The grounding point is that sensing another body provides the potential for sexual arousal. We can do things to that body, like put clothes on it, to either raise or lower the level of potential, but we cannot remove that potential in any absolute way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thus far I agree, but in general, the way we 'put clothes on' the body or rather socialise a dress code with legal sanctions, does as a matter of fact serve to raise the level of potential arousal. 'In olden days a glimpse of stocking...'

To give a very simple, direct example, it used to be, and to an extent still is, a 'normal' behaviour in the workplace for men to give the arse of a good looking woman a friendly slap, as a signal of sexual desire and appreciation, (and also dominance). The clothes make such uninvited intimacy possible. Such behaviour in a nudist camp, or to a nude model in art class, would be unthinkable.

Clothes make the porn industry possible, and allow in men in particular to form a fantasy of the female body which women are then pressured to try to conform with. Example, again is the fashion for shaving pubic hair which has arisen and been popularised by the need of the porn film make to give an ever more clear and intimate view of actual penetration - not something I would spend much time trying to get a view of myself while actually having sex. But folks conform to the fantasy created by the (strictly virtual) breaking of the taboo against nudity.

Familiarity with the reality of the varied manifestation of the human figure, would reduce the power of fantasy, to intrude into normal interactions.

I will simply note that taboo is essentially a religious form of socialisation that works to intensify feeling towards its object and imbue it with "spiritual"power. That is how it invariably works, and this society worships sex.

Thus far I agree, but in general, the way we 'put clothes on' the body or rather socialise a dress code with legal sanctions, does as a matter of fact serve to raise the level of potential arousal. — unenlightened

I think that thus is a misrepresentation of so-called "fact". Your claim that clothing necessarily rases the level, instead of my claim that it may raise or lower the level, cannot be supported simply by examples of when the potential is raised. You need to show the necessity, that clothing cannot have effects in the other direction, to support your generalization that clothing "does as a matter of fact serve to raise the level of potential arousal". But I suggest that you accept as reality, that the effects of clothing can be either negative or positive.

If we look at the sense of touch, instead of the sense of sight, the possible negative effects of clothing on arousal are very evident. Consider Hanover\s example of squeezing into the shower, skin on skin, as compared to squeezing into an elevator, cloths on cloths. It's very evident that cloths can have a very negative effect on the sensual stimulus which provides the potential for arousal.

Altering the sense stimulus is more than just a matter of messing with the taboo, because sense stimulation is essential to sexual acts. So altering the stimulation can alter the nature of the act itself, and this goes beyond any taboo which deals with the perception of the act.

The studies show a low rate of transitioning regret at less than 1%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/


On the other hand, there's no good evidence transitioning reduces suicide or suicidal thoughts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/

If we look at the sense of touch, instead of the sense of sight, the possible negative effects of clothing on arousal are very evident. Consider Hanover\s example of squeezing into the shower, skin on skin, as compared to squeezing into an elevator, cloths on cloths. It's very evident that cloths can have a very negative effect on the sensual stimulus which provides the potential for arousal. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. On the contrary, the effect of a norm of nakedness would be to make overcrowding unacceptable for just those reasons you suggest, unless close contact was also desexualised as occurs to a great extent in 'touchy-feely' communities.

The studies show a low rate of transitioning regret at less than 1%. — Hanover

I wouldn't call that low. That means for every 100 surgeries, one person regretted doing it. I would tend to avoid any research that announces a political bias at the outset, as this one did, but since this survey basically affirmed a study from 1993, I don't doubt their results.

But anyway, the person in that video is an example of a woman, both biologically and in terms of self perception. As she stated, her presentation is always going to be androgenous.

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. On the contrary, the effect of a norm of nakedness would be to make overcrowding unacceptable for just those reasons you suggest, unless close contact was also desexualised as occurs to a great extent in 'touchy-feely' communities. — unenlightened

I don't know the hangup people have in limiting their sexual activity to private places. If a boyfriend and girlfriend wish to shower in the gym and time constraints demand they relieve themselves sexually in the instant, why should us prudes interfere? We all need to nut from time to time. It's a natural function, so let's just grow up and let them have at it.

"Taboo" I'd submit is the dysphemism for "community standard."

What I suggest is that even if we can offer no immediate acceptable reason for why we impose such rules on expected civil interaction, and even if our most progressive thinkers believe they can prognosticate our eventual state with all these antiquated vestiges of our sexually repressed history finally being purged, i still object to the process being hastened due to the concerns of a micro-minority, but insist the change occur organically with acceptance occurring at whatever rate it might.

That is, one day we might all fuck like rabbits in a field and it'll be like shaking hands, but it's going to take some time for that change to happen, and I'm not going to hurry up that change because it is affecting someone's special sensitivities right now.

"Taboo" I'd submit is the dysphemism for "community standard." — Hanover

Yes indeed. I have community standards, you have quaint customs, they have primitive taboos.

Fer fuck's sake! Has no one on this site read any sociology or anthropology?

