S/O on modesty

[Dory]

I've always thought it was pretty ridiculous that basic cable can show people in traditional societies with no shirts, but not people in Western societies. Um...kind of racist double standard the FCC had going on there, since the rule holds even for non-s*x'l nudity based on WHO was wearing the clothes. 

 

 

At a teen, me and my cousins used to laugh regularly at movies and their L shaped sheets. It seemed so bizarre to me that they had to have the chest bare on the guy in bed, but the woman covered. I mean, cover them both or don't cover them both, but no one in real life has sheets like that. lol

[goldberry]

We have family in Austin and are there at least once or twice a year.  I have NEVER seen a topless woman outside of Hippie Hollow.  I must not be visiting the right areas....

[Melissa in Australia]

I reported the totally naked man I kept seeing on my walks to the police.

 

semi dressed at the beach OK, in your backyard OK, out in public not OK.

 

women walking around in public topless are asking for trouble, men walking around topless are stupid. both will probably end up with skin cancer and it will be their own fault for exposing themselves to too much sun

 

 

[Murmer]

My son points out all the men who are not wearing tops by saying they are naked I am sure he would do the same with a woman lol...but we just talk about the reason why we choose to dress in the manner we do but that others may not believe what we do and thats ok.  I do think maybe we should start to get over the whole breasts as a bad thing...maybe then we would have a healthier attitude towards things like breast feeding and body image.

[kitten18]

Pretty close.

 

It is exists there IS a porn of it.

 

So no matter how modest or what the topic, someone somewhere is turned on by it and has a made a p0rn about it.

LOL. I have an image of a denim jumper, long permed hair...

[Katy]

LOL. I have an image of a denim jumper, long permed hair...

 

I was curious so I just googled...  I don't think that one exists yet, at least not with those keywords.

[Denise in Florida]

I've always thought it was pretty ridiculous that basic cable can show people in traditional societies with no shirts, but not people in Western societies. Um...kind of racist double standard the FCC had going on there, since the rule holds even for non-s*x'l nudity based on WHO was wearing the clothes. 

 

 

Could we please not talk about people with non standard bodies this way (with vomiting references)? Whether from weight or hormone imbalances, it's not unheard of for men to have breast growth, that is true. It is a reality that neither detracts from their male status nor deserves derision, any more than women should be made fun of because of the size of their mammaries.

 

I love nude beaches. And I have no problem with people doing non-s*x'l things in public topless or without clothes on. I figure if it offends someone's religious sensibilities, they should learn to avert their gaze.

 

Thank you Ravin.  I already like this. 

 

I am going to ramble here and I hope this makes sense. Please correct me gently if I am not clear. 

 

I grew up in the 70s, there was a lot of talk of body awareness and acceptance. Much of women's bodies were considered secret, wrong, hidden, icky.  There was a woman Betty Dodson (?) who did these consciousness raising workshops on women's bodies and sexual pleasure (also unspoken of).  There was a lot of nudity as a way to show bodies were all different and all beautiful

[Χά�ων]

LOL. I have an image of a denim jumper, long permed hair...

 

 

I was curious so I just googled...  I don't think that one exists yet, at least not with those keywords.

Google: "Home School Mom Anatomy Lessons"

 

If you wish to delve further and report back let me know. It is not my thing so I have no clue.

[Excelsior! Academy]

It's legal here, but I have yet to see anyone do it.

 

But I have to ask.  Why are men's boobs/chest ok to look at, but not women's?  I don't understand why this should be a big issue.  It's just a body.  People don't know what bodies look like?  KWIM?

 

To me all this hyper focusing on this issue is what makes it weird, obscene, dirty, etc.  It's just a body. 

I don't know, but from my limited history knowledge it seems to have been that way throughout many societies.  Sure, there are instances of females bearing bre @ sts as commonplace (only changed to limit spam) like slaves during Ancient Egypt or certain tribes in Africa, women still cover more often than men.  It would bother me to see women bearing all in a public place, however it irks me almost as much seeing a man bare all.  Really, you want to mow in cut offs, flip flops, and a bare chest?  Dangerous and icky!!

 

 

 

 

 

IIRC, Rule 34 says that if you can think of it, p0rn has been made about it.

 

Ewwwww.

