How can an adult look like a child?
I told my mom only a few know about the disease
Bond James Bond
Your mom asked that?
share
MovieChat Forums > Orphan (2009) Discussion > How can an adult look like a child?
I told her about the movie
shareAndy Milonakis.
Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"
[deleted]
No, she wouldn't have allowed anyone to bathe her anyway because you don't bathe freaking nine-year-olds; it was her marked fear that anyone would walk in that was unusual. And this was due to any signs of adulthood on her body, not just hair I'm sure. Thanks for the disease info, that's very interesting, though I find your repeated remarks about body hair weird and inappropriate. Get over it.
shareI was bathed at 9, but that was because I insisted on growing my hair to "princess" length (around my waist). I couldn't be trusted to wash it all myself, so part of the agreement was that my mother braided it every day so it wouldn't be too tangled and that my dad would help me wash it.
I didn't think there was anything weird about it until girls at school made fun of me for letting my dad see me naked. It was sad, thinking back on it, how they could sexualize such an innocent situation.
That is pretty inappropriate, if he saw you standing up; things don't have to be sexual to be inappropriate. I don't see why your mom wouldn't do the washing.
shareI liked my dad more and he was more fun when he bathed me. He'd let me have bath toys and play with his shaving cream. I always took a bath before dinner and my mom always made dinner, therefore, my mother was busy and so my dad helped me wash my hair. It was fun and a good memory, and unless someone is uncomfortable with it how could that be inappropriate? What is the cut off in childhood for when your parents are allowed to see you naked? I didn't hit puberty until I was 13, in case that was what you were worried about.
shareWhat's the cut-off point? I'd say 7 at the oldest; most kids reach a certain way of modesty at some point and 9 is definitely up there; I'm extremely sensitive about people's privacy and if I ever sense that an adult is crossing a line in privacy, with other adults or a kid (which once again does not have to involve sexuality), it makes me very upset. I know you weren't uncomfortable, but once again if you were just sitting down while your dad washed your hair with your back to him, I don't see it as a big deal. My friend's stepsister needs help with hair sometimes and wears a bathing suit then.
shareHow can an adult look like a child?
Back on topic.
Somebody else already mentioned hypo-pituitarianism & turner's syndrome, but another way (& the most common one, if I remember correctly) is to get a disease before you reach puberty (example= measles) where you end up running a high fever long enough that it destroys your pituitary gland. The pituitary gland is the part of your brain that regulates the released of hormones, so if that goes bye-bye before your puberty, you stop aging.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you.
Oh wow! That is seriously scary news..
shareBut she didn't really stop aging. Once she take of the make up (hiding her pours, wrinkles etc) and removed the false teeth (to hide her adult ones), she pretty much looked her real age. Also, as someone else pointed out, she was binding her breasts, so she did go through puberty.
It seemed to me that she more likely had some form of rare dwarfism- where her body was the proportionate size of a child, but she still continued to age and develop. I think the guy at the hospital says this too.
the doctor mentioned it was a form of dwarfism that was proportionate. So she didnt look like a dwarf she looked like a child
I remember years ago seeing an episode of Maury (was that his name) and 3 people with that condition were being interviewed. One man was an actor at 28 but he played children on tv so they could get round child labour laws etc.
Yes, and there's some disagreement as to whether she could be called a dwarf or not.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You're right, why not have kids leave all doors open when they use the bathroom or undress? I suppose all the trash we have about sex now is proof we're just too uptight about nudity.
"There might even be a kind of borderline sexuality in a father and daughter's affections, if so.. get over THAT."
Okay..you're just weird.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're a freak.
shareNo, he is not freak, he is right. In Scandinavian countries for instance, it's quite common that families bath together. And yet they have much lower rates of child abuse than usa.
Perhaps in Sweden somebody would call you a freak.
Are you even paying attention to what I'm replying to? The moron who said there might even be a borderline sexuality between father and daughter and that that's fine; he's a a FREAK. And I've heard things about countries like Sweden and Denmark that push the envelopes of what abuse even means. That is way too liberal for most families period depending on the age groups, and there's no logical correlation between bathing together and there being less pedos; those are smaller countries all the way around.
share[deleted]
Lol what? I ran around topless just like my brother until I was 10 and my mom told me it wasn't lady like anymore.
How the hell can a dad bathing his daughter being inappropriate? What a creepy way of thought.
I KNOW my first thought was SOMEONE was molested as a child! some people have the dirtiest minds, i thought it was a cute story.
Anyway, I have a story to knock yours out the water- my dad had to bathe me when I was 17!!! I broke both my arms in a car accident and couldn't do anything by myself for months. A friend would help me sometimes but i couldn't very well ask her to comeover everynight. (my mother died when i was 12, so that's not an option)
I'm sure someone will suggest that we should have hired a good puritan grandma to help me wash my hair but AMAZINGLY enough, i was more comfortable with my dad, even though he was a male. (like most would be)
So yeah, it was awkward and he averted his eyes and I blushed but we got over it pretty quickly. It was much less awkward then whenever I had to call for him to wipe my butt.
That happened to me too! We bought a special water machine that squirted water up my butt, it was well over 1,000$ though.
share"How the hell can a dad bathing his daughter being inappropriate?"
LMAO, I can't believe you just said that. ANY daughter, age regardless? Would you be ok with a dad and his young adult daughter? And being topless at ten has nothing to do with anything; girls like that don't have breasts. There is NOTHING creepy about respecting others' privacy, good Lord.
I never said it was sexual, I said it was inappropriate. And Julianne, 17 is incredibly inappropriate if you didn't have something covering you; you said you both got over it pretty quickly, does that mean he no longer averted his eyes, or no part of you was concealed? How dare you or anyone make light of the idea that I or anyone else might have been molested as a child. This whole idea of things is just..gross to me.
I would say its a cultural thing. Japanese families all bathe together, there is nothing wrong with it. There is only something wrong with it because you are conditioned to think that way. Being naked isn't being sexual.
shareI'm not conditioned to think that way at all; modesty for most is a pretty natural thing. And for the last time, whether something is sexual doesn't determine whether it's appropriate.
shareYour are talking about what society tells you is appropriate, not all Cultures see it the same way. Many are much less uptight about nudity. Modesty is determined by the cultural or religious norms, it is not something a person is born knowing. We are born naked and everything else is taught to us. There are spa's women go to (here in the west) that we spend the day being pampered, facials, etc then finish with a hot tub, usually naked with other women. Changing rooms, same thing. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It's just a human body, just flesh and bone, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about it.
shareOnce again, using a women's locker room as an example of non-modesty is not really a viable example; every country has changing rooms where members of the same sex change. Not comparable at all to being casually undressed around a member of the OPPOSITE sex. We can preach all we want how it's "just a body", but most know it's a lot more than that; it's very important, has very personal parts and most people would not be comfortable just carrying every inch of "flesh and bone" around bare.
"We are born naked and everything else is taught to us"
Not necessarily; most every culture has some rules about nudity and sex, and for obvious reasons people who use the latter loosely are generally seen as dysfunctional beings. Some of the most liberal actresses in this country have never shown their bodies, or all of them, in front of a camera.
Talking about acting in-front of a camera, in-front of a bunch of people who are mixed sexes, not people they generally actually know, is completely irrelevant.
Yes cultures do vary in their perception of nudity and that is not what you are born knowing, it is still taught. Again, Japanese families bathe together, nude, and there is not a thing wrong with it, that is their culture, their normal. You are uncomfortable with it obviously, so don't do it but don't put people down because you don't understand their beliefs.
Acting naked in front of a camera is not in the least irrelevant, esp in fact if they don't generally know such people. I don't really care what Japanese families do together, as one, I've heard they don't all do this and have an age limit to bathing with their kids, and two, being even semi-undressed around family is different from considering nudity to be nothing at all. If you really imagine just about every person in the world, if not raised to have modesty, would not naturally start feeling awkward at LEAST aound the ages of puberty, I can't imagine where you come from.
shareWould you take your children to the museum?
