Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:55:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without
quoting a religious text or bringing up a nebulous concept such as “decency”
or “morality”, I assert that the public display of one’s body is well within
one’s rights to do so.
|
Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my
religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is
never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive
my values from a religion doesn’t make them any less valid. Never once would I
presume to question your justification for believing that public nudity is fine.
It doesn’t really matter. But it sure seems to matter to the non-religious from
where believers derive their beliefs!
Anyway, I believe that public nudity is a form of disrespect and therefore
uncivil behavior. In order for a society to harmoniously exist, its citizens
must respect each other. When I studied in Jerusalem in college, we’d frequent
orthodox sections of the city, and we always made sure that we (especially the
women) were dressed appropriately (ie mostly covered up) out of respect for the
people who lived there. There wasn’t a law stating that we needed to; we just
did it anyway, because we were sensitive to their practices and beliefs. Only
if people were so calloused and rude to wear bikini tops, for example, around
such areas would a law be necessary.
Public nudity is offensive to many Americans, and therefore those who would
choose to engage in such behavior are acting in blatant disregard for the
sensibilities of others around them. It is rude and uncivil, but these
considerations seem to be out of vogue in today’s culture of narcissism and
hedonism. What consenting adults choose to do in private to each other (I guess
I draw the line at murder and cannibilism;-) is their own business, but what
people do in public is another matter entirely. The whole question would be
moot if people had respect and regard for one another. But obviously they
don’t, and, like children, they must be told what they can and cannot do,
because they are too uncivil to know better. So one can have the right to
display one’s body in public (that is, no law forbidding it), but that doesn’t
mean that one should display one’s body in public. Decency, respect, and
civility in a person would prevent it.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| "John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:HsKsoz.1qu3@lugnet.com... snipped religion (...) citizens (...) frequent (...) the (...) for the (...) we just (...) Only (...) around (...) would (...) and (...) guess (...) what (...) be (...) to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) The example you gave above regarding woman being cover is flawed. The woman in that society choose to cover up. We might not see it as choice since Islamic law dictates it, but think of it from their perspective. They were brought up in a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
