What is nudity?

[Ed]

I always think of nudity as a lack of clothes, but I’ve been looking at community rules on several social media systems and how they are applied. Much the same rules are applied in society in general. Think of beach attire, on a busy “family-friendly” beach along a seafront. Swimming costumes which essentially expose the entire bottom are deemed mainstream and acceptable. Bottoms are clearly not seen as a problem (depending on how they are exposed, of course). Genitals are a quite different case. On most social media sites and walking along the previously-described beach, they must be kept covered.

What about breasts? We tend to think that to remain decent, breasts should be covered, but when it comes to bikini tops, summer dresses and those gowns worn at celebrity award ceremonies, breasts clearly aren’t a problem, it’s simply nipples. Even the shape of nipples is permitted, just not the actual skin. Near nudity where genitals and female nipples are covered is widely acceptable.

If someone (a lady in this case!) were to wear an outfit where she was completely covered except for her nipples and pubic area, it would be hard to say she was “naked” but her outfit would not be acceptable either in public or on social media (according to the rules).

, Arthur, Martin and 2 more people like this

[ptHarry]

The weird thing about nipples is that male and female nipples aren’t significantly different, yet one is generally accepted, the other is generally not.

The main difference that “stands out” is that one of them tends to be housed in prominent breasts, the other tends to be housed in less-prominent breasts.

And yet:

• despite it being the breasts that are more likely to be different between the sexes, it’s more generally accepted to show every part of the female breast but hide the nipple
• a nipple on a flat female chest is more likely to be considered unacceptable than a nipple on a curvaceous male chest, if there’s enough else showing to know whether it’s on a male or female body.

But it has always been the case that the law is written by legal professionals whose primary reason for making them so pointlessly difficult to understand is that by doing so, it creates more work for those in the legal profession.

Ed and Martin like this

[Ed]

That’s true. I guess that’s why they are so ridiculously vague making laws for the adult industry.

[RFLE58]

The distinction between male and female breasts is gradually becoming less and less clear.

In some cities, women are now also allowed to go topless in swimming pools.

I think that’s normal, good and right. Nobody gets upset about naked women’s upper bodies in magazines either.

But for me, being naked is also the most normal thing in the world.

Ed and Martin like this

[Ed]

I’m sure most people are “offended” by nudity solely because they believe that people around them are offended by it. I suspect that, if everyone was properly honest, very very few are upset by nudity.

Diana, RFLE58 and ptHarry like this

[Diana]

This is a very interesting subject, and I actually just had a conversation about this the other day.

We typically think that our ancestors adopted clothes for warmth, but, I do not believe this to be the case. If you look at the attire of tribals in let’s say, Africa or the Amazon , you will see that their garments do not offer any warmth at all. Therefore, there has to be another reason.

when cultures and groups that had no contact with one another and live in different areas and have different believes all universally cover the area between their legs, and when a woman doesn’t have that area covered and is topless, she is naked. Depending on who you ask and when in time, for a woman to have a loin cloth and be bare chested, she wasn’t naked, and she would have no shame. But take away her loin cloth and she would be embarrassed. Maybe it has to do with some cultures being more ‘free’ with sex, and those cultures having topless women isn’t seen as negative as it is in more modest groups or settings? I can only make educated guesses.

what I do know though, is that the reason men and women always cover their genitalia between their legs is because there had to be some sexual/protection/modesty like reason for it.

Arthur, RFLE58 and Ed like this

[Ed]

I think the warmth theory does hold some weight. When humans lived in Africa, there wasn’t much need for it, but as they spread north into Europe, the temperatures would have been far too cold for staying naked. About 10 months out of 12, it’s too cold to not wear clothes where I live. Clothing would be an absolute necessity.

Diana likes this

[Diana]

Totally agree that there are regions in the world where clothing are essential due to warmth, but, for it to just be warmth would mean that those in regions that support nudity would be naked, and in those regions the clothing there is often just something to protect genitals.

Ed and ptHarry like this

[Anonymous]

For me, nudity is having no clothes on whatsoever, completely naked from the toes up.

Ed likes this

[John]

Probably one of the stories that got me interested in the subject, if anyone remembers the Mormon on the bedpost court case?

The Defendant, a sexy blonde, kipnapped a young Mormon bloke as she wanted to get pregnant by him.

I remember this printed extract

Judge so you were naked at this point?

No I was not, I was wearing socks.

So were you otherwise naked?

If people are outside there may be a necessity for footwear, so I would go with all your private parts being uncovered.

 

Ed likes this

[Ed]

I have to admit, I’ve never heard of that case.

[John]

She was called Joyce McKinney, I think they made a film of it, but I could have imagined that. From memory she skipped bail half way through the court cases

Ed and like this

[Anonymous]

The Mormon in question was kidnapped here in my home town?  And the Daily Mirror I think truffled out nude pictures of McKinney when she had previously done some modelling.

John and Ed like this

[Ed]

I should do a poll to measure opinions on whether someone wearing shoes counts are NOT naked.

[Martin]

Personally I feel that full nude is everything off – including rings and glasses! If I know I need to see when “full nude” I’d wear contact lenses; if I don’t need to see that well then I wouldn’t.

Ed likes this

[Arthur]

@Ed

“I should do a poll to measure opinions on whether someone wearing shoes counts are NOT naked.”

I would probably be a good idea as they are numerous pictures here of people who are basically naked but otherwise wearing shoes or sandals because even if you’re going outdoors naked recreationally you don’t want to be going around barefoot because you could step on something and hurt yourself.

My general rule of thumb is if you can see all of the interesting stuff, the private areas and you are wearing nothing on your body you are basically naked. To me a person wearing shoes is technically naked as far as I am concerned. I actually think it’s rather attractive when a person is completely naked but maybe wearing shoes or gloves or a hat or something like that because somehow it seems like they are a little bit less naked but I would still technically say that they are naked but seem like there a little bit more dressed than somebody who is not wearing shoes, gloves or a hat, which again seems like a real nitpicky kind of thing but that’s kind of my attitude towards it. I consider clothing more along things you drape over your body where shoes are more like an accessory.

ptHarry and Ed like this

[Author]

Posts