Fer fuck's sake! Has no one on this site read any sociology or anthropology? — unenlightened

Only for the points that support my biases. But point me to your articles.

Try a dictionary.

Has no one on this site read any sociology or anthropology? — unenlightened

I can name three or four members who probably have. Only slightly fewer than those who have read any philosophy.

Great cite by the way. I'll just reference google.com as my source. Sort of like citing anthropology.

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. — unenlightened

Irrelevant to the effect of the taboo, but relevant to the cause of the taboo. So I don't understand the objection you have towards Hanover's statement, why you find it bizarre.

You agree that sensation is stimulus for arousal, and you also recognize that naked skin is often more of a cause for arousal than covered skin in a similar situation. Do you also see why a young man or boy might not like the idea of being aroused in a public place? Sexual arousal might influence one to act in a way which one might regret later, for example. So, doesn't it seem more likely that this would be the cause of existence of the nakedness taboo, the reason for it becoming a taboo, rather than the effect of the taboo?

Yes, but why respond to a post when snark is easier?

Let me restate it:

You've identified that public nakedness is taboo and argued it is without justification. I've indicated a justification beyond it being a community standard isn't required and that any change to it should come organically, as opposed to decree, especially one motivated by a select few being inconvenienced by the standard.

Beyond that, I pointed to another taboo, which is that we don't have sex openly in public, despite that taboo resting on the same rules that prohibit public nudity, which are generally considered the modesty rules.

That is, we needn't place all these taboos on the agenda to consider them for change and dramatically restructure our social norms just because we now face challenges from a very small minority as to what a man or woman is.

You've identified that public nakedness is taboo and argued it is without justification. — Hanover

I have not said anything about justification; I have said it has a function in patriarchal society. I have not made any suggestion about what changes ought to be made.

Beyond that, I pointed to another taboo, which is that we don't have sex openly in public, — Hanover

Yes, was that supposed to be significant of something?

That is, we needn't place all these taboos on the agenda to consider them for change and dramatically restructure our social norms just because we now face challenges from a very small minority as to what a man or woman is. — Hanover

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that.

And you have the gall to accuse me of snark, along with your strawmannirg.

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that. — unenlightened

Mine is a reductio argument, not a strawman, asking why change one and not the other unless you can show how in principle they're not the same.

Mine is a reductio argument, not a strawman, asking why change one and not the other unless you can show how in principle they're not the same. — Hanover

But who argued for a change? Where is the argument to reduce to absurdity?

That is apart from the conflation of nudity and sex, of course which is exactly the effect of the taboo on nudity that I have been pointing out. And of course the evidence of the Naturist movement is that it is perfectly possible to dispense with the taboo on nudity without dispensing with the taboo on public sex. But don't let the evidence undermine your straw man.

And of course the evidence of the Naturist movement is that it is perfectly possible to dispense with the taboo on nudity without dispensing with the taboo on public sex. — unenlightened

What is wrong with the taboo against public nudity? Why must it hinge upon proof that it violates the taboo against public sex is my question?

That is, I'm just saying the rule of modesty justifies the rule against mixed nudity as it justifies the rule against public sex. Why make some taboos taboo? Can't it just be that I find showering beside children not my own uncomfortable enough that I'd rather maintain that rule? It's not like fear of arousal is what makes me not want to see most of my neighbors having sex.

What is wrong with the taboo against public nudity? Why must it hinge upon proof that it violates the taboo against public sex is my question? — Hanover

Is there something wrong with it? I can make no sense of your second question. you brought up the question of public sex, and I have no idea why. My claim is that the taboo on nudity sexualises nakedness. you may think that is a bad thing, or a good thing. As far as I can tell talk of having sex in public is a red herring of your own, and it smells extremely fishy, when you want me to explain it.

Indeed I have already cited evidence from the Naturist movement that breaking the nudity taboo does desexualise nakedness and does not in the least lead to public sex. So the two are not even connected let alone hinged. It is only in the mind fixated by the taboo that they are connected. One disadvantage of this is that it leads to body shame or modesty you prefer, to such a degree that people will not go to the doctor about 'intimate problems'. That may be a price worth paying for whatever the advantages are.

Doctors and nurses of course already have a desexualised attitude to nakedness, by and large, as distinct from and opposed to those who like to 'play doctors and nurses'.

Why make some taboos taboo? — Hanover

In several Middle Eastern countries, it's taboo to kiss in public. Suppose we suggested to them that that taboo was unnecessary and their response was "so, by the same token, we should just let people have sex in public!'' I think the point is we choose our taboos (at some level) and we can examine their individual merits. @unenlightened's point about sexualization and nudity is at the very least worth thinking about.

Indeed I have already cited evidence from the Naturist movement that breaking the nudity taboo does desexualise nakedness and does not in the least lead to public sex.[...] One disadvantage of this is that it leads to body shame or modesty you prefer, — unenlightened

I believe the public nudity taboo is in place, not because of the potential of sexualized nudity, but because 99% of people are in disgusting shape and look gross naked. More people should be ashamed of their body - clothes simply enable people to be disgusting.

