Is body modesty harmful?

[krool1969]

I'm not sure when this was, or who said it, but, as this person was (Dr. Spock) a highly regarded child psychologist people believed it.
   He said it was harmful for a child to see naked adults, even their own parents!
   Personally I think this was exactly backwards.

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subects->

    In our culture nudity is meant to be reserved for sex, that no one should go naked in non-sexual contexts.

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subects->

   I think having nudity so strongly associated with sex is also extremely unhealthy.
   The problem of body image is multiplied because the only people we see naked are Hollywood actors and super models.
   This gives people a warped sense of what "normal" bodies look like. This is a problem, because actors and models don't have normal bodies. They represent only a few hundred of the most beautiful people alive.
   How could anyone possibly live up to that standard.

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subects->

    People wouldn't need to run around naked 24/7, but if we were always naked where nudity was appropriate (such as the swimming pool, working out, or just when the weather is too hot for clothes).
    You might be thinking you wouldn't want to see grandma naked, it's only because you associate nudity with sex. If you didn't have a sexual link to nudity I don't think it would be gross to see an overweight 75 year old woman.
   There are western cultures that aren't so hung up on nudity. as we are in the States. I wonder if body image problems are less of a problem? I bet the do not.

[psiberzerker]

Neither.  Neither body modesty, nor nudity is intrinsically harmful.  Children do just fine growing up clothed, and also do just fine growing up with nudity.

As you pointed out, the problem is that adults project Sexuality on the human body.  Whether it's sexual or not, but Children aren't sexual.  So, nudity isn't sexual to them.  This is guilt by association, when it isn't the clothing, or nudity itself, so much as what Adults do in ASSOCIATION with these views.  

So, for example, the Modesty movement is mostly associated with puritanical beliefs, body shaming, sex shaming, and also accusations of child abuse at liberals, and hippies that let their kids run around, and play au naturale.  Again, sexualizing nudity, to the absurd degree of believing that bared breasts traumatizes children.  (When the function of breasts is to Feed children.)

Similarly, child abusers often exploit nudity, by exposing children, and exposing themselves to children.  So, by extension it's assumed to be something sexual, or at the very least bait for pedophiles to allow kids to run around nude.  (Kids take off clothes.  It's something they do, they also stick rocks up their noses, and other places.  Again, nothing sexual about it.)

So, no.  The short answer is that neither is intrinsically any more harmful than say a Spatula.  Yes, you can spank a child with a spatula, but that doesn't mean that spatulas should be banned, nor that children would never be spanked, if we didn't have spatulae.

[psiberzerker]

Another interesting thing to me about this general subject is certain clothing being sexual.  It's not just showing your privates, but also female underwear, to the point that Transvestism (Which is perfectly okay, and not harmful to the degree that it doesn't become an invasion of privacy, such as peeping, and panty raiding) is a fetish.  

There's a bit of a double standard here, where we talk about other people's underwear, as much as what's inside them.  There's the boxers vs briefs debate, which is a lot more common than say wondering out loud between girlfriends whether or not he's circumcised.  One is anatomical, while the other is simply about clothing.  There's the stereotype that lesbians wear boxers (Lots of women wear them, they're comfortable.)  

Another one is how ubiquitous measurements, particularly Bra Size is used descriptively in sex stories.  This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, mostly because of repetition.  I'm just a little bored by reading the same description over, and over, when it's fairly obvious even through clothes when she has tig-ole-biddies without having to check the label on her bra strap.  

I never really read all that many stories where the man wakes up, stretches, and thanks God for his 8", much less lists his 38" waist by way of Introduction.  I just think it's odd, which isn't to say it's Harmful, just one of the weird things writers seem to do.

What is more than a little more harmful is telling girls they're dressed slutty, or "Like a slut."  To the point that sexual abusers use "Look what she was wearing!' as an excuse.  Of course, there is no excuse for sexual assault, but this narrative takes the blame away from the Abusers.  To a degree, it also partially blames society, for Victoria's Secret adds, and other "Sex Sells" campaigns for their lack of impulse control.

