Thread: Modest dress/behavior and the ab/normalcy of same gender attraction Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000711
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Much is made of how standards of modest dress and behavior in different religions and cultures make women cover up and act reserved in order to prevent men near them from becoming aroused and how hypocritical this is (1. because men are often not policed nearly as strictly in how they dress/act in order to avoid arousing women and 2. because men should be able to keep themselves from engaging in sexual or violent behavior no matter how women near them dress or act). But almost nothing is said about men or women in same-gender spaces dressing or acting in such a way that nearby people of the same gender are not likely to become aroused. In fact, conservative religions and cultures tend to encourage segregating the sexes to differing degrees in order not only to prevent sexual immorality but also to provide spaces where men and women can "let their hair down" and act more casually and unreservedly - and also cultivate intimate nonsexual friendships (complete with nonsexual physical displays of affection).

However, if a religious or cultural groups views same-sex sexual activity as sinful, shouldn't people who try to prevent lust from developing in opposite sex settings also try to prevent it from developing in same sex settings? Modern secular society classifies most people as heterosexual with a minority being homosexual or bi/pansexual, but many traditional cultures tended to not classify people in terms of what kinds of attraction they felt. If same-sex sexual activity was sinful, then it was a sin that anyone might commit, just like fornication or murder. Some premodern societies allowed for more than two genders, but I am not aware of any premodern society that had an idea of sexual orientation, ie., the idea that some men are inherently attracted to women and others are inherently attracted to men (or both men and women), rather than same-sex sexual activity, when it was viewed as sinful, as being something that anyone might find themselves tempted to do if they aren't careful. Furthermore, societies with different views on the morality of same-sex sexual activity but that all had separate social spheres for men and women often had an unspoken attitude that "boys will be boys" in the single-sex situations they found themselves in their youth but as long as they married a woman and bore children they would be fulfilling society's expectations (I am amazed at the relative silence throughout history, with a few exceptions, about sexual intimacy between women, but it's not surprising given how obtuse the patriarchy can be). (Meanwhile, Athenian aristocratic pederasty and Samurai shudo were both practiced between an older married male and a younger unmarried male, with strict limits on the social and sexual role of each in the relationship, and with the expectation that the relationship would end when the young man became old enough to marry). If same-gender attraction is acknowledged as something that could arise in single-gender social spheres, even if it is less common than opposite-sex attraction in mixed gender settings, why were just about all traditional cultures fine with nudity, horseplay, even platonic romance between members of the same sex?

And as for traditional religions and cultures in the present day, even if they do not accept that same gender attraction is "natural," they surely must be aware that it exists and is openly discussed in mainstream culture. This being the case, why do they not do more to guard against same sex "lust" when their members interact with other members of the same sex (pun not intended)?

The answer may seem obvious from the point of view of traditional religions and cultures: why spoil the essential function of same-gender spheres as zones of casual relaxation and nonsexual intimacy in traditional societies just because some people do "unnatural" things? But I would think there would at least be SOME discussion of doing things to avoid the development of homosexual "lust," especially in the modern day.

P.S., as I'm sure most of you are aware, I don't think same-sex sex is sinful at all, but if anyone is wondering where I am coming from in all this I figured I wshould say so.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
You're making a lot of assumptions, particularly that when people say they are imposing modest dress on account of not wanting to arouse the opposite sex, that they are giving a correct account of their motives. IMHO that's rarely the only, or even main reason for imposing dress codes. A lot more has to do with social control--if you put people into a uniform of sorts, theoretically you get less individualized/troublesome behavior (not sure that I agree it works, but that's one theory). There's also the desire to avoid having to look at eye-bleeding fashion choices (leg warmers, anyone?), to project a certain public image (such as professionalism and seriousness), and so on. Lots of these reasons don't apply to relaxed private settings.

TL;DR version: the whole modest dress thingy might have very little to do with sexual attraction, no matter what people trumpet; and if that's so, then dress freedom in private settings might be a simple function of "we don't care what you look like there, because it causes us no problems in that setting."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If the sight of any other human being, male or female, torments you with lust, this is your problem. Solely, yours alone. It is between you, your dick, and your God. It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires. That is totally your responsibility and yours alone, from now until the heat death of the universe.

This may help. Yes, it's satire.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires.
OK.

But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?

I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires.
OK.

But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?

I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
Well, from what I can tell, the passage in question is on food. And, as is often the case with Paul, I'm guessing he was addressing some particular situation that had arisen within a specific community, probably one that contained varying views and practices on diet.

So, yes, I suppose if I voluntarily join a particular church, and there are people there who, because of their previous affiliations, take offense at tight-blue jeans, I might have an obligation not to show up on Sundays wearing tight blue-jeans, even if the taboo is not observed by everyone in the group.