:chin:

But quite possible that people originally started wearing clothes for other reasons, e. g. warmth, protection etc. and this, following Un's logic, is what sexualised nudity and brought the taboo into being.

Quite possible though people originally started wearing clothes for other reasons, e. g. warmth, protection etc. and this, following Un's logic, is what sexualised nudity and brought the taboo into being. — Baden

The question is, what was the taboo effect of clothing once it became normalized? Did it cause people to notice how sexually enticing a human body could be...or did it cause people to notice just how disgusting most human bodies actually are?

- clothes simply enable people to be disgusting. — Merkwurdichliebe

You may think that, but I think that clothes enable the disgust. What is hidden becomes emotionally charged. If you go to life drawing class, you will see naked men and women of all kinds, fat and thin, hairy and smooth, young and old, light and dark, whole and deformed or scarred or mutilated. All just something to sketch or paint. Disgust is a limitation to be overcome. One may not like blue cheese, but to be disgusted by it is never to find out.

You may think that, but I think that clothes enable the disgust. — unenlightened

Then we agree, I think. Clothes enable the disgust by creating a taboo around nudity. And, this is counter-effective in desensitizating people to the regular sight of a disgusting naked body. I would argue that such desensitization towards such a shameful thing as a disgusting fatbody is neither good nor healthy for society.

If you go to life drawing class, you will see naked men and women of all kinds, fat and thin, hairy and smooth, young and old, light and dark, whole and deformed or scarred or mutilated. All just something to sketch or paint. — unenlightened

I'm an artist and I've attended 100's of life drawing classes. I would say at least 9 out of 10 models (if not greater ratio) were in decent to great shape, all without evident mutilations. I think this is the case because they are trying to teach anatomy, particularly the superficial muscles, and once this facet of life drawing is advanced it is quite easy to extrapolate fat on any person. Whereas the reverse is very difficult for the advanced student.

Whatever the case, the classes all had a very professional and sterile atmosphere, similar to the medical field.

Disgust is a limitation to be overcome. One may not like blue cheese, but to be disgusted by it is never to find out. — unenlightened

To be overcome in some cases, and not in others. In many cases, similar to fear and anxiety, it helps us stay healthy and alive.

Disgust with blue cheese doesn't necessarily mean that the thing is alien to the disgusted person. It often comes from a too intimate experience with the thing. In one case, it is unwarranted disgust based in ignorance, and should be overcome...but in the case of having familiarity (say with rancid dairy products), blue cheese is likely to have something genuinely and objectively disgusting about it, and for good reason.

The fact that disgust with blue cheese can be overcome, theoretically means disgust is possible to overcome in any given case (say with poop). But this doesn't mean we should seek to overcome everything we find disgusting. Afterall some things, like poop, or disgusting fatbodies, have much father reaching ramifications in society than blue cheese.

Then we agree, I think. Clothes enable the disgust by creating a taboo around nudity. And, this is counter-effective in desensitizating people to the regular sight of a disgusting naked body. I would argue that such desensitization towards such a shameful thing as a disgusting fatbody is neither good nor healthy for society. — Merkwurdichliebe

Afterall some things, like poop, or disgusting fatbodies, have much further reaching ramifications in society than blue cheese. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do fatbodies have societal-wide ramifications?

I'm a good ol' fatbody. I don't mind being naked, but some others mind it if I am. But, really, I didn't care anymore when I was a young-body, either. Shaming people for the body they have is not only unkind, it's unnecessary.

What does your disgust of fatbodies do for you?

This is another video about a de-transitioned youth. She expresses some of the same concerns that a former forum member spoke about, regarding the trans community. She makes a very wise point: "heal your mental health first, and if you still feel gender dysphoria, then consider transitioning."

Do fatbodies have societal-wide ramifications? — Moliere

Only the disgusting ones, especially when they are naked. On the other hand, some fatbodies are very aesthetically pleasing. But, for the record, I believe it would be preferential if the laws against public nudity be applied equally to all, whether fat, skinny or in between.

What does your disgust of fatbodies do for you? — Moliere

I'm not disgusted by all fatbodies, forgive me for speaking so generally. But, for the ones that do disgust me, it gives me something interesting to draw.

Shaming people for the body they have is not only unkind, it's unnecessary. — Moliere

I disagree. I like shame, it keeps me honest with myself. And I think it does the same for many others. Unfortunately in the present day, people are soft, brittle and full of excuses for why they cannot adequately handle their shame...and they have blamed shame, and shamed shame in order to escape what would otherwise be their own shame. It is a shame.

I'm not disgusted by all fatbodies, forgive me for speaking so generally. But, for the ones that do disgust me, it gives me something interesting to draw. — Merkwurdichliebe

In some situations you have to look at the person within the body and hold off on judgement. Then the body just becomes part of the human potential, and what you think of it reflects how you see humanity in general.