Let's say that he wants to stay cool on a hot day, — VagabondSpectre

Staying cool on a hot day requires clothing. Many people believe this idiocy, but actually the body creates an exchange environment located between the body and the clothing. This is one of the primary ways of the body to regulate its own temperature, so clothing actually helps. That's why in the Middle East they go fully clothed for example, even though it's scorching hot. And it does actually feel cooler if you walk like them.

So this is a stupid reason. It would be time to educate him.

or just that shirtlessness is the most comfortable for him. — VagabondSpectre

Okay, highly unlikely.

Is it still immoral for him to walk around shirtless? — VagabondSpectre

No. But again we need rules. Rules can't cover ALL cases. If they cover most cases, that's good enough.

(by your logic, a woman who shows ankle because they want too appear sexy is behaving immorally. You should probably look into correcting your moral reasoning here) — VagabondSpectre

Yes she would be, but (1) I doubt most women would seek to appear sexy just by showing ankles, and (2) a rule cannot cover every possible case, there will be exceptions which bypass the rule, and that's fine. All it needs is to cover most cases.

Asking you what determines the standards of decency isn't some "gotcha" or trick question; you stated that something is indecent, and now I'm asking how you came to that conclusion... — VagabondSpectre

I've explained to you very specifically for that particular case, and there was no reference to subjective and religious reasons by the way.

Honestly, I expect really terrible answers because I know you base your position here on subjective and personal-religious emotional sensitivities — VagabondSpectre

You still haven't answered my question. What KIND of answer would you expect? Can you give me an example of the kind of answer you would expect?

I'm attracted to the ankles of women, and some women intentionally excite me in public by displaying their ankles to me in public. That makes ankle display immoral right? — VagabondSpectre

No. That's your problem you are so darn attracted to them, most men aren't.

A woman appearing in Saudi Arabia without a man is like a woman appearing in your town without a top or bra. — VagabondSpectre

That's absolutely false. I haven't seen any women in my town appearing without a top or a bra, but when I was in Saudi a couple of years ago, I've seen PLENTY of women going unchaperoned in their huge ass malls.

Some women would actually like to walk around topless for comfort reasons, but because you find breasts so sexually provocative suddenly their display becomes immoral and nefarious. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, a very tiny percentage of women.

So far the only actual qualifier you've offered is "women intending to be provocative", and if we were to use that as a standard to determine indecency, then make-up of any kind, any decorative hair-styles, any clothing which flatters the human form, (basically any overt aesthetic display by men or women) can be viewed as an attempt to provoke sexual desire (aka, immoral and nefarious). Similarly, any unintentional attempt to be sexually provocative (a woman walking around naked because she likes being naked) therefore is NOT immoral or nefarious (because there's no intent?) Of course not right? It's still immoral because if you're forced to see a nipple then.... Reasons...? — VagabondSpectre

Don't be stupid, I haven't said any of this garbage. Stop strawmanning.

I don't think public displays of nudity (from anyone) are inherently indecent...

I would hazard to say that public sex acts are indecent, but I would not include brief kisses (even between men) under the description of a "sex act". — VagabondSpectre

The fact you think that some things are indecent are proof enough. Why are sex acts in public indecent? It will be so fun watching you give the same reasons I have given now sweetypie.

If god didn't describe nudity as shameful in Christianity, might you assent to this position? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I clearly would. I got most of my moral values before I became a Christian actually. And contrary to what my society was pushing me towards as well.

I was wearing a black t-shirt out in the sun on a very hot day recently. I would have definitely felt more physically comfortable if I had've taken my t-shirt off, and I probably would have done so if I had the abdomen that I used to have.

I was wearing a black t-shirt out in the sun on a very hot day recently. I would have definitely felt more physically comfortable if I had've taken my t-shirt off, and I probably would have done so if I had the abdomen that I used to have. — Sapientia

>:O Yeah, it's useful you've specified the color ;)

That color has the absolute worst light reflectance value, so I'm not surprised. But better than going naked would have been painting your T-shirt white.

Yeah, I know that, I knew that at the time, and I expected you to know that too, which you do. (That that colour has the absolute worst light reflectance value, not that painting my t-shirt white would have been better!). No surprise all around. And my point stands. I would have felt more physically comfortable, and that would have been the reason for taking my t-shirt off, and there would have been nothing wrong with that. You're just a prude.

And my point stands. I would have felt more physically comfortable, and that would have been the reason for taking my t-shirt off, and there would have been nothing wrong with that. You're just a prude. — Sapientia

Again, one specific case is not basis enough for making a rule out of it. You seem to be ignoring this fact.

