Why is public nudity still see as a negative behavior in the Christian Church

[wearetwo]

Hi everyone! My husband and myself have been married for 25 years and have been active nudist for almost that long. First off, we are NOT looking for anyone to have sex with on here so don't even go there. Some nudists are swingers but not all nudists are swingers. Many of our friends accept our nudist lifestyle ((even some of our Christian friends) however for the most part it seems that most of the condemanation still comes from the Christian Church. We would argue that being naked is as wexposed as you can be in God's presents and there is no shame in it. Yes we will openly admit that being naked has led to other behavior and we can discuss that if you would like, however we would suggest that being a nudist is very Biblical. We are in our 50s and the picture is really us so if you choose to reply you will know who you are addressing. Have a great Friday night and hope to hear your thoughts on the subject.

 

[RJM]

most of the condemanation still comes from the Christian Church.

Interesting. What sort of condemnation do you get? There lots of different branches and Christian churches; which Christians condemn you? What do they say to you? Do they actively come after you to condemn you? Do they condemn you for being naked in your own home or on nudist beaches?

Welcome to the IO forums

 

[RJM]

What is public nudity?

 

[Miken]

Much of today's Christianity has its roots in Paul's letters which frequently talked about how flesh was evil and sinful and spirit was good and holy. That attitude is still deeply embedded.

 

[Cino]

Welcome!

 

[RJM]

Once we know what 'public nudity' is we can start asking for an interfaith response?

 

[wearetwo]

Sorry for the slow responses, it has been a busy weekend. The word public in the title of this thread would refer to the ability for us (or anyone) to be any degree of naked while being in the view of the general public. At this point our laws limit nudity to certain places (usual private owned beaches, parks and/or resorts where anyone can be naked. We have been at these places and there has been singles, couples and even families who are naked. There are some countries that have naked public beaches that we have visited as well. We have an acreage where we live that is a clothing optional property. If you would visit us there (weather permitting) you would most likely see us naked and you would be able to undress as well. We have had gatherings where everyone has been naked or a mixture of clothed and unclothed.
Hope this answers your question.

 

[wearetwo]

Much of today's Christianity has its roots in Paul's letters which frequently talked about how flesh was evil and sinful and spirit was good and holy. That attitude is still deeply embedded.

Yes Miken we do agree but would you agree that a person innocently being naked is different than a person using the naked body in sinful ways?
We can be on a naked beach the whole day and it is no different that having swimsuits on.

 

[Cino]

In my part of my country, it used to be normal to be nude at beaches or in swimming pools. This changed to an extent since the end of the cold war. Public nudity of the kind you mention is still way more accepted where I live than in the more western parts of my country.

When you speak of "innocence", is there a religious connotation?

 

[RJM]

The word public in the title of this thread would refer to the ability for us (or anyone) to be any degree of naked while being in the view of the general public.

Anywhere in public? In the bank -- at the supermarket?

 

[wearetwo]

In my part of my country, it used to be normal to be nude at beaches or in swimming pools. This changed to an extent since the end of the cold war. Public nudity of the kind you mention is still way more accepted where I live than in the more western parts of my country.

When you speak of "innocence", is there a religious connotation?

Thanks and we have seen that as well where nudity is accepted (or at least not condemned) and other places where it will go as far as an arrest.

I simple mean it is possible to be naked and it have nothing to do with sex or lust. There are women (like me) who think a nice tight pair of jeans on a guy is very hot, then should guys start wearing sweats?

 

[wearetwo]

Anywhere in public? In the bank -- at the supermarket?

i will admit that there are places where being naked is just not practical and I think we could at least start by allowing anyone to be naked outside of buildings.

 

[RJM]

start by allowing anyone to be naked outside of buildings.

Are there other cultures where people walk around naked anywhere they like? Is it just Christians?

 

[Thomas]

John Paul II (Roman Catholic) said:
"This does not, however, mean that physical shamelessness is to be simply and exclusively identified with complete or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment, (even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness (immodesty of feeling), not the other."

"Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment. What happens then may be called depersonalization by sexualization. But this is not inevitable. Even when nakedness goes with mutual sexual enjoyment respect for the dignity of the person can be fully preserved."

