It is difficult because it seems a line does need to be drawn somewhere between the burqa and public naked sex & that will always be, to some extent, arbitrary. There is no factual line. This genuinely is a social construct. We have to argue for where we think it should be & whyhttps://twitter.com/mlowry/status/960119315365326848 …
-
-
ok so free dress to you is a man masturbating on a school bus. Pretty sure that most people wouldn't do that, because of morals etc So if we cant trust people to choose their own dress, then forcing women to dress modestly is ok? That really is the end of your argument here.
-
That was my point in the first place! That there needs to be some line between burqas and public naked sex and that wherever it is will always be somewhat arbitrary. It genuinely is a social construct and we need to argue for where that is.
-
Nudity & public naked sex aren't the same thing Not being clothed is not the same thing as being available for sex. They are two very different things and I"m surprised you are conflating the two. What we wear & what we say should be free, providing it doesnt cause harm to others
-
The scale is 'modesty' in relation to concepts of sexual appropriateness.
-
Is a naked human immodest or sexual? Or is it just what it is? A naked human like we all are? Modesty is a judgement and I'm a bit sad that you have decided to judge as to what is modest and what is not? Who gave you that right to decide what is modest?
-
It was you who said 'No public sex because people have morals', not me. Your line is obviously where sexuality is concerned. OK, mine probably is too. But this is still largely arbitrary. Sex is natural. The other animals don't worry. Can't rationalise it.
-
Why do you always miss the point and get antagonistic about it? It's beyond tiresome. I really have had enough now.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's moral disgust more than physical. As you say, hygienic concerns can be addressed. There is a consensus (for now) that the public sphere needs to be kept "clean" so that citizens regularly get reminded that their society expects rising above animaility.
-
Good point but how can we be disgusted by the naked human form since we revere them in our public art galleries? It really makes no sense how in 2018 a naked human can be seen as immoral or disgusting. It really doesn't
-
It's not so much that it's in and of itself immoral and disgusting; it is that it's destabalizingly problematic to have lots of naked people running around and doing it in public, which is why sex was "privatized" 37,231 years ago.
-
I think that you, like Helen, are conflating sex and nudity. It's a Victorian age thinking where we used to cover the feet of piano's so as not to have them exposed. Surely, we are smarter and more reasoned than that today. Aren't we?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.