Where I come from I don't teach my children they should be ashamed of themselves, I don't tell them the human body is something shameful an indecent. Where I come from (and the majority of people I know), we are educated enough to understand the human body is a "body" and nothing more. I don't want my children thinking that "Michelangelo's David" is something shameful or should make them feel uncomfortable.
There is a huge difference between naked and sexual, you are absolutely correct there. The intelligent person knows that difference, there-fore is not ashamed of nudity if it is not in a sexual nature. To think people naturally know modesty, is completely ridiculous, this is a learned trait not a born one. We are born with basic instincts none of which is modesty. That is taught and being shamed is also taught.
If acting in front of a camera is not irrelevant, then why is my example of a change room irrelevant according to you?
Japanese was one example there are also many tribes who have been around much longer than any of us, who do not have issues with nudity.
"If acting in front of a camera is not irrelevant, then why is my example of a change room irrelevant according to you?"
Actually I was going to ask, if acting in front of a camera with "strangers" is irrelevant, why isn't changing in a locker room irrelevant to you? I'll tell you why the change room is to me: bc you're among members of the same sex, who are not focused on YOU and catching images of your body to show millions of more strangers. I think that's startlingly obvious. I think it's also alarming that some people think since the human body isn't something to be naturally ashamed of, we should be ok with parading it around or using it for show. How could anyone think that since nakedness can be used in art, the human body is therefore not sacred enough to be protected? The very fact that it's misused by so many is ample reason for modesty, and it's perfectly natural to want to keep such personal parts covered for protection of more than one kind; I'm surprised you don't seem to think that lack of modesty is at least equally taught if not more so. Besides this, being sexually attracted to the body is also natural, and such attraction would be a constant and unpleasant distraction if we did not robe ourselves appropriately. We can argue forever about whether modesty's inborn, but I think for reasons of nature itself it is, and if not that, the knowledge of people's line of thinking would be.
Actually I was going to ask, if acting in front of a camera with "strangers" is irrelevant, why isn't changing in a locker room irrelevant to you.
I said this because you had already quashed the idea of a change room then you brought up the actor example, no difference.
I am curious what world you live in that some people of the same sex are not attracted to each other and some people of the same sex would not catch images of each other to exploit.
You are really drifting off the main topic here in huge leaps. The point of this conversation was a child of 9 being naked in front of their parent(s)and how you feel it's inappropriate. I am still trying to understand why.
Actually I was going to ask, if acting in front of a camera with "strangers" is irrelevant, why isn't changing in a locker room irrelevant to you.
I said this because you had already quashed the idea of a change room then you brought up the actor example, no difference.
I am curious what world you live in that some people of the same sex are not attracted to each other and some people of the same sex would not catch images of each other to exploit.
You are really drifting off the main topic here in huge leaps. The point of this conversation was a child of 9 being naked in front of their parent(s)and how you feel it's inappropriate. I am still trying to understand why.
I think I already explained the difference between a locker room and filming, Kmra. As for the matter of a child, I've already been through that ad nauseum in the other replies; whether you find it natural or not, most people have developed a sense of modesty well before nine, and to invade someone's privacy like that is extremely wrong. We both went off the topic from the beginning, and have been discussing basically the concept of your idea that I or anyone is programmed to have modesty.
"I am curious what world you live in that some people of the same sex are not attracted to each other and some people of the same sex would not catch images of each other to exploit"
What's your point here? That since there's the possibility of a lesbian or homosexual man in a changing room with a predatory personality, there's no difference whatever between undressing among members of the same sex, in a private room too, and walking around naked in public or being naked among the opposite sex? Is there a difference between a woman being undressed in a locker room with other women, and being undressed in a room full of men? You tell me.
Ok you are now forgetting what you said, or, changing your mind? You are the one who said a change room was not relevant because it was the same sex and there was not a chance of someone exploiting another with pictures or being sexually attracted. I was pointing our your error, and now you are trying to make it sound like it was my idea?
Yes, how you feel about nudity is a conditioning, it is something culturally based, religiously based, socially based. We are taught what is accepted by society and what i not. It is not the same in every culture and children all over the world are not the same at age 9, or feel the same way. It is not automatic, it is programmed.
Attitudes about nudity can vary greatly. Nude sunbathing is quite normal in Europe for example. Topless at the beach in Europe and Australia for women, is socially accepted.
"You are the one who said a change room was not relevant because it was the same sex and there was not a chance of someone exploiting another with pictures or being sexually attracted"
I never said there was no chance. I said it was quite different from having a roomful of people looking closely at and filming you, as in a movie. If one believes the locker room is a valid example of non-modesty, it'd fall on them to compare it with general nudity.
I refuse to be dragged into a unproductive discussion. Again I made my statement after you had quashed the idea of a locker room/change room, which is why I couldn't understand why you would use it as an example, and I still don't understand it no matter how much you try to avoid answering.
I also notice you ignored the examples of nude beaches, topless or totally nude, being quite socially accepted at the beach in parts of Europe. As well as my pointing out that regardless of these things, our feelings to do with nudity, are very much taught not something we are born with, certainly not something that just happens. That is basic sociology.
I do believe our conversation at this point has met its impasse.
Nude beaches are a fine example of the world becoming increasingly liberal. Yet even with such things in Europe and Australia, there are plenty of actors and actresses from those realms that refuse to show every part of their bodies while being filmed. I'm sorry you couldn't understand my explanations about locker rooms, but I've tried to explain things pretty clearly. It's an impasse indeed and the majority of the topic has been counterproductive.
shareI don't know what's sadder....that someone has been arguing it's inappropriate for a father to bathe their own child past a certain age...or the fact I actually sat here and read this ridiculous argument.
There is nothing wrong with a father bathing his daughter, even if she is nine. Or seven. Or even seventeen having been in surgery or an accident. So long as there are no indecent thoughts or motives, then it is a pure thing.
What have we come to as the human race when people seriously think that it's inappropriate for a father to bathe their own child at all of seven years old, the person that a daughter is meant to be able to trust and depend on above all overs in life, no matter how much other people *will* screw them over at somepoint.
This kind of thought process makes me think we should all give up, it's too late, humanity can't be saved! When we can't even trust fathers with their own children because of a few sick individuals. Flipping heck, it's just depressing that there are truly people in this world who think like that.
I think it's far more inappropriate to assume there's something inappropriate about a parent seeing their child naked. So long as the child understands that they shouldn't be naked in front of other people....because their parents are an exception because they will always be the people they can trust and who will look after them in the whole wide world...then all is flippin peace and love.
I hate to say it, but to me I find a person more inappropriate for thinking inappropriate things about a father's mentality with his own child when there is absolutely no abusive act or thought involved. Sheesh.
Yes, it is ridiculous for you to be reading all this if you don't get the concept behind it, and it's also ridiculous that something has to be perverted to be inappropriate. I don't give a damn about his motives, it's inappropriate to me and many, it's a freaking matter of respect, and no parents are not flipping exceptions; a young teen girl is more likely to be comfortable undressed around her peers in a locker room than in front of her own freaking father.
"that someone has been arguing it's inappropriate for a father to bathe their own child past a certain age"
It IS, which is painfully obvious to most, possibly barring a limited exception. You seriously think most people wouldn't look at you weirdly if you just said, "I don't think it's inappropriate at all for a father to give his thirteen-year-old a bath!"? Besides, what's the one-sidedness about fathers? It's just as disgusting to me to think of a mother invading her son's privacy. If a parent does that, it DOES say something about their motives, that they have no flipping respect. But what's most insane is that you're tempted to give up on humanity because I freaking believe in respect and modesty. When there is junk like porn, human slavery, child and animal abuse out there, THIS is what really disturbs you. Nice.
