Why is nudity taboo

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Indecent acts are immoral.

As an example; adultery is indecent act. But it may be acceptable to you with consent of both genders. However, your acceptance does not makes this act decent or morally acceptable.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But why not?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- There are studios where pornography is norm
- There are places where gambling in norm
- There are places where prostitution is norm

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.

I do not hate women. I believe that both genders should act responsibly.

Studies are wrong then?

You need to elaborate on how fully clothed women sexually arouse you. You are definitely hiding some details or you are lying. Why do you want women to objectify themselves?

BS

Modesty is about sense of responsibility in presentation and actions towards strangers.

You don't know the difference between morality and immorality.

You are highly judgemental and insensitive towards others who disprove of your mindset. This is a sign of MENTAL SICKNESS.

I dislike objectification of women. Objectification invites exploitation.

LoL, you're copying me now and trying to spin. This started when I said: "The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.", then you proceed to claim higher brain functions don't matter. Yet now individual perceptions matter.

Both genders should. Why blame a woman for being raped though, even if she walked around naked or acted "slutty"?

Stop throwing around "studies" when you haven't a clue and did little more than on-the-spot google searches in a desperate attempt to seem educated on the matter. You tried it with inimalist and he slapped you 10 out of 10.

You want me to elaborate why a hetereosexual male can be aroused by a female he finds attractive, clothed or not? Really? Are you retarded? "Why do you want women to objectify themselves?" LoL, loaded question. Try harder.

Not BS, you've done it multiple times with me and inimilist. Just look at your insane comments on 'higher brain functions' from previous pages.

That's a dodge. You claimed to support "female modesty", so how EXACTLY should a female dress and act to be so?

LoL, Begging The Question? What morals don't I know exactly? You throw around "morality" like it's some universal exact, you debate like a child.

"My mindset"? LoL, okay, seems like a desperate grasp at air while you're drowning. I'll bite. What exactly is my mindset, or what exact aspects of my mindset are you referring to?

You dislike women. Don't make it about some failed notion of you protecting women so they should dress and act like you deem appropriate.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Morality is not about your personal acceptance.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you're copying me now and trying to spin. This started when I said: "The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.", then you proceed to claim higher brain functions don't matter. Yet now individual perceptions matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Both genders should. Why blame a woman for being raped though, even if she walked around naked or acted "slutty"?

Their is a word called "responsibility". It matters.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop throwing around "studies" when you haven't a clue and did little more than on-the-spot google searches in a desperate attempt to seem educated on the matter. You tried it with inimalist and he slapped you 10 out of 10.

Originally posted by Robtard
You want me to elaborate why a hetereosexual male can be aroused by a female he finds attractive, clothed or not? Really? Are you retarded? "Why do you want women to objectify themselves?" LoL, loaded question. Try harder.

If you find a woman attractive, you start thinking sexually about her? Isn't this a sign of perventness?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not BS, you've done it multiple times with me and inimilist. Just look at your insane comments on 'higher brain functions' from previous pages.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a dodge. You claimed to support "female modesty", so how EXACTLY should a female dress and act to be so?

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, Begging The Question? What morals don't I know exactly? You throw around "morality" like it's some universal exact, you debate like a child.

Originally posted by Robtard
"My mindset"? LoL, okay, seems like a desperate grasp at air while you're drowning. I'll bite. What exactly is my mindset, or what exact aspects of my mindset are you referring to?

Originally posted by Robtard
You dislike women. Don't make it about some failed notion of you protecting women so they should dress and act like you deem appropriate.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not your morality, obviously. But why is that?

you both are still having at it..lol I think im going to sit this one out and make myself a drink.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Morality is not a personal thing.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I disagree.

Ok, so this is how I'm going to do this. You have cited 4 web pages, not studies, and I'm going to go through them first, then sort of hit on a couple of other things you mentioned throughout that are ridiculous. Hopefully I can keep this to one post.

so:

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

I'm going to repost this also, as it is totally relevant:

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.

So, there are a bunch of reasons why the survey HRW talks about in their article may not be the best data to use to track long-term trends, but I'm going to skip that for purposes of space. We can go into it, nobody loves to debate sampling issues and methodology more than I do, its just not as relevant as this:

This is the available data about rape/sexual assault from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the one your article discusses. Really, I could leave it at that, as over 13 years there is a clear downward trend to that data.

