Crossdressing in public

[Braydon]

Yeah, but this does not change the fact that nudity isn't sexual by default. Just because conservative lawmakers of old saw it as something that's wrong doesn't make it so. One would be too bold to, say, try and tell tribes who are in the nude on a normal basis that they're wrong for not wearing clothes?

That's a pretty bad argument. For starters, you imply that we're talking exclusively about drag queens who use means to simulate breasts, etc. Secondly, you imply that the only was a woman can cross dress is to have a bulge?

So let me get this straight: If a woman wears clothes meant for a man, it's okay so long as she has no bulge in her crotch. If a man wears clothes meant for a woman, and makes no effort to wear makeup or give the illusion of mammaries, it's still wrong? Why? Is it because men in dresses or cardigans look aesthetically worse in your eyes than a woman wearing a tuxedo? If so, then that's the kind of double standard that needs to be addressed and ultimately removed from society, because if a man wants to wear a blouse or a skirt, simply because he likes the way they look, not receiving any sexual gratification from it, then why deny him that freedom, or why ridicule him?

Nudity isn't sexual by default? All you've shown is that it isn't exclusively sexual, not that it isn't normally sexual.

And stop talking about tribes, they're tribes, I'm not going to base my idea of how society should be run on the most primitive cultures and you shouldn't either.

A man wearing a dress without fake breasts... So you mean a man wearing a robe? I wouldn't count that as cross-dressing. Most clothes considered cross dressing are designed for women specifically, a blouse not designed to fit a woman's breast is just a shirt. The only real exception is a skirt, I've always thought that was bunched in because it is basically the lower half of a dress, but I don't really know why.

 

[adumbrodeus]

People report me for insulting them, I get an infraction, I report adumbrodeus for insulting me, I get a lecture on how dumb I am.

Succumbio for worst mod ever.

Oh really? That was the point in declaring me incapable of logical discussion? And here I thought you said it because you were a *******.

Because I didn't call you dumb? I asked if you understood certain mathematical concepts which are the foundation of modern logic because it was relevant to my argument.

You lecture me about how to debate, yet you use strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks for no reason. You also seem to be under the idea that your way of debating is the only way, which is blatantly untrue. I'm sorry do you see a forum called the "Formal debate hall?" I haven't seen where it says conversational English is banned and you have to talk mechanically because your reader might be to ****ing stupid to understand context or fill in the, very small, blanks.


You criticize it because you can't understand, and you didn't even try to. All that ever went through your little walnut brain is how you can defeat me with your strawman arguments, putting words in my mouth, you might as well just go ahead and start writing "Vanquished" in giant text at this point.

You again miss the point, you have left no standard. I could just assume that you think all nudity is sexual (except in all the contexts that I agree with of course because it's obvious to everyone), or I could actually press you for your actual standard.

Even if I assume the "obvious ones", I could still be wrong, you could be a person who actually believes all nudity is sexual, after all people with extreme opinions exist. The only way to know is to probe.

The thing is, you seem absolutely dead set on believing that your perspective is the only possible one a reasonable person would come to, therefore anyone who doesn't arrive at exactly your perspective is being intellectually dishonest. That of course makes it impossible to ever debate or discuss any topic in good faith. That's why you legitimately believe I strawmanned you, even though nothing you believe you implied was there.

 

[Sucumbio]

People report me for insulting them, I get an infraction, I report adumbrodeus for insulting me, I get a lecture on how dumb I am.

Succumbio for worst mod ever.

No one is forcing you to post here. And the difference between a flame, and a legit argument is often just in the words you choose. He doesn't curse. That's why your report was rejected. Also, to avoid getting another infraction, use forum support to discuss these matters. It is off topic otherwise, and we've already mentioned it is inappropriate to address these concerns in open forum.

 

[NightStormFox]

It's plausible to have an argumentative discussion without taking a rise from other's opinions.

I'll again reiterate that I am not one who would be prone to cross-dress. We're in an age where diversity of race is more commonly accepted and approached openly with the acknowledgement that each individual, though different, have qualities as individuals that contribute to society. The same works in this case what can be considered as a sub-culture or a practice amongst other like-minded individuals who are not causing any unwarranted harm to others. These people, while embracing their own unique interests, may be some people you may find hard to live without. They could be your local electrician, a teacher, your supervisor, your friend, a family member, maybe your favorite voice actor or a member of the cast who made it all happen. They are still under a code of dress as expected of them in the general public in regards to work, but beyond that point they are free to make the decisions of attire as they see fit and within reason of their resources.

In regards to nudity, this conversation was never about nudity. Nudity in any means is an entirely other topic for review. As a finishing statement, nudity does not involve sexuality in all cases. In many instances where the act of intercourse occurred, at least one member was stimulated and acted on the thought of sex. There are instances where no members are stimulated nor act in intercourse. For example, new borns. Jokingly stating, they are not born with clothes on their backs. Most people aren't aroused at the site of a naked baby.

On the opposite end of a more age appropriate setting where sex could occur, nudists exist. There are nudist communities in which large groups of people gather naked, but can remain un-stimulated by those around them.

Likewise with nudity being another topic, sex is a much broader subject with varying opinions in meaning, or seemingly from my view on how people approach the subject, the lack of meaning people seem to consider in it. Cross-dressing does not mean to become nude. Some people may find it a stimulating experience, but cross-dressing and being nude are two separate scenarios, just like you can't penetrate someone, by normal means, when both of you are still dressed and not going around the clothing.

 

[NightStormFox]

P.S: There are flat-chested girls too, which is perfectly fine and I find myself attracted to most sizes especially the smaller sized women. So you don't need to have fake breasts or bulges in the chest to resemble a woman.