Again, one specific case is not basis enough for making a rule out of it. You seem to be ignoring this fact. — Agustino

No, I'm not. There are lots of similar cases like that - enough to make rules.

1. When you see a guy with his top off on a hot summer day, you can't be sure of the reason, and so you can't be sure of whether or not you'd approve or disapprove, so you shouldn't be too quick to judge.

2. Even if he's doing it for sex appeal, so what? Stop being a prude.

2. Even if he's doing it for sex appeal, so what? Stop being a prude. — Sapientia

Why does he want to appeal sexually and attract attention?

1. When you see a guy with his top off on a hot summer day, you can't be sure of the reason, and so you can't be sure of whether or not you'd approve or disapprove, so you shouldn't be too quick to judge. — Sapientia

Depends on the circumstance.

Why does he want to appeal sexually and attract attention? — Agustino

I don't know. That's his concern, not yours. Why don't you ask him? That'd be funny to watch, actually.

Depends on the circumstance. — Agustino

When can you be sure if he's just some guy on the other side of the street minding his own business? If he's good looking and seems confident?

I don't know. That's his concern, not yours. Why don't you ask him? That'd be funny to watch, actually. — Sapientia

I would if I met him. But for now you might have to supplant for him. Clearly it concerns me, that's why I'm asking him.

When can you be sure if he's just some guy on the other side of the street minding his own business? If he's good looking and seems confident? — Sapientia

I don't understand your question?

Staying cool on a hot day requires clothing. Many people believe this idiocy, but actually the body creates an exchange environment located between the body and the clothing. This is one of the primary ways of the body to regulate its own temperature, so clothing actually helps. That's why in the Middle East they go fully clothed for example, even though it's scorching hot. And it does actually feel cooler if you walk like them.

So this is a stupid reason. It would be time to educate him. — Agustino

The man informs you that his robes are at the cleaners. He shrugs and continues walking.

"Would you like to play again?"

Okay, highly unlikely. — Agustino

The man informs you that he doesn't like scratchy fabrics and that he cannot afford silk. He shrugs and continues walking.

"Would you like to play again?"

No. But again we need rules. Rules can't cover ALL cases. If they cover most cases, that's good enough. — Agustino

All I really want is even one well founded and useful rule that is persuasive to me. I mentioned in another thread that you would be hard pressed to draw clear and useful lines when it comes to this subject, and perhaps it's becoming clear as to why.

Why should even the sight of a man's penis be inherently nefarious or immoral? What are the precise grounds upon which we decide to forbid their public display? (and how long before we stop caring and mystifying/immoralizing/obsessing over genitalia as a society due to our steady over-exposure?)

Like someone who grew up in a nudist colony, seeing tits, a vagina, or a penis becomes like seeing an elbow or an ear.

I hesitate to even bring this up because I would rather not pretend that anti-promiscuity social-engineering is a concern of mine, but people who grow up in nudist colonies, so far as i know, are somewhat able to disassociate genitals in and of themselves from other human qualities which arouse them. To such a man, merely seeing a woman naked might not be arousing whatsoever, but if that woman were to show genuine interest him then he might actually begin to be aroused and view her in an explicitly sexual manner. Isn't that somewhat wholesome?

Yes she would be, but (1) I doubt most women would seek to appear sexy just by showing ankles, and (2) a rule cannot cover every possible case, there will be exceptions which bypass the rule, and that's fine. All it needs is to cover most cases. — Agustino

I'm not looking for "rules", I'm probing for the root of your moral condemnation of certain behavior. You're now confirming that indecency = attempt to be sexually provocative.

I've explained to you very specifically for that particular case, and there was no reference to subjective and religious reasons by the way. — Agustino

By defining indecency as an attempt to be sexually provocative (rather than instances of individuals actually being sexually provoked (to avoid the ankle dilemma?)) you have essentially shoved your subjective (and perhaps religious reasons) into this one odd postulate that I will attempt to convince you is flawed.

You still haven't answered my question. What KIND of answer would you expect? Can you give me an example of the kind of answer you would expect? — Agustino

Well, arguments that I might accept would be based on some kind of harm caused by an action that justifies actually forbidding it on a societal level (a "moral" exchange of freedom for security). What I expect are answers like "somehow the human body is inherently sinful (re: God)". Essentially asking you "who decides the standards of decency" is rhetorical; it's designed to make you confront your internal appeals to whichever authority and to see how from a different perspective it might seem arbitrary. I never expected a convincing answer...