However, according the the Bureau of Justice Statistics themselves, the people who run the study:

Note: Due to changes in methodology, the 2006 National Crime Victimization rates are not comparable to previous years and cannot be used for yearly trend comparisons.[source]

So, data from before 2006 uses one methodolgy, but after 2006 they changed it, and the numbers went up:

This confirms what I was saying entirely. The numbers are going down, using either methodology, and they are still going down in the long term using a mix of methodologies. In fact, the rate of rape/sexual assault per 1000 individuals was 1.5 in 1998 (using the old methodology) and 1.0 in 2008 (using the new one).

I know what you are thinking, "Gee, it seems weird that HRW didn't mention the change when they reported the findings." Well, thats only because I assume you didn't read the HRW article, as it describes at the end:

The National Crime Victimization Survey is conducted every two years, with data gathered in phone calls made to a sample of households across the United States. Due to criticism from experts in the subject, the survey's methodology was adjusted in 2007 to capture more accurately the incidence of gender-based violence. The authors say in the report that the higher numbers may reflect the new, more accurate methodology rather than an actual increase. Two major shifts were to describe types of sexual assault to those being interviewed, and to replace "computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted from two telephone centers" nationwide with interviews "by field representatives either by telephone or in person."[source]

So, basically, the article you posted doesn't suggest the incidence of sexual assault or rape are increasing and the data they were writing about show that the incidences are decreasing.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Check the rape statistics in this link:

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

Like I said above, each coloumn of that chart follows the pattern of results that I described.

Though, I'll be honest, I didn't realize crime spiked so hard between the 70s-90s.

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

This isn't about instances of rape increasing. This is about how many arrests are made.

So, the book the article is talking about [sic] suggests that the arrest rate for rape is the same now as it was decades ago. Meaning, if it is 24%, and 10000 rapes happened last year, and 100 happened this year, you can have less overall rapes, while the % of rapists arrested stays the same, at 2400 and 24 respectively.

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

that... I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I never said there wouldn't be specific populations where rape may be increasing, but that, on a whole, rates are decreasing.

I'd also like to point out, this article is direct proof against something you have been saying. You claim people need rules to act properly. Well, the only people who live with more rules in their lives than soldiers, that I can think of, are prisoners.

If being in the army doesn't produce the lowest rates of rape, I'd suggest this "rules" theory of yours is erroneous.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
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.

I just quoted this as a catch all for most of your last replies to me. Nothing you are saying is related to the arguments I'm presenting to you. I'm not talking about modesty, or spreading morality. I'm talking about the fact that a) higher cognition is crucial in guiding our behaviour, b) rules aren't what make people good, c) incidents of rape are decreasing.

90% of the of what you post to me is some new topic or tangent rather than addressing my points... should I take that to mean you have conceded those points? you now agree that higher cognition restricts base instinct?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
People most often restrain themselves due to repercussions for wrongdoings. But still wrongdoings occur and statistics are alarming.

Research going back at least 50 years shows clearly that punishment is one of the least effective motivators for people.

It is a poor motivator for rats and dogs, animals without higher cognition, for humans is does almost no good.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I am not wrong. Your experience and exposure is limited.

haha, I never really like doing this, but bragging can be fun sometimes.

I work, like my day job, is as a cognitive psychologist/neuroscientist. Over the past couple of years, I've taught classes to undergraduate students where I describe how "higher cognition" works. My specific area of research is in the control and regulation of actions. If you want, I can describe the neurological pathways involved in higher cognition restricting instinctual actions, in fact, the circuits of the basal nuclei are some of my favorite parts of the brain.

so, whip it out, pal. I think it is you who lack experience and exposure.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Ok, so this is how I'm going to do this. You have cited 4 web pages, not studies, and I'm going to go through them first, then sort of hit on a couple of other things you mentioned throughout that are ridiculous. Hopefully I can keep this to one post.

so:

I'm going to repost this also, as it is totally relevant:

So, there are a bunch of reasons why the survey HRW talks about in their article may not be the best data to use to track long-term trends, but I'm going to skip that for purposes of space. We can go into it, nobody loves to debate sampling issues and methodology more than I do, its just not as relevant as this:

This is the available data about rape/sexual assault from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the one your article discusses. Really, I could leave it at that, as over 13 years there is a clear downward trend to that data.

