Stargate and Nudity

[Pandora's_Box]

Skimpy clothes showing cleavage are only arousing because they are a promise of nudity to come. They only work because nudity is a taboo in our society, because it is not normalized. Make nudity routine, and no one will be aroused by it.

Whoever it was that first covered their nudity, they invented more than just clothes to protect themselves from cold. They gave the human body its beauty, turned it into something to be treasured. They created a mystery, a ritual of seduction, a source of insatiable, lustful curiosity that became the main engine of what we today call culture. Normalizing nudity, reducing it to something trivial and routine would mean a loss of this mystery, a hyperinflation of human sexuality to the level of it not having any value, not even aesthetic value, beyond the mindless animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure. It would be a tremendous setback for humanity.

So adult and mature, you're almost justifying the rapists saying "she had it coming, wearing these provocative clothes". - and before you protest, what you're saying here, in, erm, slightly less sophisticated and mature language () is "the human body is seductive therefore it should be covered unless the intention is seduction". That is, women who do not cover their body are aiming at seducing, because their body has no value other than the animalistic pursuit of momentary pleasure, and so, they can't really complain when poor men see them and can't control their animalistic urges...

I know that's not what you meant to say, BTW. Well, hope so, at any rate. But this is exactly that kind of reasoning, and is quite a dangerous one.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Womble's whole point was one of perception and, to a point, conditioning.

The public, as a byproduct of hundreds of years of social conditioning, has maintained the perception that nudity is sexual and that sexuality is either wrong or only belongs in the privacy of one's home. Old customs dictated that sex was evil, lust was a sin, and therefore a woman's body (as something that apparantly provoked lust in all men always) was by association, dirty and evil and not to be looked upon. Thereby explaining hundreds of years of very restrictive clothing and strict proprietal customs.

Most people, and when I say most I do mean very nearly all, still associate bare skin with provacative feelings and actions. Cleavage is sexy. Long bare legs in a miniskirt are sexy. A man's bare torso is hot (although we do tend to be more accepting of male nudity...a whole other can of worms there gender inequality is). And this is mainly due to how people percieve nudity because if the idea hadn't been drilled it our society hundreds of years back that nudity and sex were sins and that any woman bearing skin was looking to steal a gentleman's hnour, than I guarantee we wouldn't have such a twisted view on looking at the human body in non-sexual manner.

And, yes, of course a woman in a miniskirt wants to bare her legs. Of course, she thinks she looks sexy and that is why she does it. But in no way does that automatically mean she wants sex or that she's consented to it. Are we still that archaic? Why am I even asking that? Duh....

[Major Clanger]

Maybe, just maybe, girls dress for themselves and other girls? I know I did (and still do)

[Womble]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Womble's whole point was one of perception and, to a point, conditioning.

The public, as a byproduct of hundreds of years of social conditioning, has maintained the perception that nudity is sexual and that sexuality is either wrong or only belongs in the privacy of one's home. Old customs dictated that sex was evil, lust was a sin, and therefore a woman's body (as something that apparantly provoked lust in all men always) was by association, dirty and evil and not to be looked upon. Thereby explaining hundreds of years of very restrictive clothing and strict proprietal customs.

It seems that while Pitry squinted one eye while reading my post, you chose to squint the other.

You are broadly correct about conditioning. You are, however, in a complete error regarding the "old customs". Occasional excesses of asceticism notwithstanding, these customs did not regard sex as evil or sinful, but as something that is valuable and therefore something to be brought under control rather than be exercised indiscriminately. The taboo on nudity was one of the main positive factors in creating civilization as we know it and in elevating our interpersonal relationships above the animalistic level.

Most people, and when I say most I do mean very nearly all, still associate bare skin with provacative feelings and actions. Cleavage is sexy. Long bare legs in a miniskirt are sexy. A man's bare torso is hot (although we do tend to be more accepting of male nudity...a whole other can of worms there gender inequality is). And this is mainly due to how people percieve nudity because if the idea hadn't been drilled it our society hundreds of years back that nudity and sex were sins and that any woman bearing skin was looking to steal a gentleman's hnour, than I guarantee we wouldn't have such a twisted view on looking at the human body in non-sexual manner.

