Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
No matter what you wear you are nekid underneath

I have bad breath too. Whats your point again?

You are naked and have bad breath. Damn hippy!

It's just his wiener.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
No matter what you wear you are nekid underneath

I have bad breath too. Whats your point again?

You are naked and have bad breath. Damn hippy!

HiPPPEEEE!!!

You should see all my Hawaiian shirts and some old Mai Tais. Thats me, Mr. Peacenik Tree Hugger.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.

Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.

Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.

Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!

San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.

Neither do I consider breasts nudity. But i can assure you the missionaries of that era did.

And glad you livened up the discussion by saying "I don't know so I don't care"

It's not like I have some anti-religious agenda here. Its just the facts of history.

 Frazzled wrote:
You should see all my Hawaiian shirts and some old Mai Tais. Thats me, Mr. Peacenik Tree Hugger.

How are you supposed to hug a tree (which are also naked!) with a layer of clothing in the way?!?!

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Depending on the region they wore clothing but even now there's Amazonian tribes that wear little to nothing. They wore adornments surely but not everyone covered their breasts and genitals.

Even on Magellans cruise during the first contact with Pacific Islanders his missionaries were abhorred at the nudity of the natives and tried to get them to cover it. Partly because the sailors were getting it on with said natives. Partly because it was immodest to Euroean eyes.

Similar story in Mexico. It's not really news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Clothing and covering specific body parts aren't always the same thing Fraz.

Breasts aren't what I'd define as nudity but your mileage may vary. The Amazons may wear little but they generally wear something. If not, hey their Amazons who make Borneo's long house brigade look positively Oxfordesque. I'm not going to judge standards by that of confirmed cannibals. The other native tribes did not dress like that.
I don't know anything about Pacific islanders, and give a hearty meh to them as well. If I lived in paradise I wouldn't care either, now get a job you lazy bums!

San Francisco is no Tahiti on the environmental front.

Neither do I consider breasts nudity. But i can assure you the missionaries of that era did.

And glad you livened up the discussion by saying "I don't know so I don't care"

It's not like I have some anti-religious agenda here. Its just the facts of history.

I'm not being hostile. As I noted my issue is only hygiene. After all Austin actually has a nude beach.
I'm just duipsuting the arguments that the Americas was clothingless. I know most of themajor areas had quite a bit based on the limited informaiton we have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You should see all my Hawaiian shirts and some old Mai Tais. Thats me, Mr. Peacenik Tree Hugger.

How are you supposed to hug a tree (which are also naked!) with a layer of clothing in the way?!?!

To asnwer that question would invite images that, once thought, cannot be unthought.

Fraz I never said all of the Americas were completely naked. And honestly where did you get that from? The part where I said people wore varying amounts of clothing depending on region? And in a similar vein they did try to change to way all natives dressed to a more European style. Even going as for to outlaw some native garments.

If public hygiene is really your only argument, how come public bathrooms aren't responsible for millions of infections every year then? I'm just not buying it. How is a naked guy sitting on a seat, followed by you sitting on the same seat, but wearing clothes, a public health issue?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Fraz I never said all of the Americas were completely naked. And honestly where did you get that from? The part where I said people wore varying amounts of clothing depending on region? And in a similar vein they did try to change to way all natives dressed to a more European style. Even going as for to outlaw some native garments.

If public hygiene is really your only argument, how come public bathrooms aren't responsible for millions of infections every year then? I'm just not buying it. How is a naked guy sitting on a seat, followed by you sitting on the same seat, but wearing clothes, a public health issue?

How do we know its not? Plus there is sanitary wraps for that. I don't use them, because I'm the guy everyone else worries about.

I avoid public restrooms as much as possable, and I always wipe the seat down before using it.

Public nudity increases the chance for transmission significantly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Public nudity increases the chance for transmission significantly.

[citation needed]

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Did you never learn how one of the first thing missionaries did to natives in the Americas and South Pacific was to clothe them and teach them "modesty" aka shame?

My point was that this wasn't a product purely of Western religion. Western religion may have had the resources and inclination to send out missionaries, but it isn't as though most cultures around the world were wearing clothes anyway. They weren't sending out missionaries but you better believe the Muslim, Buddhists and Hindus weren't all sitting around nude.

Anyhow, there have always been notions of modesty and shame, even in cultures with little or no clothing. Even among the Australian Aboriginal tribes who were fully naked there was still a notion of shame - both men and women would sit very particularly to avoid giving a full view of their genitals to anyone.

So exactly where everyone falls on that scale, from 'I'm totally starkers but I won't give you a view of the best bits' per those Aboriginal tribes, to some Muslim groups who will cover all but the eyes of a woman, there is still a notion of shame and privacy.

My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude?

I agree with you totally, there is no good reason. And yet we are, so, you know, whatever. It's something hardwired in the brain.

 sebster wrote:

My whole point is what the hell is wrong with nudity? The vast majority of us are naked everyday for a varying length of time. Why should we be ashamed to be nude?

I agree with you totally, there is no good reason. And yet we are, so, you know, whatever. It's something hardwired in the brain.

Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )

feeder wrote:
Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )

Not from birth, obviously.

 sebster wrote:

feeder wrote:
Hardwired? Really? Because both of my children had zero problems with nudity and being nude until the wife and I taught them all about the importance of modesty. (Particularly when grandma is visiting )

Not from birth, obviously.

then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.

 snooggums wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Public nudity increases the chance for transmission significantly.

[citation needed]

Its one less barrier between the transmission surfaces. Anyone can figure that out.

 nomsheep wrote:
then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.

Yeah, that's exactly why, because we don't want sex before puberty, but then do once we hit puberty... that we conclude the sex drive is entirely society's influence on us. Yeah, that's it.

 sebster wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:
then it's not hardwired, it's just our societies influences on us.

Yeah, that's exactly why, because we don't want sex before puberty, but then do once we hit puberty... that we conclude the sex drive is entirely society's influence on us. Yeah, that's it.

So modesty = lust?

 nomsheep wrote:
So modesty = lust?

No. What?

To explain it more fully...

There are human behaviours that are not present at birth, but develop later in life that it'd be completely absurd to claim are purely created by society. To claim otherwise is to claim the sex drive is purely a social construct.

From there, we can observe that while modesty typically exhibits later in life, we can see it in some form or another in just about every society on Earth, and as such find it reasonable to assume that there is something our hardwiring that makes most of us prefer modesty in some form or another.



Not that of any of that really means anything anyway, in terms of whether or not it should be allowed. It's really just there to reject the idea that our ideas of modesty are the product of western religion.