You know how many people are nudists? Not that many.
-
whitespirit26 — 11 years ago(November 06, 2014 10:10 PM)
"We're not a discussion about parental reaction to their children engaging in sex work, we're talking about non-sexual nudity."
I can't recall entirely whether she was a sex worker, I just know she was preparing for an adult night and he had no issue in removing private wax strips. You see any issue with that? Or raising kids in a manner where they have no privacy in developing years? And if the girl was a sex worker and just fine with it, it wouldn't be small-minded to judge her?
"you can't post a judgemental stance on an Internet forum and then complain about people judging what you've said"
Nor can you preach against judgement and then claim it's fine for you and not me to deliver it.
"I think it's generally good for people to oppose people being judgemental in arbitrary ways"
LOL Because nowadays it's much better to do unhealthy things than act judgemental about it. I don't ask for pity or sympathy from pseudo-open minds like yours; a lot of people have ideals about what's right and wrong, and yours is that it's wrong to consider anything wrong if it doesn't result in physical harm. Countless disagree with you, and you have no problem yapping judgement while believing yourself totally exempt from it and proclaiming your own gapingly open brain as the vindicated and wiser one. -
wight1984 — 11 years ago(November 07, 2014 10:16 AM)
I can't recall entirely whether she was a sex worker, I just know she was preparing for an adult night and he had no issue in removing private wax strips. You see any issue with that?
The first I've heard about this situation is you're mentioning it to derail the conversation we we're having. Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit.
Would I be comfortable with a child of mine going into sex work? No. Are my views on sex workers more liberal than yours? Probably. Either way,
it's an entirely different discussion
.
Or raising kids in a manner where they have no privacy in developing years?
I think that children should be given the level of privacy required to make
them
feel comfortable rather than the level of privacy that
you
would want for
yourself
.
It's not even vaguely the same topic as how comfortable parents should be about their children choosing sex work as a profession though. It's bizarre that you're trying to conflate the two things.
And if the girl was a sex worker and just fine with it, it wouldn't be small-minded to judge her?
Pretty much, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
Being 'open-minded' does not mean that you're never allowed to make moral judgements or to have concerns for someone's welfare.
Sex work can be a very dangerous profession, especially when unregulated, so it is entirely understandable why any parent would be deeply worried and troubled by their child going into sex work. I would definitely be deeply worried by it if I was a parent in that situation.
However, if you want me to admit to some kind of slut-shaming bigotry then you're talking to the wrong person. Being the sort of person with a deeply held moral conviction about the importance of people's happiness and welfare, I am extremely concerned about the welfare and ill-treatment of sex-workers but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority.
Nor can you preach against judgement
I haven't preached against judgement itself. Nor do I recall seeing anyone else do so.
I do think that it's petty, small-minded and fairly stupid to judge people for not having the same modesty norms as you.
Yes, that is a judgement, but I'm not anti-judgement. I'm anti pettiness, small-mindedness and stupidity.
it's much better to do unhealthy things than act judgemental about it.
There's nothing unhealthy about nudism let alone a relaxed attitude to pre-pubescent nudity within the family.
I don't ask for pity or sympathy from pseudo-open minds like yours; a lot of people have ideals about what's right and wrong, and yours is that it's wrong to consider anything wrong if it doesn't result in physical harm. Countless disagree with you, and you have no problem yapping judgement while believing yourself totally exempt from it and proclaiming your own gapingly open brain as the vindicated and wiser one.
I've not offered you pity or sympathy.
What I have said is that your basis for what you consider 'moral judgement' is only the unthinking, unreflected and anti-intellectual knee-jerk reactions of someone who has never spent the time to construct a rational moral framework.
That's not even a 'Utilitarianism is the only respectable rational framework' stance, it's a 'believing your own subjective emotive reactions can form a universal and objectively correct moral system is stupid' stance. -
whitespirit26 — 11 years ago(November 07, 2014 01:27 PM)
"Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit."
She wasn't having sex with her dad and she wasn't nude, so it's a perfectly relevant question. Besides, if you take the "as long as no one minds, it's fine" approach, it will eventually lead to a problem.
"I do think that it's petty, small-minded and fairly stupid"
And there you go, judgement. You are anti-judgement that doesn't go with your own, that doesn't expand the same distance as your own.
"let alone a relaxed attitude to pre-pubescent nudity within the family"
You made it clear you found post-pubescent nudity fine too.
"but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority."
You're a fool if you think my entire basis is grounded on nothing more than what I personally am comfortable with, as you show with your last few lines as well.
"I've not offered you pity or sympathy"
You announced "I do not feel sorry for you" as if I asked you to or would consider any sympathy you offered. -
wight1984 — 11 years ago(November 07, 2014 02:02 PM)
"Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit."
She wasn't having sex with her dad and she wasn't nude, so it's a perfectly relevant question. Besides, if you take the "as long as no one minds, it's fine" approach, it will eventually lead to a problem.
In one case we were talking washing hair in the bathtub, which involves non-sexual pre-pubescent nudity in the family.
In the other case we were talking about bikini waxes as preparation for sex work on the sexual regions of the body involving non-sexual post-pubescent nudity.
Now, sure, if you remove the sex work thing then it's merely a bit odd and squicky, but that's no basis for moral concern. As long as it's non-sexual and they're okay with what they're doing then there's no need for me to stick my nose in and start judging people.
But when you add the sex work in thing then you are clearly opening up an entirely different can of worms.
