"Immodest" woman beaten up by the Modesty Guard

[HoreTore]

It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...

I get theft, murder, lying etc... But why on earth would anyone want to stop people having sex? I've never been able to figure that one out...

[Tribesman]

But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...

Because life isn't supposed to be good , if you are enjoying yourelf then you must be doing something evil .
Even the most righteous must be saved from this temptation , which is why a ban on naked arms must be enforced because the good people would waste their god given energy pulling themselves off at the sight of uncovered meat .

[PanzerJaeger]

It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...

There were many social concerns that led to sexual regulation within religion and culture which largley become irrelevant due to reliable birth control, only to make a come-back with the rise of HIV and other nasty STDs. There was a period right after the Pill came out but before AIDS hit where Free Love was a viable concept, or so I'm told...

[Adrian II]

It's a repression of sex, pure and simple. But why on earth anyone can label something as good as sex a sin is beyond me...

I think it's fear. Fear of women, fear of uncontrollable emotions. In a healthy environment young people learn to deal with these. In a Christian or Muslim environment they are repressed, vilified, thwarted, and obstructed by taboos in various ways and to various degress, resulting in irrational fear and eventually in hatred for that which is ill-understood and therefore ever threatening. It's what makes the Navaroses of this world pathetic and dangerous at the same time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I'm not filled with hate, and I don't think women should need to sit on the opposite side of a bus from men. Should women be segregated just because someone claiming to be religious gets over-exited from sitting next to a woman?

If you are a good Christian/Jew/Muslim then you should not even be in such as state of mind and should not blame your weakness in the face of temptation on others. Should respectable women have to live in fear that they might tempt some hormonal zealot, and have their lives organised around avioding them?

The real answer from a religious point of view is not to attempt to remove or hide anything that can lead to sin, but to overcome temptation. That will always be a factor in this world, and you've just got to get over it. As a 'religious nutter', are any of these ideas going to have a drastic affect on society? Or take away peoples freedom?

[Adrian II]

Well I'm not filled with hate, and I don't think women should need to sit on the opposite side of a bus from men.

But you have the same irrational attitude about sex. You stated that children should never, ever be confronted with it, as if sex were some sort of lethal trap, a source of untold horror and misery instead of a source of joy and fulfillment. Maybe you are not that rigid, but from what you wrote it seems that you have the makings of a fanatic.

[Viking]

One thing though, religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones with a very specific code of modest conduct, to be strictly enforced. We all force other people to follow our code of dress, to follow our code of gender relations, and to follow our code of modesty. These contemporary Western majorty codes are enforced as specifically, as instantly, and often as violently as those of our derided religious nutters. We are all Navaros.

If I don't cover myself properly in public, I get thrown into jail. Yes, my arms I can bare, but other parts of my body not. What can be laid bare, what is considered modest, differs for men and women.
If I use the same bathroom as women, some woman will scream and some big guys will come and beat me beat up. There is no rational reason for stricly segregated bathrooms, other than the demands of modesty. Not very different from sepreate parts of buses for men and women.
If I insist on wearing anything that deviates from the norm too far, I'll be socially outcast. I can not have a social or professional life if I insist on wearing only my New Guinean Koteka. Or my Darth Vader costume.

The differences between the nutters and us are, firstly that our contemporary Western codes mostly are not grounded in / legitimised by ancient texts, but on newer customs. Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.
We do not differ much in the strict social enforcement of these codes. Nor, sometimes, in the amount of violence that we are prepared to use to dissuade persons from deviating from the norm.
The majority norm in the West is, however, usually regarded as transient. Nor as universal. Which perhaps has a mitigating influence on the amount of violence society is prepared to use against those who deviate from the norm. Or perhaps a more general emphasis on individual liberty is the root for a greater tolerance and a less violent dissuasion of deviancy.

I ever so slightly agree with this post.

[Adrian II]

We are all Navaros.

Yes, and we are also Hitler, Einstein and Rembrandt. Then again, we are not.

That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.

[Viking]

Yes, and we are also Hitler, Einstein and Rembrandt. Then again, we are not.

That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.

So, basically, you're blaming those who demand respect for the respect they receive, rather than those who give the respect.

[Adrian II]

So, basically, you're blaming those who demand respect for the respect they receive, rather than those who give the respect.

No, I am blaming you squarely for all that's wrong in this world. And you know I'm right.

[PBI]

Our codes are more fluid, prone to change. And secondly, partly because of the previous, these codes are not considered universal.

This, for me is the crux of the issue. A secular moral code may have flaws and injustices, but it is not set in stone and if it is perceived to be too unjust it can be changed.

A religious moral code however is considered to be the absolute Word of God and therefore infallible. It cannot be changed no matter how broken it is.

Of course, a moderate religious person can accept that although the religion is infallible, their interpretation of it may not be, and thus is willing to live and let live (for instance, by not feeling the need to condemn the woman for her choice of clothes). A fanatic, however, cannot conceive that their interpretation could possibly be wrong and is thus willing to try to impose their values on others.

[Tribesman]

As a 'religious nutter', are any of these ideas going to have a drastic affect on society? Or take away peoples freedom?

Well yes they are , take Jerusalem for example , jerusalem society is being changed(over and abovethe war and terrorist shitethat goes on there) because Jeruslems long established Jewish Christian and Muslim citizens and business are being driven out by fundamentalist nuts who view their interpretation of religeous law as absolute and use repeated and sustained violence against any that don't fit their "ideal" .
It is these idiots who are the same as the wahhibis that so many are willing to moan about , but seem shy of doing so now .