 

[AZ_Spellbound]

I would call this subject a matter of opinion, in regards to the original post on the first page. We live in a time where everything seems to be out in the open. The internet of course being a great example of just how openly accessible information, whether biased or factual, may be. You can find groups open to cross-dressing and forums that support its idea.

I myself won't cross-dress, but I know some people who will. A friend of mine plans to cross-dress for a cosplay. Another friend happens to cross-dress often for being a transvestite and hiding the fact. Do you have to have a specific reason to cross-dress? I think there is a cause to actively choose to cross-dress. There's some reason behind wanting to wear clothing meant for the opposite gender. On that note it can be for the same reasons someone buys the latest and hottest clothing for guys wear thinking that outfit might be cool.

There's no law against cross-dressing, but even if there was that hasn't stopped people from doing what they would do, such as smuggling in beer when in was once outlawed in the US for a brief period before our time, and the current war on drugs which has been an ongoing battle. The subject of cross-dressing doesn't bare the same intensity as far as the law is concerned, but by means of possible social judgement I would advise anyone doing so to be open-minded to the fact that others won't be accepting of the action.

When confronting people who aren't accepting and ridiculing you for cross-dressing, be prepared to state you reasons as to why you enjoy it. I don't entirely understand the desire to cross-dress myself, nor do I plan to in the future, but just as I have met many others with habits or lifestyles unlike my own, I've found many people whom are different to be decent people.

This may seem a bit wishy washy, but it's a really grey line in my opinion. Summing it up though, if people find it acceptable for women to wear full tuxedos and ties, then it's a double standard to not be accepting of men in dresses.

I mostly just crossdress because its fun to be honest.

 

[Braydon]

Because I didn't call you dumb? I asked if you understood certain mathematical concepts which are the foundation of modern logic because it was relevant to my argument.



You again miss the point, you have left no standard. I could just assume that you think all nudity is sexual (except in all the contexts that I agree with of course because it's obvious to everyone), or I could actually press you for your actual standard.

Even if I assume the "obvious ones", I could still be wrong, you could be a person who actually believes all nudity is sexual, after all people with extreme opinions exist. The only way to know is to probe.

The thing is, you seem absolutely dead set on believing that your perspective is the only possible one a reasonable person would come to, therefore anyone who doesn't arrive at exactly your perspective is being intellectually dishonest. That of course makes it impossible to ever debate or discuss any topic in good faith. That's why you legitimately believe I strawmanned you, even though nothing you believe you implied was there.

... I have no standard? You haven't given an argument at all you've just told me I'm wrong.

So far all you've given me is:
1. Nude babies are not sexual
2. ???
3. Therefore nudity is not sexual

You absolutely fail to address all the situations it is and seem to think one exception invalidates the rule, that's not even remotely true...

 

[adumbrodeus]

... I have no standard? You haven't given an argument at all you've just told me I'm wrong.

Exactly, you're the one asserting something and I'm asserting that you're wrong, I don't need to create a standard of my own to do that unless I'm asserting you're wrong based on my moral standards.

Heck I don't even know if your actual position is one I disagree with. I just what you to comprehensively define it so I can understand where you're coming from.

You absolutely fail to address all the situations it is and seem to think one exception invalidates the rule, that's not even remotely true...

Actually that's exactly what an exception does when the rule is defining what something is, it's called a counter-example. If it applies to the vast majority of situations beyond that counter-example it's called a heuristic.

 

[Braydon]

it's called a heuristic.

No, it's not. That is not a meaning for that word... Google it.

It's still a rule, it's just not a universal rule.

Exactly, you're the one asserting something and I'm asserting that you're wrong, I don't need to create a standard of my own to do that unless I'm asserting you're wrong based on my moral standards.

Heck I don't even know if your actual position is one I disagree with. I just what you to comprehensively define it so I can understand where you're coming from.



Actually that's exactly what an exception does when the rule is defining what something is, it's called a counter-example. If it applies to the vast majority of situations beyond that counter-example it's called a heuristic.

Except you haven't proved me wrong at all, you've just put words in my mouth.

And I do have a standard, you don't want me to conform to a standard you want me to conform to your standard. I have a standard, and my standard doesn't include avoiding conversational English in favor of being overly technical and irritating, especially not to the point were you try to use unusual words to the point you wind up making them up and saying a rule with an exception is a heuristic.

I'm not asking that much, all you have to do is fill in a one word blank, and you get it wrong. I say "nudity is sexual" and you get "all nudity is sexual," I never specified every possible case, it's a general statement, just fill in the blank "nudity is generally sexual."

 

[Sucumbio]

Can someone remind why nudity, sexual or otherwise, relates to crossdressing in public? Thx.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Can someone remind why nudity, sexual or otherwise, relates to crossdressing in public? Thx.

I suppose it's a tangent stemming from the question of what constitutes socially/ethically acceptable ways to present yourself in public spaces or areas. Is it acceptable to dress in ways associated with genders other than your own? Is it acceptable to go out with little to no clothing in public areas? The two topics cover the same general ethical issue (social norms and taboos, and whether they are, or can be, justified).

Though I guess it would be better to focus on the crossdressing, given the thread. Maybe someone ought to make a public nudity thread for a more dedicated discussion.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ah, thanks.

So basically dressing differently than expected, up to and including the exact opposite, is akin to not dressing at all.

Furthermore the act of dressing in clothing meant for the opposite gender, is necessarily just as sexual an act, as is the act of being nude.

I get that right?

 

[Sehnsucht]

Ah, thanks.