But I don't think that obligation extends past whatever amount of time I spend with that faith group. If I work in an office, and one of my co-workers informs me that she can't abide the sight of men in tight blue-jeans, well, I think I'd just tell her to get used to it, because I'm not going to change the way I dress.

[ 16. July 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn. Manner of dress will indeed influence my thoughts, to some extent.
But it is incumbent upon me to manage that, not them.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I guess if you find a person attractive, you find them attractive, whatever the clothes. What you do with that attraction is, as Brenda says, your responsibility alone. It is possible not to act on an attraction, or even to dismiss it.

I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.

All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?

I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.

How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.
Out culture sexualises women, yes. Part of this is the patriarchal nature, and therefore deeper in the culture but much of it is filthy lucre. Sexualising women is a multi-billion dollar industry. This is a massive problem; even the "body positive' publications and movements still sexualise. Sex is part of our nature, but emphasising its expression needn't be.

quote:

All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
Kinda is, though. Well, physiological response anyway. From the, probably mythical, Victorian ankle porn to the mini-skirt; it is all based on triggering a physiological response with physiological triggers. Shifting hemlines changes what is considered risqué. And that enhances the response, but it doesn't create it. The problem is the emphasis on sexual attractiveness being the primary asset of women and everything else being more or less irrelevant.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn. Manner of dress will indeed influence my thoughts, to some extent.
But it is incumbent upon me to manage that, not them.
I think Karl means that he's attracted to the person, not their hemline.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I guess if you find a person attractive, you find them attractive, whatever the clothes. What you do with that attraction is, as Brenda says, your responsibility alone. It is possible not to act on an attraction, or even to dismiss it.

I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.

All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
Of course the thing that fundies miss with that is that women also have plenty of testosterone!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?

I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.

How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
Why, that's easy! The person who is temptuous should not be out and about. Purdah, I believe they call it. The very act of being out in public, no matter what she is wearing or doing, is a clear sign that a woman is a slut and hoping to have sex with you. Go right up and ask for it!

But, seriously: this is why it is not the lustee's problem. Ever. Because there is no way that a person can not ever ignite desire in all possible viewers. We women have done this. Believe me -- they told us it was our hair, our boobs, our legs, our ankles, our wrists, our mouths, our eyes, our upper arms, our shoulders, our ears. We hid or veiled or corseted it all, and still there was oh God, lust! that was our fault. There was nothing, including our silhouettes or our driving or our user name on Twitter, that did not excite uncontrollable animal instincts. Nothing we could do kept us from tempting our weak (foundationally, appallingly, catastrophically weak) brothers.

So we give up. It is not possible. You ask for what cannot be done. It is not our fault. It is your problem, solely. Go to Hell if you want, to burn in the fire of your unfulfilled desires while devils apply glowing-iron pincers to your scrotum, it's all on you. We have proven with millennia of experience that we can do nothing about it. And we will no longer play your stupid games.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Oh, indeed, I was once very much smitten with a young lady from a religious group which put much emphasis on modesty. A glimpse of her ankle had more effect on me than the glimpse of a lesser woman in much more revealing attire.

A proper asceticism - whatever that might be - is about teaching people to manage their desires. Not about blaming it on the desired one. If chaps can't cope in the presence of attractive females they might consider staying inside themselves - as Brenda suggests - rather than suggesting restrictions on the women.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn.
Sublimation.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?

I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.

How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
Why, that's easy! The person who is temptuous should not be out and about. Purdah, I believe they call it.
<SNIP>

That was rather my point.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Should there be no public decency laws at all? Full nudity perfectly legal at all times and all places? Just asking to set parameters of the conversation.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Should there be no public decency laws at all? Full nudity perfectly legal at all times and all places? Just asking to set parameters of the conversation.
Yes, there ought to be such laws. I don't want to see your involuntary sexual reactions and you don't want to see mine.

More important, children and very young people don't need to navigate the minefield that full nudity would create among fallen human beings. They have enough to deal with when everybody keeps their clothes on. However skimpy those clothes may be.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, there ought to be such laws. I don't want to see your involuntary sexual reactions and you don't want to see mine.
Naughty bits aside, there are also sanitary reasons for insisting on people wearing clothes. On that front, I have a problem when I go grocery shopping, and I encounter large sweaty men wearing the kind of sleeveless shirt that I gather is known as a "wife-beater" in the produce aisle.

Or suppose you sit next to me on public transport. If we're wearing sleeves (short ones are fine) and shorts / skirts / pants that come somewhere close to the knee or below, then there's no need for our sweaty flesh to have to come in contact. In the close proximity of our shared seat, my clothing will contact your clothing. If what you're presenting to me is naked shoulder and naked thigh, I'm going to have a less comfortable journey.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
It does seem, that there are is a range of safe-spaces, which only (have the possibility to) work with the non-existence of same sex attraction (or with it being acceptable in cases when cross sex attraction isn't).
It's not just, let the clothes down, but e.g. a monastery/nunnery system as a whole just removes the hetrosexual-impulses competition.