Clothes as the enemy of womankind? Fascinating.

Why are you so convinced that the prohibition on nudity is "twisted" and something to be fought? Do you really want to demolish the richest, most complex and most satisfying layer of human interaction- the one which revolves around trying to get one another out of our clothes?

[Skydiver]

there's amassive double standard. dress as some would term modestly, not low cut, skirts not super short, have sleeves on your blouses or wear long sleeves adn you're mocked for being a frump.

wear loose clothes and you're just not dressing 'right' and there must be something wrong with you to be wearinig a 'tent'

yet dress with low cut tops, short skirts, sleeveless tops, tight clothes, and you MUST be dressing to attract a male thus must be asking for any attraction you get

there is a huge doublestandard attached to nudity. with guys, it's deemed that there's nothing sexual in their lack of breasts, thus it's fine for them to be topless. yet wrong for a female to be topless. because the boobs are sexually attractive thus must be covered to protect the poor males that simply cannot control themselves

However, as much as the double standard annoys me - and life is chock full of them - i still personally feel that we didn't NEED to see shau'ri standing there buck naked. it was put in because some person at slowtime wanted to see some boobs adn was put there for no other reason than one person's personal desire to get a little glimpse of some actress's boobs.

If it doesn't need to be in teh story, WHY put it in the story? and i say teh same thing about nudity taht i do violence. if i don't need to see some jaffa getting his brains blown out, then don't show me. I'm not so stupid that i have to see the character die in bloody detail to know that he's dead.

There are movie that are on my automatic pass list because i don't care for excessive and gratuitious violence. And there are movie makers who have the reputation for super gore and i give all their works a pass.

can we, the viewers, control what show makers do? no. we can't. some will pander to the nudity crowd, others to the ultra violence loving crowd.

fortunately there are plenty out there that simply walk the middle of the road and don't go to extremes.

[Pandora's_Box]

Well of course, as do I. That goes without saying. But, come one, we tend to wear miniskirts because we are fully aware how awesome our legs look in them. Or we wear lowcut shirts because they enhance what our mama's gave us.

Let's be honest about that at least.

Acknowledging our sexuality and embracing our bodies and still being adamant in refusing to sexualize every aspect of our bodies is step one getting people to realize that nudity does not equale sex does not equal obscene.

[Mister Oragahn]

the thing is, one reason people want to 'ban' nudity is because, as many have said, they equate nudity to sex/porn. language like 'showing her rack' and the other crudity that was used only reinforces that erronous assumption. when the very people that area advocating 'let the nudity run free' refer to it in crude sexual terms and innuendo and 'wink/wink/nudge/nudge', all they are doing is making it easier for the 'nudity = porn' folks to make their point.

If people really want nudity to be seen as no big deal, well then folks you have to treat it as if it really is no big deal. that means no dirty jokes, no crude comments, no nasty innuendo.

I treat it as no big deal. Stop twisting my words and sidetracking the point.
Next time I'll purely use medical terms. Whatever.

[Womble]

Maybe, just maybe, girls dress for themselves and other girls? I know I did (and still do)

Sure they do dress for other girls- when they are lesbians

Seriously though- yes, there is a lot of women who will say that they put on sexy underwear, miniskirts and such because they like it. The more self-aware ones will go a little further and admit that they like such clothes because wearing them makes them feel better about themselves. But then the question arises- why DO they feel better about themselves when flashing their legs and baring their bosoms? Is it not a function of the same social conditioning, the deeply internalized notion that it is right for women to show off their assets and wear that which attracts men and vice versa?

[Pandora's_Box]

It seems that while Pitry squinted one eye while reading my post, you chose to squint the other.

You are broadly correct about conditioning. You are, however, in a complete error regarding the "old customs". Occasional excesses of asceticism notwithstanding, these customs did not regard sex as evil or sinful, but as something that is valuable and therefore something to be brought under control rather than be exercised indiscriminately. The taboo on nudity was one of the main positive factors in creating civilization as we know it and in elevating our interpersonal relationships above the animalistic level.