Absolutely, because to me, the fact you immediately assume inappropriateness between a father and daughter in a bathing situation says more to me about the people who think that than fathers who help look after their kids...to me, honestly, that's the inappropriate thought, it's sick to me that someone would automatically think that way...they're the ones taking it to a different level than it is, not the father that's just helping their kid bathe. Sorry, that's just how I see it. It's like when someone unintentionally makes a double entendre...it can be argued that the listener who took it to mean something rude has the dirty mind for making that link in their head instead of taking the innocent version of the statement.
And what I object to is that you present your own VIEW as a majority position.
You keep claiming that you somehow speak for the majority.....odd then, isn't it, that in this line of argument you seem the only one with your VIEW against a number of different people who think the opposite. It's not a majority view then, is it. It's just your own view, as mine is just my view and I'm sure others differ in different shades of opinion on the scale between my view and yours.
Speak your view if you want to, but don't put yourself on a pedestal and claim it's a majority view when you, and no one else, can prove that (unless you want to somehow take a world poll on it.....). It's just your view. It's not mine, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be my friends and family's, and it's not the view of many other people on this thread. So if you want to present your view, fine, do so, but don't pretend that you speak for humanity. That's not only incorrect, it's pretty darn arrogant too.
Yes, you get all kinds of "interesting" people on the Internet, including the creep here who's said elsewhere that he'd find it ok if Esther had sexual time with Daniel. Everyone I actually know, whose sanity I can vouch for, would think this inappropriate and unnecessary, while once again you miss the fact that inappropriate doesn't mean sexual and doesn't have to, and choose to focus on my thoughts thus as something more disturbing than all the horrid ways today that people's bodies are disrespected, from disregard like the type you think is fine to exploitation. "Taking care" of the children doesn't mean blatantly invading their private space, like a normal father would see the NEED to help an older daughter bathe; sorry you don't seem to make a clarification between the two.
shareWell then if it's not sexual....how is it inappropriate? Specifically, why is it inappropriate....because the whole point of modesty is based on sexuality. So if I'm wrong and it's not a sexual element that you believe is inappropriate, perhaps you can explain exactly why it is inappropriate then?
~ I hardly looked at his face. His knees were what I wished to see. ~
Thanks for asking. No, it's not all about sexuality, but it can feel very sexual or violating if your body's entirely exposed in front of someone else; private parts are sexual and that's why they're private, which in turn is why people don't want them exposed and it's wrong and dehumanizing to disregard that, and it feels thus as well. But then when you go to bathing, that's even a step further! It's one of the most personal things someone does. A kid with their back turned against the tub's side, letting their hair be washed, that's unusual and an exception that doesn't involve all the actions of bodily cleansing, but the other stuff, yes it's personal.
shareI totally agree that if someone feels uncomfortable with being seen naked/bathed by a parent, then it's wrong. (Same for nakedness in any situation with other people).
If someone feels uncomfortable and vulnerable, then yes, that in its own right is a violation.
My side of view comes when actually the kid is perfectly happy and is not uncomfortable with being seen naked by a parent, (and of course that there is no abuse or inappropriate behaviour involved). To me, that's then a pure thing between parent and child, just bathing. To me, a parent bathing their child is one of the most nurturing acts...and mostly because of the sheer innocence of it when so much in the world sadly isn't innocent anymore.
~ I hardly looked at his face. His knees were what I wished to see. ~
There can certainly be innocence in nudity, I see much of it in my fantasy art, but to me bathing is just too personal and I don't see why a parent would want to do everything with an older child in the bath that they did with a two-year-old; that feels wrong, silly and invasive, especially since after a while most people become naturally more modest as they grow. And it's actually the loss of innocence in the world that at least partly makes me more vehement; the body isn't just exploited, mocked or used as sexual marketing, it's also sometimes just plain disregarded as someone's individual private property (though it's not just in this age that that's occured, especially not in the sense of children being treated as less than they are). I'm sick of seeing sexual stuff wherever I am and, at the same time, don't believe the body should be shamed, but protected and respected.
shareYeah, I'm sick of overtly sexual imagery everywhere too. Music videos (which are the worst because they're on national tv in the middle of the day when children can watch them), adverts...not only is it not particularly tasteful, exploitative (especially for women), it's actually got boring too, (I'm probably in a minority, but I actually think that people and imagery are much more sexy covered up...the allure is then in the unknown and mystery).
Oddly, I don't mind sexual scenes in films too much, but mostly because you have a clear rating system on films which I can then choose to go and see or not, it's not just thrown in front of your face. So to speak. Wow, I sound about ten times older than I am LOL But I don't care.
~ I hardly looked at his face. His knees were what I wished to see. ~
Well, I share those "old people" beliefs, lol. And you said it, such silly ads and scenes just get boring. Anything explicit in films, I skip over or shorten, but we have a much better rating system than many countries. I prefer partial nudity and brief at that, and don't mind sexual scenes, but prefer them to leave something to the imagination too; when it comes to actresses I care about though, I'm more protective about nudity and hope they'll keep themselves covered for the most part, knowing as I do how people react over such scenes. Thank goodness for IMDB's parental advisory and their details; thanks to them I know exactly what I could or couldn't handle seeing on Comcast's free horror selection.
shareI'm sorry but your arguments in this thread are really dumb. You've completely removed all context and asserted your own. You keep talking about privacy, respect, violation, etc, but completely ignore the fact that the fathers aren't forcing their daughters to be naked here. They aren't invading their daughter's privacy because there is no privacy to be invaded. It's not even the fathers idea or suggestion in the first place.
The daughters in question are obviously comfortable enough to approach their fathers and ask them to help them bathe. In the case of the 17 year old, it sounds like it was awkward for them both at first, but on her end she became comfortable with it. Given the situation, this is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. There was nothing sexual about it.
I agree with you that if the daughters didn't want their father seeing them naked, that would have been inappropriate. No parent should force their child to be naked in front of them. But that simply wasn't the case here.
I'm sorry, but calling my arguments dumb wins you nothing and yes, there is and should be privacy. Quite obviously I don't agree that it's acceptable or appropriate; you could also argue it's not inappropriate for a gynecologist to do a pap smear on his daughter bc it's not sexual. Very clearly, my mind won't be changed and the discussion's been had. Please don't waste my time by beating a dead horse.
shareI can call your argument dumb all I want because, well, it is. You are ignorant of how privacy even works, and that alone means you are not equipped to even take part in a discussion like this. Privacy is subject to the individual. The individuals in question clearly felt their privacy wasn't in violation. Whether you feel that was inappropriate doesn't make it so, as that's up for them to decide.
I don't expect to change your mind. Was just adding another voice to the many telling you that you're wrong.
Yes, you can blow air all you want, because you and most of the others here are subjective and don't seem to think boundaries even have a purpose, which disqualifies you from lecturing me about them and btw, I'm not the one who began this discussion because apparently people aren't as open-minded as they claim I should be when it comes to others' opinions. You guys, in fact, claim such issues of morality or appropriateness depend on opinion, thus basically saying there's no firm basis of right or wrong, and don't get that it's self-contradictory then to tell me that my own opinion is indisputably wrong or stupid. I don't give a rat's ass whether an older girl has help from her dad provided that she had her breasts and lower body covered, but most would agree that it would be incredibly inappropriate and weird for him to be sponging said private parts or otherwise leaving them uncovered in front of him; that would be disgusting and the fact that a couple fools blatantly defended it, just like so many dips with subjective morals ("if nobody protests, it's okay"), just solidifies my resolve, if anything; that's why I kept pressing the question, how far are you going to go with it? You've made it clear you have no real purpose in adding your voice to the din, which is even less reason for me to think anything of it. Thanks for the horse whip to the senseless corpse.
sharebecause you and most of the others here are subjective and don't seem to think boundaries even have a purpose
Where are you getting that idea? Of course I think boundaries have a purpose. But it's not up to you to set those boundaries for other people. That's what you don't get. Everyone is going to have a different set of boundaries. What's too much for you might be nothing at all for someone else.
how far are you going to go with it?