So basically dressing differently than expected, up to and including the exact opposite, is akin to not dressing at all.

Furthermore the act of dressing in clothing meant for the opposite gender, is necessarily just as sexual an act, as is the act of being nude.

I get that right?

It does seem the current topic is whether public nudity (and/or public crossdressing) in particular are necessarily sexual acts, or expressions of fetish. The current tangent appears to concern sorting out that distinction.

For the record, my view is that neither of those things are necessarily sexual. They only become sexual if the intent behind the person adopting those states of (un)dress, or if the perception imposed onto those people by others, is sexual.

It's like the aesthetic-sexual distinction. I can appraise and appreciate someone's physicality on a purely aesthetic level without invoking any sexual filters (and vice-versa). So too, I would think, would it go for crossdressing, public nudity, and other matters of public presentation.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay. So to argue in favor of public nudity being necessarily sexual, we have to ignore any and all examples of public nudity where sexuality is not a factor, ergo examples of underdeveloped nations, infants, nude beaches, climate oriented dress codes, etc. And so too must we ignore instances of cross dressing in public that are similar in origin, so theater, costume parties, etc.

Seems to me there's too many different applications for being nude or dressed in opposite gender clothing to properly prescribe a so-called must. From this I am forced to conclude that nudity in and of itself is a state of being that is only sexual in a few isolated examples. Cross dressing therefore must also only be sexual in a given set of isolated examples.

 

[adumbrodeus]

stuff

You know, this is all just more red herring from you, you have a love affair with distraction. Though I am curious what words I made up.

You going to define when nudity is sexual, ever?

 

[Braydon]

Okay. So to argue in favor of public nudity being necessarily sexual, we have to ignore any and all examples of public nudity where sexuality is not a factor, ergo examples of underdeveloped nations, infants, nude beaches, climate oriented dress codes, etc. And so too must we ignore instances of cross dressing in public that are similar in origin, so theater, costume parties, etc.

Except that you haven't shown that lack of clothing in nude beaches or underdeveloped nations isn't sexual, you've just said they're not and expected everyone to take your word as fact... In some of those underdeveloped nations people go at it like rabbits... And climate oriented dress codes? What is that supposed to mean? There is no place on earth where there is an advantage to being nude in the climate.

Also are you telling me crossdressing should be excepted because of it's role in old theater? You do realize they only did that because they wouldn't let women on stage, if you see that as a legitimate reason...

Also costume parties aren't even in public so it's irrelevant to public reception of crossdressing.

Seems to me there's too many different applications for being nude or dressed in opposite gender clothing to properly prescribe a so-called must. From this I am forced to conclude that nudity in and of itself is a state of being that is only sexual in a few isolated examples. Cross dressing therefore must also only be sexual in a given set of isolated examples.

FEW? ISOLATED?! What?! Where the hell did you get this from? You showed one single exception and now that accounts for most situations? Ugh... why am I bothering...

You know, this is all just more red herring from you, you have a love affair with distraction. Though I am curious what words I made up.

You going to define when nudity is sexual, ever?

You wouldn't know what a red herring was if it bit you on the ass...

Maybe if you spent less time absorbed in thought of how much better you think you are than everyone else you might be able to listen long enough to understand what someone else was saying. I explained everything clearly, but I'm talking to a man with a walnut sized brain. This is like talking to a turtle, if turtles were belligerent, rude, and thought they were better than you.... and somehow managed to listen even less...

I'm done. There's no point. Nothing you are capable of thinking is even interesting or intellectually stimulating, if I wanted a conversation like this I'd chat up an incredibly loud mouthed parrot someone had taught to insult people.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity

Pretty much the whole article is filled with examples of nudity that are non sexual. Entire categories of events. And they're not even in 3rd world countries lol that was just to point to @ Claire Diviner example which was valid but cast aside by you because it somehow didn't count. But ignoring that example, as you can plainly see there are tons of examples where being naked in public isn't about perverse behavior, though you may personally feel disgusted by it. Like I mentioned earlier there are some who think a man shouldn't wear open toed shoes in public. Doesn't mean doing so means the guy is a pervert.

As for theater, just go to P town. No shortage of drag shows. And costume parties can be private, yes, but not always. And you ignore people in transit to said parties.

I say isolated because in all fairness sex can lead to nudity, but nudity does not automatically lead to sex. Since this is obvious and without question we are forced to conclude using some of the logic parameters adum mentioned, that nudity is not inherently sexual.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You wouldn't know what a red herring was if it bit you on the ***...

Maybe if you spent less time absorbed in thought of how much better you think you are than everyone else you might be able to listen long enough to understand what someone else was saying. I explained everything clearly, but I'm talking to a man with a walnut sized brain. This is like talking to a turtle, if turtles were belligerent, rude, and thought they were better than you.... and somehow managed to listen even less...

I'm done. There's no point. Nothing you are capable of thinking is even interesting or intellectually stimulating, if I wanted a conversation like this I'd chat up an incredibly loud mouthed parrot someone had taught to insult people.

No, I asked you to clarify and contextualize from the beginning, you just chose to bring up every possible auxiliary issue you could so you could dodge it. So I'm taking a page from my playbook when dealing with dre and eliminating everything else so you have no choice if you wanna give the impression of being engaged. And again you make an excuse to back away.

I think given the fact that pretty much nobody has insulted your person instead going for your ideas while you almost provide a minimum of one personal attack a post and you have yet to provide substance, context, or backup for your arguments makes it clear you're projecting. If you don't like the people here you're free to leave but I suspect that very few communities for discussion of these types of topics would put up with it any better.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

I've nothing against it. So long as it's convincing, I don't care so much which gender you decide to appear as.

