NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to the babe threads I wanted to pose a question.

Does anyone think that it is more moral to look at clothed women for the lustful reasons then it is to look at nude women? I realize there are plenty who don't think either are morally wrong, but for those who do I don't understand why most of our society seem to think that one is more wrong then the other. In both cases you are lusting and in both cases you are objectifing women.

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

If you think one is more wrong then the other, please explain.

Nudity laws are one of those bizzare things to have filtered down over the years. Sure people say it's 'disgusting' but if there were no laws against it, and everyone was used to seeing the human form, then no one would care.

If it's consenting adults, it doesn't matter to me. That is, if the woman freely chose to have her picture taken and distributed (for free or for money, as she decides), and the men are looking at the picture of their own free will, it's OK. Objectification be damned.

not that i find either immoral but

scantily clothed is provocative. the lust engendered comes from your assumptions about what is under the clothing (such as it is)

naked is pornographic. it doesnt depend on imagination as everything is already on display.

a clothed woman isnt much different from a woman on the beach in a bikini. thats not immoral on her part.

a naked woman is flat out selling her sexuality in a photograph.

if objectifying women is immoral then we are all immoral every day. we make assumptions about every stranger we come in contact with that denies the truth of their humanity (isnt that what objectification is?)

Of course lusting after nude women is worse than the same for scantily clad ones, despite both being immoral.

Personally I think people make the distinction less based on the fact that someone is lusting and more based on the purpose of the image. Most of the stuff on the babe thread, etc., may be being lusted over now, but it was not photographed for that purpose. Pornography, on the other hand, is photographed solely for the purpose of lust.

Personally I don't think lust/objectification are immoral one way or the other, but I could see why people draw lines where they do.

everyone's a pervert at heart of some sort, just some people are big enough to admit it or at least be one out in the open

I guess the reason I started this thread is that I know a lot of Christians (and I'm not attacking Christians as I'm one of them) and other people who get all worked up about pornography but will still look at pictures of scantily clad women. Somehow saying that one is less wrong then the other even though its the same sin (from the Christian perspective).

I think the legal reasons for the double standard are obvious. Nude pictures are usually for the purpose of pornography while clothed pictures only sometimes ment to be lusted over. It would be far too difficult to judge every picture one by one and say it is or is not acceptable. Clothed and unclothed is just a convient legal cutoff.

everyone's a pervert at heart of some sort, just some people are big enough to admit it or at least be one out in the open

I'm willing to admit to that. I'm not proud of it and I try not to be, but yet I am. If you are going to base things on Christian standards it's certainly hard not to be.

I'm from Germany, and here nude != pornographic. In my experience, nude bathing in public areas (such as lakes, rivers, or the ocean) and sunbathing are not prohibitted. In pools, it's a different story. Small children, though, can usually get away with it anywhere.
This basically results in a travel show on Sylt (Germany's northernmost island) showing one of the beaches and putting the momentary spotlight on a nudist section or rules won't be pornographic, and is therefore not subject to German laws prohibiting the airing of such material before a certain time of day.

I guess the reason I started this thread is that I know a lot of Christians (and I'm not attacking Christians as I'm one of them) and other people who get all worked up about pornography but will still look at pictures of scantily clad women. Somehow saying that one is less wrong then the other even though its the same sin (from the Christian perspective).

I think the legal reasons for the double standard are obvious. Nude pictures are usually for the purpose of pornography while clothed pictures only sometimes ment to be lusted over. It would be far too difficult to judge every picture one by one and say it is or is not acceptable. Clothed and unclothed is just a convient legal cutoff.
you mean they subscribe to maxim instead of playboy and use it for the same purpose?

or are they just admiring sexy pics of women that they are exposed to in the course of daily events?

youre not sitting around with a bunch of christians who say things like "would you look at the ta-tas on that one!" aer you?

I have a Market Theory of Spirituality for this.

You see, if everyone went around nude, then nudity would lose it's special sexiness i.e, seeing a nude woman as inherently sexy. As things are, the supply of nudity is controlled by the government, hence demand is always high, hence people are always happy when they find say, a nude beach, a porno mag, a stripper, or a sex partner other than themselves.