On the flip side, clothing has never proved to be an effective deterrent to sexual assault.

[krool1969]

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subjects->
 
     This in NO WAY justifies sexual abuse.
     Study after study has shown that even very young babies (6 months) have biological responses that are identical to sexual arousal in adults. Therefor it *IS* sexual arousal.
     I will say this again. This does NOT justify sexual abuse. Sex between children and adults causes a great deal of psychological harm for the child. It can also cause physical harm because of size differences.

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subjects->

If an adult makes sexual contact with a child, the child becomes confused. They don't understand what is happening or why.
    A child can not consent to sex because we are the result of millions of years of evolution. Early humans who did not do as their parents said ("Leave that big kitty alone") did not survive to adulthood.
     Children are wired to accept what adults want, even if they don't want to. Adults make kids do things against their will all the time (go to bed, clean your room, finish your dinner) so the child may not understand they can say "no"

[psiberzerker]

<-some content removed due to issues with mentions of UA subjects->

I've heard these claims before, right out of the NAMBLA handbook.  There are no such studies, because they can't be conducted without experimenting on infants to cause a sexual response.  (Which isn't Science.)  

Children are wired to accept what adults want, even if they don't want to. Adults make kids do things against their will all the time (go to bed, clean your room, finish your dinner) so the child may not understand they can say "no"

Then children can be taught to say "no."

{Disclaimer:  This is all Opinion, and not Professional Opinion.  I am NOT an Expert, and I can't work with children, due to social anxiety.  I only work with Pedophiles for the purposes of this discussion, and adult survivors of childhood abuse..  Also, I would love to hear others weigh in on this fascinating topic.  I do not intend mine to be the Last Word, nor have any interest in engaging in an argument.}

[MissBarbara]

The short answer is that neither is intrinsically any more harmful than say a Spatula.  Yes, you can spank a child with a spatula, but that doesn't mean that spatulas should be banned, nor that children would never be spanked, if we didn't have spatulae.

Have you ever seen the movie "Stripes," most notably, the "Aunt Jemima Treatment" scene?

[psiberzerker]

Have you ever seen the movie "Stripes," most notably, the "Aunt Jemima Treatment" scene?

Yes!  I love that scene!

[MintJulie]

So, we have a rule on the board about not discussing certain things.   Kids & Sex combined is one of them.

I went through the posts and 'blackened' out some of it, but it is still visible.    My thought here is that had I deleted it, it would make much of the posts confusing.  

So, I'm giving the posters the opportunity to modify their posts while revising the portions pertaining to children.    10 hours from now if no changes are made, it gets deleted.

----update----
OP didn't modify the content of his post.  Some material removed as you can likely see.

[psiberzerker]

Sorry, I got drawn in to the intellectual conversation, so I didn't pick up on some clear signs that this might have been a pedophile trying to make excuses for exposing himself to children.  If you have to wipe out the entire thread, I understand.  I can't see hor this could be modified so that it doesn't refer to childhood, and would still make sense.

[staci]

I hesitate to claim krool1969 is a pedo and trying to justify his thinking. He may be someone like yourself, Psi, and espousing on the whys and thoughts of the subject. Jules is being kind to allow him to modify or delete his posts because talking about sex and children are verboten here. He may not have understood that. Such discussions are better left to professionals that have experience.

[psiberzerker]

Such discussions are better left to professionals that have experience.

Again, the only Experience I have is with treating pedophiles, and adults dealing with childhood trauma.  Nudity doesn't traumatize children, sexualizing them does.  It doesn't hurt to discuss these things as Amateurs, as long as we can differentiate between Fantasy and Reality.

In reality, children are not sexual.  Not without extreme emotional disturbance, even if they're clinically molested as infants to "Prove" that they have sexuality.

One way that "Modesty" can sexually harm adults is through inexperience, but indirectly, and in combination with other teachings that come from the same place:  Abstinence Only Education basically tells people to wait until they're married, virginity is this barrier between being an innocent, and a woman, that it Has to be broken like a freshness seal, and it always hurts the first time.

