Reasons Society Doesn't Want to Allow Public Nudity

[jbeegoode]

Sunday, September 13, 2015
Reasons Society Doesn't Want to Allow Public Nudity
https://ournudistlife.blogspot.com/search?q=reasons

Quite a list. I don't know that I have anything to add, do you?
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

Yes, that just about sums up the stupid excuses. 

Of course they never mention all the MONEY earned by the textile industries.  Nudity would close shopping malls.   Perhaps this is the biggest reasons. 

[BlueTrain]

Where've you been? Shopping malls have been closing for years.

[Peter S]

Both perfectly true - we’ve lost “malls” here, too, or they’ve been built a not filled up, but the money argument has validity. If the clothes shops in my home town closed it would wipe out about three-quarters of the local commerce! The economic argument for keeping clothes is that as things stand most western economies would collapse without them.

[BlueTrain]

You want to talk clothes? Here goes!

There used to be men's shops and lady's shops in every town large and small. They're just about all gone now. What happened?

The large discount stores sucked up the lower end of the market, the on-line retailers the rest. There are still a lot of what might be called specialty shops in more affluent areas like where I live, to be sure. But people simply don't dress up the way they used to. And they are used to low prices, too. Has the economy collapsed? Sure doesn't look like it. The economy here isn't based on clothing retailing, although it seems to be based on retailing, to be sure, including groceries. In fact, I've never heard anyone say that an economy is based on wearing clothes. There have been some that capitalized on it but that was then. We hardly manufacture any clothes in this country now.

What is true is that local economies (everything is local, in a sense) will collapse if the chief industry goes away. In my hometown, it was the railroad. There used to be shops that employed a thousand men. Then one day sometime in the 1970s, the railroad moved the operation elsewhere (not overseas, of course). There's still a viable hospitality industry there that wasn't there before, however, and it has turned into a kind of Breezewood, Pennsylvania, a bustling crossroads. The old downtown is a ghost town compared to when I lived there. I used to think it was because the railroad shops closed. But I've had second thoughts.

Every small town I've ever been through and some cities, too, have experienced the same thing to some extent, even with no other changes to the local economy. The big chain stores come in and put the local (and locally owned) shops out of business with the stores built somewhere outside of town, although some of the former local businesses also relocate outside of town. I remember when everyone complained about the traffic and the lack of parking and that was in a town of about 8,000 people. If it is an affluent area, which my hometown wasn't, the old downtown has boutiques, art galleries and new restaurants. If it isn't, places get torn down, or become vacant or are occupied by tattoo parlors and the like. Life goes on, just somewhere else not far away.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with public nudity that I can think of.

[Greenbare Woods]

You want to talk clothes? Here goes!

There used to be men's shops and lady's shops in every town large and small. They're just about all gone now. What happened?

The large discount stores sucked up the lower end of the market, the on-line retailers the rest. There are still a lot of what might be called specialty shops in more affluent areas like where I live, to be sure. But people simply don't dress up the way they used to. And they are used to low prices, too. Has the economy collapsed? Sure doesn't look like it. The economy here isn't based on clothing retailing, although it seems to be based on retailing, to be sure, including groceries. In fact, I've never heard anyone say that an economy is based on wearing clothes. There have been some that capitalized on it but that was then. We hardly manufacture any clothes in this country now.

Yes, the clothing industry has shifted and changed, but its still a HUGE business.   Its not as huge as it was a generation or two ago though.  As you say, many small clothing shops have closed, and even big stores like Sears and Penneys are hurting.  Wal-Mart and other more "casual" stores have become more popular.  And, clothing manufacturing has largely moved to Asia.  However its still a big MONEY force convincing people to WANT clothes. 

American women don't watch Paris fashion week like my mother's generation did, but the latest fashion is desired by many.  Many women who would otherwise be nudists are convinced that "good" clothes make them look "good."   Even at Wal-Mart my wife can spend an hour looking through a rack of underwear or ladies shirts.  I'm sure it has a lot to do with why fewer women are nudists and why so many people won't go naked even at home. 

But the decline of fashion demands and high fashion boutique stores may be a good sign for nudism. 

Bob

[jbeegoode]

There is some talk of defining human beauty here.

It is generally in the eyes of the beholder, a preference developed for various reasons, but some of those reasons are a part of a big ugly to me. This is much like defining good and bad in many instances.  For example, one man's ideals might glorify war, and another might define it as man at its ugliest.

So we are talking bodies and parts. Ugly, defines as abhorrent, distaste, a sense or feeling that one gets. It may be better to not define a human form as ugly, or beautiful, but rather, that it is what it is.

Attractive, or unattractive, that is something that naturally happens, a drive toward a stimulus. That can be valid as feelings, but it is personal preference.

Studies have shown that the world over popular ideals of attractive are a certain set of proportions of measurements for women, no matter what the weight and height, and square balanced features for men. It's a sexual attraction thing. Sexual attraction is always clouded over with emotions, comfort what one is used to, and all of the other attributes that humans display and possess. Even situations can flavor that attraction.

After being raised on Playboy magazine, just healthy is now attractive to me and any style human is okay. I used to like smaller women for sex, not looks but for function. Just someone growing on me happens, for example, these days DF is the most attractive woman in the universe. That's just me, now.