Here's the thing. There actually isn't such a thing as "right and wrong" or "good and evil". They are made up concepts. Because of such, they are subjective and will vary based on perspective. With that said, they are concepts that still have a purpose in society, as they help maintain order. But if nobody's getting hurt or affected negatively, then I don't see any reason as to why it should be considered wrong.
It's perfectly fine if you feel it's inappropriate for your parents to see you fully naked. Hell, I'm the same way, and I don't want to see them naked either. But if others feel differently, that's entirely their prerogative. share
I think there are some boundaries that should be inherently respected and automatically upheld; it bothers me personally, very much, if I see someone treated almost automatically as though they have none or no right to any. I see more and more boundaries of respect, modesty and privacy being blurred and it's only helped worsen things.
"There actually isn't such a thing as "right and wrong" or "good and evil".
That's another very problematic idea I see growing bigger and bigger. I'm sure I don't need to explain how and what problems that can lead to, even deadly ones, but I will say that thanks to the subjective idea "if no one complains, it's okay", there are, honest to God, some people promoting the idea that it's ok for grown parents and children to have sex.
"Hell, I'm the same way, and I don't want to see them naked either."
LOL Well, there are different levels to appropriateness for me there, I think, but I explained them exhaustively in the other posts. Not trying to argue now, just clarifying my reasons; thanks for listening.
I think there are some boundaries that should be inherently respected and automatically upheld; it bothers me personally, very much, if I see someone treated almost automatically as though they have none or no right to any. I see more and more boundaries of respect, modesty and privacy being blurred and it's only helped worsen things.
First of all, stop it. You keep bringing this argument back to this no context situation where these girls were somehow violated.
It was their idea. Their choice. Their decision. Their boundaries of privacy to set however they please. It is not your call, nor is it ok for you to dictate what they are comfortable with. You want to talk about people not respecting them, but you're disrespecting them more than anyone.
It is also not ok to dictate what people are comfortable with. That's some totalitarian BS right there.
I also think you need to brush up on some of these words you are using. Privacy, modesty, and respect are not things that can be "blurred" in this regard. As we are suggesting it is up to the person being naked to decide where the line is, not the people viewing them.
That's another very problematic idea I see growing bigger and bigger. I'm sure I don't need to explain how and what problems that can lead to, even deadly ones
But it's entirely true. That might not sit well with you, but that doesn't change that fact. Even those deadly ones will be right to some people, and wrong to others. Hell, I ate fish and chips for lunch today. I thought that was right, but the fish might have another opinion on the matter.
As a society, it is up to the majority to decide what is right or wrong for the good of the society. Whatever that may mean.
there are, honest to God, some people promoting the idea that it's ok for grown parents and children to have sex.
And in those people's perspective, they are in the right. Though in my perspective, as well as the majority of people, it's not right. We consider it not right because it will harm the child psychologically (of which there is significant evidence to support). We as a society have decided that harming others is bad, which is logical, and we try to stop/prevent harmful actions/behaviour in order to protect individuals within the society.
In the situation at hand, it's illogical to consider it wrong since there is actually no harm being done. No one was being forced or manipulated into doing something they didn't want to do. Most importantly, it was entirely up to the girls to decide what's private and what's not.
Side note: I recall earlier a discussion between you and another poster about modesty and whether it is natural or not. I was going to respond to it directly earlier, but I had forgotten. Anyway, the other poster was right. Modesty is 100% a social construct. By nature, we are not afraid to be naked. If we are never taught to be ashamed of our naked bodies, we never would be.
In fact, there are still tribes around the world that wear no clothes. To suggest their way of life is inappropriate because the mothers/fathers see their sons/daughters naked throughout their life would be pretty ignorant.
So to imply there is some baseline standard of modesty for everyone makes no sense. share
No, because this kind of subjectiveness does exactly what I said I've seen it do and when people browbeat this with me, it inevitably goes there. I'll bring it up however many times I feel necessary.
"Modesty is 100% a social construct. By nature, we are not afraid to be naked."
Sure we're not. Maybe we should research why anyone ever began wearing clothes; being without them makes us vulnerable in more ways than one and being modest isn't the same as being ashamed. Generations have had damn good reason to teach their kids that. I can't believe I need to repeat all this junk; I don't care about tribes where no one sees a need for clothes, as that's completely different than living in a world where clothes and modesty are necessary but for some weird reason not giving your kid their own. And I'm the one told I'm disrespecting those kids, lol.
"No one was being forced or manipulated into doing something they didn't want to do. Most importantly, it was entirely up to the girls to decide what's private and what's not."
Same logic applied to adults having incestious relationships and since the society decides what's right, that means they could also decide one day as a majority that eating animals like your fish is wrong and, incidentally, I think most believe that bathing your kid once they reach a certain maturity is wrong.
"We consider it not right because it will harm the child psychologically (of which there is significant evidence to support)."
They're not children anymore, they're adults, and there's also psychological reason to think having no bounds of modesty is harmful, a topic which became a debate on an advice column when the subject of a father letting his kids see him naked came up, which in turn I actually find less offensive than insisting on doing something as personal as bathing your kid even way after they're capable of doing it themselves. Exceptions are one thing, as long as proper respect is given, but if it's not and some older teenager's father is sponging or exposing her more than she needs to be, I don't give a rat's ass if someone thinks I'm "mean" for calling that disgusting. And since the woman in question who brought up such a scenario spoke in a lighthearted manner about me being molested as a kid, I'd say SHE'S one of those who was psychologically damaged at some point.
"We as a society have decided that harming others is bad"
Yes, and you're arguing whether it's harmful to disregard modesty with me, just as those incestious people would argue with you whether it hurts them or not. I guess there really is no point arguing morals to the minutiae. Anyway, this has been a lighter discussion with you than most which I'm glad for, and I've tried to be as plain as possible and to lay this to rest so I don't have to keep repeating myself, but this hasn't always worked; for the time being then I'm putting you on ignore so I can try to break off of it. Have a good night.
[deleted]
every country has changing rooms where members of the same sex change.
The smallest amount of research into nudity norms through time and across the world would have told that that this is not a universal constant.
Heck, it isn't even universal for modern western nations... you keep claiming that your reaction is the only correct way to react, but you're the only one who feels this way. This whole thread opened up because someone mentioned having their hair washed by her father when she was nine, something she didn't feel was strange. It didn't sound strange to me either and several other commenters.
It's just your hang-up. It's okay for you to have your hang-ups, but you're kidding yourself if you think that it's natural or even normal. share
modesty for most is a pretty natural thing
Modesty norms are pretty obviously cultural and learnt, not natural and innate.
You have your own boundaries for your own body and that's fine, but there's no objective right or wrong. For example, there's nothing wrong with a family of nudists spending time naked around each other because, for nudists, it's not a sexual thing.
You just need to realise that the way you do things isn't necessarily the way everyone should do things. share
If it's not a family of nudists, there's no reason to invade a person's privacy by acting like it's nothing, especially not a child's, which is wrong beyond normal disrespect. Once again, it doesn't have to be sexual to be wrong.
shareYou missed the point.
Nudity norms are subjective. A family of nudists shows one extreme. You're evidencing a different part of the spectrum. However, there's no right or wrong provided that nothing is sexual.
It's just the arbitrary norms that you happen to have internalised. It's not objectively correct, right or appropriate to bathe privately and away from family members.
I haven't at all, regarding whether a singular person is respected or not. As far as right and wrong goes, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
shareIf you think your own personal space boundaries are objective then you have no awareness of the wild diversity of the human experience. Bathing norms are very culturally relative. Heck, the whole idea of a private bathroom is not a cultural constant.