All together, I can't guestimate how many adult women were traumatized on their wedding nights, because they saved themselves, and their husbands knew nothing about what they're doing besides they have to break the hymen to make the marriage official.

[MissBarbara]

I hesitate to claim krool1969 is a pedo and trying to justify his thinking. He may be someone like yourself, Psi, and espousing on the whys and thoughts of the subject. Jules is being kind to allow him to modify or delete his posts because talking about sex and children are verboten here. He may not have understood that. Such discussions are better left to professionals that have experience.

Exactly.

And even giving krool1969 the benefit of the doubt, it's the location on the board where this was posted, and not solely the content, that renders these posts inappropriate.

[psiberzerker]

Yeah, this definitely needs to be moved to Sex Talk if nothing else, but he's new.

He may be someone like yourself, Psi, and espousing on the whys and thoughts of the subject.

On the assumption that I'm NOT a pedophile making excuses for exposing children to sexual contact?

If I was, I would probably lie about it.  "It's for a scientific study!"

[MintJulie]

And even giving krool1969 the benefit of the doubt, it's the location on the board where this was posted, and not solely the content, that renders these posts inappropriate.

You're correct Barb.  I hadn't noticed the location.  Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

[MissBarbara]

Such discussions are better left to professionals that have experience.

Again, the only Experience I have is with treating pedophiles, and adults dealing with childhood trauma.  Nudity doesn't traumatize children, sexualizing them does.  It doesn't hurt to discuss these things as Amateurs, as long as we can differentiate between Fantasy and Reality.

In reality, children are not sexual.  Not without extreme emotional disturbance, even if they're clinically molested as infants to "Prove" that they have sexuality.

One way that "Modesty" can sexually harm adults is through inexperience, but indirectly, and in combination with other teachings that come from the same place:  Abstinence Only Education basically tells people to wait until they're married, virginity is this barrier between being an innocent, and a woman, that it Has to be broken like a freshness seal, and it always hurts the first time.

All together, I can't guestimate how many adult women were traumatized on their wedding nights, because they saved themselves, and their husbands knew nothing about what they're doing besides they have to break the hymen to make the marriage official.

With my advocate's cap firmly on my head, please, please, please stop perpetuating false, and potentially dangerous, information about "breaking the hymen."

I'm sure you know this, and the "confusion" is likely a result of inexact phrasing on your part or denseness on my part, but, for the record, a "virgin" on her wedding night might not have an intact hymen even is she has never had penetrative sex with a man before. And, correspondingly, a "virgin" on her wedding night who has never had penetrative sex with a man before might engage in penetrative sex with her new husband, and still retain an intact hymen.

Add to this, although a wedding-night "virgin" may not have had penetrative sex with a man before, I suspect that in the majority of instances, she has a fairly good idea of what is going to happen. And even a sexually experienced woman on her wedding night might be nervous, and for a wide variety of reasons. Come to think of it, I'd suspect most people are at least a little nervous in their first experience with a new partner.

A woman's hymen is both one of the most misunderstood body parts, and one of the most aggressively overrated body parts. Today, except in extreme circumstances, its vestigial to the point of meaninglessness. Granted, I'm aware that discussions about a woman's hymen tend to loom largely in both the writing of erotic fiction and in the masturbatory desires fueled by that fiction. Of course, many things happen in fiction that do not happen in real life. That's kinda the point. But the tendency to spread disinformation is something that should at least be considered.

Apologies for the minor (pun intended) hijack. As I mentioned, sometimes I have a hard time taking off my advocate's cap.

[MissBarbara]

Yeah, this definitely needs to be moved to Sex Talk if nothing else, but he's new.

Nope.

As far as I understand things, it would be inappropriate there as well.

[psiberzerker]

With my advocate's cap firmly on my head, please, please, please stop perpetuating false, and potentially dangerous, information about "breaking the hymen."

I'm not.  I'm illustrating the false narrative that the hymen is some sort of barrier.  I'm trying to point out that it IS false, not perpetuate it, but point out the truths that are skipped over with the lies, which go along with the "Abstinence Only" narrative.

