Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:09:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> 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.
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 culture that says this is the right thing to do. Some Islamic woman choose
not to wear a viel, does this make them "indecent" in the same sense that public
nudity is "indecent" in American society? To me, the answer to that question is
no. People have the right to live their lives that way they choose and if not
wearing a veil or prancing around naked is part of that choice then so be it.
> 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.
But who's "sensibilities" are we catering to? Does this mean that if one guy in
the mall that I frequent thinks my girlfriend should wear a full length dress
instead of slacks then she should and if she doesn't then she's "uncivilized"
and "narcissistic"? The argument nakedness is wrong in that most people feel
that covering up is the "right" thing to do is fundmentally flawed. 600 years
ago most people thought that the Earth was flat and we all know how that turned
out.
-Orion
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect. If you can convince enough (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