Our interpersonal relationships were not at the animalistic level before Christianity came about, FYI.

We might just have to agree to disagree because you and I have, what seem to be, very different views on historical occurances and the reasoning attributed to certain customs.

Clothes as the enemy of womankind? Fascinating.

Why are you so convinced that the prohibition on nudity is "twisted" and something to be fought? Do you really want to demolish the richest, most complex and most satisfying layer of human interaction- the one which revolves around trying to get one another out of our clothes?

Clothing? Enemy of womankind? Honestly...did I say that? Why? Because I maintain that forcing woman to wear high-necked, floor grazing gowns and then scorning a woman who dared to bare her ankle was atrocious?

The prohibition on nudiuty I do see as twisted not because I want to see everyone walking around naked or having sex on street corners, but because I am sick and tired of seeing people appalled at bare breasts, demanding that we pixelate bare butts, and getting all high and mighty over the corruptive influence of nudity on television and in the movies on their children when they allow said children to watch violence galore, play violent games, and engage in violent gameplay.

No....it's fine to see a severed head and T'ealc or Ronon being beaten to a pulp on TV but show someone a bare nipple, ala Janet Jackson, and not only do you get the worst case of over-reactive and sensaltionist cenorship we've seen in recent years, but Janet Jackson was the one scorned and tsk-tsked while Justin Timberlake, who I may point out was complicent in the action, remained the golden boy.

Yes, that is "twisted".

[Pandora's_Box]

Sure they do dress for other girls- when they are lesbians

Seriously though- yes, there is a lot of women who will say that they put on sexy underwear, miniskirts and such because they like it. The more self-aware ones will go a little further and admit that they like such clothes because wearing them makes them feel better about themselves. But then the question arises- why DO they feel better about themselves when flashing their legs and baring their bosoms? Is it not a function of the same social conditioning, the deeply internalized notion that it is right for women to show off their assets and wear that which attracts men and vice versa?

The only part of that that is due to social conditioning is the part where women only dress that way to attract male attention.

[Major Clanger]

Well of course, as do I. That goes without saying. But, come one, we tend to wear miniskirts because we are fully aware how awesome our legs look in them. Or we wear lowcut shirts because they enhance what our mama's gave us.

Let's be honest about that at least.

Acknowledging our sexuality and embracing our bodies and still being adamant in refusing to sexualize every aspect of our bodies is step one getting people to realize that nudity does not equale sex does not equal obscene.

You're right, of course. Tell you what - I'll even come clean and admit that I'll undo another blouse button and lean over a counter in a shop if I think it will get me better service

That still doesn't mean I'm available though. hehe

[Womble]

Our interpersonal relationships were not at the animalistic level before Christianity came about, FYI.

The prohibition of nudity existed before Christianity as well. There's hardly a culture in history that did not have it in place.

Clothing? Enemy of womankind? Honestly...did I say that? Why? Because I maintain that forcing woman to wear high-necked, floor grazing gowns and then scorning a woman who dared to bare her ankle was atrocious?

Like I said, there were certain ascetic tendencies that went overboard, but we are so far past that by now that your criticism is outdated by a century. Having just walked down the street, I've seen far more women in low-cut tops, off-the-shoulder tops and tops that leave their backs bare all the way down to their waist than I've seen women covered head to toe- and my country is way more tradition-observing than yours.

The prohibition on nudiuty I do see as twisted not because I want to see everyone walking around naked or having sex on street corners, but because I am sick and tired of seeing people appalled at bare breasts, demanding that we pixelate bare butts, and getting all high and mighty over the corruptive influence of nudity on television and in the movies on their children when they allow said children to watch violence galore, play violent games, and engage in violent gameplay.

No....it's fine to see a severed head and T'ealc or Ronon being beaten to a pulp on TV but show someone a bare nipple, ala Janet Jackson, and not only do you get the worst case of over-reactive and sensaltionist cenorship we've seen in recent years, but Janet Jackson was the one scorned and tsk-tsked while Justin Timberlake, who I may point out was complicent in the action, remained the golden boy.