"Although physical immodesty cannot be identified in a simple way with nakedness as such, it none the less requires a real internal effort to refrain from reacting to the naked body in an immodest way. It should however be added that there is a difference between immodesty in feelings on the one hand and reflex sensual reactions to the body and sex as a 'possible object of enjoyment' on the other. The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person, and specifically of the will, which too easily accepts the sensual reaction and reduces another person, because of the person's 'body and sex', to the role of an object for enjoyment."
Love and Responsibility, by (then) Karol Wojtyla, pp. 189-192.

Here the emphasis is on the internal, not the external, visible form. Put simply, sin is in the mind, not the body.

 

[wearetwo]

No it is not just Christians that have an issue with nudity but since this is a faith site i thought it would be a good place to bring it up. The other countries that allow nudity generally allow it in certain places and if you do not want to see it, you can not go in those areas.

 

[RJM]

No it is not just Christians that have an issue with nudity but since this is a faith site i thought it would be a good place to bring it up.

An interfaith site. All faiths.

The other countries that allow nudity generally allow it in certain places and if you do not want to see it, you can not go in those areas.

Isn't that true in America?

 

[Thomas]

I think you'll find Buddhism works along roughly the same lines?

From Guide To Buddhism A To Z:
"The Buddha made it a rule that monks should never go naked, even within their private quarters (Vin.II,121). He said: `Nakedness is unbecoming, unsuitable, improper, unworthy of an ascetic, not allowable and not to be done'(Vin.I,305). He objected to it on two grounds. The first was because like all austerities or surface changes, nudity does not lead to significant inner change. He said: `Not nakedness nor matted hair, not mud nor fasting, not lying on the ground, being unwashed or squatting on the heels will purify one who has not passed beyond doubt' (Dhp.141). He also objected to nudity because it contravened the norms of polite society for no good reason. Lady Visàkhà once saw some nuns bathing naked and commented: `Nakedness in women is ugly, abhorrent and objectionable'(Vin.I,293), which seems to have been the general opinion at that time. The Buddha wanted his monks and nuns to abide by the normal standards of decorum and good manners, the better to be able to communicate the Dhamma to others. He was also anxious that his monks and nuns should be distinct from those of other sects, inwardly but also outwardly. Because many of these other ascetics were either completely or partly naked or wore whatever they liked, the Buddha stipulated that his ordained disciples should wear a distinct and easily identifiable robe."

Again, the emphasis is on the inner, not the outer, forms.

 

[Miken]

Yes Miken we do agree but would you agree that a person innocently being naked is different than a person using the naked body in sinful ways?
We can be on a naked beach the whole day and it is no different that having swimsuits on.

Of course it is different. And for the record I am not a Christian.

 

[wearetwo]

John Paul II (Roman Catholic) said:
"This does not, however, mean that physical shamelessness is to be simply and exclusively identified with complete or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment, (even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness (immodesty of feeling), not the other."

"Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment. What happens then may be called depersonalization by sexualization. But this is not inevitable. Even when nakedness goes with mutual sexual enjoyment respect for the dignity of the person can be fully preserved."

"Although physical immodesty cannot be identified in a simple way with nakedness as such, it none the less requires a real internal effort to refrain from reacting to the naked body in an immodest way. It should however be added that there is a difference between immodesty in feelings on the one hand and reflex sensual reactions to the body and sex as a 'possible object of enjoyment' on the other. The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person, and specifically of the will, which too easily accepts the sensual reaction and reduces another person, because of the person's 'body and sex', to the role of an object for enjoyment."
Love and Responsibility, by (then) Karol Wojtyla, pp. 189-192.

Here the emphasis is on the internal, not the external, visible form. Put simply, sin is in the mind, not the body.

Very well put Thomas, as a couple who enjoy living the nudist lifestyle, we can say that YES the reactions to our nudity can vary from people taking a glace and not caring whether we are clothed or not to the people who go as far as thinking that is someone is naked they have the right to take it further. Now, as experienced nudists we understand that people are naturally stimulated by seeing someone else naked and because of our experience have gotten a little used to the comments and reactions. As you can see I have very large boobs and you might imagine the attention that they get from both men and women and understand the urges to touch. As a man my husband has another issue with getting aroused when he is naked and when that has happened can range from just a look to his cock getting handled or even orally stimulated.

 

[Thomas]

I simple mean it is possible to be naked and it have nothing to do with sex or lust.

OK.

There are women (like me) who think a nice tight pair of jeans on a guy is very hot ...

Then that falls within the context of lust, doesn't it?

It rather speaks to the point JP-II and the Buddhist commentary is making, does it not?