In a “best-of” repost Lisa of Feminist Mormon Housewives brought up a 2004 post by Not Ophelia about different standards of modesty in different countries (Europe, Utah, Saudi Arabia) and asks a great question…
Anyway, what stuck me about this whole European nudity thing was that toplessness and even complete nudity was not connected with sexuality the way it is in this country. At the pool there was [of course] much flirting going on between the gorgeous [topless] girls and the equally gorgeous [topless] boys. But I don’t think the boys were anymore ‘turned on’ by the whole thing than an American teenaged boy faced with a bikini would be. OTOH I do think the European boys were less turned on by the topless thing than say a Saudi boy would be when faced with the Modest Mormon Swimsuit. Female toplessness is no more a sexual thing in Europe than say showing your arm is in America. But in other countries a hidden arm is a sexual arm, and a sexual arm must be hidden [don’t you just hate that circular logic.]
So, a few thought questions:
It seems to me that one can be completely naked and completely modest [as in Europe.] One can also be fully clothed and quite immodest. Modesty may have less to do with a state of clothing and more to do with drawing attention to one’s self, particularly in a sexual way.
And as for burqas and the like  can/does modesty worsen lust? Or is it just prudishness that causes the burqa problem? [And its attendant female repression]
Can’t remember where I said it first, but it’s not that people look more or less sexy naked or partially undressed, it’s that generally speaking people don’t look any more sexy naked than dressed.
Case in point: almost everywhere faces are kept naked. This doesn’t mean we’re indifferent to attractive faces, in fact we’re sometimes captivated. What we don’t do, however, is sexualize naked faces. Going a step further, mouths and hands are unambiguously sexual organs, but almost everywhere naked mouths and hands are not sexualized.
This gets, I think, to Ophilia’s underlying point: the relative erotics of dress are about intention and, I think more significantly, viewers’ relative sense of privilege, not absolute state of dress.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-11-30 16:54.
It makes perfect sense. The more common the incidence of seeing body parts, the less the will be sexy in general. A specific pair of lips will turn me on, for instance because they are attached to a certain man. Those lips are sexualized due to him, not just because they are lips.
If we stick around long enough, we will get to that point they have reached in Europe, as well.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-12-01 01:01.
I'm going to assume that "we" in this case means "the general public". I've been to clothing-optional beaches and resorts; I've seen online discussions by self-described nudists and naturists. There are people who do not sexualize the human body at all, and apparently I'm one of them. It's also apparently not very hard for most people to unlearn that - assuming they want to.
I've talked to some people non-nudist people about the subject also. Most seem to fall in three camps. Some people simply do not believe that it is possible. To them, naked bodies are inherently sexual, and anyone who claims they're not at least thinking of screwing someone just because they're naked (unless the "body" in question is ugly) then they're obviously lying. Some believe that this is possible but see it as a bad thing. They seem to see de-sexualizeation of the human body as somehow taking part of the fun out of life. The third group is more open-minded but usually unwilling to try it themselves. Somehow they don't seem to want others to see their bodies even if nobody sexualizes them or cares what they look like, usually expressing discomfort in the idea. That's how ingrained modesty is in our culture.
One more thing. Don't be too quick to hold up europe as a shining example of topfree freedom. Apparently, while it's generally legal, and rarely questioned in specifically designated areas, a significant portion of the population still has problems with it. Women still get harassed or even thrown out of places for being topfree occasionally. Obviously, some countries are better for this than others. From what I've heard (and I haven't heard enough to be reliable on this, so take it with a grain of salt) Germany and Denmark seem to be the most nudity-tolerant, and supposedly ultra-liberal Sweden has been having problems with acceptance of bare breasts as of late.
Maybe it's a generational thing: younger people are more accepting, older people resisting harder as it becomes more prevalent. But whatever the reason, europe ain't quite there yet. Neither is Canada, which is making its first steps in that direction.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-12-01 10:51.
I grew up partly in Germany, and with a German mother, so I grew up accustomed to nudity all around me - nude sunbathing, nude sauna, whatever. It wasn't at all inherently sexual.
Now that I've spent so much time in the US, it's hard for me to divorce nudity from sexuality. It's something I struggle with, because I believe it's important to have space to be naked without necessarily being sexual. If I'm walking around my house naked after a shower, that's not an invitation -- it's just comfort.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-12-02 11:39.
My piece on this topic is here:
http://afemanistview.blogspot.com/2007/06/bare-thought.html
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-12-02 18:47.
I checked your piece and I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying. But many nudists have stated that being naked, especially with other people, is a very sensual experience... but not inherently a sexual one, unless you want or expect it to be. To them, at least, there's a significant difference. For people whose only sensual experiences are also sexual, there isn't (or at least, it doesn't seem to be to them) a significant difference. Which is probably a large part of the general public's association between nudity and sex.
Also, being clothed in certain ways can be sexual too, which confuses matters. Sexual or non-sexual probably has nothing to do with clothing or lack of it.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-12-03 09:57.
I didn't see my parents naked often, except when I was really little. My mom, later, tended towards not being particularly modest, and then there was the close quarters of the boat to contend with ... I hate when I read advice columns and they're like "DO NOT EVER LET YOUR CHILD SEE YOU NAKED!" Christ. Seeing an occasional boob when Mom was changing didn't warp me. It wasn't sexual, it was just taking off her bra to put on a nightgown. God, how people freak out.
I think that nudity isn't inherently sexual, but I think I'm in the minority in this country. Sometimes it is, like when I'm having sex. Mostly it isn't, like when I'm getting out of the shower or changing or sunning myself or something.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-12-05 04:25.
My basic point was that nudity can be for many different reasons, and non-sexual nudity is a positive thing.
I think you actually restated the thesis very concisely, I just sought to use my personal experiences with Julie to illustrate the point, and maybe that was more confusing than illuminating.
Submitted by 2548 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-03-06 12:48.
I love sex and i often take trips to sex resorts in the Caribbean like [... edited by fl]. However it doesn't mean that I have to look at every female sexually because her boobs are big and nice, people often view women as their sex toy and forget that she has her own wants and feelings.
[Nicely put, Rick. Note though that I removed the brand-name from your post. I wouldn't want your comment to be mistaken for spam. --fl]