 

[In2why]

My son points out all the men who are not wearing tops by saying they are naked I am sure he would do the same with a woman lol...but we just talk about the reason why we choose to dress in the manner we do but that others may not believe what we do and thats ok.  I do think maybe we should start to get over the whole breasts as a bad thing...maybe then we would have a healthier attitude towards things like breast feeding and body image.

 

 

I have no doubt that my boys would have a giggling fit if they saw a topless woman riding her bike.   Yet they don't even notice or think twice when a woman breast feeds because it is the norm.  I would imagine if more women went topless they would eventually stop noticing or thinking it was strange as well.   Seriously I haven't really given this a thought although if in our travels we came across a nude beach I can't decide if we would stay and join in for the experience or leave because since it isn't their custom it would feel sexual and forced even though that is not the intention.  One is really modest and I haven't seen him nude in a couple of years, the 10 year old has to be reminded that clothes are required. 

[Crimson Wife]

If our culture wasn't so highly s*xualized, I think I would feel differently about public nudity. If s*x were just something that kept behind closed doors and not discussed in public, pushed ad nauseum in entertainment, etc. etc. then it would not be a big deal to see a woman's b00ks. Keeping s*x a strictly private matter would free up people's bodies to be more visible IMHO.

[Denise in Florida]

If our culture wasn't so highly s*xualized, I think I would feel differently about public nudity. If s*x were just something that kept behind closed doors and not discussed in public, pushed ad nauseum in entertainment, etc. etc. then it would not be a big deal to see a woman's b00ks. Keeping s*x a strictly private matter would free up people's bodies to be more visible IMHO.

 

Thank you Crimson, this is one of the reasons I love talking about things here.  I have a question.  :seeya:

 

I have NO SCIENTIFIC DATA here, but my instant (unconsidered) thought was just the opposite. That so much public discussion and sex in entertainment has caused nudity to lose meaning.  I would have said. We have become so accustomed to folks waving their bodies around that we don't pay any more attention.  Sort of a sub-thought that the more a society covers up the more exciting body parts become. Victorian men ogling ankles and all.  :001_cool:

 

Now of course I am wondering where my assumption came from, and like I said "I am not a nudity researcher nor do I play one on TV", I have no facts to back this.

[Kathryn]

Thank you Crimson, this is one of the reasons I love talking about things here. I have a question. :seeya:

 

I have NO SCIENTIFIC DATA here, but my instant (unconsidered) thought was just the opposite. That so much public discussion and sex in entertainment has caused nudity to lose meaning. I would have said. We have become so accustomed to folks waving their bodies around that we don't pay any more attention. Sort of a sub-thought that the more a society covers up the more exciting body parts become. Victorian men ogling ankles and all. :001_cool:

 

Now of course I am wondering where my assumption came from, and like I said "I am not a nudity researcher nor do I play one on TV", I have no facts to back this.

I think it's the fact that nudity is always associated with the sexual in our society. We don't just see people rising their bikes nude. That's the problem with nursing in public; people associate breasts with sex. That's why there's such a push to normalize NIP.

[Catwoman]

Now of course I am wondering where my assumption came from, and like I said "I am not a nudity researcher nor do I play one on TV", I have no facts to back this.

If you ever decide to actually become a nudity researcher, I'll bet you could get yourself a smarmy reality show on TLC.

 

It could be a whole new career for you, and we could all brag about how we knew you before you were famous. :D

[Jane in NC]

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, "religious sensibilities" has nothing to do with it.

 

There are a lot of incredibly unattractive people out there and no, I do not wish to see them naked. I don't want to see the incredibly attractive, semi-attractive, or not particularly attractive people walking around naked, either. For crying out loud, how hard is it to put on some clothes?

 

I don't want to see anyone naked at the supermarket or at Target or jogging on the streets.

 

You may feel differently, but please don't think everyone is against public nudity for religious reasons. I am sure you are a lovely person and you know I like you, but I still don't want to walk downtown and sit around at a coffee shop with you if you're naked. :D

Cat, please understand that I am not picking on you, but your post in quoteworthy in context with my response.

 

I live at the Beach.  Granted, the weather here in NC does not allow people to live in their bathing suits year round, but there is a beach attitude that some people have--whether they live here or visit.  By this I mean that people (men and women) away from the beach wear tank tops.  Women wear sundresses.  Men may stroll shirtless. Some of the businesses actually post signs on the need for shoes and shirts if one wishes to be served.

