ExTheist

Anyone who is uncomfortable with seeing a woman breast-feeding her child is in desprate need of a brain.

99Percent

MilitantModerate: Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? If something is inoffensive why do you have to be discreet?

For me it isn't offensive. I have seen many women breastfeed their children (its quite common here in Mexico) and it doesn't bother me a bit. But I am being concerned about the reaction of others when breastfeeding is done in public places. I have seen women doing it in a very crowded subway for example. What's so wrong about being reasonable and being a bit more discreet? It would be great if nobody was bothered or that we all lived in very clean places, but some of us now live in very crowded and unhygienic concentrations of people with very diverse ways of thinking. It doesn't cost a bit to be discreet for the sake of everyone getting along!

Glory

I found that when I was breast feeding it was a challenge to get and keep the baby in position while covering my breast with a blanket. Frankly my shoulders are narrow and it was nearly impossible to keep the blanket from slipping off. I never got the hang of it and very quickly gave up.

As for other's discomfort, we have to draw a line somewhere. I find that some people are uncomfortable about the way I dress, the fact that I have a tatoo, that I wear alot of jewelry, and that I speak plainly(use profanity)in the presence of my four year old. At some point you gotta say to them, "get over it or go home and lock yourself in your house where you can control every aspect of your existence in order to be comfortable." I don't go out of my way to be rude but I won't hide under a blanket or in a dark closet to avoid making someone else uncomfortable.

Glory

Keith Russell

Glory:

That pretty much sums up my views, as well.

There is no such thing as a right 'not to be offended'. Freedom of expression means that one can complain that one was offended, but one can't do anything about it--other than complain.

Keith.

christ-on-a-stick

This isn't EXACTLY on-topic but as an off-shoot...

Many have pointed out that overweight/out-of-shape people aren't that aesthetically pleasing - and I have often wondered the following:

If we DIDN'T have clothing to "cover a multitude of sins" so to speak, would people be more body-conscious and less likely to "let themselves go"? Would commonality of nudity (even partial - minimal undergarments a la what is common in some tropical environments) be an incentive for people to be more aware of their bodies, what they ate, getting excercise etc.?

I've discussed this with some friends who live here now (Southern California) but who come from other places, the Midwest especially, who have commented that people here are by far thinner on average, more health-and-fitness oriented, etc. - and surmised if it isn't partially because due to the warm weather virtually all-year-round there is much less opportunity to hide under multiple layers of clothing. One friend in particular, who grew up and went to college in Indiana, noted that what is considered "overweight" out here is completely average there.

Granted, where we live is a microcosm of society in which very beautiful people are EVERYWHERE due to the affluent area/L.A.-Hollywood influence - but I think there might be something to it. I know that in the winter months (ha! ok, the months where the average temp is under 70 degrees...) I am pretty laissez-faire about putting on 5 lbs. or so because I am not wearing shorts, tank tops, etc. and figure I can just shed the lbs. around March in time for spring.

So, would more nudity mean less obesity and more motivation for people to stay fit?

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: christ-on-a-stick ]</p>

brighid

Well, I think body consciousness and fitness go hand in hand with how much skin one might, or others might be showing in any given social situation. I noticed that when I hang out with friends who are overweight and have bad eating habits that I allow my good eating habits to go right out the window. It was a disturbing realization, but it sort of sent off a light bulb in my head. I took some time to reflect on the times I had my “best” body and when I hung around a lot of thin, or in shape men and women I was in much better physical shape. Now that I will be in front of a crowd of 30-50 men and women two nights a week, and become a known figure in my community I am WAY more conscious of my body and feel more motivated to continue to change. I know that when I feel better about the condition of my body I feel better about being naked, or wearing more revealing clothing.

I do not have a problem with nudity, although I do prefer NOT to see most people naked. If you don’t live in a climate conducive to little or no clothing it can be downright dangerous – frostbite comes to mind. Clothes are not only a functional part of our nature to survive, but they are also important cultural symbols as well – they can be liberating or enslaving – such as with the burqua. Clothes can allow creative expression.

Brighid

Jamie_L

The analogous example is: what is the difference between telling a co-worker he/she looks good today and sexual harassment? Clearly there can be a difference between language intended as a complement and language that is more malicious. The same can be said of various uses of public nudity. It is possible to conceive of nudity intended as a prank and another situation in which the nudity is intended as a form of sexual harassment/assault (though we're not talking physical assault here).

There, with my serious comment out of the way, I can add: "What's wrong with nudity?" Answer: there just ain't enough of it.

Jamie

NeoDeltaI

This brings another interesting point to mind. There may be no such thing as a right 'not to be offended'. But it should be within our rights not to be forced to receive unwanted stimuli. The laws conform to what the majority deems necessary, or "right". Since there's no know majority that has a moral objection to clothes and quite a few majorities that have very strong opposition to nudity, we have laws regarding which parts of our body we can unclothe where. This way, I can understand why there are laws about public nudity, but not so many about private nudity.

Also, nudity has no negative or positive implications in and of itself. Children exposed to nudity throughout their upbringing will have no more negative mental problems than any other child (other than if you call not being shy of nudity a mental problem).

Which brings up another question. How come underage nudity is considered taboo and heinous, while TV commercials for diapers can show babies bottoms all the time? It seems we think that a naked baby is fine, a naked adult in the right context is fine, but a naked child between the ages of 4 and 17 is damnable?

A little disclaimer: I agree that sexual nude images of minors is indeed a negative and heinous thing. There’s a big difference between nudity and pornography. Just want to get that straight before I get flamed.

Infinity Lover

Maybe ninetynine's affraid he'll get a woody in public?

Which sounds mocking; but who am I to get judgemental about what involuntarily arouses others... or embarrasses for that matter.

(Would it be rude to say bon apetite to the baby though?)

I think it is important to keep in mind, that our thoughts are somewhat more complex than (pick any animal).

Open nudity is for those that are cool about it.

Primal

Again the idea of public nudity is a matter of preference. As for taking potties in public, that too is preference. Some countries allow that in fact, India for example has toilet like places on the side of the road, open to all. In china they have public potties in class rooms. The smell might be a problem, but mostly it's preference.

As for nudity, there probabily will be senitation problems with some forms of public nudity but not all, also harassment/flashing would be harder to spot. But mostly it's preference, as all the above are somewhat negligable, as well as worthless objections in the face of partial nudity. I don't WANT to see topless women breastfeeding their pups. So I'm ok with outlawing that. On the same token though, if women can breastfeed their "kiddies" in public can the more adult community do likewise? I'm sure everyone here gets the urge to suck on their sweet-hearts mammals sometimes in public,if babies can do it, we should be allowed to as well.

So in the end its just a value conflict, I say "boo" you say "yay". Amen summned up my positions:

In reference to preference:
I am not a relativist but I think this is a matter of conflicting customs.

Anyways, what about public sex? Would that lead to any serious harm? Or is that just a matter of preference as well?

I know Diamond showed that people naturally like to have sex in privacy. But does that mean public sex should not be allowed?

Will that perhaps lead to increased cases of rape or rape incidents being harder to identify/prove? Will it mean messes in some public areas?

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>