I am a guy with rather long hair. I've had guys who later claim to be straight (and one time, a lesbian) hit on me. This is without trying, so apparently I'm feminine enough to qualify as female to begin with. I don't have a problem with these occurrences, and I( wouldn't mind anyone who wanted to do this on purpose. That's just me, though.

 

[Braydon]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity

Pretty much the whole article is filled with examples of nudity that are non sexual. Entire categories of events. And they're not even in 3rd world countries lol that was just to point to @ Claire Diviner example which was valid but cast aside by you because it somehow didn't count. But ignoring that example, as you can plainly see there are tons of examples where being naked in public isn't about perverse behavior, though you may personally feel disgusted by it. Like I mentioned earlier there are some who think a man shouldn't wear open toed shoes in public. Doesn't mean doing so means the guy is a pervert.

No the web page is full of things it says are examples of non sexual nudity. Again you expect to be taken at your word even though I can find no attempt to explain as to why there is nothing sexual about a nude beach.

Why wouldn't I count her example? Her example had absolutely no merit. She's trying to use the behavior of tribes as evidence that nudity is acceptable. First of all she's using the common fallacy that if something is normal it makes it okay. Then she's based that example on the most primitive form of society, and tribes are not know for their strong ethical code to anyone anywhere. Hell a decent chunk of these tribes used to be cannibals. Then she's simply stating that there's nothing sexual about it with no evidence again. All she's established is that the women in some tribes are topless on a regular basis. So what we've got is, "they're nude on a regular basis therefore nudity is non sexual." How does it being regular make it automatically non sexual?

And ffs stop the open toed shoe stuff. That has absolutely no relevance. You seem to be under the impression that just because the argument has been used in cases where it didn't make sense it is invalid. That's not even remotely logical, if it doesn't apply to one thing that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to anything.

I say isolated because in all fairness sex can lead to nudity, but nudity does not automatically lead to sex. Since this is obvious and without question we are forced to conclude using some of the logic parameters adum mentioned, that nudity is not inherently sexual.

So what you're telling me is that unless an event always ends in sex it is automatically non sexual? What?!

Kind of like how there is absolutely nothing sexual about a strip club? No wait that's not right at all... Maybe because something that is sexual doesn't have to lead to sex... and certainly not 100% of the time... The only thing you've proved is that sex is not a part of getting nude... Bravo...

Getting logic parameters from adum? Ha... That's not logic. You can't simply invalidate all the cases were nudity is sexual by showing one situation in which it is not. One exception does not allow you to ignore every other case. This so called logic can be used to reach either conclusion, you can show an exception to nudity being sexual and say that it is non sexual because of it, but I can also show a situation where nudity is sexual, and therefor using your so called logic conclude that nudity is not non sexual.

The entire argument you put forth is about marginalizing situations where it is sexual and trying to justify ignoring them. But they're not something that should be ignored, the only case I can see for justifying allowing public nudity is because the law against it was worse than allowing it, and you are yet to show a single reason why it is wrong, not a single reason why someone would need to be nude in public. And you can never show that the law is worse than what it stops because it is not worse.

@ adumbrodeus
All I hear is, "I don't understand it, and therefor it's wrong"

I'm not going to start defining situations were nudity is sexual and where it is not, for every situation I could think of there are an incalculable amount of other possible situations, I will not give specifics for a general statement, that does not make sense. I cannot possibly define specifics for every situation where nudity is and isn't sexual, all I could do is give a few situations which would not necessarily have any relevance to the larger trend. There is no possible way for such a discussion to ever reach a truly comprehensive conclusion because you can go on with specifics for eternity. Defining specifics for a general statement is a fools game, and I for one am not a fool, I will not participate in this.

 

[_Keno_]

Getting logic parameters from adum? Ha... That's not logic. You can't simply invalidate all the cases were nudity is sexual by showing one situation in which it is not. One exception does not allow you to ignore every other case. This so called logic can be used to reach either conclusion, you can show an exception to nudity being sexual and say that it is non sexual because of it, but I can also show a situation where nudity is sexual, and therefor using your so called logic conclude that nudity is not non sexual.

I agree that exceptions don't allow you to ignore all other cases, but when there are a large amount of exceptions, perhaps the rule is broken. Nude beaches, sunbathing, streaking, naturism, and 'tribal nudity.' There isn't direct "evidence" for human social traits (and I don't think there exists concrete evidence either way), only examples of where nudity is obviously not sexual. We can never offer you physical proof that nudity is not necessarily sexual because it's a social convention.

Perhaps for YOU, nudity is inherently sexual, and perhaps you will never be able to see it from another perspective, but that does not mean it is the same way for everyone.

you haven't shown that lack of clothing in nude beaches or underdeveloped nations isn't sexual

Also do you actually think that nude beaches / sunbathing is sexual? Have you ever been to one? Read about one? Seen a video of one? Literally you have no experience about them and you're plainly ignoring a HUGE counterpoint. Naturism/nudism EXISTS, and you can't just continue to ignore that.

The entire argument you put forth is about marginalizing situations where it is sexual and trying to justify ignoring them. But they're not something that should be ignored, the only case I can see for justifying allowing public nudity is because the law against it was worse than allowing it, and you are yet to show a single reason why it is wrong, not a single reason why someone would need to be nude in public. And you can never show that the law is worse than what it stops because it is not worse.

Nobody NEEDS to be nude in public, just like nobody NEEDS to wear socks or NEEDS to carry a purse, or even NEEDS to wear clothes. Laws are not made strictly to allow what is required, and nothing more. Laws are made to allow freedom, except where that freedom limits the freedom of others. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be, laws can honestly be anything.