 

You may not wish to see those people you mention ("incredibly unattractive") in their Speedos and bikinis, but they too have paid their rental fees so that they can enjoy a bit of sand and surf.  I probably see more flesh in the summer than most of y'all do. 

 

Is it appropriate to wear one's "bathing costume" (I just had to use that term) to the grocery store?  I don't think so.  The health department sets some of the rules here (shoes for example in a restaurant).  But some people just seem to think that "the beach" means more than the sand and surf.  I suspect that we might agree that a little decorum in attire is appreciated.

 

I have decided that it is best not to judge.  Let everyone enjoy body surfing in the waves no matter how much or little they are wearing! But let's hope they don a shirt when eating out in the evening!

[Denise in Florida]

I think it's the fact that nudity is always associated with the sexual in our society. We don't just see people rising their bikes nude. That's the problem with nursing in public; people associate breasts with sex. That's why there's such a push to normalize NIP.

 

 

Perhaps Austin is trying normalize other nudity as well. I don't know, I don't live there. 

 

I think the overexposure leads to it being less about sex, just like bare legs are no longer considered sexual.

 

I guess one question is 'does nudity make us think of sex or does thinking about sex make us look for nudity (or as near as we can find"?

 

Look at me...I am well on my way to nudity researcher now. HA

[Denise in Florida]

If you ever decide to actually become a nudity researcher, I'll bet you could get yourself a smarmy reality show on TLC.

 

It could be a whole new career for you, and we could all brag about how we knew you before you were famous. :D

 

 

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement Catwoman.  I shall begin seeking out grants now.  :lol:

[Χά�ων]

I think it's the fact that nudity is always associated with the sexual in our society. We don't just see people rising their bikes nude. That's the problem with nursing in public; people associate breasts with sex. That's why there's such a push to normalize NIP.

This. Nudity does not equal sex.

 

If our culture wasn't so highly s*xualized, I think I would feel differently about public nudity. If s*x were just something that kept behind closed doors and not discussed in public, pushed ad nauseum in entertainment, etc. etc. then it would not be a big deal to see a woman's b00ks. Keeping s*x a strictly private matter would free up people's bodies to be more visible IMHO.

I think the push for modesty is part of the problem with our society and the over sexualization of the human body. A look at cultures around the world and the acceptance of nudity in society and the separation of nudity and sex provides a fascinating look at how our culture has taken nudity and made it sexual. A kid in sociology class did his final on the topic (his family moved from Europe to the Bible Belt when he was 14). It was beyond fascinating. I am sure someone who is not trying to keep dinner from burning can provide links to studies on the topic.

[Catwoman]

Cat, please understand that I am not picking on you, but your post in quoteworthy in context with my response.

 

I live at the Beach. Granted, the weather here in NC does not allow people to live in their bathing suits year round, but there is a beach attitude that some people have--whether they live here or visit. By this I mean that people (men and women) away from the beach wear tank tops. Women wear sundresses. Men may stroll shirtless. Some of the businesses actually post signs on the need for shoes and shirts if one wishes to be served.

 

You may not wish to see those people you mention ("incredibly unattractive") in their Speedos and bikinis, but they too have paid their rental fees so that they can enjoy a bit of sand and surf. I probably see more flesh in the summer than most of y'all do.

 

Is it appropriate to wear one's "bathing costume" (I just had to use that term) to the grocery store? I don't think so. The health department sets some of the rules here (shoes for example in a restaurant). But some people just seem to think that "the beach" means more than the sand and surf. I suspect that we might agree that a little decorum in attire is appreciated.

 

I have decided that it is best not to judge. Let everyone enjoy body surfing in the waves no matter how much or little they are wearing! But let's hope they don a shirt when eating out in the evening!

:iagree:

 

I grew up spending summers at the beach, and think the beach (and places right by the beach, like boardwalks,) is a whole different world. We expect to see people in swimwear in those areas -- and you sometimes see people in the grocery store wearing swimwear and a cover-up when they stop to pick up a few things on their way home from the beach -- but they're definitely not walking around topless, and if someone saw a woman strutting around the grocery store in a string bikini without a cover-up, they would assume she was doing it to attract attention to herself, because it's not a common thing and it's not generally accepted. Neither a man nor a woman would be allowed in most stores and restaurants if they weren't wearing a top of some kind (health department regulations here, too!) and for that, I am thankful. (I wonder if pants or shorts are required... I have never thought about that, but the signs always say "shirt and shoes..." :eek:)

 

I guess I just don't see a problem with being required to wear clothing in public. People can complain about their personal liberties all they want, but if they're going to get all upset about having to wear a top when they go to Target, I honestly think it's more about wanting to be a troublemaker and demand change for the sake of change so they can feel all liberal and progressive, than it is about truly having a need to walk around topless.