Whereas, if nudity were totally legal and widespread, demand for nudity would drop. Marriage, and indeed all sexual relations involving nudity, would lose that "specialness" that folks like so much. We'd all become blase and bland about sex as well as nudity, and so the religious right wants to prevent this so that marriage itself still has appeal, because the religious right is heavily invested in marriage.

So in other words, it's because of fascism.

you mean they subscribe to maxim instead of playboy and use it for the same purpose?

or are they just admiring sexy pics of women that they are exposed to in the course of daily events?

youre not sitting around with a bunch of christians who say things like "would you look at the ta-tas on that one!" aer you?

Nah, nothing like that. More of just the pics they are exposed to in the course of daily events. Not that I expect them to turn their eyes and pretend they didn't see them or anything. I'm just saying that people have a pretty lax attitude about lusting after clothed women but completly freak out if they are unclothed. I have had Christian guys point out girls on the street dressed provocatively and make comments on it as if it were okay to lust after them/make such comments.

The prohibition of nude pictures on the "Babe Thread" arises from the fact that many more people find nude pictures offensive than find scantily-clad pictures offensive. And there are laws against public nudity in many locations, but there are far fewer locations with anti-scantily-cladness laws.

Personally, I think it's all quite silly. I've seen plenty of nude women (in real life, not just pictures) and plenty of scantily-clad women too. It's not a big deal unless you make it a big deal. I very much enjoy looking at the female body, regardless of how much clothing covers it, but I don't turn into a screaming lunatic when I see a woman's body. Nor do I assume she wants or is willing to have sex with me just because she's naked. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of maturity; people who find nudity "disgusting", and people who equate nudity with sex, are simply immature and need to grow up.

:rolleyes:

... people who find nudity "disgusting", and people who equate nudity with sex, are simply immature and need to grow up.

:rolleyes:...or be buried to their head in sand on a German beach :D

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

Why is lust wrong, and how is it objectification?

...or be buried to their head in sand on a German beach :D
Are the north coasts (the only coasts) of Germany not be too cold and windswept for nude beachin'?

Personally, I think it's all quite silly. I've seen plenty of nude women (in real life, not just pictures) and plenty of scantily-clad women too. It's not a big deal unless you make it a big deal. I very much enjoy looking at the female body, regardless of how much clothing covers it, but I don't turn into a screaming lunatic when I see a woman's body. Nor do I assume she wants or is willing to have sex with me just because she's naked. It's not a question of morality, it's a question of maturity; people who find nudity "disgusting", and people who equate nudity with sex, are simply immature and need to grow up.

:rolleyes: Nudity quite often is disgusting. I point to the high obesity rate as a reason NOT to legalise it - 'twould be disgusting.

...or be buried to their head in sand on a German beach :D

Yeah, that works too. :D

Are the north coasts (the only coasts) of Germany not be too cold and windswept for nude beachin'?

Apparantly not, at least to Germans. I've seen pictures. (Me, I like warm water, thank you very much.)

Nudity quite often is disgusting. I point to the high obesity rate as a reason NOT to legalise it - 'twould be disgusting.

So, are you incapable of not looking? If you find it disgusting, that's your own problem, not anyone else's. If it bothers you, don't look - it's quite easy.

:rolleyes:

In response to the babe threads I wanted to pose a question.

Does anyone think that it is more moral to look at clothed women for the lustful reasons then it is to look at nude women? I realize there are plenty who don't think either are morally wrong, but for those who do I don't understand why most of our society seem to think that one is more wrong then the other. In both cases you are lusting and in both cases you are objectifing women.

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

If you think one is more wrong then the other, please explain.

In the absolute moral sense, looking in lust upon a nude woman and looking in lust upon a scantily clad woman, or indeed, looking in lust upon a fully clothed woman is equal.... The "sin" and "moral" violation, in absolute, is the lustfull desire for that which is not yours; and not just the "looking" part....

In the mind, an image of a scantily clad woman and a naked woman can produce exactly the same results (and, according to the Christian faith, both can therefore cause you to be guilty of lust, because they have the same effect).

However, I think nakedness is different in society because it's not something you generally do everyday. Society sees it as 'reserved'.

Dishonorable Scum: if nakedness is everywhere, it's kindof hard to avoid it.