However as the problem:
a) Arises with the potential existence of the concept, rather than the cultural view of it. Suppressing awareness, would only allow the problem to be worse.
b) Has other issues, like Guides and Scouts doing stereotype activities, and other horrible sexist outcomes.
c) Is mostly avoidable by those who are most predatory (i.e. most child abuse being in the family)
d) Any evilness, isn't related to the same-sex (or dress) aspects, except as far as it enables them.

Anything useful would require more divine powers (and a blank slate) to resolve to a level to negate 'a', that you might as well focus on 'd' and solve the real problem.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If the sight of any other human being, male or female, torments you with lust, this is your problem. Solely, yours alone. It is between you, your dick, and your God..[/URL]
I don't accept that women have absolutely no carnal thoughts whatsoever.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or suppose you sit next to me on public transport. If we're wearing sleeves (short ones are fine) and shorts / skirts / pants that come somewhere close to the knee or below, then there's no need for our sweaty flesh to have to come in contact. In the close proximity of our shared seat, my clothing will contact your clothing. If what you're presenting to me is naked shoulder and naked thigh, I'm going to have a less comfortable journey.
But following the logic of the thread, isn't that just your problem that you need to come to grips with? If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be taking the train.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Surely there's some daylight between "decency" and the sort of "modesty" dressing that stresses concealing specific and contradictory bits of the (usually female) human anatomy.

In Leorning Cniht's example, I can avoid someone else's bared arms, should I so choose, by adopting sleeves myself; there's no need for her or him to wear them also. As for the grocery aisle issue, don't we generally wash our produce when we get it home?

I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs and immediate environs, both for sanitary reasons and for concealing evidence of involuntary arousal, if only to keep the public peace. But that applies to both opposite-sex and same-sex public encounters, and also applies to both genders. "Decency" here is something that protects one's own dignity with; surely every pubescent boy learns that.

The "modesty" we've been talking about above is something one adopts in a wrongheaded & futile effort to control somebody else's responses, not one's own.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Meh. Clothing never got in the way of good old fashioned lust.
quote:
Whenas in silks my Julia goes
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free;
Oh how that glittering taketh me!
(Robert Herrick, 1591-1674)
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
There are religions where modesty applies to all genders. Mormonism, Sikhism, Islam - I'm sure there are others. Traditional Islamic dress for men is very distinct in its visible modesty.

There are many religious traditions where modesty is more about ascetism than sexuality - although the control of sexuality can be part of this - for example in Orthodox Judaism where bright colours are discouraged, or in monastic dress.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Surely there's some daylight between "decency" and the sort of "modesty" dressing that stresses concealing specific and contradictory bits of the (usually female) human anatomy.
Is there? It seems to me there is a spectrum or line, at one end we have a free-for-all, and at the other end we have everyone wearing hijab. The question is not whether or not there's a line. It's where the line goes, and for what reason. Although the "reason" part gets really cloudy really fast when you start bifurcating between "decency" and "modesty."

quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs and immediate environs, both for sanitary reasons and for concealing evidence of involuntary arousal, if only to keep the public peace.
Does everybody consider those a matter of decency and not modesty? Does everybody define these two words the same way and with the same level of mutual exclusivity?

My point in all this is that it's a very difficult thing to pin down, and there's too much casting of blame and shame around, both by the "women should be more modest" camp and the "don't tell me what to wear" camp.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Note that nudists have managed this perfectly well for years. They always carry a towel to sit on, for instance.

Everyone has problems with desire, men and women. (Google on 'Mr. Darcy Swimming' if you want a good big dose of female lust.) But mysteriously it's only women who are obliged to do anything about it. I refer you to the link I posted, upthread. Men! Save us from our worser selves, eschew those tight suits!

The concept of modesty as we are using it here is fairly modern. The text in the Epistles clearly refers to monetary display (jewelry). Consider also that 'proper dress' varies so widely around the world; what is proper and decent in the West is very different in, say, Southeast Asia. Even the au naturel people prove it -- on a nudist beach you rapidly lose all sense of flesh as sexual. It's just bodies.

Here's an article discussing this in much more detail. This is a free click.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I mean, given the thread's title, assuming that Mr Darcy swimming and men in tight suits are the pinnacle of women's desires seems to be missing the point. Like yes, of course women find plenty to desire - but much desire for all genders falls outside of heterosexual desire, which is why single-gender boundaries for modest purposes are pretty pointless*. Men's desire for other men isn't policed in terms of how men dress either, because that's just as unacceptable to those who would police how women dress.