Lastly, ASSUMING a person could be nonsexually nude in public to the point where he/she could talk/walk/act like a 'regular clothes-wearing person,' would that really be so bad to you?

 

[Sucumbio]

@ _Keno_ sums it up. Not to mention what started as borderline fallacy has now turned into straight up No True Scotsman. Shifting the goal post so that you're right. Truth is, only in America is public nudity so widely considered indecent. And so too is cross dressing, but to a lesser extent. Basically if a man is walking down the street in a dress, he's gonna get negative attention, unless it's a street in P town, or the like. And the sad thing is that it's not because he's dangerous, but because he's a non conformist.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

@ _Keno_ sums it up. Not to mention what started as borderline fallacy has now turned into straight up No True Scotsman. Shifting the goal post so that you're right. Truth is, only in America is public nudity so widely considered indecent. And so too is cross dressing, but to a lesser extent. Basically if a man is walking down the street in a dress, he's gonna get negative attention, unless it's a street in P town, or the like. And the sad thing is that it's not because he's dangerous, but because he's a non conformist.

*cough* genderinequality *cough*

 

[Gerpington]

I just want to casually point out that I am a trans girl (mtf for those that don't know what that means) that has had sex a few times, had no interest in it what so ever, and am now dating a trans man whom also doesn't care for it. We live a happy sexless life atm and both identitfy with the gender opposite to that which we were assigned at birth. Fetishests exists, sure and I hate the term crossdresser be posed as one that defines me (because it doesn't), but many would see me as such so I figured this held some merit.

It's not inherently sexual. It can be sexual, but haven't fetishists proven pretty much anything can be sexualized?

 

[Sucumbio]

That's another thing. Inherent.

"existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."

Sex is not essential when dressing in clothes typical for the opposite gender. Nor is it permanent, as in once you put on the clothes, you'll be permanently turned on (lol). Sex is not characteristic of dressing opposite.

Same goes for nudity. Being naked is not essential for sex, nor is sex essential for being naked. Sex does not render us permanently naked. Nor does being naked render us permanently in coitus. Nudity IS a characteristic of most sex acts, to this there's no doubt. But public nudity is not characteristic of most sex acts. There's only one actually, which is sex-in-public, and that can be attained with or without nudity.

Also having doing a very simple google search and linking to the first hit, a wiki on the history of public nudity, we find the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a social divide between nakedness and sex. They're not mutually exclusive, obviously, but just following any of the examples in the article will demonstrate the obvious: participants in these events didn't all suddenly decide to have a massive orgy because of all the nudity around them. If that's not clear and precise, I'm not sure what else to say other than, to each their own, you are within your right to believe what you will, but as we can see, some things are true whether you believe them or not.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@ adumbrodeus
All I hear is, "I don't understand it, and therefor it's wrong"

I'm not going to start defining situations were nudity is sexual and where it is not, for every situation I could think of there are an incalculable amount of other possible situations, I will not give specifics for a general statement, that does not make sense. I cannot possibly define specifics for every situation where nudity is and isn't sexual, all I could do is give a few situations which would not necessarily have any relevance to the larger trend. There is no possible way for such a discussion to ever reach a truly comprehensive conclusion because you can go on with specifics for eternity. Defining specifics for a general statement is a fools game, and I for one am not a fool, I will not participate in this.

And what I hear is "I'm not deriving this from any principals it's just what I feel is right", which of course makes any comparison of values impossible. It is no different then pointing out to my mother, who believes herself an orthodox catholic, that he views are formally condemned in a church council and she simply says she doesn't want to hear it. Her values are set in stone as what she feels but she has never examined where those values and norms are derived from and what principals they rest on.

So to it is clearly with you, you shirk from any analysis of the systematic source of your own values, you invalidate any other culture's experience as wrong, and the only thing that seems to line up is that those values are those of the wider american values which suggests you are simply an american who absorbed those values unquestioningly.

I gather of course that your expectation would be that we would be overwhelmed by the "rightness" of your value system that is plainly obvious to everyone, but the fact is that when viewed from a dispassionate sociological lens it does nothing of the sort. In a place meant to examine and analyze, declaring something right or wrong is valueless, what matters is the analysis.

You have contributed nothing to this conversation.

Edit: If you feel like deriving what your actual values are as actual principals rather then just saying what you feel, feel free to do so. But if you're going to discuss here the community expects actual mental effort.

 

[Gerpington]

I find it kind of humorous that people that actually identify as the opposite gender to that of which they were assigned are legit saying "yo, me doing this has nothing to do with sex." And some of us (mostly me) have admitted to not even wanting sex literally at all, and people are still arguing that cross dressing and being trans is inherently sexual.

Perhaps cross dressing as a hobby is sometimes sexual, and drag queens play with sexuality all the time, but they don't define cross dressing at all, they define DRAG PERFORMANCES. Which is another thing in entirely.

And they sure as heck don't define the transgender community, They aren't even a part of it. But this debate effects us too because society sees (most of us) as cross dressers (transwomen and transmen alike) It's getting better in recent years (and months since the whole Jenner thing actually caught the attention of a lot of cispeople).

Though I honestly don't see how cross dressing has to do with sex? Like lets look at it from this perspective: If a cisgirl wore a suit and tie (Just a standard black suit and tie you'd find in the men's department of most department stores) Would you assume it was for sexual reasons?

Like a cisman wearing lingerie might be but um: Lingerie is supposed to be "sexy"

How is a cisman that feels he looks good in a sundress or a skirt and t-shirt combo a sexual thing?