[Catwoman]

I think the push for modesty is part of the problem with our society and the over sexualization of the human body. A look at cultures around the world and the acceptance of nudity in society and the separation of nudity and sex provides a fascinating look at how our culture has taken nudity and made it sexual. A kid in sociology class did his final on the topic (his family moved from Europe to the Bible Belt when he was 14). It was beyond fascinating. I am sure someone who is not trying to keep dinner from burning can provide links to studies on the topic.

I don't think there is a "push for modesty" at all. No one seems to be requesting that people have to wear more clothing than is currently the norm. People can wear some pretty skimpy stuff and it's perfectly fine and legal. When someone says they are not in favor of public nudity, I'm sure the vast majority have no interest in pushing for more modesty.

 

The only time I see anyone talking about modesty in clothing is on this forum. IRL, when people are described as modest, it means they're humble. It has nothing to do with the amount or type of clothing they wear.

[Ravin]

I would like to know what the rational basis (in a scientific way not a legal sense) for a health code requiring customers in a store wear shirts is. Genitals makes sense to be sanitary with regard to human waste. But why is a back or belly or chest a health hazard when bare but a thigh or shoulder isn't? If it's about germs, it's out mouths, noses, and hands that should be covered, I should think.

[Catwoman]

I would like to know what the rational basis (in a scientific way not a legal sense) for a health code requiring customers in a store wear shirts is. Genitals makes sense to be sanitary with regard to human waste. But why is a back or belly or chest a health hazard when bare but a thigh or shoulder isn't? If it's about germs, it's out mouths, noses, and hands that should be covered, I should think.

I have no idea. I have actually wondered about that, too.

[Catwoman]

Same here. The whole no shirt, no shoes, no service thing. I can see the shoes part. But the shirt part? Not so much.

Perhaps it has to do with the danger of getting frostbite in the frozen foods aisle. :D

[Ravin]

I question the shoes thing too. Feet get cleaned frequently, unlike shoes. They always say, "you might step on glass" but if I'm barefoot I'm more mindful of where I step, if I'm habitually barefoot my feet toughen up, and I could step on glass in flip flops and get cut, too. There are times and places shoes are needed for safety, but shopping in mild weather isn't one.

[Catwoman]

I question the shoes thing too. Feet get cleaned frequently, unlike shoes. They always say, "you might step on glass" but if I'm barefoot I'm more mindful of where I step, if I'm habitually barefoot my feet toughen up, and I could step on glass in flip flops and get cut, too. There are times and places shoes are needed for safety, but shopping in mild weather isn't one.

I can understand the shoes requirement.

 

I'm thinking fungal infections, athlete's foot, warts... :ack2:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Shoes are a safety/liability for the store rather than sanitary.

[jewellsmommy]

Could the shirt requirement have anything to do with liability if you drop hot food down your torso? More likely to burn? That is the only thing I could think of.

 

This whole conversation reminds me though, of a Golden Girls episode. They went to a nudist resort. They finally got up the nerve to go naked, and when they went into the restaurant everyone was dressed and stared at them. Then a waiter approached and told them that they always dress for dinner. :lol:

[Tammi K]

Several years ago, when we lived in Australia, we were vacationing in Tasmania. One afternoon, a large group of people entered the park, and while a young man set up a camera on a tripod, the entire crowd stripped naked and formed a line. Then, they leap-froged across the park, casually returned to the starting point, put on their clothing and wandered off.  I have no idea what the nudity laws are in Hobart, but they certainly didn't seem worried about getting caught.  It was intriguing. Didn't know if I should watch or look away! :confused1:

[Rebel]

I will NOT be participating in this, but thought some of you would get a kick out of it.  There will be a naked bike ride around central Austin tomorrow evening.  https://www.facebook.com/events/634303143273526/ 

 

On a related note, SO and I were hiking along Barton Springs in the greenbelt yesterday after work, stopped to admire a small waterfall, and he said something about, "typical Austin," as we walked away. I asked what he meant and he said he was referring to the topless women sunbathing. I had not even noticed...