*obviously there are places where it is appropriate for other reasons
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
I wouldn't say that the main problem is that people (often men) don't take responsibility for their feelings, but rather that they aren't taught to do so by society. I've been part of a number of interactions where a man was totally bumfuddled that none of the other men agreed with his (rather sexist) view of men's responsibilities and women's bodies: he had never encountered a contrary opinion before. (I suspect most of his conversations about such matters were with adolescent males who had little or no other experience.)

That's where the change has to happen: in public discourse about what is appropriate behavior, and from there it can seep into the consciousness of future generations.


I've been in enough situations over the years where nudity was accepted or expected, that I don't find it sexually stimulating in such settings, regardless of the gender mix of the groups. You can simply accept it, and give people privacy by not looking at them. I still remember a woman talking about serving in the Peace Corps in Africa (probably in the 1960's or so) when she and another white woman traveled through rural areas where white people were uncommon. Everyone they met stared at them all the time - until they went down to the river to bathe, when everybody ignored them. Once they were dressed, everyone stared at them again.


Meanwhile, full nudity is legal in Portland (as long as a person doesn't show sexual arousal.) There is even a nude bicycle ride through the city every year, but nudity is actually uncommon, other than on the beaches along the river. Not that the weather is always suitable for it, of course.

And San Francisco changed their laws some years ago to ban total nudity, after a long stream of regulations tried to manage a small group of mostly men who insisted on wandering around nude. Various rules included being required to carry a towel to sit on that had different colors on each side so they didn't dirty things they sat on. Apparently it finally became too complicated to enforce, so total nudity was banned for health reasons, but not due to a breakdown in morality.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... if a religious or cultural groups views same-sex sexual activity as sinful, shouldn't people who try to prevent lust from developing in opposite sex settings also try to prevent it from developing in same sex settings?
Don't give them ideas.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I mean, given the thread's title, assuming that Mr Darcy swimming and men in tight suits are the pinnacle of women's desires seems to be missing the point. Like yes, of course women find plenty to desire - but much desire for all genders falls outside of heterosexual desire, which is why single-gender boundaries for modest purposes are pretty pointless*. Men's desire for other men isn't policed in terms of how men dress either, because that's just as unacceptable to those who would police how women dress.

*obviously there are places where it is appropriate for other reasons
This. Really, if it were so easy to suppress sexual desire simply by dress, we'd not be having this thread--the whole messy matter would have been done and dusted long ago.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
ohher:
quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs...
My reproductive organs (womb and ovaries) are covered, thanks. Only men wear theirs on the outside of their bodies. Try again.

Or were you referring to secondary sexual characteristics? Only women are required to cover those.

Brenda: [Overused]

[ 17. July 2017, 10:21: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
ohher:
quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs...
My reproductive organs (womb and ovaries) are covered, thanks. Only men wear theirs on the outside of their bodies. Try again.

Or were you referring to secondary sexual characteristics? Only women are required to cover those.
Is the vulva, are the labia minora and majora secondary sexual characteristics?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Primary, no?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Primary, no?
But Jane R says only men wear theirs on the outside of the body. Therefore either you are wrong or she is.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Disentangle it. She says only men wear their reproductive organs on the outside of their bodies (as opposed to sexual organs). She's speaking in a strict sense. One could reproduce without the organs you mention (as some sufferers of FGM can testify).

[ 17. July 2017, 15:27: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, ohher was the one who raised the question of covering reproductive organs.

Or in other words... what Lamb Chopped said.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Many cultures deal with full, or damn close, nudity with no issues. Standards of "modesty" and "propriety" are arbitrary.
As far as cleanliness in our crowded, modern world; don't ever do swabs for disease or faecal material in your office, grocery or home. Definitely not on the train or bus.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
LC, she made it out that there were only two alternatives, so your nitpicking really supposes she was making a distinction she gives no sign of having had in mind.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Many cultures deal with full, or damn close, nudity with no issues. Standards of "modesty" and "propriety" are arbitrary.
Sure but they still exist within cultures. Just because something is particular to a culture doesn't mean it's bad or dumb or unnecessary.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
This thread reminds me of a comment in "Mutiny on the Bounty" by Nordhoff and Hall, that the young women of Tahiti routinely went around bare-breasted and nonetheless were quite modest.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just because something is particular to a culture doesn't mean it's bad or dumb or unnecessary.
And it doesn't mean it isn't.
I am interested, though. Why are clothes necessary in Washington on a warm day, but not in the Amazon?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year? Clothing is absolutely necessary in Washington DC these days. And women are careful to carry a large sturdy leather handbag, holding it front and center. If it is weighted and reinforced with metal it also makes a handy flail.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

As far as cleanliness in our crowded, modern world; don't ever do swabs for disease or faecal material in your office, grocery or home. Definitely not on the train or bus.
...but when you do, it's usually the phone that wins. Or perhaps the computer keyboard. Toilet seats are very much cleaner.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
MT, I was simply answering your question. Answering it correctly involves explaining the thinking process of a third party. I did so. Now you call me a nitpicker.