However, according the the Bureau of Justice Statistics themselves, the people who run the study:

So, data from before 2006 uses one methodolgy, but after 2006 they changed it, and the numbers went up:

This confirms what I was saying entirely. The numbers are going down, using either methodology, and they are still going down in the long term using a mix of methodologies. In fact, the rate of rape/sexual assault per 1000 individuals was 1.5 in 1998 (using the old methodology) and 1.0 in 2008 (using the new one).

I know what you are thinking, "Gee, it seems weird that HRW didn't mention the change when they reported the findings." Well, thats only because I assume you didn't read the HRW article, as it describes at the end:

So, basically, the article you posted doesn't suggest the incidence of sexual assault or rape are increasing and the data they were writing about show that the incidences are decreasing.

Like I said above, each coloumn of that chart follows the pattern of results that I described.

Though, I'll be honest, I didn't realize crime spiked so hard between the 70s-90s.

This isn't about instances of rape increasing. This is about how many arrests are made.

So, the book the article is talking about [sic] suggests that the arrest rate for rape is the same now as it was decades ago. Meaning, if it is 24%, and 10000 rapes happened last year, and 100 happened this year, you can have less overall rapes, while the % of rapists arrested stays the same, at 2400 and 24 respectively.

that... I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I never said there wouldn't be specific populations where rape may be increasing, but that, on a whole, rates are decreasing.

I'd also like to point out, this article is direct proof against something you have been saying. You claim people need rules to act properly. Well, the only people who live with more rules in their lives than soldiers, that I can think of, are prisoners.

If being in the army doesn't produce the lowest rates of rape, I'd suggest this "rules" theory of yours is erroneous.

And even if rapes are declining, do you think that same is true about women exploitation in general?

What about massive boom in other forms of societal evils like pornography? This is a gift of so-called sexual liberalism. And if you think that women are happy in this industry - think again.

Similarly, what about strippers and women working in casinos? You think that all of them are happy and want this?

Many women in these industries are in due to financial reasons. And they are being exploited sexually for their livelihoods.

Another thing is considerable increase in CHEATING in committed relationships. Thanks to sexual liberalism, people can easily cheat on their partners as well.

So don't try to paint a rosy picture here on the basis of just one facet of women exploitation.

Also, as per this source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics - every 2 minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted. Shocking.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I just quoted this as a catch all for most of your last replies to me. Nothing you are saying is related to the arguments I'm presenting to you. I'm not talking about modesty, or spreading morality. I'm talking about the fact that a) higher cognition is crucial in guiding our behaviour, b) rules aren't what make people good, c) incidents of rape are decreasing.

90% of the of what you post to me is some new topic or tangent rather than addressing my points... should I take that to mean you have conceded those points? you now agree that higher cognition restricts base instinct?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Research going back at least 50 years shows clearly that punishment is one of the least effective motivators for people.

It is a poor motivator for rats and dogs, animals without higher cognition, for humans is does almost no good.

Originally posted by Oliver North
haha, I never really like doing this, but bragging can be fun sometimes.

I work, like my day job, is as a cognitive psychologist/neuroscientist. Over the past couple of years, I've taught classes to undergraduate students where I describe how "higher cognition" works. My specific area of research is in the control and regulation of actions. If you want, I can describe the neurological pathways involved in higher cognition restricting instinctual actions, in fact, the circuits of the basal nuclei are some of my favorite parts of the brain.

so, whip it out, pal. I think it is you who lack experience and exposure.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And yet humans continue to exploit and harm? Why?

By the same token, why blame a criminal for the crime he or she committed? Coz the criminal might have been motivated by circumstances. 🙄

Their is a word called "responsibility". It matters.

I know what I am saying. I cited a study to only affirm my point. Intellectual people understand the importance of using evidence. But maybe I was expecting too much from an insecure person like you.

How a fully clothed women [B]sexually arouses you? explain please.

If you find a woman attractive, you start thinking sexually about her? Isn't this a sign of perventness?

He explained his point lot better then you did. Stick to your argumentation. And go through my debate with inimilist; it supports my original point that higher brain functions and control do not guarantee decency. People most often restrain themselves due to repercussions for wrongdoings. But still wrongdoings occur and statistics are alarming.

In a manner that is not sexually provocative.

What is moral in your opinion?

Your mindset suggests pervertness.

I do not dislike women. I am against their exploitation.
[/B]

Are you insane? Human nature is human nature, yet not everyone is going to rape and steal if they had a free pass. ie Higher brain functions.

