[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[ian glendinning]

Public nudity,

I think we have two separate issues here (before we get into other
codes of dress freedoms)

The sexual / biological separation from the social. Exposed genitalia
and other erogenous zones, are covered according to taboos, that allow
social functioning to occur over and above biological. That sounds
like valid social override of biological to me. (Nudist colonies need
good social cohesion, tacit agreement to social "rules" to be
harmonious - I'd guess.)

Exposure of unpleasant / ugly bodies. Tricky one. Almost certainly the
same issues at play ... evolutionary conditioning of what is
considered "attractive" for primarily biological reasons meaning that
the opposite is seen as repulsive. In humans there is presumably a
huge amount of this legacy that is really cultural-social (memetic)
evolution, witness different taboos in different cultures - genitalia
generally covered, but less commonality on what is considered "body
beautiful" beyond that The whole variation being flattened by global
media, of course. Certainly these kind of rules are amenable to social
evolution - few hard rules.

Actively making people "feel anxious" is a whole other DQ issue. Norms
within the same level (socio-cultural) are there to be broken.

Ian

On 10/28/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Case]
> >From a legal standpoint, in the USA anyway this is the sort of thing that is
> covered by local rather that national or even state law. While some states may
> have laws to this effect, the idea is to have local community standards apply.
> I know that where I live local ordinances govern nude dancing in private clubs
> and the dress codes at most beaches. I would add that if it came to a vote
> locally I would be for more rather than less clothing on purely esthetic
> grounds. One trip to
>
> [Arlo]
> I see this got Platt's aesthetic tethers all bunched up. But let me ask, if its
> "moral" for society to force people to conceal parts of their bodies others may
> find aesthetically unpleasing (like a fat retired guy), would you say that
> gives society the right to force people with severe skin problems to cover
> those parts of their bodies? What about people with "ugly faces"? Or are there
> no ugly faces, just ugly bodies?
>
> Avoiding for now the idea that the human body CAN be ugly and aesthetically
> repelling, I think what's not being foregrounded here is the notion of choice.
> I'm not suggesting people should go nude, I'm suggesting laws forbidding
> toplessness in women are the result of archaic, sexually immature and
> women-as-property modes of thinking.
>
> But now we have a new tangent. Society is morally correct in forcibly covering
> people who are ugly and would repulse others. I assume that's Platt's view of
> the MOQ. Yours?
>
> [Platt]
> I live in a very warm climate and nudity might be comfortable here but I hear
> tell that if you move farther north it gets a bit to cold to be running around
> bare butt.
>
> [Arlo]
> We have the Polar Bear Club. Although not "nude" per se, they do things in the
> cold that I wouldn't choose to do. Brrrrr. But again, we are not talking about
> mandatory laws FOR nudity, only again that laws forbiding women to be topless
> (and let me draw direct attention here) in the same situations men ARE allowed
> to be topless are immoral laws.
>
> [Case]
> While cooler weather does tend to enhance the finer points of the female form,
> as George Costanza lamented it causes shrinkage in males. Many of us can ill
> afford to be exposed under these conditions.
>
> [Arlo]
> Have no fear. Despites Platt's "slippery slope" from toplessness to public
> fornication, I've already presented a health-based argument against
> "bottomlessness" in most public places. As for the beach, unless you belong to
> a specific "nudist colony" you can, like Gav had initially done, wear bottoms
> until you feel comfortable.
>
> But let me tell you, the idea that at nude beaches everyone is going around
> gawking at everyone else is just an outgrowth of the immature sexuality that
> leads to words describing the human body as "obscene", "indecent" and the like.
>
>
> [Case]
> Certainly what we view as sexual is culturally determined. In colonial America
> the sight of ankles was a turn on. In first century Palestine when nudity was
> acceptable in the bath houses, Greeks regarded exposure of the male glans as
> obscene.
>
> [Arlo]
> Exactly. But let me ask this, since I bet its ignored elsewhere.
>
> If its moral for men to force women to wear tops (let's say at the beach)
> because they find the sight of women's breasts either "sexually provocative"
> (or in the case above "potentially ugly"), why is also not moral to pass the
> same law about men's chests, since I assume "shirtless men" can either be as
> much a turn on for women (or a similar ugly revulsion)?
>
> Would you support a law that would force American shore goers to wear shirts or
> full-piece bathing suits because women may either be "aroused" or "repulsed"
> otherwise?
>
> [Case]
> It would seem that clothing is a nearly universal feature of all cultures across
> all time. This suggests to me that there is some biological or evolutionary
> basis for it.
>
> [Arlo]
> Let's look into this. My hypothesis is that its origins are primarily
> property-based, or a religions view that sexuality is "indecent", followed by
> the concealment of parts considered "sexual" (and hence "indecent"). I would
> suspect that bottoms (thinking about tribal loin cloths) originated out of a
> recognition of health concerns, the spreading of bodily fluids, or concealing
> potential odors.
>
> [Case]
> As for Muslims I would think they should either abide by the local customs where
> they live or be prepared to deal with the consequences.
>
> [Arlo]
> If you are saying, like Platt and Ham, that Muslims be forbidden from wearing
> veils because it goes against "local custom", should a Hasidic Jew be forbidden
> from wearing a kippot, or a Hare Krishna from wearing his robe, or a Hindu
> woman from displaying a Bindi if these customs are not the "local customs"?
>
> Or like Ham, to you propose that only people we are afraid of, or customs that
> make us "anxious" be forbidden? What if Bindi's make a community anxious? Then
> do they have the right to outlaw them?
>
> [Case]
> But I suspect the consequences are mostly just getting looked at strangely. Some
> of us get that even when we comply with the dress code.
>
> [Arlo]
> And so they are. In my younger, nihilistic days, when I worked for the complete
> destruction of mankind and the abolition of civilization, I did the punk thing.
> Mohawk. The whole nine yards. I'm sure I made the civilized, proper gentry
> "anxious", and I got mainly strange looks. But it was my choice. So much for
> American freedom.
>
> Hey, just think, if we all had to wear the SAME UNIFORMS, how less anxious
> everyone would be! There'd be no one forced to deal with having to look at
> someone who dressed in a different way! Ham would be completely at ease walking
> down the street, knowing that no faces could be concealed. No one would have to
> see strange Krishas in robes, or Hindis with Bindis. All that threatening
> strange stuff of "other cultures" would be right out. Maybe this is the route
> the MOQ takes us?....
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>