• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is Public Nudity Wrong or Immoral?

Vendetta

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
JPWhite said:
I agree that a woman's breast can be viewed as sexual. Can I assume from your post that men's breasts/nipples are not sexual? For your information men's breasts/nipples are involved in the sex act as are women's. An erogenous zone is an erogenous zone. In fact men's breasts *cannot* be used for nursing, which (following your argument) only leaves the sexual implication. So why is it OK for a man to go topless in public but not a woman? Would it not make *more* sense to ban male toplessness while allowing women's, since women DO have a credible non-sexual reason to expose them? If on the other hand one accepts (as I do) that both men and women are capable of exposing their upper body for non sexual reasons, then what purpose does the law banning female toplessness really serve?

In addition I don't understand what you are driving at when you say 'guys know what I mean'. Are you suggesting women don't have this universal knowledge while men do? As a guy you don't offend me, but if I were a woman this comment would certainly raise the hairs on the back of my neck.
Click to expand...

I do not hold the same view as men because socially it is more acceptible for a male to walk around with his shirt off. I believe a man's nipple is more seen as an erogenous zone rather than an image of sexual imagry. I believe the laws in place for banning women exposing the upper part of their body is more along the lines of Judeo-Christian tradition than any reasonable one. As for your last sentence come on give me a break I was being subtle in my sexual humor and no, I wasn't insinuating women don't know but was actually trying to refrain from being inappropriate I do realize people are quite sensitive here.
 
Last edited:
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
sniper762 said:
archer, is that the reason god clothed them
Click to expand...

Well there was Adam and Eve? Nope what I said ain't Biblical it was a secular answer to the question.

Guys don't want their women drooling over their buddy's Johnson and women don't want their men getting an erection every time an attractive woman bends over.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
sniper762 said:
well mr "i believe in the bible" why did god cloth them?
Click to expand...

Genesis 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 8Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”


21The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

This is the Biblical Story. Fact or not it is meant to teach something.

Is it wrong? No. God created man naked but after eating from the tree Man changed not God.

Is it immoral? No. Man was not made with clothes.

In our modern world it is nothing more than a social construct.

Sniper it is clothe not cloth.

Clothe: Put clothes on (oneself or someone); dress
Cloth: a pliable material made usually by weaving, felting, or knitting natural or synthetic fibers and filaments
 
Last edited:
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
sniper762 said:
but the question is

WHY did god make them clothes? social construct?
Click to expand...

So they would show themselves. Examples in the Bible of what not to ware are abundant. Wool and linen together and the like but it is for the benefit od man that we are clothed not God. Our eyes wander leading us to Sin therfore because we are week we have clothes.

Side note. I find a woman more attractive in good fitting clothing. A skirt or dress can better define a shape at times.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
sniper762 said:
wool and linen were not present then, neither were 'men" so your answer doesnt hold water
Click to expand...

Really? Gee do you think I might have been using examples from somewhere else in the Bible? I did say examples in the Bible.

What does "men" have to do with it? Did I say "men"? I mean my typing sux but where did I say men?
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Storm said:
Doesn't happen once you get used to it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Let me put in my cent. er sorry paisa.

Often bare breasts bring moisture to my eyes and lump in my throat. Bare breasts evoke the thought of divinity - the compassion, the innocence, the food. OTOH, a cleavage is entirely another thing. This is mAyA -- illusion that sends blood boiling. And this again is the juice of life in another fashion.

IMO, both views are required. I feel that instead of forcing things, enjoying life as it is and as it comes up, with pure heart, is a good policy.
 
Last edited:
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
atanu said:
Yes. Let me put in my cent. er sorry paisa.

Often bare breasts bring moisture to my eyes and lump in my throat. Bare breasts evoke the thought of divinity in me - the compassion, the innocence, the food. OTOH, a cleavage is entirely another thing. This is mAyA -- illusion that sends blood boiling. And this again is the juice of life in another fashion.

IMO, both views are required. I feel that instead of forcing things, enjoying life as it is and as it comes up, with pure heart, is a good policy.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought that just occurred to me from reading Atanu's post.

Maybe I'm strange, but it seems to me that blatant cleavage and small bikinis are more sexually oriented than simple naked breasts. This is because both of those things are geared towards drawing sexual attention to them, whereas bare breasts are just bare breasts.

Thoughts?

PS, unfortunately it doesn't always work for us poorly endowed women. :(

swimmingavtr.jpg
 
FlyingTeaPot

FlyingTeaPot

Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Meow Mix said:
Here's a thought that just occurred to me from reading Atanu's post.

Maybe I'm strange, but it seems to me that blatant cleavage and small bikinis are more sexually oriented than simple naked breasts. This is because both of those things are geared towards drawing sexual attention to them, whereas bare breasts are just bare breasts.

Thoughts?

PS, unfortunately it doesn't always work for us poorly endowed women. :(

swimmingavtr.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes! I think suggestively dressed women are far more sexy than totally nude women.
 
Vendetta

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
I wonder how many women would find him immoral:

Moderator cut: image removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top