Why blame a criminal for a crime they committed? Mmmm, I dunno. (That was sarcasm) So you do believe a woman dressing in a fashion that temps men(in a way you deem not moral) gets raped, it's her fault. You're a sick bastard.

There is a word called 'responsibility'; it's the responsibility of the rapist to not act on their impulses. You victim blamer.

No you don't, you're throwing around desperate google searches and inimalist is slapping them down.

LoL, retard angle. A woman's beauty can be arousing, it's really that basic.+

WTF, are you a child? A heterosexual male being sexually attracted to a female he finds attractive isn't a sign of "pervertness". Masturbating on her and or being lewd against her wishes would be perverted. You are severely sexually repressed.

Ahahahaa, "don't read my fail debate with someone else". Stop crying and stop failing.

Another dodge, "not sexually provocative" is a broad term. Hoe exactly? In a burka? In full dresses? etc. Also, stop oppressing women, it's 2012.

Another dodge, answering a question with a question. You claimed I was "didn't know morals", state what exactly.

Yet another desperate grasp. What "pervertness" (which isn't a word, btw) have I showed or done?

You clearly dislike women and as repeatedly seen, try to control them with your own personal sense of what you see as "moral" under the guise of protection.

Given that Legend's locations says "ASIA", I'm willing to bet he comes from a country that views women as property.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Given that Legend's locations says "ASIA", I'm willing to bet he comes from a country that views women as property.

I'd guess one of these:

Afghanistan
India
Bangladesh
Brunei
Indonesia
Pakistan

Should be noted that all those barring India have a very high Muslim population. Which his views towards women do seem to imply a possible Islamic angle.

IMO, the final responsibility for a person's thoughts, feelings and actions rest with that person. No one else. If a woman chooses to dance provocatively in a bar full of drunken men, that is her right, and she is responsible for her actions, just as I am responsible for my actions should I choose to walk through a "bad" neighborhood at night. However: neither the woman nor I am responsible for the choices and actions of anyone who attacks us. We may be guilty of poor judgment, thus opening the door to trouble. But trouble still has to choose to step through.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Big deal if rapes are declining? You are missing the point. Their can be many reasons behind decline in rapes and not just effectiveness of rules and regulations or higher cognition. One reason can be that American women themselves sleep around a lot.

haermm

- - - -

Between this thread and his turrible logic in the Muslim innocence thread, I think he's Muslim as well.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the final responsibility for a person's thoughts, feelings and actions rest with that person. No one else. If a woman chooses to dance provocatively in a bar full of drunken men, that is her right, and she is responsible for her actions, just as I am responsible for my actions should I choose to walk through a "bad" neighborhood at night. However: neither the woman nor I am responsible for the choices and actions of anyone who attacks us. We may be guilty of poor judgment, thus opening the door to trouble. But trouble still has to choose to step through.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
haermm

- - - -

Between this thread and his turrible logic in the Muslim innocence thread, I think he's Muslim as well.

Nah, it's a known fact that rapist commit rapes cos they normally couldn't get laid and rape is just about sex. So god bless those American sluts reducing rapes.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Big deal if rapes are declining?

wait, what? thats actually the topic we were debating. You tried to provide evidence against this...

wtf? so, you change the topic when you are wrong? thats not very intellectually honest, is it?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are missing the point. Their can be many reasons behind decline in rapes and not just effectiveness of rules and regulations or higher cognition. One reason can be that American women themselves sleep around a lot. Of course, not all women are like this but still SEX is easy to get in USA in current times.

And even if rapes are declining, do you think that same is true about women exploitation in general?

What about massive boom in other forms of societal evils like pornography? This is a gift of so-called sexual liberalism. And if you think that women are happy in this industry - think again.

Similarly, what about strippers and women working in casinos? You think that all of them are happy and want this?

Many women in these industries are in due to financial reasons. And they are being exploited sexually for their livelihoods.

Another thing is considerable increase in CHEATING in committed relationships. Thanks to sexual liberalism, people can easily cheat on their partners as well.

So don't try to paint a rosy picture here on the basis of just one facet of women exploitation.

What is really funny about this, is in terms of personal taste, I'm with you about women who dress in overly revealing ways and personal modesty in public.