Sheesh.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Most of the arguments for "modesty" in dress usually only apply that to females and the direction of the comment is usually to do with "inflaming" or "distracting" the males of the community.

In the UK there is one answer which, remarkably, is given to us by the royal family: Honi soit qui mal y pense Let him be shamed who thinks evil of it.

Brought up to date - those with dirty minds will always find a convenient gutter to inhabit.

[ 17. July 2017, 19:54: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year?
I did say on a Warm day and mt is in the other Washington, IIRC.
My challenge is to describe why clothing is necessary, other than for weather or other specific conditions.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
but when you do, it's usually the phone that wins. Or perhaps the computer keyboard. Toilet seats are very much cleaner.
The point is whilst you may be worried about naked bums on seats, the bigger problem is unwashed hands on everything else. And clothing will not change that.

[ 17. July 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I read somewhere recently, with reference to Islam, that Westerners used to regard nudity as the province of 'savages'. Now many Western women go around half undressed and regard women in burqini as savages.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The point is whilst you may be worried about naked bums on seats, the bigger problem is unwashed hands on everything else. And clothing will not change that.
I'm not worried about naked bums on seats. I'm "worried" about having naked sweaty flesh pressed against me on public transport / in elevators / etc. Not because I think I'll catch something, but because it's not very pleasant.

(My objection is stronger to male naked sweaty flesh, because men tend to be sweatier and smellier than women.)

And certainly part of that is a cultural belief that touching someone's bare skin (other than hands / forearms) is an intimate and personal act, and it's an intimacy that I don't want to be forced into with a stranger.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I read somewhere recently, with reference to Islam, that Westerners used to regard nudity as the province of 'savages'. Now many Western women go around half undressed and regard women in burqini as savages.
Us v Them. Tanning is another example. In some places and times, a tanned (white) person was associated with peasants. This changed when, at least in cities, more labour was performed inside and leisure meant one could soak up the sun.
Much of what we determine as "correct" or somehow "better" is more subjective and changeable than we like to admit.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not worried about naked bums on seats.
maybe we should be... the seat in my car is hot enough to cook eggs on right now!
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Again, I think the difference comes down to inner-directed choice vs. other-directed requirement.

Person A wears sleeves and leg-coverings to avoid skin-to-skin contact with strangers; that's a personal choice for personal reasons. It's not dictated by social custom or law.

Person B wears a padded bra to conceal her (A) breast milk leaking (B) her nipples erecting because this calls embarrassing attention to involuntary physical responses. Again, personal choice; not dictated by social custom or law.

Person C keeps his flies zipped to cover his penis and testicles. Not (necessarily) a personal choice; v. much dictated by law in most jurisdictions of the US, AFAIK.

Person D wears a head covering as a sign of respect to God. Often dictated by religious custom. A personal choice insofar as religious affiliation is the result of personal choice, and insofar as violating a religious custom may compromise one's standing or membership in one's religious community.

Person E is required by local law to keep all limbs, head, and face covered to avoid arousing sexual desire in others.

Which of these things is not like the others?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year?
I did say on a Warm day and mt is in the other Washington, IIRC.
My challenge is to describe why clothing is necessary, other than for weather or other specific conditions.
Because it is culturally called for in one place and not the other. But you know this so I'm not sure what game you're trying to pull.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because it is culturally called for in one place and not the other. But you know this so I'm not sure what game you're trying to pull.
And some of the tensions come from the fact that in a multi-cultural society there is no such thing as "the culture in one place". This is true whether those cultures are a host culture and an immigrant culture, or merely different aspects of a home-grown culture (consider conservative Christian American culture vs normal American culture, for example).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year?
I did say on a Warm day and mt is in the other Washington, IIRC.
My challenge is to describe why clothing is necessary, other than for weather or other specific conditions.
Because it is culturally called for in one place and not the other. But you know this so I'm not sure what game you're trying to pull.
I'm not trying to "pull" anything. You said simply because something is cultural doesn't make it wrong.
I am asking you to demonstrate why the cultural use of clothing is better than the cultural absence of clothing. Or at least why it is on parity. 'Because it is culturally called for' is result not reason.
So I will not be further accused of manipulation, I will lay bare my view.
Clothing has practical application for we hairless apes in some climates and situations, so it was developed. Different groups would have separate approaches to its design and construction, thus "fashion" was born. Tribalism influences what is "right" and strictures develop based on this.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'll lay my cards out then. Cultures have and need customs and expectations. It's part of what makes a culture a culture, and it's part of what helps everyone to get along together. It can be (and usually is) abused, and from time to time we need to question our various customs and expectations. But we can't exist with none at all. We would cease to be a society, and become the collection of independent monads that the Libertarians think we are.

