Why is nudity taboo

Originally posted by Oliver North
is not congruent with:

kthx

I wrote this as well:

But incidents can and do happen anywhere and in any kind of social gathering.

Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT:

at rates far lower than would be expected if higher cognitive function "meant jack"

Also, why nudity is not acceptable as norm in most societies? Ever wondered?

And read this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

The report is congruent with my assertion:

Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Don't try to twist my points and quote them out of context to favor your mindset.

I must be dense, because it seems like you were saying our higher cognition doesn't mean anything in controlling our behaviour, and then you said that, because we have laws, people control their behaviour.

The existence of laws and moral codes necessitates some degree of higher cognitive function. A law can't restrain the behaviour of an organism without the cognitive function to interpret it.

Please highlight what I misinterpreted.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.

[citation needed]

given, you know, the rise of liberal values in North America is accompanied by the largest drop in crime in human history

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Genius, ever wondered that what RULES and REGULATIONS are for? People do not restrain themselves due to their own intelligence but due to fear of penalization.

thats a different point entirely though.

you are wrong, and in fact people have very well developed natural forms of morality that are not instructed by law. But even if it were the case that law is required for moral behaviour, higher cognitive function is required for laws to even exist, essentially making this above point in support of what I was saying.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, why nudity is not acceptable as norm in most societies? Ever wondered?

are you asking why it isn't a norm or why there are taboos against it?

I'd imagine clothing is the norm for pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with sexual modesty. That would come much later as people tried to limit sexual expression because of issues involving hereditary political structures.

EDIT:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And read this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

this involves a study of rape in 2008.

Rape is a tough one, because the way rape is defined gives strange impressions to the data. For instance, it was still legal to rape one's wife into the 1980s. On paper, it appears there is a large increase once the laws were changed, in actuality, the rates stayed the same or were dropping.

To emphasize this point, while Human Rights Watch reports a raise in instances over that period, the UN reports that instances of rape were decreasing in both absolute terms, and in terms of proportion of the population, in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics

Additionally, raises over the span of a couple of years are entirely expected given the current crime rate. The rate of crimes has fallen so greatly in the past few decades, that we have likely reached a floor of how much crime a particular society can actually eliminate. You see these all the time, Toronto is currently seeing it in regard to gun violence. There are small blips in data where it appears things are changing, but it is only an "increase" relative to a very, very low mean, and these blips almost always disappear in a long term trend. Its an easy way to get a headline, but statistically, it is meaningless.

You would need data that goes beyond a 2 year period. Additionally, the study they link in the article you posted isn't available any longer, can you find another version of it? I'd like to read more about the methodology.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I must be dense, because it seems like you were saying our higher cognition doesn't mean anything in controlling our behaviour, and then you said that, because we have laws, people control their behaviour.

The existence of laws and moral codes necessitates some degree of higher cognitive function. A law can't restrain the behaviour of an organism without the cognitive function to interpret it.

Please highlight what I misinterpreted.

Rules and regulations have been introduced for solid reasons but they are not foolproof or guarantee safety. This is why crimes always occur.

Check US history:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Originally posted by Oliver North
[citation needed]

given, you know, the rise of liberal values in North America is accompanied by the largest drop in crime in human history

The more women will present themselves sexually; the more likely they will be targeted violently.

Originally posted by Oliver North
thats a different point entirely though.

you are wrong, and in fact people have very well developed natural forms of morality that are not instructed by law. But even if it were the case that law is required for moral behaviour, higher cognitive function is required for laws to even exist, essentially making this above point in support of what I was saying.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you asking why it isn't a norm or why there are taboos against it?

I'd imagine clothing is the norm for pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with sexual modesty. That would come much later as people tried to limit sexual expression because of issues involving hereditary political structures.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Rape is a tough one, because the way rape is defined gives strange impressions to the data. For instance, it was still legal to rape one's wife into the 1980s. On paper, it appears there is a large increase once the laws were changed, in actuality, the rates stayed the same or were dropping.

To emphasize this point, while Human Rights Watch reports a raise in instances over that period, the UN reports that instances of rape were decreasing in both absolute terms, and in terms of proportion of the population, in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics

Additionally, raises over the span of a couple of years are entirely expected given the current crime rate. The rate of crimes has fallen so greatly in the past few decades, that we have likely reached a floor of how much crime a particular society can actually eliminate. You see these all the time, Toronto is currently seeing it in regard to gun violence. There are small blips in data where it appears things are changing, but it is only an "increase" relative to a very, very low mean, and these blips almost always disappear in a long term trend. Its an easy way to get a headline, but statistically, it is meaningless.

You would need data that goes beyond a 2 year period. Additionally, the study they link in the article you posted isn't available any longer, can you find another version of it? I'd like to read more about the methodology.

