Why is being nude so "wrong"?
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
Speaking your mind is a privilege on forums, not a right.
When backed by no peer reviewed evidence or even logic (or even, apparently, personal experience), solely on the basis of the number of PMs that agree with you, it's laying yourself out WIDE OPEN for ridicule.
ex:
Merely because an action is 'taboo' does not mean that a significant proportion of the population does not have the urge. For example, look at homosexuality. It was taboo in 99% of societies, yet now some people are saying that sexuality is a sliding scale, with all people have some homosexual tendencies, no matter how small! No doubt 200 years ago, sciforumers would have claimed that an individual's revulsion towards homosexuals was intrinsic, ingrained in the genome.
IMHO, the taboo against incest between brother/sister or cousins is mainly taught. It's drilled into siblings at a young age that they are not to think of each other sexually. This view is reinforced by society, until the children learn what Orwell would call 'crimestop'. Incestous thoughts are seen as inappropriate 'thoughtcrime', and forced into the back of their mind.
Why do I think this? I don't have any siblings, but the above is what homosexuals have done in societies which condemn such 'deviant' behaviour. Homosexual behaviour is seen as so disgusting, that even having homosexual thoughts equates to 'thoughtcrime'. Witness 'Raymond' from 'Everybody Loves Raymond' after having what he thinks may be a homosexual urge for the delivery guy.
Added to which, some people seem to have a fetish for incest fanfic. Incestuous relationships have occurred throughout history, still occur, there have been significant lobbies to repeal the laws (notably Australia and Germany), and sibling marriage is allowed in Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Sibling_incest_between_children
Are these people defying instinct, or are they defying the unwritten social code of conduct?
So Baron makes a good point. If this disgust regarding sibling incest is due to the social code (and not instinct), then having a brother and sister in puberty running about in the nude might result in a bit of 'crimethink', and more difficulty in applying 'crimestop'.
Merely because an action is 'taboo' does not mean that a significant proportion of the population does not have the urge. For example, look at homosexuality. It was taboo in 99% of societies, yet now some people are saying that sexuality is a sliding scale, with all people have some homosexual tendencies, no matter how small! No doubt 200 years ago, sciforumers would have claimed that an individual's revulsion towards homosexuals was intrinsic, ingrained in the genome.
IMHO, the taboo against incest between brother/sister or cousins is mainly taught. It's drilled into siblings at a young age that they are not to think of each other sexually. This view is reinforced by society, until the children learn what Orwell would call 'crimestop'. Incestous thoughts are seen as inappropriate 'thoughtcrime', and forced into the back of their mind.
Why do I think this? I don't have any siblings, but the above is what homosexuals have done in societies which condemn such 'deviant' behaviour. Homosexual behaviour is seen as so disgusting, that even having homosexual thoughts equates to 'thoughtcrime'. Witness 'Raymond' from 'Everybody Loves Raymond' after having what he thinks may be a homosexual urge for the delivery guy.
Added to which, some people seem to have a fetish for incest fanfic. Incestuous relationships have occurred throughout history, still occur, there have been significant lobbies to repeal the laws (notably Australia and Germany), and sibling marriage is allowed in Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Sibling_incest_between_children
Are these people defying instinct, or are they defying the unwritten social code of conduct?
So Baron makes a good point. If this disgust regarding sibling incest is due to the social code (and not instinct), then having a brother and sister in puberty running about in the nude might result in a bit of 'crimethink', and more difficulty in applying 'crimestop'.
Exactly. She wasn't even close to being the first person to show up to this place and just talk smack. Most posters in the non-science threads just like to fuck with each other in some lame attempt to upset people, even people whom are trying to be serious. In any event I find shorty can find hypocrisy better than even the Rittmeister Baron von Max.
A useful thing in any forum.
So what you are saying is that we should all cover our faces, because according to Saudis, they incite lustful desires; this certainly explains why Republicans set the bar for sexual deviancy.
Faces aren't really sexualised in Western countries.
Oh, so she wasn't serious? She was just kidding around? I guess I took it wrong then. sorry, my bad.
And children are?
all I would have to do is lick my lips or suck my fingers and my husband finds that sexual. My lips are on my face. I kiss with my lips.
Or is it just a non-moving face with no come-hither look?
S.A.M:
Huh?
Huh?
Your rationale has one seriously big hole in it. Can you spot it?
Orleander:
Yes, that sort of face. I thought that was implied in S.A.M's question. I wonder why one would cover their face if they were sucking on their fingers and winking at a special other?
Yes, that sort of face. I thought that was implied in S.A.M's question. I wonder why one would cover their face if they were sucking on their fingers and winking at a special other?
S.A.M:
No. Enlighten me, master.
No. Enlighten me, master.
You're implying that incest is equal to homosexuality; that would imply that since (according to the Baron), one can be trained to avoid incest (by clothing nudity in families), one can also be trained to avoid homosexuality.
IOW, you are assuming that, like incest (again, acc to the Baron), homosexuality is a choice.
No I think she was serious..maybe? Frankly, I didn't really read anthing but the last page of this thread and saw mountaindicks post, I could give a shit about this topic.
S.A.M:
Yep. Something along those lines. So far, so good.
One is trained to both repress incestuous thoughts (again, 'crimestop'), and to not act on the urge. Yep, you're close enough.
And, if you take a look at history, this is what has been happening in homophobic cultures for yonks. Homosexuals actively repress homosexual thoughts out of guilt, fear and shame ('crimestop'), and choose not to act on any urges that may surface.
Incestous thoughts, like homosexual thoughts, can be repressed and not acted upon.
Yep. Something along those lines. So far, so good.
One is trained to both repress incestuous thoughts (again, 'crimestop'), and to not act on the urge. Yep, you're close enough.
And, if you take a look at history, this is what has been happening in homophobic cultures for yonks. Homosexuals actively repress homosexual thoughts out of guilt, fear and shame ('crimestop'), and choose not to act on any urges that may surface.
Incestous thoughts, like homosexual thoughts, can be repressed and not acted upon.
I would like to see if there is any association between the rigidity of social convention in families and the popularity of incest.
So in your opinion, if everyone is clothed, incest is reduced. The reverse would then happen in permissive cultures and nudist colonies.
Would you like to back that up with data?
S.A.M:
???
Has anyone else supplied data to 'back up their claims' over the past 24 pages? Have you found the gene which makes people feel 'ewww' at the thought of incest?
I'm just hypothesising, and think that there is a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting me. I doubt there has been much research done in this field, anyway.
???
Has anyone else supplied data to 'back up their claims' over the past 24 pages? Have you found the gene which makes people feel 'ewww' at the thought of incest?
I'm just hypothesising, and think that there is a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting me. I doubt there has been much research done in this field, anyway.