as long as everyone has basic human rights' isn't a good argument for saying 'it's fine if the government discriminates against people based on their gender as long as it isn't a REALLY important right.'
Post by
Adamsm
Sorry Jubilee but I think the woosh just went past you there, or you don't have much interaction with older men who have the man bewbs which can be quite frightening. Still, the fact remains, there is really no difference at all with a man going topless or a woman going topless beyond the nudity taboo. I've seen a few women in major cities around here going topless; I looked once, to confirm what I was seeing, then went on, since I didn't really care. It's not that big of a deal in all honesty.
I completely understand that you're giving your own personal views of the nature of public nudity. I'm just saying that not really relevant to anything I've tried to say.
You want my personal views on public nudity? I think everyone should be required to wear a top and a bottom in a typical public setting. But my personal views aren't relevant to the point I'm making either, which is why I haven't said them until now. So what I think of old men "man bewbs" is really here nor there.
The point I'm trying to make is essentially that everyone has a different outlook on life, and many of those outlooks and practices depend on a community. We are very social creatures. So, I don't see anything wrong with a community being built around that specific communities principles, as opposed to the principles of some diplomat or some majority of people who have no relation to the original community.
Actually, they aren't my 'own personal views' as such: That is the law here in Ontario, and BC, and a large number of other locations all across Canada; women are allowed to go topless, just as men can go around shirtless. If they want to go into stores and the like, they do have to put on shirts(well if it's required by the store) but still, even then, it's not that big of a deal.
And if laws were based on community, that would be a very bad way to set things up: A town full of white Christian people would be against anyone who doesn't look or think like them, and would drive them all out. A community of all gay people who hate straights, would drive out any straights who attempt to move into that community. It's a dumb idea, sorry to say.
Post by
Jubilee
There you go. Nudists who will be treated badly in a community won't move to that community. That's one of the reasons I'm saying you don't need laws like this. Also what xara said.
Also, 'as long as everyone has basic human rights' isn't a good argument for saying 'it's fine if the government discriminates against people based on their gender as long as it isn't a REALLY important right.'
Couldn't you also say that since murder is looked down upon by most communities that no one is going to commit murder in those communities and therefore we don't need laws against it? Just because society already has factors in it deterring certain behaviors doesn't mean that you don't need laws.
And discrimination is exactly why it needs to be on the community level. Because not all discrimination is bad discrimination. Some of it is an integral part of the culture. A parent has certain rights over their children that they don't have over other children. That's discrimination. It's not bad discrimination because that's a cultural norm.
Actually, they aren't my 'own personal views' as such: That is the law here in Ontario, and BC, and a large number of other locations all across Canada; women are allowed to go topless, just as men can go around shirtless. If they want to go into stores and the like, they do have to put on shirts(well if it's required by the store) but still, even then, it's not that big of a deal.
And if laws were based on community, that would be a very bad way to set things up: A town full of white Christian people would be against anyone who doesn't look or think like them, and would drive them all out. A community of all gay people who hate straights, would drive out any straights who attempt to move into that community. It's a dumb idea, sorry to say.
Why is that a dumb idea? If they don't want to live with gays on a community level, they shouldn't have to. I'm perfectly comfortable in my ability to live with another woman. I don't mind that people don't like it. That's their business. For my part, I choose to live with those who do accept me, just like they choose to live with those who don't. I can safely ignore them, and they can be happy, and I can be happy.
Post by
Adamsm
Why is that a dumb idea? If they don't want to live with gays on a community level, they shouldn't have to. I'm perfectly comfortable in my ability to live with another woman. I don't mind that people don't like it. That's their business. For my part, I choose to live with those who do accept me, just like they choose to live with those who don't. I can safely ignore them, and they can be happy, and I can be happy.
Because people can make up any laws they want, to recreate segregation on a wide scale: 'Oh, you don't have *insert specific trait here*? Get the hell out of our community and go live somewhere else.' And for that matter, I'm sure there would be people who would want you out of their community because you don't fit their idea of a 'good person'.
And you can ignore people as well, without needing to segregate everyone after all; who cares what Jimbob does in the privacy of his own home if he isn't hurting anyone? Just let people live their lives how they want, without splitting them all up into dumb little colonies of specific 'types'. I live in a town with a large Christian/Catholic population, and I'm a follower of Wicca, Buddhism, and some Hinduism; I've had issues in the past with idiots who feel that what I believe in is 'bad', however, does that mean I should move away because of it? No, that's ridiculous, since I have just as much right to live here as anyone else.
Post by
Jubilee
No one says you have to move. It's your private property. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to regulate what happens in public. You seem to be equating wanting to move out of a community that doesn't accept you with being forced out.
If I don't like the weather of a place, I can choose to remain or move. If I move, it's because I want to. If I remain, it's because I want to. You can make the same choice about your community. If you don't like a "hot" community, you can move to a "colder" community if you choose. Or maybe you don't like a "hot" community, but you're willing to deal with it because you don't like rain either.
No one has talked about the Amish example yet. Are they wrong to do what they do? Do you think it's your place to determine whether they should be allowed to regulate the use of electronic in their community?
Post by
Adamsm
/shrug Whatever.
No one has talked about the Amish example yet. Are they wrong to do what they do? Do you think it's your place to determine whether they should be allowed to regulate the use of electronic in their community?Because it's an example that doesn't really make a lot of sense? The Amish are exercising their right to freedom of belief after all, and living their lives the way they want to.
Post by
Jubilee
And their beliefs involve regulating the community. So are they any different than any other community that wouldn't recognize gay marriage? Or any other community that wouldn't let people wear revealing clothes?
Their way of life involves living in a certain community, and who are you to deny them that? And most people wouldn't. But then why is every other community that would do that so bad? Some people want to live in a certain kind of community, and why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Post by
Adamsm
And their beliefs involve regulating the community. So are they any different than any other community that wouldn't recognize gay marriage? Or any other community that wouldn't let people wear revealing clothes?
Their way of life involves living in a certain community, and who are you to deny them that? And most people wouldn't. But then why is every other community that would do that so bad? Some people want to live in a certain kind of community, and why shouldn't they be allowed to?
That would almost work in regards to the Amish, except for the part where all Amish children, in accordance to their own laws, are allowed at the age of 18 to leave the farmlands and go out into the 'real' world and experience life. After that point, they are given a choice: Remain in the outside world or come home, and if you do choose to remain in the outside world, you cannot(well usually) come home again as you aren't considered part of the community.
The main difference is that trying to do that on a country wide scale, is a lot harder then doing it in the county level: since again, unless you are looking at mass segregation all over the place, it wouldn't work out very well.
The biggest question is actually the simplest: Why not just make it so that, rather then receiving massive stigmas about things, just allow things such as gay marriage to be legal, to make it so that men and women have the same standards(again in regards to the fact that men can go shirtless without any issues), and to make it so that one main belief does not rule over everything.
Still wouldn't be perfect, but would remove quite a bit of conflict.
Post by
Jubilee
Except one main belief does rule everything in your example...that federal mandate is better than local mandate. So why is it okay for the federal government to mandate a dress code and not the local communities to do so? Why must there be a one-size-fits-all culture?
And as far as conflict goes, who are you to say there would be less conflict. All anyone can truthfully say is that the world is chalk full of conflict right now, and maybe we ought to do something so people can live happier lives.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.