This is not some quirk known to the highly educated either; it ought to be fairly obvious to anyone who has taken even a foundational social science course.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the wide human experience, and that most people who don't have private bathrooms can't afford them.
shareI think you're a lot less aware than you think you are.
shareLikewise, pseudo-sage.
shareYou already seem to have acknowledged that nudists exist and you even seem to be okay with it, which shows that there's quite a lot of diversity within cultures regarding modesty norms. Some people have pointed out that there also exist diversity across cultures.
What makes it so hard for you to believe that the female poster who mentioned her father washing her hair as a child doesn't also have different modesty norms than you? She certainly doesn't seem bothered by it.
In general, what makes you so sure that everyone else who has posted about this issue is has incorrect ideas about what makes them feel respected and comfortable and you're the only one with the one true correct attitude towards modesty?
Not everyone else totally disagreed with me, and a few were off-putting and weird.
"What makes it so hard for you to believe that the female poster who mentioned her father washing her hair as a child doesn't also have different modesty norms than you?"
If she was sitting down with her back against the tub, what do I care? But if she was walking around totally undressed in front of him, yeah, that makes me cringe.
If she was sitting down with her back against the tub, what do I care?
If it was non-sexual and no one was upset or uncomcomfortable, why do you care then either?
It wasn't you. No one was hurt. No one was upset. No one had their boundaries disrespected. Why do you care?
that makes me cringe.
There are lots of things that make me cringe, but that doesn't make them wrong. It just makes them 'not for me'. share
"There are lots of things that make me cringe, but that doesn't make them wrong."
So in a polygamous society, if a teen girl marries her own stepfather while her mom is still married to him and has no problem with it, that's moral to you too. Long as nobody cares.
"There are lots of things that make me cringe, but that doesn't make them wrong."
So in a polygamous society, if a teen girl marries her own stepfather while her mom is still married to him and has no problem with it, that's moral to you too. Long as nobody cares.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
For the record, I have no objection to consenting non-monogamy.
However, there are a whole host of rational evidence-based moral concerns about incest and child-adult sexual relationships.
What I don't do is make the leap from 'ew, that seems squicky' to 'it must be in violation of some kind of universal and objective moral truth', which would not be a rational approach to moral judgement.
share
An 18-year-old, then, marrying her stepfather while her mom's married to him will make no never-mind to you.
"What I don't do is make the leap from 'ew, that seems squicky' to 'it must be in violation of some kind of universal and objective moral truth'"
Really, then how about a 15-year-old girl in the same situation who lives in a state where 15 is the legal age for marriage with parental consent?
An 18-year-old, then, marrying her stepfather while her mom's married to him will make no never-mind to you.
It solves a lot of the ethical problems.
There's still presumably a large age-gap that raises concerns, and dating the same person as your mother raises questions.
Is there any reason why you're asking about this increasingly bizarre example? Who is it that's doing this that has you concerned? Or are you now feeling the need to worry about imaginary people's lives now?
"What I don't do is make the leap from 'ew, that seems squicky' to 'it must be in violation of some kind of universal and objective moral truth'"
Really, then how about a 15-year-old girl in the same situation who lives in a state where 15 is the legal age for marriage with parental consent?
You realise this implies that you think that there's no rational and evidence based argument against adult-child relationships and/or the age of consent?
I'm sorry it's so hard for you to believe, but my moral judgements genuinely come from rational application of fundamental principles. When I'm state my opposition to adult-child relationships, it is not merely that I find them 'squicky' but due to concern for the welfare of the children involved. share
"Or are you now feeling the need to worry about imaginary people's lives now?"
Another statement that's ignorant as well as offensive. I didn't know you were unaware of the polygamous cults in our country.
"You realise this implies that you think that there's no rational and evidence based argument against adult-child relationships and/or the age of consent?"
I'm not the one who made or approved those laws, but it does show different people have had different ideas as to age-appropriateness, doesn't it? Someone told me about these laws after trying to roast my character for stating that 18 should be considered the youngest age of adulthood, across the board. But guess what? It's not.
"I'm sorry it's so hard for you to believe, but my moral judgements genuinely come from rational application of fundamental principles."
Likewise, Mr. Non-Judgement. You've assumed from the beginning that all my feelings come from personal comfort and not watching people, my own country, the standards and effects of numerous people's choices. Had you not made this assumption, maybe the long-winded and ridiculous argument could have died off sooner; even one of the initially most surprised people here found common ground with me and understood the base for my concerns instead of deciding she needed to stick around and assume the moral superiority to tell me where I was wrong.
"Or are you now feeling the need to worry about imaginary people's lives now?"
Another statement that's ignorant as well as offensive. I didn't know you were unaware of the polygamous cults in our country.
You embarrass yourself.
Adding 'cult' to the scenario is like adding 'sex work' to the scenario. You're no longer talking about the same situation.
I'm not a fan of cults because cults are, somewhat by definition, morally fraught.
"You realise this implies that you think that there's no rational and evidence based argument against adult-child relationships and/or the age of consent?"
I'm not the one who made or approved those laws, but it does show different people have had different ideas as to age-appropriateness, doesn't it? Someone told me about these laws after trying to roast my character for stating that 18 should be considered the youngest age of adulthood, across the board. But guess what? It's not.
If you want to ask me whether I think that 14 year olds who belong to tribes in the Amazon and get married are doing anything wrong, then I'd say that's a clear example of cultural relativism. It's pretty hard to judge an Amazonian tribe by the moral standards and principles that apply to modern democratic states.
There's also clearly no one age that is obviously the start of adulthood, neither biologically nor socially. That doesn't mean that there aren't rational evidence-based moral concerns about adult-child sexual relationships though.
You've assumed from the beginning that all my feelings come from personal comfort and not watching people, my own country, the standards and effects of numerous people's choices.
You've given me nothing else.
If you wanted to make a rational evidence-based argument then you have had plenty of opportunity to do it. You've never even made the attempt.
Instead you've just appealed to cultural norms about modesty and assumed that what makes you feel respected is what makes everyone feel respected.
If you feel you can do better then by all means start trying... but don't blame me for reacting to the poor quality of what you've provided so far. share
"Adding 'cult' to the scenario is like adding 'sex work' to the scenario"
You're the one who called them imaginary people, but they're related to the question of adulthood and "as long as no one minds".
"If you want to ask me whether I think that 14 year olds who belong to tribes in the Amazon and get married are doing anything wrong, then I'd say that's a clear example of cultural relativism"
This is the question of sexuality that you defined as a can of worms, you understand, and now you're saying it's just more moral relevancy if a child does marry because only WE consider her a child. Your logic has as many loopholes as you claim mine does, if not more, because at least I'm consistent. Yes, there are studies about how harmful sex is to children, but the point here is that to some the age of childhood ceasing is subjective, and you're one of those people.
"You've given me nothing else"
I very clearly said I've referenced what's happened to our culture and others as modesty deteroriates, but I made the mistake before that of assuming your natural human instincts would find treating a child like they need no privacy as offensive; apparently I was wrong, but there are therapists who believe children and adults should be separated modesty-wise when it comes to a certain age and you're welcome to look them up. The bottom line is, I'd like to know why a father would feel the NEED to see his nine-year-old naked to wash her hair, and does he even ask first? "You ok having your clothes off in front of me, sweetie?" You don't even find it offensive to use wax strips on a daughter or have no boundaries whatsoever when it comes to modesty between teens and their parents. This, and the entire overly long episode of your jackass superiority for the second time I've come across you just make it worthless to bother trying to talk to you. You're going back on Ignore, have a nice one.
You're the one who called them imaginary people,
Bull. You imagined up a hypothetical example, that didn't mention cults at all, and I called it for what it was.
