Author Topic: Prudish is poorly defensible  (Read 538 times)

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2019, 11:36:37 AM »
I know that I'm not supposed to judge anyone but I usually can't help it. I do my best not to pre-judge anyone, though. In all cases, even if you have an open mind, it's probably best to keep your mouth shut. All of this is especially difficult with there being a number of people who are free with their opinions and who have loud voices. At such times, there can be a critical mass achieved that sometimes results in violence.

nuduke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2019, 09:44:30 PM »

I know that I'm not supposed to judge anyone but I usually can't help it.
Yes me too.  There's nothing wrong with assessing what evidence you have experienced, though.  A well informed and accurate judgment can't be to severely criticised if it's true and discreetly held. 
Quote
I do my best not to pre-judge anyone, though.

Quite so

Quote
In all cases, even if you have an open mind, it's probably best to keep your mouth shut.
[/l]
  Again, agreed.

Quote
All of this is especially difficult with there being a number of people who are free with their opinions and who have loud voices. At such times, there can be a critical mass achieved that sometimes results in violence.
[/q]
And such masses are often further incited by being openly judged. 
I watched a UK documentary about the Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses affair in the 1970s and it was a classic case of what you are talking about I think.  The book incited some very downtrodden people, subject to prejudice (pre judging) and discrimination to speak out to try and highlight their situation.  It was a bit of an odd way to raise their profile protesting against a novel.  As a result of probably inept attempt at political PR, judgmental opinions in the press completely reversed the meaning of their protest, fed the prejudices of pre existing, ill-informed opposing groups and the situation escalated such that many communities in the UK are living with the consequences of it even today.  The same sort of thing as what you were talking about I think, Blue Train.
As a species we oh-so-readily seem to form factions, tribes, nations, political parties, armies and religions and many of these groups don't seem to be able to get along well with other groups and...we fight each other.  Why can we not stop exploiting and oppressing and hating each other for no logical reason and stop knocking seven bells out of each other and just...get along?
John

MartinM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2019, 08:40:06 AM »
Quote
As a species we oh-so-readily seem to form factions, tribes, nations, political parties, armies and religions and many of these groups don't seem to be able to get along well with other groups and...we fight each other.  Why can we not stop exploiting and oppressing and hating each other for no logical reason and stop knocking seven bells out of each other and just...get along?
John
Fear is the cause, whether resulting from ignorance or oppression, we have a hardwired tendency to become tribal under threat. However, this can be countered with education, inclusive policies and dissuading people from using judgemental language. Unfortunately, politicians and the media often play on fears for populist support, stoking the fires.
Tread lightly upon the earth!

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2019, 12:37:20 PM »
In spite of the fact that people have indeed formed tribes, nations and so on over the centuries, it is also true that what we call nationalism is relatively recent, probably post-Napoleon. Up through that period, some countries were personal possessions that changed hands with marriages, although wars were fought over disputed inheritances. That isn't to say Germans didn't identify themselves as German, in spite of the fact that a German nation did not yet exist.

It is also true that different peoples got along with each other for centuries (usually not that long--more like decades) but then, all of a sudden, they start killing one another. I would say it has more to do with the leaders than anything else.

I still hold onto my pet theory of critical mass, in the case of immigration, especially. I grew up in West Virginia where I met a number of Italian immigrants, which is usually surprising. Yet I never heard the first bad word about them. Their descendants still live there (but I don't). They came there because of job opportunities for which the local population was too few in number, which still happens. But in most cases, I think, an immigrant is a novelty. But if there are enough of them from any place in particular, they become a threat. They're different, they talk funny, eat strange foods (the first pizza I ever ate was home-made by an Italian grandmother) and sometimes have a different religion. And Roman Catholic was pretty different. What happens then depends on a lot of things. An economic depression creates tensions and someone has to be blamed. To some extent, I think, "immigrant" includes people from another part of the country, like the Okies.

It's remarkable that people get along as well as they do, mostly.

Bob Knows

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2019, 03:06:50 PM »
I found this argument that nudity is a basic right.    Interesting.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-018-09406-z
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

MartinM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2019, 08:43:55 AM »
I found this argument that nudity is a basic right.    Interesting.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-018-09406-z
This is an excellent article and argument for the specific legalisation of nudity. While I would like to have seen a little more emphasis on the public benefits of normalising nudity, in terms of body image / body confidence and the range of conditions prevalent in today’s nudity averse public sphere, it covers a lot of ground.

The one omission I note is not tackling the perceived link and risk with naked children and paedophilia. This has been a constant concern of some without any evidence supporting the link and has been a factor in several public protests, most recently those online and at Blackpool by the Templar Knights - Guardians of children.  It is a powerful but fallacious emotional argument against nudity involving children, which cannot be separated fron a general demand  for a right to be naked. A false link with paedophilia was also used for many years against legalisation of homosexuallity, dating from at least around 1900, and may have been used even in the early days as an argument against naturism.
Tread lightly upon the earth!

reubenT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2019, 11:24:32 AM »
The way it has become, (even though the term is not used) to be prude is thought to be a requirement of God in much of religion in order to avoid sin. Insomuch that the lack of prudery has come to be seen as sin itself. Even though logical examination proves otherwise.    But a close examination of the rule book does not reveal any such requirement. Instead it has more of the opposite tune on nudity,  that it's very much OK.     It is clearly a case of one requirement that is valid being  morphed over into another by human reasoning and social conditioning.  Which is what a certain sect of Jews did quite extensively and which was condemned by the rule maker.   It is also following after the same tenant that some of their ancient rules did which were strongly condemned by the rule maker,  in that; in observing the morphed version of it,  it actually encourages violation of the original valid requirement that it morphed from.

And so even in the religious element,  prude standards are extremely poorly defensible.   Those who do try to defend it are doing so on a false basis and are running contrary to their rule book and the one they profess to revere.   But that's a common practice,  much of religion ignores the rule book on many topics and invents it's own feel good rules as it goes along. 

I would enjoy starting an Adam and Eve club, or a back to Eden club,  or whatever one would call it.  I am actually intending to do just that in a way if possible even though I won't likely use any designation.   And it will have to be done in private of course.   It's called naturist farming,  getting naturist help eventually when it goes far enough to use help.    I will need more help at times than I can get in naturist form,  but I will try to design the system where the non naturist help can be used in one area close to where a one lane gravel road goes through,  and the naturist help in another out of sight from the road.


BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 915
    • View Profile
Re: Prudish is poorly defensible
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2019, 02:14:55 PM »
I think you can be a naturist without being a nudist. And, apparently, one can be a nudist without being a naturist, which seems to be the modern preference.