[Rebecca in KY]

I lived in Austin for over 10 years and never saw anyone going around topless...but then, hubby and I avoided 6th Street and all the other "weird" areas of town. Personally, I'm glad to have left. I never did feel like I belonged in Austin.

[DesertBlossom]

I think it's the fact that nudity is always associated with the sexual in our society. We don't just see people rising their bikes nude. That's the problem with nursing in public; people associate breasts with sex. That's why there's such a push to normalize NIP.

 

When it comes to breastfeeding in public, I think it's an entirely separate issue. This is why I think that way...

 

Check out this post with a number of historic pictures and paintings with women nursing, uncovered, in public settings. In some of those, a fair amount of skin is showing. Most of these paintings and pictures aren't about nursing, it was just that they happened to have a nursing mother in the picture, if that makes sense. Once upon a time, mothers nursed in public and most people didn't bat an eye. Nursing was normal because women really didn't have any other way to feed their babies!  And this are from a time when people just didn't talk about sex. But people knew that nursing had nothing to do with sex or immodesty.

 

I think the problem started when formula companies started claiming that breastmilk was inferior and that science had improved upon mother's milk. My mother remembers being made to feel like breastfeeding wasn't good enough. (Nevertheless, to her credit, she nursed all 7 of her children)  An entire generation (or more!) gave up breastfeeding because of it. And the women who WERE nursing their babies, hid themselves away from the public eye. Only in the last few years have the benefits of breastfeeding really been pushed and more and more women are returning to it. However, now our society is all "Whoa, you can't do that in public!"  We have to "normalize" breastfeeding like it's something new. It's not new. We're just trying to get BACK to where we were before. The reason people only associate breasts with sex is because for the last few decades, that's all we've been told they were good for.

[ebrindam]

Yeah growing up I had a male friend who had a chest much larger than mine.  Including very large nipples.  Sorry if I make anyone hurl, but it was true.  I used to think it quite unfair that he could sit there topless on a hot day, but I could not.

 

Hurl? Really? This post is really offensive to men. :-(

[Luanne]

I agree with the person who said move.  I wouldn't want to raise children in that environment though.  I wouldn't want to have my children exposed to inappropriate things at a young age.  It would almost be like raising your children inside of a strip club.

[Ravin]

I can understand the shoes requirement.

 

I'm thinking fungal infections, athlete's foot, warts... :ack2:

 

Which would make sense if one required shoes in a locker room, shower, pool area, or other warm, humid, not frequently-enough sanitized place where such organisms persist to be transmitted from person to person. Not a dry cold floor in a grocery store..

 

Shoes are a safety/liability for the store rather than sanitary.

 

And see, by requiring them, they have actually taken on MORE liability. Because if I cut my bare foot on glass, it's arguable that it's my own fault for not wearing shoes, but if I cut my flip-flop clad foot on glass, it's on the store because I was obeying their posted rule. Regardless, it's not acceptable from a safety perspective for a store to leave broken glass lying around.They don't reduce their liability for it by imposing arbitrary rules on licensees.

 

I've always thought the shirt was req'd for the gentlemen for containment of the hair.

 

This might make sense if all men had sufficiently hair chests, or if we required people to contain their frequently-shed and more universal head hair.

 

Sure, loud music is probably universally irritating (and I'd guess not legal in most settings). Shirts with rude messages could offend some people, as could bare breasts. But are any of these things comparable to a Nazi flag? Really? Displaying Nazi materials is illegal where I live, for obvious and I think entirely justifiable reasons. I guess they are allowed in the US because of some freedom of speech thing, but surely bare breasts are infinitely less offensive than Hitler?

 

The prevailing view on hate speech in the U.S. vs. most of Europe is a whole other ball of wax. Being offensive is insufficient to get something barred under our interpretation of freedom of speech. But when it comes to things associated with sex, such as nudity (even nudity outside of any sexual context), there is a notion that some things aren't worthy of being considered "protected speech." It's incredibly contradictory.

 

I agree with the person who said move.  I wouldn't want to raise children in that environment though.  I wouldn't want to have my children exposed to inappropriate things at a young age.  It would almost be like raising your children inside of a strip club.