When I pushed you for a real example, you didn't provide one that matched the scenario you laid out.
This is the question of sexuality that you defined as a can of worms, you understand, and now you're saying it's just more moral relevancy if a child does marry because only WE consider her a child.
I said that sex work was a can of worms.
I also said that there is no one point where adulthood starts.
Finally, I said that moral frameworks built for western societies may not apply in radically different societies.
I don't see any problem there.
Your logic has as many loopholes as you claim mine does, if not more, because at least I'm consistent.
I don't think you understand what 'logic' means.
I'm advocating a rational system of morality from fundamental principles. That requires logic because you have to construct it via reason.
Some people may make different inferences, or start with different principles, but they'd still need logic.
You've not even stated a moral framework. There's no logic in just having a list of things that you find weird.
I very clearly said I've referenced what's happened to our culture and others as modesty deteroriates
Late on in the conversation, you did mention imaginary and factually incorrect fears about the collapse of society.
The idea that we the 'golden age of society' has passed and is now crumbling is a pretty ancient one by the way. People have been saying it throughout history. It's never been true.
If you look at the statistics, you'll see that you're worldview is plainly inaccurate.
assuming your natural human instincts would find treating a child like they need no privacy as offensive;
Modesty norms are subjective. This is pretty well evidenced. That you continue to insist that your norms are hard-wired shows that what I said is true; you're attitude to 'morality' is to treat your gut feelings as moral truths.
What I am saying is that people, and children, differ. A parent should seek to provide a child with as much privacy as necessary to keep that child happy, comfortable and safe. However, there's no need to fret about washing a prepubescent child's hair if she or he is comfortable with that.
I'd like to know why a father would feel the NEED to see his nine-year-old naked to wash her hair
Read the frigging post. She explained why.
you don't even find it offensive to use wax strips on a daughter or have no boundaries whatsoever when it comes to modesty between teens and their parents
And you've not explained why you find it offensive (because you have no reason, it's just how you feel... there's no logic or reason).
It's a straw man anyway. It's not about what boundaries I have or don't have. It's about respecting the boundaries that people happen to have and not enforcing your boundaries on everyone.
If a parent and child have a relationship where they can engage in that kind of grooming and it not be awkward, uncomfortable or otherwise unhealthy then it's none of my business. I doubt that's true for many people, but in your hypothetical example it apparently was... at which point it's neither my nor your business to judge them. share
You probably need to get laid, a? I hope that someday you will allow someone to touch you, for the sake of sensibility and sanity!
You mad woman!!!
That's why I drink using a crazy straw - Not so crazy now!
Not even worth a real response.
shareJust adding one more voice of complete agreement with Mitzishark, Galluslass, West_Saxon, Wight1984, Reva_C, Libbastewart, Kmra123, and the 3 or so other people who definitely don't find anything "inappropriate" about family members seeing each other's bodies if none of them object to it. I too find it much, much more disturbing for somebody to assume that there must be something sexual, rude, disrespectful, abusive, etc., about that. Bodies actually are just bodies; it is entirely possible, believe it or not, to view them without wishing to touch them in any inappropriate manner. As one person said, you're born naked--the rest is learned culturally (or, as Ru Paul would put it--"the rest is drag!")
shareYou really went to all the trouble of listing letter by letter the names of the other users here, like that's going to have some effect with me? You are aware that West Saxon is a freak who thinks there's nothing wrong with an overt sexual tone between daughters and fathers, and that Julianne or whoever is a moron who joked about me being molested? In fact, most of the people here who disagreed made either weird or very stupid off-the-cuff remarks. Do you even read people's entire posts before agreeing with them and calling MY view disturbing?
You know, it's always funny to hear lip service against modesty from strangers on the Internet who would probably screech their heads off if their fathers barged in on them naked at 12, or be happily clobbered by their children if they treated them like walking in on them was no big thing. There IS something very disrespectful with calling it "just" a body and not giving your non-nudist children boundaries as they grow up. If you find that kind of dignity and respect, given to kids by every decent person I know from here to the Philippines "much, much more disturbing" than acting like people have no boundaries, I'm at a loss for words and patience.
"Bodies actually are just bodies; it is entirely possible, believe it or not, to view them without wishing to touch them in any inappropriate manner"
Yes, because I haven't mentioned about a dozen times now that it's possible to disrespect someone without BEING SEXUAL. One more person deliberately misunderstanding me for the sake of sounding "open-minded" enough to pretend bodies are nothing.
LOL, talk about deliberate misunderstanding. There's nothing wrong with "modesty" and privacy. Some people and cultures feel the need for a little more than others, and it can hold a somewhat different meaning from one person to the next. No one should force/project their definition and comfort level onto others, nor call them "weird" just for feeling differently than you do about something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. It's not a bloody big deal.
All that happens at the most is that a kid goes, "Hey, watch it, I'm undressed in here!" or whatever, and pulls something around them. Obviously if someone is really uncomfortable with being seen or bathed or whatnot at a certain age, then you can respect that unless it becomes necessary for them to just deal with it. Deliberately, consciously making someone feel uncomfortable or unsafe for no good reason is the only real way for it to be disrespectful, without being intentionally sexual. Parents clearly know how their kids look beneath their clothes, and should grasp that while the body is a personal thing to be respected, it's still ultimately something that everyone has--not dirty and shameful and constantly needing to be hidden from sight. That's all! Neither I nor anybody else said anything shocking or wrong.
People do walk in on each other all the dang time, and it is NO big deal. Mildly embarrassing and/or humorous, perhaps, but nothing more unless bodies are innately horrifying to the individual.
EDITING:
Forgot this silliness, so I'll just put the rest of the response up here......
Well, then we hadn't been in TOTAL disagreement; you just seemed to have particularly conservative feelings with regard to nudity, and not all people will feel the same way. It doesn't make them incorrect. I don't judge others and call them "weird" just for feeling a bit differently than I do about utterly harmless things which are absolutely none of my business anyhow. ;)
Didn't see the "harmless fun" thing--err, yeah, not between a 33-year-old woman and an 11-year-old boy who thinks she's his adopted sister. xD; As for the "parents giving 'older' (?) kids baths" thing...to my mind, that's totally innocent and a simple matter of when the kid starts minding and wanting to do it alone (as well as whether s/he might need or want the help for some reason.) I chose privacy and independence about as early as possible, but wouldn't have found it wrong or bad if I'd heard about a same-age friend still being bathed. Might have made some childish remark or something, but nothing major. What I might find abnormal would be a kid who was literally afraid of being seen by his/her parents--the very people who birthed and raised him/her, and with whom s/he should always be able to feel safe. There's nothing at all wrong with being shy or modest; as you say, it is commonplace for people to want to be alone when undressed and to try to cover themselves if intruded upon. I was just baffled as to why this was even brought up in the first place, since nobody had mentioned being uncomfortable and forced to be naked in front of anyone.
I didn't think West_Saxon meant "overt" sexual tensions or whatever between fathers & daughters, and I don't think there's ever anything truly 'sexual' unless one or both is attracted to the other incestuously. But obviously, that's very rarely the case, and most definitely not at all relevant to the person who'd mentioned her dad washing her hair.
In my house...one member has always thought little of being seen or knowingly "walking in on" by others, whether to get something out of the room or just to say something--but always with a polite "Not looking" caveat. When you're talking about immediate family and such, the awkwardness is pretty minimal anyhow. Hopefully.
Some people have relatively few reservations about being exposed, while others are much more sensitive about it. I don't have a problem with either, nor with any culture or family/group whose attitudes are relaxed so that they can be comfortably exposed to one another without embarrassment or discomfort. No, I wouldn't want to be nudist myself or anything like that. But even the 'private parts' have important nonsexual purposes, so although the thought of them sends many people's minds straight into the gutter, I try to take a step back and say, "Wait a minute. Let's be reasonable here. Not everything is about bloody sex. It's just how humans are made."
