| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
slutty (0)
|
Nope, but there are way too many that do! I still hear bozos talk about how nudity in art is too sexual for kids to see - it is the human form jackass!
Edit: the jackass was directed at the bozos I spoke of, not the pollster.
|
09-26-10 12:04am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
graymane (Suspended)
|
The best answer to this poll would be a visit to a nudist Colony.
I rest my case.
|
09-26-10 12:05am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
turboshaft (0)
|
No.
Even if I did, what would be wrong with that?
|
09-26-10 12:45am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Capn (0)
|
It depends on the context.
I would have voted 'sometimes' if it had been an option.
Cap'n. :0)
|
09-26-10 02:48am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
All of the above are good answers. Plus plenty of other answers would fit as well.
|
09-26-10 03:35am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
RustyJ (Suspended)
|
About as much as I equate it with poverty.
|
09-26-10 03:37am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Loved RustyJ's answer.
But one is nude, semi-nude, scantily clad, dressed, or wrapped in a bundle of Snuggies secured with rolls of duct tape all for various reasons. Any one of those could be sexual or not.
So yes, about as much as I equate it with meeting one's maker.
|
09-26-10 05:41am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
nadiencendia (0)
|
I don't. There are many different non-sexual situations in which one could be naked -or see other people naked. We have a strong tabboo associated with nakedness, but that's not necesarilly the most natural approach...
|
09-26-10 07:25am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Monahan (0)
|
Many years ago I was a crew chief on a local rescue squad. We received a 3:00am call for a drug OD case. When we arrived we found a totally gorgeous 20 year old female on the floor who was totally naked.
We took onsite care of the OD then hauled her to the emergency room (with a sheet on top).
It was interesting how I saw a nude babe but sexuality was the furthest thing from my mind in the circumstances.
|
09-26-10 08:39am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
The Cap'n spoke for me. I couldn't vote because "undecided" isn't quite the same thing as "sometimes!"
|
09-26-10 10:56am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #9 - Monahan :
It might have saved the girl's life that you didn't associate her nudity with sex. Fortunately you chose reality over fantasy (whether good or bad fantasy).
|
09-26-10 01:07pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
pat362 (0)
|
I guess I'm part of Slutty's Bozo squad because I do equate nudity with sexuality. Of course there are exceptions and monahan's is a very good one. I wonder if that 3am call had been a hoax and said 20yrs had answered the door completely naked and in perfect health. Would Monahan have had a different opinion about her nudity?
Are all of you that voted no, telling me that you believe that seeing a beautiful naked woman in a magazine or on a website is not sexual? If so then I must be the only person to have bought a Playboy for the naked pictures. It's art and it's sexual. It's not the same kind of art as a museum statue or painting but it's still an art form that is designed to elicit a sexual response. At least I think that's what Hugh had in mind. Slutty will have to be more specific about his nudity in art is too sexual for children statement to know where he's coming from.
|
09-26-10 05:30pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Toadsith (0)
|
REPLY TO #12 - pat362 :
"Are all of you that voted no, telling me that you believe that seeing a beautiful naked woman in a magazine or on a website is not sexual?"
You are focusing on an extremely narrow segment of nudity. The poll simply asked: "Do you equate nudity with sexuality?" Nude, aside from the legal meaning, is commonly defined as "devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape" So when the pollster used the term nudity alone without any situational descriptors he/she/it opened up this poll to addressing a very broad definition. While physical nudity is generally associated with humans, the common definition makes it easily applicable to sheered sheep. While some Kiwis might argue with the generalization, most people would probably agree that a sheered sheep does not bring sexuality to mind.
Perhaps we should define sexuality as well. This word has a more precise definition than nudity, though there is still a good amount of wiggle room. Sexuality is commonly defined as "the quality or state of being sexual: the condition of having sex; sexual activity; expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive"
While the common definition's secondary examples (listed after the colon) clearly intend to associate the word with reproductive activity, we could interpret it as addressing anything relating to sexes. This widened definition would probably allow most people to then include the sheered sheep with things associated with sexuality.
In regards to the examples of Playboy: This publication is clearly aiming for the common usage of sexuality and indeed most people would probably argue it fits it quite well. The women are depicted as females of reproductive age and are usually excessively expressing sexual receptivity in the form of good eye contact, prominent display of genitalia, et cetera.
However, the argument for nudity not equating sexuality boils down to this: Playboy is a good example of nudity but not representative of the definition as a whole. Nude beaches, public baths, locker room showers, hospitals, police stations after being picked up for loitering when you just wanted some breakfast and a bit of respect for having just gotten back from service in 'Nam. These are all places that have copious amounts of nudity that most people would probably not describe as sexual.
Looking at it another way, your argument is argument by example. The question that must be asked: "Is the example representative?" Just because it is valid, does not mean it is true. Notice the similarity:
Playboy has nudity. Playboy has sexuality. Therefore: Nudity is sexuality.
Cobras are snakes. Cobras are poisonous. Therefore: Snakes are poisonous.
The arguments are valid, but the examples aren't representative.
|
09-27-10 02:35pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
pat362 (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - Toadsith :
True the poll question was somewhat vague on what constitute nudity but I took it to mean a person devoid of clothing and nothing else.
If the poll question was going for a more philosophical apsect of nudity where it pertains to the nudity of the soul then I missed that.
I think Playboy and all adult oriented magazine intentionally use nudity as a sexual tool. I'd add fashion magazines that often use semi-nude models to advertise clothing and jewellery to the above list.
I agree that nudity in of itself is not sexuality and you've named some very good examples. I hope you'll agree that some guys go to nude beaches to check out the girls and not get their nether regions tanned.
I'll take your argument and add my twist to it.
Playboy has nudity, Playboy has sexuality. Therefore Playboy uses nudity for sexuality. They also have some great interviews... At least that's what I've been told.
Cobras are snakes. Cobras are poisonous. Therefore if you don't know for certain if a snake is poisonous then leave it alone. You don't want to be on the receiving end of a poisonous snake bite.
|
09-27-10 03:37pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - Toadsith :
Wow, leave it to Toadsith to really hit the nail on the head! It would be interesting to see this poll broken down by country or at least continent. I'll bet the results would be quite varied.
The problem is realistically, even if you don't personally equate nudity with sexuality, the law may not see it that way. It's why in most of the U.S. a guy can mow his lawn shirtless (which I hope has nothing to do with sexuality!), but if a gal does the same chances are someone's going to see her, get upset, and then call the police to rein in her questionable morals.
Whatever reason is given for such laws to exist and why people act so upset at such things--whether they claim that it would pervert men, harm the children, put forth a sexual message--chances are it comes back to religious prudes not being very open about human nudity, especially female nudity. I'm not saying it is all bible-quoting Evangelicals who get offended, but religion does play a major part in why these laws will likely stay much the same for years to come.
So while the vast majority of those who answered the poll say "No" (and we are all admitted users of porn at that), in litigious societies, where laws are quite clear about what is okay for public exposure, the opposite, that it does equate to sexuality, is likely be the current (mis)interpretation of the people.
|
09-27-10 08:07pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
BadMrFrosty (0)
|
Sexuality is all about the context, not about the state of undress. For example a photo of a fully clothed woman with a certain gleam in her eye can be infinitly more sexual than a photo of the same woman looking bored but with it all hanging out.
|
10-02-10 06:38am
Reply To Message
|