 

Except it's not the same thing. People inside a strip club are engaging in intentionally erotic/lascivious activities. Someone riding their bicycle isn't. That's true even if the strip club requires a g-string and pasties be kept on, and whether the person riding the bike is topless or nude.

[Guest]

I can't quite understand public nudity, legal or not. I just don't want to walk around jiggling, drooping, dripping or God-knows what. Hell, I don't like to show much area above the knees just because my vein situation is not cute at all.

[Guest]

I can understand the shoes requirement.

 

I'm thinking fungal infections, athlete's foot, warts... :ack2:

I don't even like going barefoot in my kitchen because, inevitably, there's a place a kid spilled lemonade and didn't wipe it up. Equally likely, that is THE one spot I'll walk across twelve times before I clean it up, yell at someone, or stick on a pair of flip-flops. :)

[Ravin]

I can't quite understand public nudity, legal or not. I just don't want to walk around jiggling, drooping, dripping or God-knows what. Hell, I don't like to show much area above the knees just because my vein situation is not cute at all.

The point isn't that anyone expects you to. It's not about enforcing nudity, it's questioning the legal constraints against it.

[Guest]

The point isn't that anyone expects you to. It's not about enforcing nudity, it's questioning the legal constraints against it.

I understand that. I do think there's a good bit I would rather not see that folks display anyway. When we go to the beach, or to Hershey Park, I confess I see a lot of body display that makes me wonder why the person is happy to display it. We're not even talking *nudity* just beach wear choices. So, for instance, if my abdominal area had been severely aesthetically altered by having babies, this would not be something I would choose to display. Clearly, some women will, but I don't get why. Are they daring folks to scope out their excess skin? Really proud they bore triplets and want to wear their bellies like a badge?

 

I think I am comfortable with legal constraints against nudity.

[J-rap]

We raised our children to dress somewhat conservatively as they were growing up -- not because of religious reasons but because we wanted to be sure our children grew up not thinking they had to prove themselves worthy by showing bodily parts.  No matter how much our society says it's trying to change that, it still is what it is.  Girls especially are taught that they need to "look" sexy in order to be worthy of attention.

 

Now that they are mostly grown up, they will sometimes dress quite a bit less conservatively, but that's fine.  They know their self-worth is based on something much more important than how they dress.

 

Just wanted to state that so that you know we were a pretty conservatively dressed family when our children were young.

 

But... as far as if people around us decide to walk around topless or lie on the beach nude, we really wouldn't have much of a problem with that.  I mean, I don't really understand it and certainly wouldn't do it myself!  But it's not like it's going to change who my children are.  It's just another one of those things that people may differ on, but that's the culture and time that we live in.

[albeto.]

I understand that. I do think there's a good bit I would rather not see that folks display anyway. When we go to the beach, or to Hershey Park, I confess I see a lot of body display that makes me wonder why the person is happy to display it. We're not even talking *nudity* just beach wear choices. So, for instance, if my abdominal area had been severely aesthetically altered by having babies, this would not be something I would choose to display. Clearly, some women will, but I don't get why. Are they daring folks to scope out their excess skin? Really proud they bore triplets and want to wear their bellies like a badge?

 

I think I am comfortable with legal constraints against nudity.

 

Because it's not inspired by an intent to "display." It's inspired by comfort. Of course our appearance gives first impressions, and we tend to fall back on stereotypes (tight or little clothes = slutty; conservative clothes = condescending; leather = violent; hippie = stoned and ignorant; just throwing out stereotypes here, not endorsing them), but as rational creatures we should be able to suspend that impulse to react as if that impression is a truly accurate representation of a person's character and personality. The idea that clothing is meant to convey a message is unreliable. Tight or little clothes can be comfortable and fun to wear. Conservative clothes can feel "put together." Leather is a practical choice for motorcycles. Tie dyes are colorful and life is serious and hard enough as it is. I think the idea that these things are secret messages reflects medieval superstitions we as a culture just haven't taken note of enough to reject. 