Why don't people walk around naked? Well, comparing our highly mechanized and electrified and overpopulated society with a smaller and much-closer-to-the-soil society that isn't encumbered with such things isn't terribly helpful in my POV. In a village where everybody knows everybody, having everything hanging out has completely different connotations and potential consequences to a densely populated city of strangers. It's apples and top quarks.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'll lay my cards out then. Cultures have and need customs and expectations. It's part of what makes a culture a culture, and it's part of what helps everyone to get along together.
Well, I might think it a softer requirement than you, but OK. But Given that each culture has its variations that don't cross to other cultures, but still work internally; exactly what those need to be is subjective.


quote:

Why don't people walk around naked? Well, comparing our highly mechanized and electrified and overpopulated society with a smaller and much-closer-to-the-soil society that isn't encumbered with such things isn't terribly helpful in my POV. In a village where everybody knows everybody, having everything hanging out has completely different connotations and potential consequences to a densely populated city of strangers. It's apples and top quarks.
Except that it isn't. In the Tanakh it says:
quote:
So shall the king of the Assyrians lead away the prisoners of Egypt, and the captivity of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered to the shame of Egypt
Egypt and Ethiopia were hardly villages.
In modern traditional cultures, many interact with other proximate cultures and some are quite large. Like the Yanomami who number ~ 35,000 and live in over 200 villages.

This, from Wikipedia, reinforces my point about the artificiality of clothing restraints.
quote:
Public nudity might be offensive or distasteful even in traditional settings; Cicero derides Mark Antony as undignified for appearing near-naked as a participant in the Lupercalia festival, even though it was ritually required.[16][17] Negative connotations of nudity included defeat in war, since captives were stripped, and slavery. Slaves for sale were often displayed naked to allow buyers to inspect them for defects, and to symbolize that they lacked the right to control their own body.[18][19] The disapproval of nudity was less a matter of trying to suppress inappropriate sexual desire than of dignifying and marking the citizen's body.
Measures, then, of status.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You appear to have changed the subject. You were asking about nakedness "in the Amazon." Not about nakedness used by conquering armies to shame their vanquished foes. "In the Amazon" is what I was talking about when I was referring to small villages. You were asking about why nakedness was okay there but not okay here in Seattle.

Dragging in conquering armies and saying "they're not small villages" makes no sense to me. Now you're no longer talking about a small society that has no problem with nakedness. You're dragging in entirely new problems and issues. I feel like it makes for a better discussion if one person doesn't drag in a bunch of new stuff before the discussion about the old stuff reaches some kind of conclusion (if only "agree to disagree"). It smacks of the Gish Gallop.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
We're all familiar with tribes in the Amazon, and in Africa, where nudity is the cultural norm. I don't think the acceptance of nudity in those cultures has much to do with being "small societies where everyone knows everyone".

It's not uncommon in Europe for female toplessness to be common at swimming pools and on beaches. Nobody stares, and it doesn't cause problems. Sure - guys look at pretty girls, but guys also look at pretty girls in bikinis.

I don't have difficulty imagining that a large society with nudity as the norm could exist, in principle, and in such a society, nobody would pay any attention to the naked genitals. They're just naked bodies - you see them everywhere.

But in practice, I think such a society is remarkably unlikely. Clothes are just too useful - for warmth, for protection of delicate body parts, and for providing pockets to keep things in that I think it's inevitable that the presence or absence of clothing, and particular kinds of clothing, becomes a status indicator. And so you develop a clothed culture, and when you have a clothed culture then the display of normally-covered body parts acquires a sexual connotation.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We're all familiar with tribes in the Amazon, and in Africa, where nudity is the cultural norm. I don't think the acceptance of nudity in those cultures has much to do with being "small societies where everyone knows everyone".
It's nice you think so. Do you have any REASON to think so? Or are you arguing by assertion here?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's nice you think so. Do you have any REASON to think so? Or are you arguing by assertion here?
I think it's less of an assertion than your claim of the opposite.

Existing societies where nudity is normal don't seem to have any qualms abut displaying their nudity to visitors. They are nude within their own community, but also nude with the photographer from National Geographic.

Logically, if you begin with a society without a nudity taboo, you don't have an issue with seeing sex organs. Why, with that background, would you develop a desire to hide your sex organs from strangers, and how would you develop a culture where strangers seeing each others' sexual parts would generate whatever kind of sexual misbehaviour you're hinting at?

If you don't have a nudity taboo, there's nowhere for all that stuff to come from.

There's my argument, in a nutshell. It's not a watertight logical proof by any means, but it's consistent and coherent.