I don't know if anyone has seen tubgirl, but she had only her private parts made fuzzy. :eek:

I have a Market Theory of Spirituality for this.
<snip>
If you were to allow people to simplky wander nude, if they should so feel inclined, you are indulging the dangerous mistake that "every body is beautiful."
Guess what?
Most bodies are horrible bulging, sagging, scarred, and large in all the wrong places. Alternately, they are horrifyingly bony, scarred (Everyone has scars, and no one wants to see them), strecthed taught (like a drum skin), and small to the point of infantilism.
Now, you may want to live with this (points at former neighbor from a decade or so ago) vile apocalypse of unrepentant, disease-ridden flesh waddling through your grocery store, but I believe that if I see him so much as contemplate streaking I will have to kill him (although from a distance, I might catch something from touching him).
Furthermore, the attractive nudity would still be just as popular as ever (unless, of course, the collective sex drive were permanently destroyed by the sight of a retirement home) because you can't just find beautiful people anywhere. Homosexuals by Gay Porn (at least, I assume that Gays by gay porn, someone has to be doing it) and they have all of the parts that they can hope to see.

In response to the babe threads I wanted to pose a question.

Does anyone think that it is more moral to look at clothed women for the lustful reasons then it is to look at nude women? I realize there are plenty who don't think either are morally wrong, but for those who do I don't understand why most of our society seem to think that one is more wrong then the other. In both cases you are lusting and in both cases you are objectifing women.

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

If you think one is more wrong then the other, please explain.well, looking at Clothed women means you gotta work harder at those lustful thoughts. :D

Nipples!

Well, if I recall correctly, you can't post the nude photos on NS General. Something about the mods.

Well, if I recall correctly, you can't post the nude photos on NS General. Something about the mods.
What mods? There is no such thing as mods!
They're just a myth, a spook story that posters tell the noobs at night. "Flame on my thread, and Myrth will get you."

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it. ;)

If you were to allow people to simplky wander nude, if they should so feel inclined, you are indulging the dangerous mistake that "every body is beautiful."
Guess what?
Most bodies are horrible bulging, sagging, scarred, and large in all the wrong places. Alternately, they are horrifyingly bony, scarred (Everyone has scars, and no one wants to see them), strecthed taught (like a drum skin), and small to the point of infantilism.
Now, you may want to live with this (points at former neighbor from a decade or so ago) vile apocalypse of unrepentant, disease-ridden flesh waddling through your grocery store, but I believe that if I see him so much as contemplate streaking I will have to kill him (although from a distance, I might catch something from touching him).
Furthermore, the attractive nudity would still be just as popular as ever (unless, of course, the collective sex drive were permanently destroyed by the sight of a retirement home) because you can't just find beautiful people anywhere. Homosexuals by Gay Porn (at least, I assume that Gays by gay porn, someone has to be doing it) and they have all of the parts that they can hope to see.

I never realized it before, but based on what other people have said in this thread, I seem to have a couple of unique physical attributes:

1. My eyes are equipped with things called "eyelids". I can close my eyes, blocking out things I don't want to see.

2. My neck has muscles that allow me to turn my head away from what is directly in front of me. This, again, allows me to avoid seeing things I don't want to see.

Apparantly I am the only person in the entire world with these features. Everyone else must helplessly stare at whatever happens to pass in front of them, all the time.

Furthermore, I am also the only person in the entire world with the emotional strength to not be permanently traumatized in the event that I see a human body that is not perfectly, flawlessly beautiful. Everyone else goes into a cataleptic state at the sight of a physical imperfection.

Strange world, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

What mods? There is no such thing as mods!
They're just a myth, a spook story that posters tell the noobs at night. "Flame on my thread, and Myrth will get you."

And just like that -- pfft -- they're gone. My guess is that you'll never see Myrth again.

Nah, nothing like that. More of just the pics they are exposed to in the course of daily events. Not that I expect them to turn their eyes and pretend they didn't see them or anything. I'm just saying that people have a pretty lax attitude about lusting after clothed women but completly freak out if they are unclothed. I have had Christian guys point out girls on the street dressed provocatively and make comments on it as if it were okay to lust after them/make such comments.
i think you are trying to hold them to too high a standard. its pretty impossible for a man to not notice a provocatively dressed woman on the street.

i think you are trying to hold them to too high a standard. its pretty impossible for a man to not notice a provocatively dressed woman on the street.
When I was in Germany, most young American males went crazy over German women going topless at a beach.