Or a transgirl's entire being, how are we sexual simply because we identify as female and decide to dress to match that?

I'm not saying their's a double standard in play inherently with this kind of arguement, but I honestly think there is because this thread has mostly focused on assigned male individuals wearing women's clothing. Which makes me hazard to question if femininity in general is considered sexual simply because it's feminine by the general public.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

I find it kind of humorous that people that actually identify as the opposite gender to that of which they were assigned are legit saying "yo, me doing this has nothing to do with sex." And some of us (mostly me) have admitted to not even wanting sex literally at all, and people are still arguing that cross dressing and being trans is inherently sexual.

Perhaps cross dressing as a hobby is sometimes sexual, and drag queens play with sexuality all the time, but they don't define cross dressing at all, they define DRAG PERFORMANCES. Which is another thing in entirely.

And they sure as heck don't define the transgender community, They aren't even a part of it. But this debate effects us too because society sees (most of us) as cross dressers (transwomen and transmen alike) It's getting better in recent years (and months since the whole Jenner thing actually caught the attention of a lot of cispeople).

Though I honestly don't see how cross dressing has to do with sex? Like lets look at it from this perspective: If a cisgirl wore a suit and tie (Just a standard black suit and tie you'd find in the men's department of most department stores) Would you assume it was for sexual reasons?

Like a cisman wearing lingerie might be but um: Lingerie is supposed to be "sexy"

How is a cisman that feels he looks good in a sundress or a skirt and t-shirt combo a sexual thing?

Or a transgirl's entire being, how are we sexual simply because we identify as female and decide to dress to match that?

I'm not saying their's a double standard in play inherently with this kind of arguement, but I honestly think there is because this thread has mostly focused on assigned male individuals wearing women's clothing. Which makes me hazard to question if femininity in general is considered sexual simply because it's feminine by the general public.

Scrap society and redo everything. Change the legal system to be similar to League of Legends' Tribunal, except with anonymity of both sides during the hearing, so as to establish the same punishment for the same crime, regardless of gender. Eventually everyone will stop giving a **** what your gender is to begin with, and masculinity and femininity become equally sexual. I don't think we could undo the sexuality as it is, but it'd be close enough.

 

[Gerpington]

Scrap society and redo everything. Change the legal system to be similar to League of Legends' Tribunal, except with anonymity of both sides during the hearing, so as to establish the same punishment for the same crime, regardless of gender. Eventually everyone will stop giving a **** what your gender is to begin with, and masculinity and femininity become equally sexual. I don't think we could undo the sexuality as it is, but it'd be close enough.

Eh, I could live with that.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

Eh, I could live with that.

Shame it won't happen in my lifetime.
Unless I, for whatever reason, decide to replicate Napoleon Bonaparte. Then it might happen.

 

[Gerpington]

Shame it won't happen in my lifetime.
Unless I, for whatever reason, decide to replicate Napoleon Bonaparte. Then it might happen.

As long as I'm not lynched for being trans in my life time I'm fine with whatever bull**** the world has to go through so the next generation doesn't have to deal with all this lgbt hating bull.

 

[Legitimate Ted]

As long as I'm not lynched for being trans in my life time I'm fine with whatever bull**** the world has to go through so the next generation doesn't have to deal with all this lgbt hating bull.

It's a deal. See you in ten years.

 

[Braydon]

Nobody NEEDS to be nude in public, just like nobody NEEDS to wear socks or NEEDS to carry a purse, or even NEEDS to wear clothes. Laws are not made strictly to allow what is required, and nothing more. Laws are made to allow freedom, except where that freedom limits the freedom of others. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be, laws can honestly be anything.

Right, going to go tell people in Alaska to take off all their clothes and freeze to death because apparently nobody needs clothes.

There are needs for everything you've listed but nudity.

And speaking of freedom have you ever considered that freedom doesn't just mean the freedom to do things but the ability to live free from things? Actually that's the pretty much the basis for the constitution, it's freedom to self govern, a key part of that is the governing part.

I agree that exceptions don't allow you to ignore all other cases, but when there are a large amount of exceptions, perhaps the rule is broken. Nude beaches, sunbathing, streaking, naturism, and 'tribal nudity.' There isn't direct "evidence" for human social traits (and I don't think there exists concrete evidence either way), only examples of where nudity is obviously not sexual. We can never offer you physical proof that nudity is not necessarily sexual because it's a social convention.

Nope, not even remotely. These aren't common enough exceptions for them to break the rule.

Anyway I wouldn't agree with any of those besides streaking being non sexual, and maybe tanning as it's a vanity thing, streaking doesn't help back up your point though, people do it for the sake of being perverse, simply because people don't want them to, or because they'll get attention for acting out...

Perhaps for YOU, nudity is inherently sexual, and perhaps you will never be able to see it from another perspective, but that does not mean it is the same way for everyone.

Hmm... Seems it's the same for a lot of people, and besides it seems to me what is sexual is in the eye of the beholder, which means it's not necessarily limited to whether or not you're getting off on it.

If you agree that what is sexually provocative is in the eye of the beholder then you must admit that nudity even if not sexual to the person nude can be viewed as a sexual act. And seeing as how it quite commonly is I see that as enough for it to be banned in public.

Also do you actually think that nude beaches / sunbathing is sexual? Have you ever been to one? Read about one? Seen a video of one? Literally you have no experience about them and you're plainly ignoring a HUGE counterpoint. Naturism/nudism EXISTS, and you can't just continue to ignore that.

Heroin exist as well, that doesn't mean I should try it, stop asking me if I've been to a nude beach, I haven't and I won't.