What's your reason for thinking that being naked in front of strangers has "completely different connotations and potential consequences" than being naked in your small village, that does not rely on the nudity taboos that our actual societies have?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You appear to have changed the subject. You were asking about nakedness "in the Amazon."
No. I was using Washington and the Amazon as specific examples of the general question about nakedness, not setting geographic limitations.The Yanomami are in the Amazon BTW.
quote:

Not about nakedness used by conquering armies to shame their vanquished foes. .
The Tanakh quote came from an article which was speaking of the cultural differences, not what one army had done 'to shame' but what an observer felt was shameful. My bad for not including more of the context. But you appear to have missed the other quote about the context of nudity.
quote:

Dragging in conquering armies and saying "they're not small villages" makes no sense to me. Now you're no longer talking about a small society that has no problem with nakedness. You're dragging in entirely new problems and issues. I feel like it makes for a better discussion if one person doesn't drag in a bunch of new stuff before the discussion about the old stuff reaches some kind of conclusion (if only "agree to disagree").
Not new parameters, but additional support as I was never only talking about small societies. You assumed that limitation.
quote:

It smacks of the Gish Gallop.
Cute.
This hardly makes for a better discussion. And whilst I can be accused of mangled logic on occasion, this is never a tactic I have used.
From the beginning, I have been talking about the subjective cultural mores of nudity. And you have not given me a good reason that nudity should be less acceptable than clothed.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What's your reason for thinking that being naked in front of strangers has "completely different connotations and potential consequences" than being naked in your small village, that does not rely on the nudity taboos that our actual societies have?
What's your reason for thinking those are two different things? The different connotations and potential consequences ARE the nudity taboos that our actual societies have.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From the beginning, I have been talking about the subjective cultural mores of nudity. And you have not given me a good reason that nudity should be less acceptable than clothed.
There are no absolute cultural mores. We cannot stand outside all cultures and look and see which ones are reasonable and which are not. There is no extra-cultural vantage point. We can only look at the Yanomamo (or whomever else) from the vantage point of OUR culture. So it is meaningless to ask for a "good reason" for nudity to be less acceptable than clothed.

Unless you mean a good reason in the context of our culture. And that reason is that it is against our subjective cultural mores.

Mores change over time, of course. If you wish to change the mores of our culture so that nudity is acceptable, I won't try to stop you. But my suggestion is that you talk about how that would work in our culture, not how it works so well for the Yanomamo. We aren't the Yanomamo.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's your reason for thinking those are two different things? The different connotations and potential consequences ARE the nudity taboos that our actual societies have.
That's my point. If we're positing an alternative nudity-accepting society, we can't start by importing the taboos from the societies that we have - because then we're just talking about our society.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Nudity is also used as a protest, as by these women in Africa:

(NSFW)

"South Africa's topless protesters are fighting shame on their own terms" (The Guardian).

"Bodies That Matter: The African History of Naked Protest, FEMEN Aside" (Okay Africa).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Jesus Christ on a unicycle, mt.

I asked you what good reasons our cultures have nudity taboos. Answer that.

Or don't, your choice of course. But I am not playing these sidestepping games.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
Great thread topic.

Let's get back to the basics. Adam and Eve had their eyes opened. They immediately were ashamed. As I recall (not looking it up now) this is to mean, simply, that they were embarrassed.

I don't know what aroused them before they sinned, but I don't think we can safely say they ever were aroused, or acted sexually. Point is, they were suddenly aware that their bodies had new meaning.

What was that meaning.

I am saddened by comments like Brenda's, but not surprised. The view that we should have no expectations of the people around us to dress modestly is a severely jaded view. That view supposes, wrongly, that we have no responsibility to one another, publicly, to display ourselves in any sense of respect to each other.

Oh yes, our manner of dress is an action, it is done with intent, it is an outward expression of our view of those around us. There is this thing called dignity, and these things called manners. Throwing them away because "it's my right" is destructive and hurtful to others. It's simple human selfishness though, narcissism at play.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... I don't know what aroused them before they sinned, but I don't think we can safely say they ever were aroused, or acted sexually. Point is, they were suddenly aware that their bodies had new meaning. ...
Does this mean that if the Fall hadn't happened, there would still only be 2 humans on the planet? Cuddling? God's original plan was for only non-human life to be fruitful and multiply?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The view that we should have no expectations of the people around us to dress modestly is a severely jaded view.
Jaded, huh? What's the word you'd use for the expectation that other people should follow your orders on how to dress themselves?