When I was in Saudi Arabia, most young Saudi males went crazy over American women who had their sleeves rolled halfway up.

In each case, the young men wanted to take pictures and ogle the women.

Honestly, you would think that no one had ever seen a naked, or partially clothed woman before.

And if you want one that bad, it's easy enough to find one.

I never realized it before, but based on what other people have said in this thread, I seem to have a couple of unique physical attributes:
Yes, didn't you know? You're special, just like everybody else.
1. My eyes are equipped with things called "eyelids". I can close my eyes, blocking out things I don't want to see.
Ah, you are also apparently immune to cars because I'm pretty sure that if I wandered down the street with my eyes sealed shut I'd eventually wander into traffic.
2. My neck has muscles that allow me to turn my head away from what is directly in front of me. This, again, allows me to avoid seeing things I don't want to see.
The traffic thing again. Further, say me and the Sweaty Thing From the Twinkietopia Land are walking down the hall. Thing is in front of me, and you want me to look away? If I don't keep watching I might end up bumping into it. I don't think that there are enough showers in the world to ever make me feel clean again.
However, you apparently have some sort of sonar (or perhaps there is a miny map in the bottom right corner of your eye) and I can only hope that you have donated some DNA to a science lab somewhere, because that would be greatly advantageous to our secret agents.
Apparantly I am the only person in the entire world with these features. Everyone else must helplessly stare at whatever happens to pass in front of them, all the time.
Well, you see. Us mere mortals must do this thing where we "Look where we're going" and sometimes we must "Get on subways" or "Talk to service people". Gods among Men like you can fly about with your Sonar powers and are powered by the Souls of the Damned (so you don't have to consume foods) and wouldn't understand the lifestyle of one such as I.
Furthermore, I am also the only person in the entire world with the emotional strength to not be permanently traumatized in the event that I see a human body that is not perfectly, flawlessly beautiful. Everyone else goes into a cataleptic state at the sight of a physical imperfection.
This only works if you can guarantee that there will only be one of them out there. However, assholes (like prostitutes) tend to travel in packs and circulate constantly. This means that at anytime there could be one of "them" out there. And we aren't talking imperfection, Imperfection is a flaw that every human posseses, we are talking about hell-bourne, disease-ridden, bloated, scarred, sweaty, filthy, matted, floppy, stretchy, blobby, spotted malformed abominations of the human form. We are talking about Wrinkle Per Inch ratios of above 10:1 in areas that you didn't think could actually wrinkle. We are talking about hell in the streets, and it will only get worse when summer starts.
Further, if you can't produce a valid 100% reason to do it, and I can produce a good 50% reason not too, I'd say that we shouldn't. Getting kicked in the shins doesn't threaten your life or sanity, but I can't just wander over and start doing it.
Strange world, isn't it?
Indeed, it is a mad, mad world.
:rolleyes:
:eek:

Because some people just have a giant stick up their ass over that topic.

Because some people just have a giant stick up their ass over that topic.
I knew I left it somewhere.
Thanks, old boy, I was beginning to get worried about what I'd wave at all those damn kids the next time they showed up on my lawn!

There is no real difference.

In response to the babe threads I wanted to pose a question.

Does anyone think that it is more moral to look at clothed women for the lustful reasons then it is to look at nude women? I realize there are plenty who don't think either are morally wrong, but for those who do I don't understand why most of our society seem to think that one is more wrong then the other. In both cases you are lusting and in both cases you are objectifing women.

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

If you think one is more wrong then the other, please explain.
Don't get hung up on the word "lust." Men were designed to "lust after" women ... it's why we're all here right now to talk about this. It's not "lust" that gets people in trouble, it's acting on your "lust" without due caution.

As always, ensure brain is running before engaging emotions. :)

Apparantly not, at least to Germans. I've seen pictures. (Me, I like warm water, thank you very much.)