Check the rape statistics in this link:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Notice the enormous increase? This is in connection to greater acceptance of sexual liberalism in the society with passage of time.

Tough laws are making some impact but still incidents continue to remain enormous.

Also, check this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/09/a-needed-revolution-rape-and-u-s-justice.html

you... you do realize the crime statistics you are reporting follow the exact pattern I described?

Originally posted by Oliver North
you... you do realize the crime statistics you are reporting follow the exact pattern I described?

Also this: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0119/Pentagon-report-Sexual-assault-in-the-military-up-dramatically

Things are not so black and white.

As I have already stated; their is a limit to what can be achieved with rules and regulations.

Best course of action is to spread morality.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Higher brain functions and control means jack, genius. 🙄 (People are always susceptible to wrongdoings)

Tell me; Which woman will arouse you sexually - scantily clothed or fully covered?

I am not sexually repressed, you idiot. But I do not have SICK mentality like yours.

I did grew-up in a religious household and I am contended with my upbringing.

WTF!? Higher brain functions and control means a lot. You don't get to call anyone an idiot after that statement, ever. People are susceptible, but what does that have to do with anything here? Some lunatic could kill you at the grocery store, does that mean it's up to you to not go to a grocery store?

Depends, I've seen scantily clothed (and naked) women that do nothing for me and I've seen fully clothed women that get me aroused. So there goes your little fail premise. Seems like you're that type of person who would blame a woman for being raped because she wore clothing or acted in a manner you deemed inappropriate. ie blame the victim and not the person who couldn't control themselves syndrome.

You are indeed sexually repressed, extremely so. I wasn't sure before, but now I am. You also seem to have a deep fear of nudity and sexuality. Also telling is your apparent inability to separate sex with nudity.

How is my mentality sick? What "sickness" have I stated?

It's telling, with your sexual repression, fear of a naked body and inability to separate sex from nudity.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF!? Higher brain functions and control means a lot. You don't get to call anyone an idiot after that statement, ever. People are susceptible, but what does that have to do with anything here? Some lunatic could kill you at the grocery store, does that mean it's up to you to not go to a grocery store?

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends, I've seen scantily clothed (and naked) women that do nothing for me

Originally posted by Robtard
and I've seen fully clothed women that get me aroused.

Originally posted by Robtard
So there goes your little fail premise.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're that type of person who would blame a woman for being raped because she wore clothing or acted in a manner you deemed inappropriate. ie blame the victim and not the person who couldn't control themselves syndrome.

Immoral people will always try to defend their immorality.

Originally posted by Robtard
You are indeed sexually repressed, extremely so. I wasn't sure before, but now I am. You also seem to have a deep fear of nudity and sexuality. Also telling is your apparent inability to separate sex with nudity.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is my mentality sick? What "sickness" have I stated?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's telling, with your sexual repression, fear of a naked body and inability to separate sex from nudity.

Read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=women-as-sex-objects-09-02-17

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Immoral activities are more likely to invite troubles or inflict harm on others.

Point is not that whether these women give you attention or do something for you. But these women are more likely to sexually arouse men then properly clothed ones.

Depends upon your interpretation of fully clothed women. What you may regard as fully clothed may not be properly clothed to me. In addition, woman behavior can also facilitate sexual arousal.

Sorry. You can keep your manipulation and lies to yourself. You are trying really hard now.

Typical stereotyping from guys like you who assume that they understand everything. 🙄

Immoral people will always try to defend their immorality.

Personal attacks will get your nowhere. I am not shy about my sexuality but rather responsible.

And nudity is immoral in some sweeping generalization?

Your first statement is not congruent with your second. Is the chance of arousing men the point of not? Regardless of that, why not blame the men who can't control themselves? So odd and anti-female.

Fully clothed = exposing little bare skin other than the face, and hands. Again, blaming the women instead of the man/men who lack control. So odd and anti-female.

Lies? You tried a fail statement. Accept it.

Except for you being a male, I have no "stereotype" to base you off, so what in the hell are you reaching for? Your anti-female comments is what leads me to believe you're the type to blame the woman first for a rape

How am I immoral now? Name something I said, stop throwing the word around in a baseless fashion.

I didn't say shy, now did I. You're sexually repressed and fearful of nudity and sexuality and confused. You also obviously have a low regard for women.

And how exactly am I sick? What sickness have I shown here

lol ohh joy more to read.

Originally posted by Robtard
And nudity is immoral in some sweeping generalization?

Originally posted by Robtard
Your first statement is not congruent with your second. Is there chance of arousing men the point of not? Regardless of that, why not blame the men who can't control themselves? So odd and anti-female.