Far as I'm concerned, people have every right to walk around their own homes as naked or as clothed as they please; if others are around they're probably going to get told to put some clothes on, but meh, who cares? There are far better things with which to concern myself than that.
"Body-looseness" is not inherently harmful, "unhealthy," or wrong. The reason that so many people become somewhat horrified at the thought of being seen in the nude, or close to it, is likely that the "taboo" of nudity has been so deeply ingrained in their culture and in their minds since childhood. Had this attitude not spread so widely, we might well live in a world where a majority of people are quite all right with--or at least not embarrassed by--being seen unclothed. Wearing little and exposing as much as legally permitted is already rather commonplace in public. I don't imagine that very many family members truly would find it disturbing to see one another's normally-covered body parts at any age; any claims of ocular or psychological damage would in most cases be in jest!
Calling other people "freakish" and such just because they don't feel the same way you do and are comfortable with different levels of exposure is just plain immature and WRONG! Everything written by Wight1984 was completely sound and well-reasoned. No one argued that you should intentionally make people feel uncomfortable. Duh.
I'd merely noted the other screennames to demonstrate that there were NO other views opposed to theirs/mine. Theirs sounded like the reactions one would get from most people on the street by standing there taking random surveys on this silly subject that had nothing to do with the original thread title (not that I can imagine why you'd do that, other than idle curiosity...or a sociological study.) But anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.
See, I agree with your last post here and find it very reasonable. It's not a big deal to accidentally walk in or see someone undressed in passing, but I find it very offensive if a parent in a household among the majority of households that are not nudist or whatever take it upon themselves to intrude on their kid in the bath, or in their room or any time they're unclothed. I always wonder what nudists expect their children to do once they hit puberty and the girls start menstruating and the boys..start reacting to some things. Thank you for clarifying.
Ok, you edited some major stuff after the fact, so I'll do the same and respond to it.
"As for the "parents giving 'older' (?) kids baths" thing...to my mind, that's totally innocent"
How do you know? Most parents are thrilled when kids start bathing on their own, so why the hell would they want to continue doing it for the kid until they're what, 12? When exactly does it become wrong, then, because it must at some point if we don't want to sound senselessly stupid here. I don't care about a family in general being briefly undressed around each other if no one cares, but baths are a lot more intimate and only ONE person is exposed, which makes the situation extremely different.
"I nor anybody else said anything shocking or wrong"
That's the only point I disagree with you on. Not only did a few particularly weird people act like it wouldn't be weird for a parent to inexplicably be involved in their older child's bath or whatnot, but West Saxon said there's nothing wrong with sexual overtones between father and daughter and has said elsewhere that it'd be harmless fun if Esther and 11-year-old Daniel in this movie had sex. Two other people made jokes or light-hearted guesses about me being molested, which makes them disgusting and brainless cretins at best.
And no, Wight was not reasoned or sound in such; he's a moron who said just about any exposure between parents and child is fine and dandy if no one protests and became a poster boy for dumbass subjective morality, which is often quite freakish.
but I find it very offensive if a parent in a household among the majority of households that are not nudist or whatever take it upon themselves to intrude on their kid in the bath
It's strange that you seem to make a special exception for nudists.
If we accept that nudists have a different attitude to the nudity and modesty and that's okay then it shouldn't be a huge leap to understand that there may be many different attitudes to nudity and modesty; it's not as simple as 'nudists' and 'non-nudists'.
There are some women who believe that having their hair uncovered should only happen in private and not in front of men who are not their husband or children. If you're around those women then it's entirely inappropriate to barge in on them whilst they have their hair down. It would be disrespectful.
For most western women this is not the case; it's not disrespectful to look at the hair of most western women. In fact, most women will feel pleased if you notice and admire their hair cut (in fact, it's a bit of a faux pas to not comment if a woman gets a new haircut).
What you need to do or not do to show respect depends entirely on the individual involved. It's not a case of throwing down general rules about how everyone should be treated, but about respecting their boundaries and their preferences.
If someone doesn't mind being seen naked, it's not disrespectful to see them naked. If you know that they don't want you to see them naked, then it's disrespectful to look at them whilst naked (and you should avert your eyes and leave the room if you find yourself in that position) share
[deleted]
You know, it's always funny to hear lip service against modesty from strangers on the Internet who would probably screech their heads off if their fathers barged in on them naked at 12, or be happily clobbered by their children if they treated them like walking in on them was no big thing.
No one has suggested that children's desire for modesty shouldn't be respected.
What actually happened is that someone described their own experience of their father washing their hair at age nine and you told them that it was disrespectful of the father to do that. The poster never expressed any discomfort or feeling of being disrespected, you just projected that onto them.
If she had said that her father insisted on washing her hair at age nine even though it made her uncomfortable, then I doubt anyone would have argued that it was okay for him to do that.
However, she did feel comfortable. No one felt disrespected, no one was hurt. If she didn't and doesn't mind, I don't see why it's anyone else's business to cast judgement. share
[deleted]
I think nudists are very weird, Wight, that make you feel better?
It just makes me think that you're even more small-minded than you presented yourself as.
But it's still a little different for people who are used to ALL being naked 24/7 then for people who were raised to keep their personal parts hidden when around others suddenly being treated by someone else like it doesn't matter anymore.
You're falling back into a dichotomy again. 'People raised as nudists' versus 'people not raised as nudists'. If anything is clear from this conversation, it's that people are raised in lots of different ways and we develop many different attitudes to nudity.
I'm not a nudist, but my attitude to nudity and your attitude to nudity are clearly different. That ought not be surprising; we're different people. We were raised by different parents, we've had different life experiences and were likely raised in different regions and cultures. The boundaries that people need to respect when interacting with me are not the same boundaries that people need to respect when interacting with you.
And the person who first spoke about their weird father spoke of more than just having her hair washed, unless I misunderstood her and she failed to clarify.
There wasn't anything more going on. It was an innocent non-sexual story.
I read a letter from a guy whose freakish 18-year-old daughter walked around after a shower with just a towel on her head; SHE was fine with it, does that make it ok?
Yes. If no one is being harmed or abused and no one is upset then it's all fine.
If no one is complaining, then there's no need for you to stick your nose in and tell other people how to live their lives.
There's a reason we have general boundaries
The claim that your personal boundaries are the 'general boundaries' doesn't seem to be well-evidenced by the people in this discussion.
They probably seem normal to you because their your boundaries. They're probably similar to the boundaries of your family members, who you grew up with (and thus helped set your idea of 'normal'). Presumably, they've not been challenged by anyone else you've been close to.
You remind me of people who claim to not have an accent. They've grown up speaking a certain way, their family spoke the same way and everyone in their region spoke that way. That's just speaking 'normally' right?
Except it's not. Although you can find English-speakers from Texas to rural England who claim not to have an accent, we all do. You've internalised a set of ideas about modesty and you just can't seem to accept that it's no more objectively correct than your accent.
share
You know how many people are nudists? Not that many. That's because even the most liberal guys are humiliated if they get aroused in public, and the most liberal women are likewise mortified if they get periods that are visible. Yet you think it's small-minded to call weird the habits of people who expect young men and women to have these issues around others with NOTHING to guard their bodies or privacy? I don't care what airy-headed adults do, but that's an ugly way to raise kids. Yeah, that "open-mindedness" isn't weird at all..
"If anything is clear from this conversation, it's that people are raised in lots of different ways and we develop many different attitudes to nudity."
You witness any person getting walked in on while changing or totally undressed in the bathroom, chances are they'll immediately cover themselves and act unhappy. That's the dichotomy of most in the world; want to try it out?
"Yes. If no one is being harmed or abused and no one is upset then it's all fine."