But of course I do like the story on the bottom of the Muslims are crazy too link W&F posted , though of course it won't make navaros happy , Iran is banning stoning people , so for Navaros the Iranian government are now apostates who are turning away from the law as set down by "GodTM"

[KukriKhan]

Keep the critiques general in nature, Lads, and not personally-directed.

Carry on.

[Lemur]

A fanatic, however, cannot conceive that their interpretation could possibly be wrong and is thus willing to try to impose their values on others.

Willing? No, sir, he is commanded to by God. All of this reminds me of a relevant quote ...

Ambiguity vanishes from a fanatic's worldview; a narcissistic sense of self-assurance replaces all doubt. A delicious rage quickens his pules, fueled by the sins and shortcomings of lesser mortals, who are soiling the world wherever he looks. His perspective narrows until the last remnants of proportion are shed from his life. Through immoderation, he experiences something akin to rapture.

[Moros]

If there was a god, and if he wanted us to be clothed completely, we would have been born with clothes you couldn't get out off.

Though that would make a mess when you need to go to the toilet

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you have the same irrational attitude about sex. You stated that children should never, ever be confronted with it, as if sex were some sort of lethal trap, a source of untold horror and misery instead of a source of joy and fulfillment. Maybe you are not that rigid, but from what you wrote it seems that you have the makings of a fanatic.

Attitudes like that are hardly related to religion these days. Just standard strict parents.

[Caius]

Who said that sex was wrong? At least, some religions do not allow sex for pleasure, only for reproductional purposes.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's the short answer. The long one I find too obvious and boring to write. Well ok, let me say that today's hang-ups about nudity are a remnant of religious history, mainly Christian and Muslim history. And the main reason we still have laws against public nudity is because democratic society respects the Navaroses and their sensitivities. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have those laws and public nidity wouldn't be an issue.

Wait, are you serious?

Most people have a hangup with public nudity because they've walked outside their homes and looked around.

[Adrian II]

Most people have a hangup with public nudity because they've walked outside their homes and looked around.

No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.

I'm not sure anyone is shocked by a naked body, just disgusted. I would rather not see most people naked I see in this world, and it has nothing to do with religion.

[Papewaio]

If there was a god, and if he wanted us to be clothed completely, we would have been born with clothes you couldn't get out off.

It's called skin and we should be ashamed that we cover the clothes that God gave us. After all Adam and Eve were nude in Eden, God didn't have a problem with them walking around naked then did He.

No, they have been thoroughly accustomed to enforced covering from the day they were born. If they hadn't, like for instance the Spartans, they wouldn't be shocked.

I'm not sure given the general fitness of the Western World that I would be so happy to sit on a train with no air conditioning traveling through Sydney on a hot summers day.

[Viking]

I'm not sure anyone is shocked by a naked body, just disgusted. I would rather not see most people naked I see in this world, and it has nothing to do with religion.

It's called culture; which is also an indoctrination.

It's called skin and we should be ashamed that we cover the clothes that God gave us.

Heh, I can see this person preaching to the eskimoes that clothes are the spawn of Satan.

[InsaneApache]

I'm not sure given the general fitness of the Western World that I would be so happy to sit on a train with no air conditioning traveling through Sydney on a hot summers day.

Not to mention eating out, I mean would you like your penne served by the chef with his dangly bits in the arrabiata sauce? Me neither.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's called culture; which is also an indoctrination.

Its called aesthetics. I can imagine even a thin layer of cotton-poly blend would make a several hour airplane ride that much more tolerable...

[Viking]

Its called aesthetics. I can imagine even a thin layer of cotton-poly blend would make a several hour airplane ride that much more tolerable...

Oh ya'know, there are these tribes in the middle of jungles wearing clothes...that doesn't necessarily cover the genitalia though.

Perhaps you're telling me that what's considererd aesthetic does not vary from culture to culture?

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm saying that people realize, unless properly maintained, the human body goes to mush quick enough, and most people don't have the time or energy to do it. The fact that society prefers clothes has a lot less to do with a sexually repressed culture or evil religion than the knowledge of what lies beneath the fabric...

If Baywatch was an accurate reflection of reality, nudity wouldn't be an issue. (I feel so dated for referencing Baywatch..)

[LittleGrizzly]

the idea of beauty itself is indoctrinated into us as a culture, things which will affect breeding capability are our only natural guide to mating, the idea of blonde hair or big breasts being beautiful are just culturally breed into us, we do not feel the same disgust if it is a fat animal, or feel disgust if the animal is naked, as it is something (naked animals) that we are used to.

[Adrian II]

Yeah yeah, there are enough situations where it is inconvenient to be naked, and not just for Eskimoes or Italian chefs. We all know that. But the point about culture stands. Different cultures have put taboos on different areas of the human body and exalted certain areas and shapes as being sexually significant, the remnants of which we observe today in the form of 'taste'. That's all there is to it.

[Viking]

I'm saying that people realize, unless properly maintained, the human body goes to mush quick enough, and most people don't have the time or energy to do it. The fact that society prefers clothes has a lot less to do with a sexually repressed culture or evil religion than the knowledge of what lies beneath the fabric...

Which got to do with culture, anyway.

If Baywatch was an accurate reflection of reality, nudity wouldn't be an issue.

So why aren't the "baywatchers" nude?

[yesdachi]

I saw an Amish girl’s ankle once. She called it first base.