You have little clue about basic human psychology, it seems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fully clothed = exposing little bare skin other than the face, and hands. Again, blaming the women instead of the man/men who lack control. So odd and anti-female.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lies? You tried a fail statement. Accept it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except for you being a male, I have no "stereotype" to base you off, so what in the hell are you reaching for? Your anti-female comments is what leads me to believe you're the type to blame the woman first for a rape

Originally posted by Robtard
How am I immoral now?

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say shy, now did I. You're sexually repressed and fearful of nudity and sexuality and confused. You also obviously have a low regard for women.

Originally posted by Robtard
And how exactly am I sick? What sickness have I shown here

To your edit my sexual repressed and female-hating friend, men getting aroused by women means what? I'll tell you.

That's where the higher brain functions that you seem to think don't matter come into play. A man may get aroused by a woman in various degrees of dress; it's up to him to act accordingly.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So humans should shed cloths and adopt nudity as a norm?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Common sense matters.

Originally posted by Robtard
To your edit my sexual repressed and female-hating friend, men getting aroused by women means what? I'll tell you.

That's where the higher brain functions that you seem to think don't matter come into play. A man may get aroused by a woman in various degrees of dress; it's up to him to act accordingly.

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Basic human pyschology.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Aside from weather and climatological reasons, can you give me a reason why a human shouldn't?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you believe that nudity is immoral?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Toward what though?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Read this:

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Basic human pyschology.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And? You think that's reason enough to fear nudity? Do you have so little regard for human rationality and higher functioning that you feel clothing must be mandatory?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In public? Yes.

By same token, why not blame the women who objectify themselves?

You have little clue about basic human psychology, it seems.

Those women must be doing something to sexually arouse you.

Your arguments are fail. Accept it.

Oh wow! Supporting female modesty makes me Anti-female. 🙄

Ask yourself.

First do some reading on the concept of sexually repressed and then taunt me. Sexual repression is a condition which leads to insecurity against the opposite gender. This is not true for me.

And the parrot continues to repeat the lines.

Depends. There are public beaches where nudity is the norm. Once again you're making sweeping generalizations to support your own faults and shortcomings with nudity, sexuality and your inability to separate the two.

Because I'd rather blame the rapist and/or the person who simply can't control themselves. LoL, you do hate women.

You haven't a single clue about anything we're discussing it seems.

Non sequitur. You asked me what I thought "fully clothed" means; I answered. Yet once again you turn it into something about blaming women. Why do you hate women so.

Says the guy who consistently contradicts himself.

If you're going to take some moral high-ground based on "modesty", then define "modesty" in regards to how a woman should dress and act. No, your anti-female comments make you anti-female.

So yet another baseless claim. It's simple, if you're going to call me "immoral", be prepared to support it.

Maybe you should read up on sexual repression as "insecurity of the opposite sex" is only one facet, which you seem to also have. I know understand what sexual repression is and your extremely naive and negative attitude towards nudity and [now] especially women supports it. Your fear of nudity supports it. Your inability to separate nudity from sex supports it. You're a sexually repressed woman hater. When it comes to sexuality, shame and guilt are your games.

So once again you made a baseless claim as you're unable to support it when questioned. It's simple, if I'm "sick", show how. You're sexual repressed, I clearly showed above how you are.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Their is difference between fear and disliking. Human rationality is best served by morality.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends. There are public beaches where nudity is the norm. Once again you're making sweeping generalizations to support your own faults and shortcomings with nudity and sexuality.

What are you trying to prove here?

Just because these activities are norm in some regions; doesn't make then morally acceptable. This is my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I'd rather blame the rapist and/or the person who simple can't control themselves. Man, you do hate women.

Originally posted by Robtard
You haven't a single clue about a think it seems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Non sequitur. You asked me what I thought "fully clothed" means; I answered. Yet once again you turn it into something about blaming women. Why do you hate women?

Originally posted by Robtard
Says the guy who consistently contradicts himself.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to take some moral high-ground based on :modesty", then define "modesty" in regards to how a woman dresses and acts. No, your anti-female comments make you anti-female.

Originally posted by Robtard
So yet another baseless claim. It's simple, if you're going to call me immoral, be prepared to support it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe you should read up on sexual repression as "insecurity of the opposite sex" is only one facet, which you seem to also have. I know what sexual repression is and your extremely naive and negated attitude towards women supports it. Your fear of nudity supports it. Your inability to separate nudity from sex supports it. You're a sexually repressed woman hater.

Originally posted by Robtard
So once again you made a baseless claim as you're unable to support it when questioned. It's simple, if I'm "sick", show how. You're sexual repressed, I clearly showed above how you are.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whose morality? I guarantee that many of the things you consider moral/immoral are different from what others consider. Like myself, for example.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Your conceptualization of morality seems to be distorted.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you believe in moral facts?

As an example; adultery is indecent act. But it may be acceptable to you, if individuals involved consented to it. However, your acceptance does not makes this act decent or morally acceptable.