Nudity: Moral or Immoral?

[Valjean]

I believe Gods wants us to cover ourselves. Adam and Eve "discovered their nakedness" and covered up. This need followed from the fall. Exactly how much to cover and when is subject to interpretation.

So let me get this straight. God created them naked. He was pleased with their nudity, but after their minds were warped by eating some forbidden fruit they decided to cover themselves up -- and God was pleased with this?

 

[निताइ dasa]

You're equating nudity with 'our sexual urges/life'. I don't see these as intrinsically connected.

I think in the context of our society they are. Bodies have become heavily sexualized in our western context. You have that same situation in an african tribe situation, not so much. I believe that certain aspects of nudity are certainly connected to sexual urges (think survival of a fittest. Sexual urges arise for a more 'desirable mate').

But does nudity have sexual connotations because we only encounter it in a sexual context? Would it still be titillating if it were commonly encountered in ordinary, non-sexual situations?

Yes! That is my point. It really depends on what our society had decided to sexualize. Now the question holds, should society sexualize these things? are there certain parts of the body that always hold sexual connotations in all societies? ( I believe there are).

As for discussing sex, why should this be a forbidden topic?

I said discussing sex (or rather flaunting it) in public life, is looked down upon by certain people. The stance goes that since sex is an extremity emotional and personal engagement, it should only be discussed in extremely personal contexts. Discussing is anywhere else reduces its value . I would not personally argue this way, but the point stands.

More likely it operates on the basis that sex is shocking, makes you uncomfortable and should be hidden away.

Well, I know for certain that the Hindus treat sex as primal urge that needs to be given up or restrained if you are to progress spiritually. In-fact sexual urge is put in the same category as anger and greed in the Gita, not because it is intrinsically bad (sex is needed to procreate), but because it causes a human being to do crazy things. I mean even in our western society, there is so much pressure for individuals to look "sexual", otherwise you are not going to find a partner and have a "miserable" life. We objectify each other, and really have no control over our sexual urges. Buddhism also feels this way. Many Christians feel that sex is a bond that is ordained by God and occurs within marriage, and hence is in a sense 'divine'. That is why I would have to disagree with your generalization here.

et the "sky clad" Jains walk around completely naked -- to avoid attachment and promote a spiritual life.

Jains are not Hindus. Even the Aghora babas (who do walk around naked) are part of a very renounced group of society. The general people don't follow such practices
.

And didn't the Greeks treat overindulgence in anything as a character flaw? Weren't the ancient Greeks famous for their casual nudity?

Yes they did. Well certain philosophers (like Socrates) had this view, that a Greek man should restrain himself from sexual pleasures for they are base and corrupt the soul (that much is very clear in Plato's republic). And remember, that in Greek society, since men were the dominant class, it was the women who were most often sexualised, and hence they had to cover up. That is why often, female statues of the Greeks had cloth coverings (known as Venus Pudica), while men were completely naked.

 

[Jainarayan]

So let me get this straight. God created them naked. He was pleased with their nudity, but after their minds were warped by eating some forbidden fruit they decided to cover themselves up -- and God was pleased with this?

"Complicated fellow, isn't he?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Working in a medical profession which requires me to have patients undressed frequently has removed much of the shyness or abashed feelings I might have had over nudity. To me it's just a body. I have no particular feelings about another person who is simply unclothed. Even if that person is attractive. Similarly I'm not repulsed by seeing the naked bodies of the very old or obese or sickly. All just bodies to me.

 

[Valjean]

I think in the context of our society they are. Bodies have become heavily sexualized in our western context. You have that same situation in an african tribe situation, not so much. I believe that certain aspects of nudity are certainly connected to sexual urges (think survival of a fittest. Sexual urges arise for a more 'desirable mate').

In our western societies women's fashions are often designed to sexualize. They're designed to titillate, and they're constantly changing so men don't lose interest. But there's only so much you can do with nudity. If it became commonplace I suspect it would soon become unremarkable.
A nude society is a non-sexualized society.

Yes! That is my point. It really depends on what our society had decided to sexualize. Now the question holds, should society sexualize these things? are there certain parts of the body that always hold sexual connotations in all societies? ( I believe there are).