Yes, that is "twisted".

No it's not. The comparison between nudity and violence is fundamentally hypocritical, and those making it do not actually treat the two as equivalent.

[Pandora's_Box]

My point is not that they are equivalent, I said as much in an earlier post, and so if one is allowed than so should the other be. I don't believe that.

My point is that nudity is not obscene and should not be treated as such.

My point is that violence is freely shown everywhere, giving people the option to potentially change the channel if they are offended by what they see. Guess what, that can also apply to see a nude body.

No, you know what....I'm going to take it a step further and say that I don't mind love scenes. If they happen to be integral to the plot, then the showrunner should have the option and the freedom to show it. Because, wonder of wonders, people do fall in love, and people do make love or have sex or whatever you're comfortable in calling it.

My point is that I do believe it to be twisted that freedom of espression extends only so far as we allow murder to be shown, the ultimate evil if you will, and not love. And if go with another poster's logic, murder is allowed to be shown because it's not real. So I say again, neither would the sex be.

[Womble]

The only part of that that is due to social conditioning is the part where women only dress that way to attract male attention.

Rubbish. Your sense of aesthetics is a result of social conditioning. Your idea of what is a "normal" look for a human body is a result of social conditioning. Your entire idea of "looking good" has been dictated to you, whether you are conscious of it or not.

[Pandora's_Box]

Rubbish. Your sense of aesthetics is a result of social conditioning. Your idea of what is a "normal" look for a human body is a result of social conditioning. Your entire idea of "looking good" has been dictated to you, whether you are conscious of it or not.

Granted, yes. But only to a point. There are always going to be fashions and trends and those are always changing. And yes, there are a lot of people that are steadfast in their belief that fashion magazines and celebrity diet secrets are gospel. Just like there are a lot of people that are steasfast in believing old-fashioned perceptions of nudity.

But there are people that have manage to buck the view on nudity. And so, it stands to reason that there are people that have managed to buck societal conceptions on beauty and normalacy as well.

As for being conscious of my conditioning....I choose to believe that everyone is capable of independant thought. Some people don't excercise it, but I think everyone is capable of it. But then, I think the people who don't excercise it are making a choice too so.....

[Womble]

My point is not that they are equivalent, I said as much in an earlier post, and so if one is allowed than so should the other be. I don't believe that.

My point is that nudity is not obscene and should not be treated as such.

My point is that violence is freely shown everywhere, giving people the option to potentially change the channel if they are offended by what they see. Guess what, that can also apply to see a nude body.

It can. Doesn't mean it should.

I would argue that while your observation is largely true, you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Our current situation is not lack of nudity and abundance of violence, but rather an overload of both, in most cases without sufficient artistic justification for either. The media thrives on controversy and shock effect, but it is running out of things to shock us with. The shower scene in Hitchcock's "Psycho" was groundbreakingly gruesome once; it looks mundane now compared to the carnage in your average Quentin Tarantino flick. We don't mind violence because we've been overexposed to it, our senses are numbed. What you are suggesting would do the same to nudity, whether you intend for it or not, because the prudish attitude you so despise actually IS the only restraint preventing our TV from being flooded with naked tits. You may think people will have a choice to not watch, but in reality it will become impossible to find a movie without it. It will be the case of "you can have it any color you like, as long as it's black".

There is, however, a difference. Depictions if violence in the media are, on average, MORE justified than depictions of nudity in their artistic value.

Movies and TV, inasmuch as they are art, revolve around the same two themes as the rest of art does- namely, love and death. This gives them no choice but to show their practical expressions, of which nudity and violence are part. However, while it is impossible to deal with the subject of death without an exposure to violence, our notion of love is not as heavily linked to sex and nudity, making the latter possible to avoid or just be hinted upon. This does not mean sex or nudity need never be shown, but it does make the choice of showing nudity a lot more gratuitious by nature than a choice of showing violence.