That's absolutely false. I haven't seen any women in my town appearing without a top or a bra, but when I was in Saudi a couple of years ago, I've seen PLENTY of women going unchaperoned in their huge ass malls. — Agustino

And yet, women can be essentially arrested for not being chaperoned in public, by law. I'm sure some women get away with it in the malls, but how extensively have you traveled in SA?

Yeah, a very tiny percentage of women. — Agustino

So they're not being indecent or immoral or nefarious by walking around naked then right? Because they're not intending to be sexually provocative, right?

Don't be stupid, I haven't said any of this garbage. Stop strawmanning. — Agustino

Well, let's see: "Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency."

Maybe it was unintentional, but your use of the terms "because" and "then" seems to indicate argument structure:

P1: attempting to be sexually provocative is immoral
P2: (if) going shirtless is an attempt to be provocative
C1: going shirtless is immoral and lacks decency

How is this a strawman?

The fact you think that some things are indecent are proof enough. Why are sex acts in public indecent? It will be so fun watching you give the same reasons I have given now sweetypie. — Agustino

I know why the politico-sexualization of the pregnant female body sickens you (friggin politics, amiright nudge? nudge?), but what I apparently still don't understand why public displays of nudity are inherently immoral/indecent if not "because of the intent to be sexually provocative". If that's not your position, then please remind me of your reasons.

As far as "public sex acts" go, there's actually some issues which can be raised against it which cannot be easily raised for nudity (in and of itself).

We can both agree that naked butts in public transit seats is a bad idea, but it's possible for a man or woman to stand naked on a public sidewalk and not leave behind any evidence that they were there. Most sex acts that I know of in fact produce a certain amount of fluids, and so in so many cases and situations sex in public would be harmful on the grounds of hygiene alone. But let's talk about sex acts which don't leave behind any humors, and which have the only characteristic of being a display of sexual intimacy. Such an act, (such as "dry sex" on a bus), might be seen as indecent by many, but on these grounds alone we cannot say it's immoral unless we're prepared to say that it becomes moral if the average person doesn't find it to be indecent. The reason why what I would describe as a "sex act" would be immoral for display in public is that witnessing them can be psychologically harmful to children. It's something they're not equipped to understand and I think we can both agree we would rather live in a world with such security for our children rather than the freedom to have sex in public for others.

Basic nudity isn't something children are incapable of understanding though, and as I argued previously someone who grows up with regular exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex (such as in nudist colonies) just winds up losing explicit sexual interest in genitals themselves (in exchange for things like personality). Men like you and I might have a hard time thinking straight if a very attractive woman suddenly exposed herself in our presence, but isn't that our problem and not hers?

I would if I met him. — Agustino

>:O

"Excuse me, Mister. Why do you want to appeal sexually and attract attention?"

But for now you might have to supplant for him. Clearly it concerns me, that's why I'm asking him. — Agustino

But it shouldn't concern you.

I don't understand your question? — Agustino

I'm trying to ascertain whether this is more of a hypothetical thing or whether you actually go around judging people, and if so, under what circumstances.

I'm trying to ascertain whether this is more of a hypothetical thing or whether you actually go around judging people, and if so, under what circumstances. — Sapientia

As far as I can tell so far, it's to do with the immorality of promiscuity itself, up to and including the way in which it is leading to the destruction of the west through the erosion of traditional Western monogamy.

But it shouldn't concern you. — Sapientia

Why not? Who decides this you? And where have you taken this from, out of your ass maybe? :P

You're saying it shouldn't concern me as if this was all so self-evident. So quit playing games, because it clearly isn't all so self-evident.

I'm trying to ascertain whether this is more of a hypothetical thing or whether you actually go around judging people, and if so, under what circumstances. — Sapientia

That would be hard specifying, it would require a lot of writing. Of course I do - when I see indecent behaviour I do judge it.

Why not? Who decides this you? — Agustino

Because it's no big deal, and yes, me, just as you decide otherwise. I'm a liberal and you're a prude.

That would be hard specifying, it would require a lot of writing. Of course I do - when I see indecent behaviour I do judge it. — Agustino

I don't doubt that you go around judging what you take to be indecent behaviour. My point was, in what we were talking about, how can you be sure? And my suspicion is that there are times where you can't be, but you do so anyway, because you're judgemental.

As far as I can tell so far, it's to do with the immorality of promiscuity itself, up to and including the way in which it is leading to the destruction of the west through the erosion of traditional Western monogamy. — VagabondSpectre

>:O

His concern is more political. If it considered acceptable to show the naked body in media, if such displays are considered to be wonderful, then the publicly naked body is no longer to be something to be morally feared.