Lastly, ASSUMING a person could be nonsexually nude in public to the point where he/she could talk/walk/act like a 'regular clothes-wearing person,' would that really be so bad to you?

Yes.

@ _Keno_ sums it up. Not to mention what started as borderline fallacy has now turned into straight up No True Scotsman. Shifting the goal post so that you're right. Truth is, only in America is public nudity so widely considered indecent. And so too is cross dressing, but to a lesser extent. Basically if a man is walking down the street in a dress, he's gonna get negative attention, unless it's a street in P town, or the like. And the sad thing is that it's not because he's dangerous, but because he's a non conformist.

Except that it's not. I never said all nudity is sexual, that is @ adumbrodeus ' strawman.

And seriously, in the grand scheme of things America is pretty damn tolerant of crossdressers. Do you know how you'd be treated in Russia for crossdressing?

That's another thing. Inherent.

"existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."

Sex is not essential when dressing in clothes typical for the opposite gender. Nor is it permanent, as in once you put on the clothes, you'll be permanently turned on (lol). Sex is not characteristic of dressing opposite.

Same goes for nudity. Being naked is not essential for sex, nor is sex essential for being naked. Sex does not render us permanently naked. Nor does being naked render us permanently in coitus. Nudity IS a characteristic of most sex acts, to this there's no doubt. But public nudity is not characteristic of most sex acts. There's only one actually, which is sex-in-public, and that can be attained with or without nudity.

Once again sex =/= sexual, I never said nudity was sex. Also if nudity is linked to sex then public nudity is, there may only be one sex act that specifically requires it to be public but public nudity is nudity and therefor the other ones apply to it as well unless they specifically can not be done in public.

Also having doing a very simple google search and linking to the first hit, a wiki on the history of public nudity, we find the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a social divide between nakedness and sex. They're not mutually exclusive, obviously, but just following any of the examples in the article will demonstrate the obvious: participants in these events didn't all suddenly decide to have a massive orgy because of all the nudity around them. If that's not clear and precise, I'm not sure what else to say other than, to each their own, you are within your right to believe what you will, but as we can see, some things are true whether you believe them or not.

You mean you found an incredibly biased page of propaganda that never felt the need to explain why it's right?

And by the way, I'm right whether you believe me or not, not the other way around.

And what I hear is "I'm not deriving this from any principals it's just what I feel is right", which of course makes any comparison of values impossible. It is no different then pointing out to my mother, who believes herself an orthodox catholic, that he views are formally condemned in a church council and she simply says she doesn't want to hear it. Her values are set in stone as what she feels but she has never examined where those values and norms are derived from and what principals they rest on.

So to it is clearly with you, you shirk from any analysis of the systematic source of your own values, you invalidate any other culture's experience as wrong, and the only thing that seems to line up is that those values are those of the wider american values which suggests you are simply an american who absorbed those values unquestioningly.

I gather of course that your expectation would be that we would be overwhelmed by the "rightness" of your value system that is plainly obvious to everyone, but the fact is that when viewed from a dispassionate sociological lens it does nothing of the sort. In a place meant to examine and analyze, declaring something right or wrong is valueless, what matters is the analysis.

You have contributed nothing to this conversation.

Edit: If you feel like deriving what your actual values are as actual principals rather then just saying what you feel, feel free to do so. But if you're going to discuss here the community expects actual mental effort.

Hmm... Except that you're entirely wrong. I'm not even going to bother, you don't deserve acknowledgement. There was no chance of you listening or giving me a fair chance ever, why should I listen to you?

What do I expect from you? I expect you to be absolutely horrible, I expect you to lie and insult me, to criticize everything I say and be entirely unreasonable, to deliberately try to misinterpret and pervert everything I say. And I'm right in my expectations. I think I deserve a fair chance to be heard, I think everyone deserves that, but I certainly don't expect someone like you to give me a chance.

But if you must know I'll tell you why I believe it's wrong, it's wrong to do something that will cause a large amount of the population discomfort for no real reason. I know you think it's fine to put people through anything just as long as you can justify in your mind that they shouldn't care, but I don't.

Scrap society and redo everything. Change the legal system to be similar to League of Legends' Tribunal, except with anonymity of both sides during the hearing, so as to establish the same punishment for the same crime, regardless of gender. Eventually everyone will stop giving a **** what your gender is to begin with, and masculinity and femininity become equally sexual. I don't think we could undo the sexuality as it is, but it'd be close enough.

The fact that league of legends is being referenced should be your first clue you're doing something wrong. Anonymity is not practical in a court, you need to know who did what and why to give a fair verdict and anonymity would likely wind up obscuring this. It is very much relevant if say, the victim of an assault is a strong and healthy young man versus a defenseless old lady who could easily suffer permanent injury.

I find it kind of humorous that people that actually identify as the opposite gender to that of which they were assigned are legit saying "yo, me doing this has nothing to do with sex." And some of us (mostly me) have admitted to not even wanting sex literally at all, and people are still arguing that cross dressing and being trans is inherently sexual.

Perhaps cross dressing as a hobby is sometimes sexual, and drag queens play with sexuality all the time, but they don't define cross dressing at all, they define DRAG PERFORMANCES. Which is another thing in entirely.

No I think there is one other reason I just don't want to be flamed to death... Suffice to say I think it should be discouraged in either case.

Also I seem to remember that I'd been informed drag queens were absolutely not sexual, funny.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Except that it's not. I never said all nudity is sexual, that is @ adumbrodeus ' strawman.

Huh?

Parts of your body are inherently linked to sex, and by connection so is showing them to everyone. And it's not something that started in America, it's pretty much how every society has ever worked, and unhealthy? What?