 

 

[Guest]

Because it's not inspired by an intent to "display." It's inspired by comfort. Of course our appearance gives first impressions, and we tend to fall back on stereotypes (tight or little clothes = slutty; conservative clothes = condescending; leather = violent; hippie = stoned and ignorant; just throwing out stereotypes here, not endorsing them), but as rational creatures we should be able to suspend that impulse to react as if that impression is a truly accurate representation of a person's character and personality. The idea that clothing is meant to convey a message is unreliable. Tight or little clothes can be comfortable and fun to wear. Conservative clothes can feel "put together." Leather is a practical choice for motorcycles. Tie dyes are colorful and life is serious and hard enough as it is. I think the idea that these things are secret messages reflects medieval superstitions we as a culture just haven't taken note of enough to reject.

 

 

It would be interesting if that were true, but it isn't. Clothing is chosen to convey ideas about the wearer. A nun's habit is probably comfortable (in winter, anyway), yet I have never worn one. Why? Because I don't have any need or backing to create the belief that I belong with nuns. While leather is a practical choice for riding a motorcycle, it is also fashioned to identify with the other motorcyclists. Why do you never see a "Harley Davidson" emblem on the back of a knit polo shirt? Knit polo shirts are not part of the clothing culture of HOGs.

 

People choose brands of clothing, fabrics, colors, styles and price points - ALL of these things - to project a given image or philosophy of life. Even if you buy a holey, grey tee shirt at a yard sale, you convey something. Maybe you are saying, "caring about clothing is stupid," maybe you're rebelling against the cost of clothing or pollution or unfair garment-worker conditions. Maybe you want to say, "I work hard," and so want your clothing to indicate work. (An actual explanation, BTW; my DH thinks this way.)

 

Thinking clothing choice (or choice not to cover a body part that would usually be covered) is without underlying significance is naive.

[Dory]

It would be interesting if that were true, but it isn't. Clothing is chosen to convey ideas about the wearer. A nun's habit is probably comfortable (in winter, anyway), yet I have never worn one. Why? Because I don't have any need or backing to create the belief that I belong with nuns. While leather is a practical choice for riding a motorcycle, it is also fashioned to identify with the other motorcyclists. Why do you never see a "Harley Davidson" emblem on the back of a knit polo shirt? Knit polo shirts are not part of the clothing culture of HOGs.

 

People choose brands of clothing, fabrics, colors, styles and price points - ALL of these things - to project a given image or philosophy of life. Even if you buy a holey, grey tee shirt at a yard sale, you convey something. Maybe you are saying, "caring about clothing is stupid," maybe you're rebelling against the cost of clothing or pollution or unfair garment-worker conditions. Maybe you want to say, "I work hard," and so want your clothing to indicate work. (An actual explanation, BTW; my DH thinks this way.)

 

Thinking clothing choice (or choice not to cover a body part that would usually be covered) is without underlying significance is naive.

 

I have completely different styles of clothing in my closet so that I can either fit in, or portray certain images to those around me. Clothing is one of the easiest ways to show how I think or who I am. I agree that no clothing does the same.

 

Three of my brothers have big crotch rockets (300lbs of motorbike). They dress very specifically to portray the group of people that they want to be grouped with.

[Ravin]

The significance of clothes to status is not what it once was. I think there's something to be said for the idea that laws requiring clothes just because should go the way of sumptuary laws.

 

People will still wear what they want, for their own reasons, some of which include social cues, safety, and vanity. But they'll be free from unnecessary governmental coercion in matters of attire.

[Wheres Toto]

It would be interesting if that were true, but it isn't. Clothing is chosen to convey ideas about the wearer. A nun's habit is probably comfortable (in winter, anyway), yet I have never worn one. Why? Because I don't have any need or backing to create the belief that I belong with nuns. While leather is a practical choice for riding a motorcycle, it is also fashioned to identify with the other motorcyclists. Why do you never see a "Harley Davidson" emblem on the back of a knit polo shirt? Knit polo shirts are not part of the clothing culture of HOGs.

 

People choose brands of clothing, fabrics, colors, styles and price points - ALL of these things - to project a given image or philosophy of life. Even if you buy a holey, grey tee shirt at a yard sale, you convey something. Maybe you are saying, "caring about clothing is stupid," maybe you're rebelling against the cost of clothing or pollution or unfair garment-worker conditions. Maybe you want to say, "I work hard," and so want your clothing to indicate work. (An actual explanation, BTW; my DH thinks this way.)

 

Thinking clothing choice (or choice not to cover a body part that would usually be covered) is without underlying significance is naive.