So, "all bodies are beautiful." I don't know that I would say that, but all bodies are okay. I wouldn't judge a body to be ugly, but personally less attractive than the others. All bodies deserve to not be judged to be placed on a hierarchy. We are more and bodies are what they are.

Hanging out naked with all shapes and sizes, I notice that that notion of ideal bodies and ugly naturally fall out of the window to a significant extent. We are people, we are socially adept and can be fun to have around. Sexuality is less of a tool in socially nude situations.

Healthy looking is attractive and sexy for me. Invigorated people rub off on me. My peers, when healthy, will be more likely to aspire to what goals and activities that I have for myself and inspiring me to be more what I would like to be. Healthy looking can also be housing a dumbass jerk, or a bore, intellectually some place else, which are all unattractive. What do I want from the people around me, varies, but labeling them ugly, or beautiful, judging and classifying people to the point of not being open, is going to generally work against my self interests.

Bodies are what they are, very entertaining. 
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

A person's physical appearance can be something that attracts, or more accurately, pleases, or alternately, is something to be overcome. Here we can think of people we have known over the years. In reality, I think, it is only one factor in inter-personal relationships, another one being personality. There are also common interests and other things in common. Sometimes bodies are interesting, other times less so. The ideal, which I went on and on about in another post, changes over time, too, and can be a little different from place to place. The ideal Playboy Playmate, if they still exist, has changed over the years, too.

My face has a few scars, though not of the collegiate fencing scar variety (although I did fence in college), but they wouldn't be described at pretty. And that makes me wonder, can a man be described as beautiful? Or just handsome. Everything is better with a smile.

[Peter S]

Beauty, as the saying goes, is always in the eye of the beholder, but the effect of appearance can not be dismissed. Most people can see, and the first contact we generally have with another person is visual, we see them. Instant judgements are mad e, whether we like it or not, based on that visual impression, for good or ill. Yes, those impressions may well change after further and different sorts of contact, but the judgement has still been made, and whether we call t “beauty” or some other word it happens.

[BlueTrain]

It's said you only get one chance to make a first impression.

There is also the story of an English country gentleman who was not a particularly well-turned-out individual. In other words, he did not dress well. But he said that it didn't matter what he wore around home, "because everyone knows me." Yet he would also say that it didn't matter what he wore when he traveled, "because nobody knows me."

Maybe it doesn't matter at all.

[Peter S]

In some cases, such as the English country gentleman described, it doesn't matter. All too often society makes it matter.

Now I'm retired I don't worry about what I wear as far as others are concerned. When I was working I wore practical clothing for the work at hand, latterly as a tradesman; as well as being practical for the task at hand the clothes acted as a uniform and made me look like the job I was doing, which encouraged confidence in potential customers. It may be down to social conditioning, but if your surgeon appeared at your bedside in grease-stained dungarees would that imbue confidence? If a farmer wore a three-piece suit and avoided standing in puddles, would you think him up to the job?

I had along argument with a banker once over the fact that he judged his (male) employees on the make of tie they wore - not whether they wore a tie or its colour, but the actual make - how did that matter, I asked; he couldn't answer but nor would he back off from its importance.

OK, we're slipping aaway from "beauty" to a wider range of "appearance" but I think the principle applies. Perhaps it shouldn't but it does.

[Greenbare Woods]

There is some function of adornment that even naked tribal societies have used.   Tattoos, piercings, necklaces, penis sheaths, etc.   Some function of clothing is adornment.  Many women believe they look nice covered in a nice outfit.  I have come to suspect that opinion is related to having fewer female nudists.

[jbeegoode]

Good point, Bob. Women often compete in their own way, nude is like going to war without weapons. Nude reservation women can drop their weapons at the door, like guns, but outside of the barrier to the res, they are naked. Many can't conceive of it.

So many women are used to being judged by men and women. I find the confident nude woman takes all of the masageny and sexism out of the relationships. They aren't playing the game. They are peers to me, natural and attractive for many reasons. Guess I'm saying that if a woman is honest, genuine, authentic, she attracts that in others. She doesn't have to put on airs when socially nude. She doesn't need her guns. How could a textile woman conceive of such a thing.

We could use a few women here right now. It isn't enough to just be guys taking about them. I sat down with some of the more influential naturist women and some gals who are just naturist at a TNS gathering a few years back. It makes a huge difference to sit and listen to a dozen women naturist tell their stories, their trials, their personal insight. Afterwards, I felt honored to have been invited to sit in with them, all of us naked more than the lack of clothes.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

**She doesn't have to put on airs when socially nude.**
Jbee

BINGO!   Putting on airs is a concept that would appear to be much of the reason fewer women are compulsive nudists.  She CAN'T put on airs while nude.  Putting on clothing is a form of putting on airs.  Perhaps not to the extent of being haughty, but having assumed a position and dignity above that of naked people. 

Also related to looking "stylish," competing with other women, etc.  So often I hear women complement each other about "Oh that's a nice blouse," etc.   

It is never said, "Oh that outfit looks dull. You ought to take it off." 

Bob

 

[Safebare]

It is never said, "Oh that outfit looks dull. You ought to take it off."

Isn't that what they're trying to tell us? "Your outfit (nude) looks dull, you should put something on."

This is an interesting thread. We communicate on so many levels, and disguising our bodies hides much of that conversation. That is another reason some people are so uncomfortable being socially nude. Those 'airs' become all too real.

~Safebare