I never had to learn that I should wear clothes, no one ever had to tell me nudity was disgusting, I figured it out on my own, so no, you're wrong.

You are making incredible leaps that are just plainly incorrect. Being naked in front of other people is not NECESSARILY sexual. Obviously there are situations in which it is, such as sex...but unless there is some intent to have sex, nudity in general it is not sexual at all. You do know that people have been swimming naked (up until the mid 1900's) since the dawn of time, yes? Ever heard of nude beaches? Sunbathing?

You know there are places ALL ACROSS the world where you can go that prohibit clothing, all of which are not sexual in the least?

No, I'm not making any leaps. If clothing puts a damper on sexual situations, then therefor, removing clothing, does the opposite. Seems logical to me.


And how do nude beaches show that it's good to be nude? There are places women have to wear burkas, doesn't make it right, just because it happens.

Seems like you rather clearly did.

Hmm... Except that you're entirely wrong. I'm not even going to bother, you don't deserve acknowledgement. There was no chance of you listening or giving me a fair chance ever, why should I listen to you?

What do I expect from you? I expect you to be absolutely horrible, I expect you to lie and insult me, to criticize everything I say and be entirely unreasonable, to deliberately try to misinterpret and pervert everything I say. And I'm right in my expectations. I think I deserve a fair chance to be heard, I think everyone deserves that, but I certainly don't expect someone like you to give me a chance.

But if you must know I'll tell you why I believe it's wrong, it's wrong to do something that will cause a large amount of the population discomfort for no real reason. I know you think it's fine to put people through anything just as long as you can justify in your mind that they shouldn't care, but I don't.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! You actually provided a standard and actually a decently reasonable one. Thing is the standard that you're providing (namely observer discomfort with it) doesn't really apply in most of the situations that you seem to be opposing.

In places like nude beaches, saunas, nudist clubs, and the like the people who are attending are explicitly attending because they are comfortable with public nudity, would you argue that this is unacceptable? Are you using a theoretical "would the average person" be made uncomfortable regardless of whether any actual people who are made uncomfortable are present? Is it in general, that country, or that specific area?

Also I seem to remember that I'd been informed drag queens were absolutely not sexual, funny.

Some use sex in their subject matter, some don't. Drag performance is actually an incredibly wide field, some drag performers are professional insult comics, some are musicians, some are post modern, and some play in poop and throw dead mackerels at their audience. Like all art forms some touch human sexuality, but it isn't inherently sexual because some percentage do. Similarly of those that do, some do it in a sophisticated manner others use it in crude jokes.

 

[AZ_Spellbound]

Well here's me in drag.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Feeling a hint of Bailey Jay there. Take that as very high praise.

 

[daemon_hunter]

I am a trans guy. I was assigned female at birth (more inclusive lingo for stating my biological sex). I have not gone on hormones due to my family being prejudiced against transgender people. I still have female parts. But I wear men's clothing, have a short hair cut, and date women. Many people would consider me a cross dresser (including my mother, but it doesn't feel like crossdressing to me. Wearing what is thought of as "female" clothing feels more like crossdressing.

The difference in attitudes towards FTM (female to male) and MTF (male to female) transgender people are based on the fact that masculinity is revered by society and femininity isn't. To men, it's an insult to be called girly, while women that are seen as tomboys tend to have an easier time of it (unless they attempt to date women, then they get called slurs). As such, anything going from masculine to feminine has negative connotations, and anything going from feminine to masculine has more positive connotations.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

I sum this up as I do all other debates on this sort of subject.
Do what you want, but
1. Leave me out of it
and
2. Don't shove it in my face. It's just rude.

I won't support you in what you're doing, but I ain't no hater.
Do what ya want, cuz a pirate is free, you are a pirate.

 

[Gerpington]

I am a trans guy. I was assigned female at birth (more inclusive lingo for stating my biological sex). I have not gone on hormones due to my family being prejudiced against transgender people. I still have female parts. But I wear men's clothing, have a short hair cut, and date women. Many people would consider me a cross dresser (including my mother, but it doesn't feel like crossdressing to me. Wearing what is thought of as "female" clothing feels more like crossdressing.

The difference in attitudes towards FTM (female to male) and MTF (male to female) transgender people are based on the fact that masculinity is revered by society and femininity isn't. To men, it's an insult to be called girly, while women that are seen as tomboys tend to have an easier time of it (unless they attempt to date women, then they get called slurs). As such, anything going from masculine to feminine has negative connotations, and anything going from feminine to masculine has more positive connotations.

Finally more trans people enter this debate, and we finally get a transman's side. I often feel that side of the community is completely forgotten when debates like this are started because exactly what he said. Femininity is seen as a negative and Masculinity is seen as a positive in general society.

In other terms someone that is preseved as male dressing in women's clothing is considered disgusting because the thought of someone not born into femininity wanting to be feminine is obsurd according to patriarchy upholding bigots, while the opposite makes perfect sense because masculinity doesn't come with an air of prejudice.

 

[Claire Diviner]

In other terms someone that is preseved as male dressing in women's clothing is considered disgusting because the thought of someone not born into femininity wanting to be feminine is obsurd according to patriarchy upholding bigots, while the opposite makes perfect sense because masculinity doesn't come with an air of prejudice.

Don't get it twisted though, as there are trans men and lesbians (including the stereotypical "butch" lesbians) who are persecuted just for being trans and homosexual respectively. We don't hear about it as much as we do the oppression of gay men and trans women, but the discrimination is still very real and very widespread in areas with radical conservative/religious/bigoted people.