Those would be the genitals themselves. Apart from them, what society chooses to sexualize is cultural. If it became common for women to walk around topless in Summer it would soon become unremarkable and non-sexual, just as it did with bare arms and legs.

I said discussing sex (or rather flaunting it) in public life, is looked down upon by certain people. The stance goes that since sex is an extremity emotional and personal engagement, it should only be discussed in extremely personal contexts. Discussing is anywhere else reduces its value . I would not personally argue this way, but the point stands.

I think discussing it removes the mystery and shame of it. It makes us more comfortable with sex and increases its value.
.

 

[निताइ dasa]

A nude society is a non-sexualized society.

Doesn't that contradict your other statement (about genitals being sexualized)? . If genitals themselves are sexualised universally then a nude society would be sexualised in the public sphere.

I think discussing it removes the mystery and shame of it. It makes us more comfortable with sex and increases its value.

All cool It is a reasonable point. I don't think there is implied shame by not talking about it. There is a word in Hindi called laaj, which really has no translation to English . It sorta means modesty, but with positive connotations. For example, if a person is ashamed/modest of showing his/her body to someone else apart from their lover, then that shame/modestry (or laaj) is actually seen as a praiseworthy trait and testifies to the strength of their relationship. I don't know whether its a cultural thing, but at least to me it makes alot of sense.

Nice talk.

 

[Father Heathen]

The human body is natural. Why on earth would it be "immoral", other than due to completely irrational, arbitrary, cultural nonsense?

 

[Scott C.]

So let me get this straight. God created them naked. He was pleased with their nudity, but after their minds were warped by eating some forbidden fruit they decided to cover themselves up -- and God was pleased with this?

God planned from the beginning...before creation...that the world would be created as a paradise...and man and woman would fall...dramatic changes would come to the world as a result. Sin would enter the world. A Savior would be provided. Yes, God was pleased with the fall, because only through the fall could we live in a world of trials, afflictions, growth, and joy. My scriptures teach that there must be opposition for us to grow. We grow in this world, but would not in the original paradise. My scriptures teach that "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." That is one of the most profound principles to be understood in the plan of salvation, IMO.

 

[4consideration]

I don't see it as a question of natural. It's "natural" for humans to war on competing tribes. Natural isn't always desirable.

I agree, and I believe I indicated what is natural is not always desirable, just in different words.

The OP asks about the morality of nudity. Morality, as I see it, equates with harm, not personal discomfort. Some people are uncomfortable with anything unconventional or novel. They'd outlaw change itself.

I am aware the OP was asking about morality. I included what I did about things being natural to partially address that point being brought up by other posters. In my first post I stated, "Nudity is our natural state and is neither moral nor immoral..." I don't think my subsequent post backtracks or contradicts that statement.

I agree with what you say here.

I think morally is about "right action" and determining that depends on how one first assesses what the situation is, and then what one believes to be the "right" or best course of action, or at least action that is not harmful. Still, since we're talking about morality, I'm thinking along the lines of what I consider right in specific situations.

When women first began wearing brassieres people found them shocking and immodest. They drew attention to the breasts. Today we're more likely to be shocked if a woman doesn't wear a bra. What changed?
It's what's unusual that raises eyebrows. Nothing is intrinsically shocking.

As for shocking children, it's adults that are shocked by nudity, not children. To children everything is novel and remarkable. They have to be taught what's improper; what to be shocked by.

I think in determining what is moral/not harmful one has to take people and situations as we find them, not what we think they ought to be. I also think you may have missed my point in that I think "morality" is specifically right action for a given situation.

IMO, it would be wrong, therefore immoral, in this context to decide that because nudity is natural, and kids have to be taught to be shocked by it -- it would be ok (moral) to treat them as though they see things in the way one thinks they should see things, instead of the way they are more likely to actually see them. One can't alter the potential outcome of something by simply disagreeing about whether or not it ought to be that way. Like saying: You shouldn't even have a concept of there being anything wrong with nudity, therefore any place you encounter it, you should be completely comfortable with it, so now you won't be traumatized if a naked man walks up to you in your elementary school.