Worse, the naked body of women becomes protected in public display.

In this instance, the concern isn't so much about sex, but the celebration of public nudity is politically associated with people who advocate for permissive sexuality.

If we respect the publicly naked body, for example, he won't be able to attack women Slutwalk march for going topless. Instead, will be celebrating (in a non-sexual sense) the beauty of a bodily display. His political options become more limited. He can't just denigrate everyone he wants for being publicly naked.

Serena is showing neither genitals nor fully showing breasts in the image you apparently find so morally appalling. You would see at least as much at the beach.

Having said that, I do tend to find celebrities' apparent needs to share everything with the public, and the public's tendency to lap it up somewhat disgusting, but more for aesthetic, than for moral reasons. This is also reflected in the 'minor celebrity' phenomenon of people sharing images and anecdotes showing mundane details of their lives on social media. " Look, this is me at the beach!" I do find that disgusting as well.

Yea, but you can follow Gloria Steinem and about 10 other awesome feminist groups on Twitter. Ahhhhh.....

Yeahh...wow...really...???

Yes. Really.

I thought maybe you were being sarcastic, but now I'm not so sure...I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. Am I deficient in some way? :)

But, in any case, I want to make it clear that I'm not at all condemning social media as such, just signaling my distaste for certain common uses of them.

Edit: not knowing who Gloria Steinem is I googled. She doesn't seem like a phony at all, so now I guess you were not being sarcastic.

Dude. You'd never heard of Gloria Steinem?

I'm pretty sure I had heard of her, and probably read a little about her at some time (but I read so much) since the writing about her and her face was somewhat familiar to me. But she obviously wasn't familiar enough for me to instantly know who you were referring to.

:)

It's this kind of thing:

I can only applaud that kind of thing. Much more of it is needed. I am aware that a great deal of horrendous violence is perpetrated behind closed doors, and mostly by men. It's actually heartbreaking...and is that for all concerned!

(Y)

Staying cool on a hot day requires clothing. — Agustino

Why does he want to appeal sexually and attract attention? — Agustino

I probably would have done so if I had the abdomen that I used to have. — Sapientia

Based on observations over several years, it is apparent that some (many? all?) of our philosophers here have body issues, and that some have mixed their personal hang-ups into their morality.

First in line we have Agustino wondering why someone wants to appeal sexually and attract attention. Agustino: You are Exhibit A in the Case of the Prudish Philosopher. Why are people prudish? Because they have a problem with being an embodied being. One suspects they have rejected their own body, and then generalized this rejection to others. If they thought being a body was really a good thing, they would celebrate it instead of constructing barbed wire fences and visual screens around it.

People who are physically and mentally healthy NATURALLY want to appeal sexually to others. It's NORMAL. As it happens, some screwed up people find a shirtless male as risqué as a topless female. Maybe where you come from that is so, but I doubt it. At least in many places, the male torso isn't as eroticized as the female torso. Exposed and eroticized torsos (of either sex) bother people who are uncomfortable with eroticism.

Then we have Sapientia suffering from the heat (of the UK -- not to be confused with the heat of Alabama) in his black polyester-cotton mix T shirt because his abdomen isn't adequate.

Sapientia: For your own good, (and as a sign to the rest of humanity) take your T shirt off and walk down the street--insouciantly--regardless of your less than perfect Rectus Abdominis muscles. Maybe you are 3 pounds over weight, maybe you haven't done your usual 500 sit ups, or whatever... Tough. As you are is just fine. You don't have to measure up to some ideal of physical shape. (Of course, you can if you want to, but there is no point of dying from heat stroke in a black T shirt because your six pack is fading.)

The Philosophy Forum really should arrange a 2 week meet-up at a nudist colony so everyone could, once and for all, get over these body-neuroses.

Get naked and get over it, once and for all.

For those who would like to see a world with a more accepting attitude towards the human body in all its various shapes and sizes, the strongest "enemy" may not be the cliched religious prudery. Ironically, the apparent body-positivity of ESPN magazine's "body issue" (and similar hyped media skin marketing) promotes a competitiveness and hyper-body consciousness. While it may be temptingly easy to think that the selfie-inspired culture promotes healthy a lifestyle and diet, it mostly seems to add to the distorted body images so many people have. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to fall into Narcissis's pool these days. One might be better off not being deceived by the "body positive" spiel when it mostly falls back on the standard "sexy sells" marketing ploy. Their immediate goal is to move product, and being all "body-positive" like SI's swimsuit issue featuring slightly larger women, will likely have an overall negative effect on our comfort about our bodies, imho.