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
That view supposes, wrongly, that we have no responsibility to one another, publicly, to display ourselves in any sense of respect to each other.
Or at the very least that our responsibility to obey the wishes of others is subordinate to following our own desires. Browbeating people in the name of "respect" seems counterproductive, though fairly common.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Interesting question: Does the abandonment of the 1950s rule on women wearing gloves count as part of the slide towards immodest dress? How, exactly, do we distinguish between what's immodest and what's merely changing fashion?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's a concrete example (SFW and free click): She got arrested for wearing this. But it was in Saudi Arabia. Almost anywhere else on this planet, nobody would even look twice.
Decent, or not? It clearly depends on whether you're in Riyadh or not. If it varies depending on geography, it cannot be a universal standard.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The invention of clothing was about protection. The parameters prescribing its use are about control, stratification, tribalism and communication.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
" Modest dress" is a moving target that to me has little to do with the classical virtue of modesty and everything to do with controlling women out of a concern for the effect of their mere presence on men. Just note the secular parallel in the concern for dress codes, in public schools, which invariably target girls more than boys...and even if boys are disciplined for violations, those generally relate to sloppiness or overt vulgarity -- inappropriate novelty shirts -- whereas the girls' transgressions are all about " creating distractions."

A friend of mine who's a pastor is really irritated by the capricious, silly dress code at his daughters' school and their constant fear of being " coded" -- They're little girls wearing standard school appropriate attire.

Getting back to the OP, though: I think that, gay or straight, if the sight of someone else inflames you with lust, thst problem is on you, not on the object of your lust. Some people are turned on by niqabs or uniforms or Little House on the Prairie dresses. Again, " immodest " is a moving target.
 
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :
 
I'm a little startled by the introduction of Adam and Eve, complete with speculation about Before and After, in a way which seemed to be taking them as an objective referent ... Genesis is surely one of the, if not THE most culturally-specific component books in the Hebrew Scriptures.

(As are Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but they positively ooze first-order power manipulation, whereas Genesis feels more like authentic mythic stories – subjected to editing, of course, but after all, still with internal inconsistencies and contradictions ...)

My point being, nudity in Eden [innocence] vs subsequent clothedness reflects specific cultural attitudes. Not eternal values.

Having lived for more than half my life in Finland, where nakedness has a massively lower tabu rating, I find the level of nakedness tabu back in the anglo cultures quite weird.

In Finland, nakedness is the norm in the sauna – and the lake afterwards.
Before entering the pool in a public swimming bath, everyone takes a shower (obligatory) and goes to sauna and showers the sweat off (in male and female washing faciilties respectively) before entering the pool, and it is forbidden to wear your swimming costume in the sauna (it would just soak up sweat which you'd then take into the pool with you). In the pool itself, on the other hand, swimming costume is required. One massive advantage: very low levels of chlorine in the pool.

In Germany, it is widely assumed that the sauna should be not only naked but also mixed-sex. In Finland, only within the nuclear family – or in student gatherings.

It's all cultural (including, for that matter, the dislike/phobia of other people's sweaty skin and body odour – now there's a Late-Modern tabu).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:

My point being, nudity in Eden [innocence] vs subsequent clothedness reflects specific cultural attitudes. Not eternal values.
This. With LutheranChik's modifier, of course.

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
" Modest dress" is a moving target that to me has little to do with the classical virtue of modesty and everything to do with controlling women out of a concern for the effect of their mere presence on men.

 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Having lived for more than half my life in Finland, where nakedness has a massively lower tabu rating, I find the level of nakedness tabu back in the anglo cultures quite weird.
Growing up, manners in my family was the turn your back if changing. I was quite startled to learn the modesty level different people from different cultural origins expected. The locker room at gym class was particularly interesting. Some us simply went to the showers walking around naked, some tried to refuse showers (not allowed then, allowed now), and some wore underpants, and tried to avoid all view of the privy parts.

I think the exposure to nudity when young provides for better understanding of the varieties of human bodies and makes sexual interest and arousal something that must be definitely targetted. I have trouble understanding why some think pornography is interesting or arousing this reason. The people pictured cannot possibly interact with you. I also remember being told it was quite difficult to flirt with me, as I found it awkward for the person flirting and not at all interesting.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
LC's point about hot car seats took me back to about 1980; wearing short trousers; the hot, worn, mustard-coloured vinyl interior of our Mk3 Cortina; the smell a mix of burning oil, un-burnt petrol, and overheated plastic. Reading a book (The Bobsey Twins - how do I remember that?) half-way to Wales and then puking up.

quote:
Having lived for more than half my life in Finland, where nakedness has a massively lower tabu rating, I find the level of nakedness tabu back in the anglo cultures quite weird.
And this made me think of industrial-placement visiting in a place called Iisalmi (sp?), and sitting naked in a sauna with our placement student and his industrial supervisor (both male). I think the student was the most embarrassed; I imagined his report (if any) to the student body at large would be that their lecturer's physique was overweight but otherwise unremarkable...

[ 07. September 2017, 08:31: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0