Children in school where I live (afasik) already have a concept that people should wear clothes, and I think it would be shocking to the harmful extent for a man/woman to be parading around naked in a school full of children. Just because we might decide amongst ourselves the whole idea of shock/shame around nudity is silly, that would not change the effect of the childrens' experience today. I believe it would frighten them and cause them to feel in danger. It's not the nudity itself, but the situation/action and application of nudity, that would be wrong. Now, if it was a school in a tribal or communal location where nudity was the norm, it would be expected, accepted, and in no way harmful to the kids.

I think morality is, and ought to be, flexible with the changing times. Like the modes of dress you mentioned, things change and the way we view things change. Therefore, what is considered moral is likely to change. I think that's good. Some things were harmful since way back when, and will continue to be harmful into the future, i.e. murder, stealing, rape, etc. I expect those things to continue to be considered immoral.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

God planned from the beginning...before creation...that the world would be created as a paradise...and man and woman would fall...dramatic changes would come to the world as a result.

Why would god create it if he knew it would fail?

Yes, God was pleased with the fall

That sounds rather sadistic that an event that would lead people to damnation pleased god. Isn't he supposed to be loving, merciful, and benevolent?

 

[Scott C.]

Why would god create it if he knew it would fail?

That sounds rather sadistic that an event that would lead people to damnation pleased god. Isn't he supposed to be loving, merciful, and benevolent?

You shouldn't assume that I as a Mormon see the fall and damnation the same way as most Christians. There are similarities but also some notable differences.

It didn't fail. The world followed the course God planned from the beginning. God intended that we live in a fallen world. It can't be a fallen world unless it fell from somewhere. That somewhere was it's state after creation. The fall, atonement, and eternal life all fit together logically when all scriptures are considered together.

I know most people won't read quotations from scripture. But here goes anyway. This link is to one chapter in the Book of Mormon. It explains the answer to your question better than I can.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2?lang=eng

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The world followed the course God planned from the beginning.

But why would he plan it? It sounds cruel and sadistic, almost like putting a rat in a cage that contains poison.

 

[Demonslayer]

God intended that we live in a fallen world

What a dick.

 

[Scott C.]

What a dick.

Wow.

 

[Scott C.]

But why would he plan it? It sounds cruel and sadistic, almost like putting a rat in a cage that contains poison.

More like sending a child to school.

 

[Demonslayer]

Wow.

If God doesn't want me to call him a dick, he shouldn't have intentionally stuffed me in a fallen world.

Where is he, lemme give the big fella a piece of my mind! I'm going to hell either way, I might as well tell the Cosmic Bully to stuff it before I go.

 

[Demonslayer]

More like sending a child to school.

Yeah but a crappy inner city school with crackhead teachers.

 

[Scott C.]

If God doesn't want me to call him a dick, he shouldn't have intentionally stuffed me in a fallen world.

Where is he, lemme give the big fella a piece of my mind! I'm going to hell either way, I might as well tell the Cosmic Bully to stuff it before I go.

Why do you think you're going to hell?

 

[Demonslayer]

Why do you think you're going to hell?

I'm a damn dirty atheist that's why.

I'm just kidding, I don't believe in hell of course. But if you look at the criteria for salvation in every major religion, I don't qualify.

Looks like I'm not getting my own planet when I die.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More like sending a child to school.

I wouldn't send a child to a school that teaches slavery, genocide, harsh corporal punishment, and severely harsh punishments for just being human. I don't send them to school to be beaten and taught do this or be rejected. And we can work on attempting to improve, while the tenants of the Bible do not. This covers many issues, and nudity is one of them because a naked body is nothing shocking, surprising, over whelming, or any big deal. Nudists colonies are nude everywhere you look, and they're doing just fine. We may as well be making a big fuss over the dangers posed by a single dark cloud in clear blue sky. It's nothing spectacular, it's nothing dangerous, and there is no logical reason for saying it's ok to expose certain parts of the body but not others. What really is the difference between genitals and feet, or breasts and adam's apples? Anywhere you look on the body, there is most likely at least one culture that has found it sexually appealing, or sexually disgusting. We don't consider being a child shameful, so because we are born naked, and spend so much time being naked, why is it considered shameful and wrong to be naked? And just think of what it would do in terms of "class" when everybody is walking around in their natural state?