 

I very rarely put that much thought into what I'm wearing.  I'm a jeans and t-shirt kind of girl, the most I'll consider is if the shirt choice is okay for work or not.   I think I dress to blend in and not be noticed more than anything, actually.  More than anything, I go for comfort.

[Denise in Florida]

I agree with the person who said move.  I wouldn't want to raise children in that environment though.  I wouldn't want to have my children exposed to inappropriate things at a young age.  It would almost be like raising your children inside of a strip club.

 

I don't think those two are comparable.

 

I also would object to taking children inside a strip club.  But the bare human body is not inherently inappropriate and topless nudity is not the same as the "Full Monty" :)

[ktgrok]

I understand that. I do think there's a good bit I would rather not see that folks display anyway. When we go to the beach, or to Hershey Park, I confess I see a lot of body display that makes me wonder why the person is happy to display it. We're not even talking *nudity* just beach wear choices. So, for instance, if my abdominal area had been severely aesthetically altered by having babies, this would not be something I would choose to display. Clearly, some women will, but I don't get why. Are they daring folks to scope out their excess skin? Really proud they bore triplets and want to wear their bellies like a badge?

 

I think I am comfortable with legal constraints against nudity.

 

Um, maybe they aren't trying to display it as much as fine and willing to allow it to show, because why not? Two piece bathing suits are more comfortable, cooler, and easier to pee in, lol. Maybe they are going for comfort and figure saggy skin is NORMAL and therefore nothing to be ashamed of? Why on earth should be use spandex and tummy control suits to hide the fact that babies cause changes to our bodies? That's almost kind of crazy....it's like we are trying to pretend change doesn't happen. 

 

eh, let it all hang out. We'd all be happier with our own bodies I think, if we saw more of everyone elses. 

[shanvan]

Um, maybe they aren't trying to display it as much as fine and willing to allow it to show, because why not? Two piece bathing suits are more comfortable, cooler, and easier to pee in, lol. Maybe they are going for comfort and figure saggy skin is NORMAL and therefore nothing to be ashamed of? Why on earth should be use spandex and tummy control suits to hide the fact that babies cause changes to our bodies? That's almost kind of crazy....it's like we are trying to pretend change doesn't happen. 

 

eh, let it all hang out. We'd all be happier with our own bodies I think, if we saw more of everyone elses. 

On one hand, I can see your point b/c definitely, I don't let it all hang out partly b/c I know I'm not living up to that ultimate body image we've all seen.  If we could all accept the reality of aging and various body types, it does seem we'd be happier with our own.

 

Then again, almost everyday I see my neighbor 'hangin out' with his shirt off.  Sometimes I do wish he'd just wear a shirt already.

[Guest]

Um, maybe they aren't trying to display it as much as fine and willing to allow it to show, because why not? Two piece bathing suits are more comfortable, cooler, and easier to pee in, lol. Maybe they are going for comfort and figure saggy skin is NORMAL and therefore nothing to be ashamed of? Why on earth should be use spandex and tummy control suits to hide the fact that babies cause changes to our bodies? That's almost kind of crazy....it's like we are trying to pretend change doesn't happen.

 

eh, let it all hang out. We'd all be happier with our own bodies I think, if we saw more of everyone elses.

Maybe. I don't understand that point of view. I am thinking in particular of one bkini-wearer whose abdomen looked disfigured. I'm not talking about a wrinkle here or there. Why display that? I really do think it is an intended display. A tankini suit would cover the stomach, allow ease of peeing and seriously cannot be much hotter by having five inches more fabric. I don't think someone showing that has chosen that suit for practical reasons.

[ktgrok]

Maybe. I don't understand that point of view. I am thinking in particular of one bkini-wearer whose abdomen looked disfigured. I'm not talking about a wrinkle here or there. Why display that? I really do think it is an intended display. A tankini suit would cover the stomach, allow ease of peeing and seriously cannot be much hotter by having five inches more fabric. I don't think someone showing that has chosen that suit for practical reasons.

 

Why not display it? Why is it ok to display the tummy if it is flat but not ok to display it if the person lost a lot of weight, or did have triplets, or is covered in stretch marks? Maybe you wouldn't be comfortable allowing your "flaws" to show, but why care if someone else does? Are we at a point where if you aren't perfect you need to hide away?