Yes, look in the eastern parts of germany, sometimes hard to find a public bath were you are allowed to wear swimming clothes ;)

BTW, there´s nothing less erotic than a nudity beach area (except with dead fish added :D , perhaps)

Um… I'm neutral on this. But yeah, people react totally different to naked people - of course, given that people are hideously ugly underneath their clothes, that's to be expected…

Let's just solve the problem by being completely covered from neck to ankle. :)

Um… I'm neutral on this. But yeah, people react totally different to naked people - of course, given that people are hideously ugly underneath their clothes, that's to be expected…

Let's just solve the problem by being completely covered from neck to ankle. :)

Working as a MD I can only second that :D

In response to the babe threads I wanted to pose a question.

Does anyone think that it is more moral to look at clothed women for the lustful reasons then it is to look at nude women? I realize there are plenty who don't think either are morally wrong, but for those who do I don't understand why most of our society seem to think that one is more wrong then the other. In both cases you are lusting and in both cases you are objectifing women.

I personally think both are wrong, but will admit that I often lust after women. I'm not suggesting that just because you look at clothed women lustfully you might as well look at pornography.

If you think one is more wrong then the other, please explain.

The only moral difference is the one the censors can come up with.

Let's just solve the problem by being completely covered from neck to ankle. :)

But thinking about it, a girlfriend once said men get ugly when they undress, women get even prettier (she had a crush for woman sometimes :D )...I also think that some people better walk around dressed in a postbag, but most women are...aesthetically pleasing, to put it nicely

Men are ugly hulking beasts and women are beautiful creatures.

Men are ugly hulking beasts and women are beautiful creatures.

Exactly the poin...sometimes, btw, are you male or female :p

But thinking about it, a girlfriend once said men get ugly when they undress, women get even prettier (she had a crush for woman sometimes :D )...I also think that some people better walk around dressed in a postbag, but most women are...aesthetically pleasing, to put it nicely Modesty, people, modesty.

Sorry to hurt your feelings...I´m off to lunch ;)

I have a Market Theory of Spirituality for this.

You see, if everyone went around nude, then nudity would lose it's special sexiness i.e, seeing a nude woman as inherently sexy. As things are, the supply of nudity is controlled by the government, hence demand is always high, hence people are always happy when they find say, a nude beach, a porno mag, a stripper, or a sex partner other than themselves.

Whereas, if nudity were totally legal and widespread, demand for nudity would drop. Marriage, and indeed all sexual relations involving nudity, would lose that "specialness" that folks like so much. We'd all become blase and bland about sex as well as nudity, and so the religious right wants to prevent this so that marriage itself still has appeal, because the religious right is heavily invested in marriage.

So in other words, it's because of fascism.


Nope, it doesn't work that way. Nudity is a complex issue. There is a lot of nudity that isn't sexual and nudists (who believe in nonsexual family nudity) don't lose their desire for their mates. It's all contextual.

A plain nude picture of someone isn't pornography. There has to be some sort of sexual intent in the picture for that.

Only in the US is there such a clamor over mere nudity. It's accepted in many other places on the globe as commonplace. For instance, all the nude and topfree beaches in Europe. And all territories but one in Australia have official nude beaches recognized by their governments.

When Janet Jackson had her nipple exposed the US freaked and the rest of the world laughed that such a trivial matter would cause such an alarm.

http://www.naturistsociety.com
http://www.mynudelife.com

Nudity quite often is disgusting. I point to the high obesity rate as a reason NOT to legalise it - 'twould be disgusting.

So obese people are somehow not disgusting to you when they are dressed?

So obese people are somehow not disgusting to you when they are dressed?

Perhaps somewhat less, again as a MD I´m used to "interesting" and "out of the ordinary" viewings, but at a certain point of obesity it`s better to be dressed, yes...

In the mind, an image of a scantily clad woman and a naked woman can produce exactly the same results (and, according to the Christian faith, both can therefore cause you to be guilty of lust, because they have the same effect).

However, I think nakedness is different in society because it's not something you generally do everyday. Society sees it as 'reserved'.

Dishonorable Scum: if nakedness is everywhere, it's kindof hard to avoid it.

I think you are on the right track there: it's not nudity itself that is intended to be outlawed as much as it is lust. Unfortunately, it's difficult to determine if someone is busy lusting, and people would deny it anyway, so it's easier to make the objects of lust illegal. The same kind of logic could be used by a pedophile business owner to ban children from a store.