Author Topic: Prudish is poorly defensible  (Read 539 times)

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Prudish is poorly defensible
« on: March 02, 2019, 07:45:34 PM »
I asked on the other thread "who would want to be labeled a prude?"

I just gave it some thought and looked at Websters. There is a general def: a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum especially : a woman who shows or affects extreme modesty

But then I noticed their reference to English Language Learners Definition of prude:

disapproving : a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people

Is there a conformist need to not be considered a prude? Is a prude considered not cool, too uptight, backward in their thinking, or even childishly stunted development. All of these are things that one might not want to be considered as. Wouldn't one feel as an outsider, or an extremist? Conformity doesn't allow extremism.

Would the threat of such a label cause someone to rethink their stance, quiet down, be a closet prude? As it is, there is significant voice and support for someone to take prudish stances, unless you call a prude a prude. Many times I have heard anti-nudity people defend themselves even without mention of it, "But I'm not a prude."

Calling someone a prude is a defensive weapon. Could it become an offensive weapon? How are prudes portrayed in the media, but always as jokes? Why can't we victimize the prude, instead of the prude victimize us? If we are to make more progress liberating our bodies, then why not characterize prudes as such. Weird backward foolish is an undesirable label.

How many times has an uptight person finally loosening their collar a bit made an endearing story? They are portrayed as being more human in the end of the story, more heartfelt. Prudery is the association. "Being a good sport."

Once past the false argument, "what about the children," this is what stands in the way of freedom's progress. Putting the word prude into the discourse can create erosion of an antiquated stiff moral stance. People do things to prove that they are not "a prude" to themselves and to others.

After all, are we nudists not characterized as "imprudent."

"We have a prudish law.""There are silly prudish elements in society." He snickered and smiled in revelation, "Why, Danny and Sheila, I didn't realize that you two were prudes!" 

What comes around, goes around?
Jbee
« Last Edit: March 02, 2019, 07:49:47 PM by jbeegoode »
Barefoot all over, all over.

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
    • My naturist page
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2019, 09:04:13 PM »
I just defended our right to be prudes in another thread. Let people have any attitude toward sex that they want, as long as it's irrelevant to nudity! Sex isn't our topic.

No, I won't call people who don't want to be nude "prudes". In fact I wouldn't really use it at all. It's not really useful.

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2019, 10:14:45 PM »
There is something about the English language (even when Americans try to speak it) that gives you a lot of choices of words. I suppose most other languages are the same way. In this case, there are variations or different usages of the word that imply different things. It is probably one of those things that makes learning another language difficult, although often as not, native speakers do not make the distinction. To call someone a prude is not nice. It is a little defensive/aggressive. Yet to say someone is prudent is good. Or at least, that's the way I see it.

Conformist is another word we don't like to have applied to ourselves, too, usually. Yet we want to fit in (even here), which sometimes means conforming to the party line. I sometimes say that it was easy to be a non-conformist when I was in college (late 60s); all you had to do was be like all your friends.

MartinM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2019, 08:33:05 AM »
You should attack false arguments and intolerance but not the individual.  This is divisive and counter-productive, especially using labels as terms of abuse.
Tread lightly upon the earth!

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2019, 11:24:48 AM »
I think that carrying on arguments in a virtual environment (that is, like here) instead of face to face is more difficult because there is no non-verbal communication present as there is in a real conversation (or argument, if you will). Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that any such communication would be any more civil were it conducted any other way. Sometimes people say things that are imprudent. It is said that the truth will set you free but sometimes it will land you in jail, too.

Bob Knows

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2019, 02:36:41 PM »

"We have a prudish law.""There are silly prudish elements in society." He snickered and smiled in revelation, "Why, Danny and Sheila, I didn't realize that you two were prudes!" 

What comes around, goes around?
Jbee


Good reasoning Jbee.  Prudes write prudish laws and should be criticized for their overly sensitive, reactionary, opposition to the mere sight of human beings.

Bob


Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
To see more of Bob you can view his personal photo page
http://www.photos.bradkemp.com/greenbare.html

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2019, 07:03:55 PM »
J.P., your comment was considered as I wrote this. That is, I believe, why I looked up the definition in te first place. Your point was well taken in the other thread, separating nude and sex, but looking at the Webster given definitions, it is a much broader term than a sexual connotation.
 