And there you go, judgement. You are anti-judgement that doesn't go with your own, that doesn't expand the same distance as your own.
You've made up the 'anti-judgement' thing.
I've been clear; I am not anti-judgement. I'm just anti-stupidity and anti-small mindedness.
You might as well suggest that I'm anti-opinion for disagreeing with you and thus a hypocrite for holding opinions. It's a nonsense argument.
"but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority."
You're a fool if you think my entire basis is grounded on nothing more than what I personally am comfortable with, as you show with your last few lines as well.
It's the corner you decided to point yourself into.
You didn't try to provide rational arguments to the truth of your moral claims. You've just assumed that they're universal truths because that's how you
feel
.
Even in your attempts to convince me that you're right, you haven't been presenting evidence or rational arguments as to why pre-pubescent nudity within the family is damaging or hurtful to anyone you've just built increasingly emotive scenarios in order to try to appeal to my emotive reactions.
You can't pretend to be engaging in rational moral philosophy given the position you've already established yourself as holding.
You announced "I do not feel sorry for you" as if I asked you to or would consider any sympathy you offered.
You tried to pretend to be some kind of victim for being judged, as if you hadn't just been throwing around your own judgements on an Internet forum for other people to read and comment on.
Yeah, I know that's all part of that weird strawman argument about me somehow being 'anti-judgement' just because I told you that your judgements are wrong and silly, but that doesn't make the attempt to pretend to be some kind of victim to be less pathetic. -
whitespirit26 — 11 years ago(November 07, 2014 02:11 PM)
No, you decided my views needed a corner to exist in because you don't understand where they could come from, and you assumed it was from an entirely self-identifying place. You decided to judge my opinions as stupidity and small-mindedness, so once again, you're judging and not using much space to do it in. I don't consider myself a victim of strangers on the web, especially not ignorant ones.
"you've just built increasingly emotive scenarios in order to try to appeal to my emotive reactions"
I used your own subjective judgement based on the "as long as no one minds" scenario to see how far it would expand; a lot of discussions lead to bigger scenarios and questions, which seems to baffle you. Sure enough, your own argument stretches into territory similar to that of West Saxon: you don't think it's wrong for a father to apply wax strips on "the sexual regions of the body". Good luck with that, it tells me all I care to know. -
wight1984 — 11 years ago(November 07, 2014 02:25 PM)
you decided my views needed a corner to exist
It's purely the case of the position you choose to present.
You didn't provide a reasoned argument.
You didn't provide evidence.
All you did is make the claim that it's not respectful.
You ignored people who pointed out that modesty norms are culturally diverse.
You failed to engage with the fact that some families don't have them (nudists)
You've been quite keen to argue that it doesn't matter whether anyone was hurt or upset.
What you've done is you've taken a norm that you've grown up with and mistaken it for a moral truth.
I used your own subjective judgement based on the "as long as no one minds" scenario to see how far it would expand
You've clearly not understand any of my judgements or arguments.
All you've done is thrown around other examples that strike you as weird. Fathers being overly involved with personal grooming. Incest. Polygamy. Sex Work. You've evidenced no indication of any moral philosophy beyond 'if it seems weird, then I don't like it'.
If you had anything more sophisticated to say, then I'd wager you'd have said it by now. -
wight1984 — 9 years ago(July 14, 2016 02:56 PM)
If you're not interested in riving dead horses, then why reply to a two year old thread?
The whole point here was that no rational harm-based moral argument here.
This is someone calling labelling something as 'wrong' because it -feels- weird to them and using that as a justification to make claims about how other people behave.
It's curious that you refer to 'harmful or even disgusting' though, as if the latter was somehow worse than the former.
If other people choose to do things that disgust me then I will just mind my own business; it's only when people choose to do things that are harmful (particularly to people other than themselves) that there's any cause for alarm. -
Strazdamonas — 9 years ago(July 12, 2016 01:31 PM)
Your personal predicament of grossness does not necessitate inappropriate behavior by others. The problem here is your incorrect perception of the reality you live in, resulting in your extremist puritanical ideas.
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory. -
galluslass — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 11:56 PM)
Sorry, I'm with the others. Nothing wrong with a father seeing his young children naked. We are quite a naked house, my sons (11 and
sometimes see their father and I naked. The older one does like his privacy and is now more self conscious etc so I cover up more now rather than just walk round naked - but he decided the age where he felt it was time.
I think more nudity without the sexual element would be good. As kids it was much more common to see little kids running up and down naked - the beach, the garden etc. I prefer that way and mind set. -
whitespirit26 — 12 years ago(April 01, 2014 03:29 PM)
LOL That's right, I don't parade around naked because I just hate my body. Or just think it's my private business, but strangely the more "liberated" people don't seem open-minded enough to consider the logic of that possibility. Besides, even seeing someone naked in passing is different from bathing someone (the topic that somehow became a debate here); I doubt you let your kids give you baths.
-
wight1984 — 11 years ago(November 04, 2014 02:11 PM)
LOL That's right, I don't parade around naked because I just hate my body.
Personally, I think that it's all fine as long as you're not hurting anyone. If you feel embarrassed or shy about other people seeing you naked, even in a non-sexual context, then that's just your quirk and it's all good. I'm sure that you can lead a healthy and fulfilled life with that quirk.
However, there's no advantage in it over not having those feelings.
If I was to try to judge one as being better than the other, then I'd definitely go with the one that evidences less hang-ups about our bodies.