But to say that women are more oppressed now because porn exists? you are basically admitting you have no appreciation for historical context. 30 years ago, it was acceptable for a man to rape his wife. It was legal. Now, even though things are by no means equal, we have entire movements and lobbying groups set up to ensure equal payment and so forth. Your argument is making you look silly here.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, as per this source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics - every 2 minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted. Shocking.

and 20 years ago that number would be about 50% higher.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are focusing on EXPECTATIONS from higher cognition. My point IS and HAS BEEN since the start that people continue to exploit and harm regardless of their cognition capabilities. Even decent people can and do horrible things upon opportunities or favorable circumstances. Just because rape statistics are on the decline - doesn't means that people have finally matured or stopped exploiting.

[...]

Terminate rules and regulations today and see how much higher cognition holds by itself. 🙄

I've never made the points you seem to be arguing here.

I don't think rules make most people behave well, no, but certainly I believe a police force with the monopoly on violence prevents a small percentage of psychopaths from dominating regular, peaceful people.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Well professor,

not actually an insult in this context...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
you need to do better research and not jusy stick to theories. I visit lot of forums and read lot about these subjects - and the knowledge that I gain from these communities is more then enough for me to form reasonable assessment. I suppose that you can do so too.

well, help me with something I don't really understand then. Your forum experience may be totally relevant here.

If the Globus Pallidus Interna is sending it's signals through the ventral anterior and ventral medial parts of the thalamus, based on inhibition from the putamin, is it the substantia nigra or the subthalamic nucleus that regulates inputs to the thalamus from the cerebellum, or am I confusing something about the direct circuit? or is it the indirect or super direct circuit?

Hopefully your forum experience can untangle my misunderstanding here....

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you insane? Human nature is human nature, yet not everyone is going to rape and steal if they had a free pass. ie Higher brain functions.

Also, do you think that a decent person cannot change?

Increase in immorality will pave way for further exploitation or spoil more minds.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why blame a criminal for a crime they committed? Mmmm, I dunno. (That was sarcasm) So you do believe a woman dressing in a fashion that temps men(in a way you deem not moral) gets raped, it's her fault. You're a sick bastard.

Originally posted by Robtard
There is a word called 'responsibility'; it's the responsibility of the rapist to not act on their impulses. You victim blamer.

Originally posted by Robtard
No you don't, you're throwing around desperate google searches and inimalist is slapping them down.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, retard angle. A woman's beauty can be arousing, it's really that basic.+

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF, are you a child? A heterosexual male being sexually attracted to a female he finds attractive isn't a sign of "pervertness". Masturbating on her and or being lewd against her wishes would be perverted. You are severely sexually repressed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ahahahaa, "don't read my fail debate with someone else". Stop crying and stop failing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another dodge, "not sexually provocative" is a broad term. Hoe exactly? In a burka? In full dresses? etc. Also, stop oppressing women, it's 2012.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another dodge, answering a question with a question. You claimed I was "didn't know morals", state what exactly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet another desperate grasp. What "pervertness" (which isn't a word, btw) have I showed or done?

Originally posted by Robtard
You clearly dislike women and as repeatedly seen, try to control them with your own personal sense of what you see as "moral" under the guise of protection.

On a serious note, any individual is free to do whatever he or she wants to do. I don't give a damn. But I am entitled to my opinions and do reserve the right to express them. This is what I am doing in this thread and you have blown the whole thing out of context.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the final responsibility for a person's thoughts, feelings and actions rest with that person. No one else. If a woman chooses to dance provocatively in a bar full of drunken men, that is her right, and she is responsible for her actions, just as I am responsible for my actions should I choose to walk through a "bad" neighborhood at night. However: neither the woman nor I am responsible for the choices and actions of anyone who attacks us. We may be guilty of poor judgment, thus opening the door to trouble. But trouble still has to choose to step through.

Since some members are using the terms "higher brain functions" or "higher cognition" for argumentation purposes in this thread; these members should realize that smart, educated and well-informed people act responsibly and fully understand the consequences of their actions. This does not means that such people cannot be moderate about sexuality or are sexually repressed but rather more responsible and careful.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Increase in immorality will pave way for further exploitation or spoil more minds.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is good assessment. 🙂

Since some members are using the terms "higher brain functions" or "higher cognition" for argumentation purposes in this thread; these members should realize that educated and smart people act responsibly. Such people understand the consequences of their actions and behave appropriately. This does not means that such people cannot be moderate about sexuality or are sexually repressed but rather more responsible and careful.