MartinM, I understand verbal abuse, putting people on defense, being more confrontational and getting nowhere with people. Sometimes that happens. I have certainly taken that tact and found it a mistake (although it felt good  ;) ).

I surmise from these comments here, that the term “prude” will be taken differently, defined differently, in different circumstance and depend who is addressed. All would be a factor. Here alone, we have several different takes on the strategy. If someone reads of themselves being seen as prudish in media, that probably wouldn’t come across as confrontational, but criticism and is a safe place to self-reflect. It isn’t one on one confrontation. If one was standing up in court, it would be a mistake. If it is a friendly get together and said with a smile, then that may just get someone to think, or it might get them to feel uncomfortable, and be too rude. If it is posed to a confrontational, judgmental, or abusive anti-nudity person, one might not get anywhere with them anyhow, you might take your poke back, state your take on the matter and bale out.

If someone is self-righteous enough to insult my body, impose will upon me, call me names in an arena, then I may fight back with the same rules of their game. We are called sick, demented, perverse, predator, dangerous, nut job and jailed for it. How far does that get with you?

For me, the abuse has gotten me to take action, self-reflection, and just ticked me off enough. It has also intimidated me and caused me great continuing discomforts. My reaction, reciplication, is what I might expect in return, perhaps, using the term, prude. So, using the term to define behavior is different from using the term to label people, categorize them and to corner them. A caution should be noted.

I don’t know, standing up to wrongs, embarrassing them, calling a spade a spade seems to have a place, too. Stating that “you seem prudish to me”, might go over better than “I think that you are a prude.”



For some, it is a waring tactic to put the enemy on the defensive. We humans are all on the defensive and it works. Our bodies are not free, attitudes about self are controlled by outside impositions.  Is it the person that is being labeled prude, or the sickness inside them?

If it is necessary for me to be labeled and also label myself a nudist, then a prude needs to own their own stance, too. That’s why I identify with naturist, because it is more of an act, not a classification. I like to interact with the world naturally. Then someone in clothing comes along and points out that I am naked and says, “who is that man.”
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
    • My naturist page
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2019, 09:36:20 PM »
I try not to use judgmental speech with anyone, even if they're doing it themselves. It seems to me that maintaining a good temper and even a sense of humor (though sometimes you need to get totally serious) is the right plan, and probably looks best to any third parties who might be watching.   

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2019, 10:12:32 PM »
I still believe most people  think nudists are harmless eccentrics, same as Civil War reenactors. That may be bad enough.

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2019, 10:34:39 PM »
It is okay for harmless anachronisms to wander into Circle K, and group into movie theaters showing favorite movies, or gather in the park on any day, then okay. I'm starting and Adam and Eve Society!  ;D
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
    • My naturist page
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2019, 12:53:56 AM »
Good luck on getting Eve to show up.

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2019, 07:49:22 AM »
Easily solved. I'll mention to God that I'm feeling lonely.
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

Bob Knows

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2019, 03:00:26 PM »
I still believe most people  think nudists are harmless eccentrics, same as Civil War reenactors. That may be bad enough.

I just saw an article in our local newspaper that the Civil War Reenactors are coming to town this year on Memorial Day.  Its getting a lot of support from the media and city officials.  I wonder if a Garden of Eden reenactor event would get as much support. 
Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
To see more of Bob you can view his personal photo page
http://www.photos.bradkemp.com/greenbare.html

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2019, 06:02:27 PM »
Well, as with Civil War battle reenactments, you already know how it'll turn out. But it's a thought. Might get some church interest, just like those live animal nativity scenes before Christmas.

nuduke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2019, 12:22:09 AM »
I try not to use judgmental speech with anyone, even if they're doing it themselves. It seems to me that maintaining a good temper and even a sense of humor (though sometimes you need to get totally serious) is the right plan, and probably looks best to any third parties who might be watching.

Hear, hear, I entirely agree, John P.  Open mindedness is a cardinal virtue (although not always a virtue of Cardinals !! :D :D)
John