• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should men be permitted to go bottomless?

This is odd for me as I'm usually quite rational concerning just about any topic, but I notice some of my views appear to clash concerning male nudity. So, here are my views:

(1) Should men be allowed to go nude on the beach? - Yes
(2) ...with an erection? - Uh, no...
(3) ...but sometimes it's not intentional. - Good point.....
(4) So should men be allowed to flash others? - No, that's gross
(5) But what if they're doing it at the beach? - Ehm, I don't know

My disdain of perverts is what causes the troublesome clashes. But I recognize this disdain is emotional, so I'm leaning towards total dangling freedom concerning the above points.
 
clarsct and plindboe, I guess part of the issue is intent? I guess in a world where everyone was nude, it'd be more difficult to shock someone by shaking your weenie at them.
 
Coincidentally I was watching an episode of Going Tribal last night where they were with a tribe in Southwest Ethiopia who generally didn't wear a lot of clothes - a lot of the time they were wandering around nude. It was kind of odd at first, especially when they would have these fighting competitions, but after a while I got used to it and by the end of the show I wasn't really noticing the nudity. The tribe didn't care about the nudity at all of course.

I've been to nude beaches a few times and you get used to the nudity after a while. I presume the same thing would happen if society allowed men & women to wander around nude.
 
Something I've noticed here and other places:

People equate showing off women's breasts to showing off men's genitals. It should be equal, a breast for a breast, a genital for a genital. Unfortunately, this is scuppered by one sex being an "innie" and one an "outie".
Why is it that women can wear almost totally "revealing" clothes but are only considered to be showing off their breasts if the nipple is visible? This implies that men and women being topless should equate, since nipples only vary really in size.

Also, regarding the state of arousal - if it's ok to see a flaccid penis but not an erect one (a view stated a couple of times) then is it ok to see a nipple that's not erect...? You get my drift.

Social taboos are completely weird.
 
Something that hasn't been covered here is people, males in particular, who wear diapers.

Wearing diapers 24/7 necessitates at least some "bottomless" time each day, for the health of one's organs, as well as avoiding diaper rash.

Even if one doesn't wear diapers, airing one's nether regions for an hour or so daily can alleviate depression and, if done out of doors, can lead to some interesting questions from one's neighbors. Lifelong relationships have begun in this way.

M.
 
ysabella said:
clarsct and plindboe, I guess part of the issue is intent?
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the intent is sexual I have an objection. I just can't accept a pervert intentionally showing his erection in front of a child for instance. Is my objection a social taboo? Probably. A stiffy looks the same no matter if it's a pervert's or simply an unfortunate guy who can't control his blood flow to that fleshy thing a few inches beneat his navel(Being a guy I can testify that it can be almost impossibly to control that damn thing sometimes).


ysabella said:
I guess in a world where everyone was nude, it'd be more difficult to shock someone by shaking your weenie at them.
Click to expand...

I think that's very true. No shock without social influence.
 
moopet said:
Why is it that women can wear almost totally "revealing" clothes but are only considered to be showing off their breasts if the nipple is visible?
Click to expand...

I think in Brazil women can wear next to nothing on the beaches, so long as their nipples are covered - but I don't know if there's a law about it over there.

Who would have more hang-ups (pun unintended) - women going bottomless worried about cellulite, or men worried about penis size and shape?

Also, apart from a rise in cosmetic surgery, there'd be all the implications of hygene, like in a taxi-cab, restaurant, etc. Bring your own wipes? But then again, how many people wipe the public toilet seat before using it?

Then there's those guys who scratch their balls, and adjust their crotches. The waiter at my local restaurant does it in plain view. What's with that?
 
plindboe said:
So how do you feel about pedophilia and necrophilia?
Click to expand...

As long as it is consensual I have no problem with it. Of course a dead body cannot give its consent (although it might be possible with a will...), and most people feel that children cannot give consent for much of anything.

And as far as bestiality goes; since it is legal to own a chicken, I figure it should be legal to "bump uglies" with one (assuming you own it).

LLH
 
As Leela says to Fry and Bender "alright that's the third hose fight I've broken up this week, and the second one using actual hoses..."
 
Once, some years ago, I went for a run in the nude, just to see what it felt like. (I was in the Sahara, so there may have been the odd surprised satellite photo interpreter at Langley, but I'm sure nobody else was a witness.)

I never repeated the experiment. There are very good reasons why the last thing a man should discard is his loincloth.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Once, some years ago, I went for a run in the nude, just to see what it felt like. (I was in the Sahara, so there may have been the odd surprised satellite photo interpreter at Langley, but I'm sure nobody else was a witness.)

I never repeated the experiment. There are very good reasons why the last thing a man should discard is his loincloth.
Click to expand...

If you must run in the Sahara do it at night time, or at least dusk or dawn. Then sunburn will not be a major issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom