Well this is such a broad topic; for one should sex and nudism be embraced as art or an act of god (yes everyone knows "m atheist =/). Or should it be frowned upon because its smutty and dirty. And like many things there is a middle ground, for e.g. doing something in your own privacy is your bussiness.

I've always thought that great civilizations and time periods such as the roman empire and Victorian era were very embracing of sexuality and nudism. For example some structures in the roman empire have statues with full frontal nudity, noways these are considered smut and are censored. Should we be given what people long a ago seen or should be hidden (shells were placed to censor these statues) However these censors nowadays have been removed and restored to their full intent.(shells removed)

Post has been edited 10 time(s), last time on May 22 2011, 7:04 pm by Tempz.

some people should be naked all the time, others should be locked in a cage and thrown under water.

no human has the right to enact laws for either of these contrasts, and therefore it is a matter of public opinion. Each to their own I say.

Edit: and you do know Photoshop right?

Photoshop or not, those pictures are pretty damn funny.

Where have you seen these statues censored? I've been to Rome, Florence, Pompeii, and other place where you can clearly see full-frontal nudity on statues and in paintings, and none of them have been censored. I don't think I've ever seen a statue censored.

Well there was a house i did go see at it was censored...

@Devlin
why did you have to remove the images; its was just harmless fun and it was supposed to be a joke and a discussion

Edit : for those who don't know the images where images of plants that look like male and female body parts (you know...)

I understand it was supposed to be a joke. But you posted this in LD, not Null. Having people being more interested in the "funny pictures" than the discussion makes this seem less serious than you may want it to be. If you did want it to be less serious, I can move it to Null.

What house? That's not very good evidence to back that up.

They're funny if you were born yesterday and thrown onto the internet. They've been around for easily a decade now.

Let's discuss the photos and make devlin RAGE.

but srsly. light discussion about this?

You might have confused the 'censoring' of 'art' by some mad pope in the 16th century (I beleive) who went on a crusade and defaced hundreds of public statues because he beleived them to be impure representations of gods creation. I don't have the facts but that did definitely happen, and for the most part all the statues have been repaired.

I don't know about statues being censored but many paintings have been censored. A lot of Michelangelo's paintings, particularly in the Sistine Chapel, had cloths painted over them under the commands of the Pope after Michelangelo's death.

I see nothing wrong with nudity, though most of us have been socially conditioned to find it distasteful or what not. Basically if a law passed tomorrow saying everyone can be naked anywhere they want I would not complain, though I wouldn't go around naked myself.

Censored statue (taken from the wikipedia article on fig leaf).. it is a thing.


I have absolutely no problem with nudity in art or even displays of public nudity ... I figure that is how we are born, that is how we exist .. so why should we reject that? (If God intended us to be clothed, we would be born wearing little shorts, a tiny little sweater, a small cap, and some slippers.) I might draw a line at overly sexual nudity .. but even then I personally wouldn't react much if I saw it in public (probably just a "lolwat").

I've always seen clothes as being utterly useless when it comes to summer: you see everyone sweating, and yet forcing themselves to wear clothing. Makes no sense to me.
However, as I was thinking total nudity shouldn't be that much of a big deal in societies, I think it could in our modern societies: sexual diseases would probably spread much faster... just think of public transport and the number of people who sit on those chairs.
Thus, I like to claim underwears have their reason of being.

I like clothes. And more importantly, I don't like seeing other people's fat flaps.

An increasingly important factor in the progression of clothes in American society.

Plus, what would women do if they didn't have clothes? Clothes are a very important part of any society.

Plus women who don't wear bras have like tube sock breasts 0_o

It's a false need created by modern society. If we were raised into the respect of others, and not giving a damn about obesity, this just wouldn't be a problem.
Initial clothing's goal is to protect our body from cold. If I remember well, some historians also claim that a secondary goal in primitive clans was to prevent men from seeing when a woman was excited (when we were on 4 'paws', apparently, women's ass was slightly tinted pink or red when they were excited).

And what's the point with women requiring clothes? I really don't understand why you've decided not to claim so for men.

Rationally, how could this matter? I think it's an evolution advantage in fact: easier reach for babies. ;D

Well, if you're okay with walking barefoot through my vomit.

Men don't give a shit what they wear, unless they're gay. Women on the other hand... see my point now? They'd have no purpose in life anymore. They'd all sit in a corner and wallow away in sadness...

Shoes are useful clothing: protection is their goal.

Inappropriate in some cases, maybe.
Appropriate clothing is highly useful against excess heat. It provides shade, can promote proper air flow under the correct circumstances, and can provide greater surface area and thermal conductivity over bare skin against air with which to lose heat.

True clothing would be something to slip on the bottoms of our feet and something so our junk doesn't flap in the wind. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.

The need to have something preventing your junk from flapping in the wind is is a false need created by a false society. Let it swing free, my brother!