I'm sure you know this, and the "confusion" is likely a result of inexact phrasing on your part or denseness on my part, but, for the record, a "virgin" on her wedding night might not have an intact hymen even is she has never had penetrative sex with a man before. And, correspondingly, a "virgin" on her wedding night who has never had penetrative sex with a man before might engage in penetrative sex with her new husband, and still retain an intact hymen.

Right, however, she might have an Imperforate Hymen, (Which isn't the norm, but was misrepresented as the norm for century due to the Purity Myths) Or, and undiagnosed intersex, where the vaginal cavity is shallow, and dead ends.  (Honestly too many complicated conditions to even name that may result in that sort of disgenesis.)   Roughly where you would expect there to be a hymen, if you have no better sex education than "Wait until you're married," and boy's locker-room talk.  Or...  

Why I said that I can't even guestimate how many wives have been deflowered painfully on their wedding night, only the ones I have talked to in therapy.  

I suspect that in the majority of instances, she has a fairly good idea of what is going to happen. And even a sexually experienced woman on her wedding night might be nervous, and for a wide variety of reasons. Come to think of it, I'd suspect most people are at least a little nervous in their first experience with a new partner.

I know that statistically, 1-in-3 women report having some sort of sexual assault before they turned 18.  That's not a Majority, but we're not talking about Most cases.  We're talking about the traumatic ones, that might be partially enabled by these puritanical concepts of Modesty, Ignorance (Disinformation posing as Education, like the Palin Doctrine) and guys that don't know anything about how to do it their first time except for what they saw in Porn, and/or head about from guys bragging in the Locker Room.  

So, for another example:  The #FriendZone.  I got this talk, because I was forced into the Boy's Room out of misdiagnosis.  Bygones, but the narrative is that you don't talk to girls who just want to be friends, because that's a trap.  The only reason for a relationship between men, and women is Sexual (When you're old enough) but considering the source, I heard this narrative from Seniors, "Alpha Men" telling the betas how to talk to girls about sex.

"Don't talk to my girlfriend."  So, assuming that the newlywed Bride knows all about the hymen, having had one, there's probably thousands (Not a majority) of newlywed grooms out there that don't know anything about foreplay.  Getting a woman ready for sex, which is defined in their minds as "Stick it in there."  Other than the advice of Power Assertive role models like "Grab them by the pussy."

A woman's hymen is both one of the most misunderstood body parts, and one of the most aggressively overrated body parts. Today, except in extreme circumstances, its vestigial to the point of meaninglessness. Granted, I'm aware that discussions about a woman's hymen tend to loom largely in both the writing of erotic fiction and in the masturbatory desires fueled by that fiction. Of course, many things happen in fiction that do not happen in real life. That's kinda the point. But the tendency to spread disinformation is something that should at least be considered.

Apologies for the minor (pun intended) hijack. As I mentioned, sometimes I have a hard time taking off my advocate's cap.

No, thank you, for your contribution to the discussion.  Especially your PoV as a woman, who's possibly had a hymen at some point, and may have even had Sex Education before it became Politically Correct to keep young adults in the dark until their wedding nights.

[psiberzerker]

Oh, I just thought of a prime example of "Modesty" being potentially harmful:

Public nursing.  A mother can be politely asked to take her child out of the dining room of a retaurant, and feed the infant in the restrooms, in the interest of Public Decency.

Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?  Where's she supposed to sit?  Certainly not out in public, where there's people eating!

[staci]

Oh, I just thought of a prime example of "Modesty" being potentially harmful:

Public nursing.  A mother can be politely asked to take her child out of the dining room of a retaurant, and feed the infant in the restrooms, in the interest of Public Decency.

Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?  Where's she supposed to sit?  Certainly not out in public, where there's people eating!

If it is done discretely, why not?

[psiberzerker]

If it is done discretely, why not?

Because 1 place is intended for people to eat, and the other one is for getting rid of waste.  (For instance changing diapers.)  I just have to point out the insane irony of forcing a mother to feed her child in such an unsanitary place, because the other customers might get a glimpse of a nipple.