Really, how about a dad in a video who was helping his daughter get ready to be an escort, including removing her bikini-wax strips? Most people called foul on this and were horrified; one person claimed if she had no problem with it, it was just fine and dandy.
"If no one is complaining, then there's no need for you to stick your nose in and tell other people how to live their lives."
But there is a need for you or anyone else to hang around and badger/judge my own opinion, is that it? You or the cretins who suggested I'd been molested?
"The claim that your personal boundaries are the 'general boundaries' doesn't seem to be well-evidenced by the people in this discussion."
A few people came to see what I was saying, others were obnoxious or weird if you paid any real attention.
"You've internalised a set of ideas about modesty and you just can't seem to accept that it's no more objectively correct"
LOL Most people don't think walking around naked is a normal thing, and it's hilarious that you say I should be more open-minded, then go right ahead and judge me as a small-minded person for my opinion that body-looseness is wrong and inherently harmful. That rebound disqualifies someone to me.
You know how many people are nudists? Not that many.
I am pretty close to certain that it's more than you think.
However, it's not really the point. The point is that people exist on a bell curve. Nudists are on one end of that bell curve and you're on the other end... but there's a whole spectrum inbetween and none of it is wrong.
Yet you think it's small-minded to call weird the habits of people who expect young men and women to have these issues around others with NOTHING to guard their bodies or privacy?
It's not about expectation. It's actually about letting go of expectation.
One thing that I've found about other people's families is that most people have certain quirks unique to their family and that seem odd to outsiders but entirely normal to them.
Sometimes it's entirely innocuous. I know someone whose family called the remote control 'the buttons' and she just assumed everyone did until she moved out and went to university. Suddenly she realised that something that was normal for her wasn't normal for everyone else.
Sometimes it's something a bit more central to who we are. I'm British and I once dated a girl from Greece. She found the way I interacted with my parents bizarre because she was surprised at how little we touched each other, whereas her family expressed affection in a much more tactile way (which I found a bit odd). Neither of us were expressing familial affection 'wrong', just differently.
Sometimes it's something socially important. Some people raised in the American bible belt may have very naive ideas about certain kinds of people, relationships and families. Anyone in a liberal area knows that same-sex couples are basically the same as opposite-sex couples, but if you've never been exposed to that then it may all seem very strange, weird and 'unnatural'.
In the same way, a child raised in a nudist household is going to have very different ideas to someone raised in your household. You will both find each other weird. You might find their lack of modesty norms disturbing and they may find your hang-ups about the human body to be unhealthy, when really you're both just doing whatever makes you comfortable.
"Yes. If no one is being harmed or abused and no one is upset then it's all fine."
Really, how about a dad in a video who was helping his daughter get ready to be an escort, including removing her bikini-wax strips? Most people called foul on this and were horrified; one person claimed if she had no problem with it, it was just fine and dandy.
Who was this one person and what about it?
You're right that if we were having an entirely different conversation then I'd be saying entirely different things... but we're not. We're not a discussion about parental reaction to their children engaging in sex work, we're talking about non-sexual nudity.
But there is a need for you or anyone else to hang around and badger/judge my own opinion, is that it?
I think it's generally good for people to oppose people being judgemental in arbitrary ways. I certainly don't feel sorry for you; you can't post a judgemental stance on an Internet forum and then complain about people judging what you've said.
LOL Most people don't think walking around naked is a normal thing, and it's hilarious that you say I should be more open-minded, then go right ahead and judge me as a small-minded person for my opinion that body-looseness is wrong and inherently harmful. That rebound disqualifies someone to me.
I don't consider individual differences to be automatically wrong. If someone wants to live their life differently to me and they can do so without harming others then that is all fine by me. This is the best sense of the rather maltreated word 'liberal'.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to shy away from making observations or 'judgements'. If someone judges others for being different, even where that differences is non-harmful, then I am going to consider them small-minded.
In the same way, I don't think that it matters whether someone is gay, straight, asexual or anything else. I guess that makes me pretty 'open-minded' regarding sexual orientation. None of that means that I'm committed to ignoring homophobia when I observe it. If someone says that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural then I can call that 'small-minded' without somehow undermining my 'open-mindedness' towards sexual orientation.
share
"We're not a discussion about parental reaction to their children engaging in sex work, we're talking about non-sexual nudity."
I can't recall entirely whether she was a sex worker, I just know she was preparing for an adult night and he had no issue in removing private wax strips. You see any issue with that? Or raising kids in a manner where they have no privacy in developing years? And if the girl was a sex worker and just fine with it, it wouldn't be small-minded to judge her?
"you can't post a judgemental stance on an Internet forum and then complain about people judging what you've said"
Nor can you preach against judgement and then claim it's fine for you and not me to deliver it.
"I think it's generally good for people to oppose people being judgemental in arbitrary ways"
LOL Because nowadays it's much better to do unhealthy things than act judgemental about it. I don't ask for pity or sympathy from pseudo-open minds like yours; a lot of people have ideals about what's right and wrong, and yours is that it's wrong to consider anything wrong if it doesn't result in physical harm. Countless disagree with you, and you have no problem yapping judgement while believing yourself totally exempt from it and proclaiming your own gapingly open brain as the vindicated and wiser one.
I can't recall entirely whether she was a sex worker, I just know she was preparing for an adult night and he had no issue in removing private wax strips. You see any issue with that?
The first I've heard about this situation is you're mentioning it to derail the conversation we we're having. Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit.
Would I be comfortable with a child of mine going into sex work? No. Are my views on sex workers more liberal than yours? Probably. Either way, it's an entirely different discussion.
Or raising kids in a manner where they have no privacy in developing years?
I think that children should be given the level of privacy required to make them feel comfortable rather than the level of privacy that you would want for yourself.
It's not even vaguely the same topic as how comfortable parents should be about their children choosing sex work as a profession though. It's bizarre that you're trying to conflate the two things.
And if the girl was a sex worker and just fine with it, it wouldn't be small-minded to judge her?
Pretty much, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
Being 'open-minded' does not mean that you're never allowed to make moral judgements or to have concerns for someone's welfare.
Sex work can be a very dangerous profession, especially when unregulated, so it is entirely understandable why any parent would be deeply worried and troubled by their child going into sex work. I would definitely be deeply worried by it if I was a parent in that situation.
However, if you want me to admit to some kind of slut-shaming bigotry then you're talking to the wrong person. Being the sort of person with a deeply held moral conviction about the importance of people's happiness and welfare, I am extremely concerned about the welfare and ill-treatment of sex-workers... but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority.
Nor can you preach against judgement
I haven't preached against judgement itself. Nor do I recall seeing anyone else do so.
I do think that it's petty, small-minded and fairly stupid to judge people for not having the same modesty norms as you.
Yes, that is a judgement, but I'm not anti-judgement. I'm anti pettiness, small-mindedness and stupidity.
it's much better to do unhealthy things than act judgemental about it.
There's nothing unhealthy about nudism... let alone a relaxed attitude to pre-pubescent nudity within the family.
I don't ask for pity or sympathy from pseudo-open minds like yours; a lot of people have ideals about what's right and wrong, and yours is that it's wrong to consider anything wrong if it doesn't result in physical harm. Countless disagree with you, and you have no problem yapping judgement while believing yourself totally exempt from it and proclaiming your own gapingly open brain as the vindicated and wiser one.
I've not offered you pity or sympathy.
What I have said is that your basis for what you consider 'moral judgement' is only the unthinking, unreflected and anti-intellectual knee-jerk reactions of someone who has never spent the time to construct a rational moral framework.
That's not even a 'Utilitarianism is the only respectable rational framework' stance, it's a 'believing your own subjective emotive reactions can form a universal and objectively correct moral system is stupid' stance.
share
"Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit."
She wasn't having sex with her dad and she wasn't nude, so it's a perfectly relevant question. Besides, if you take the "as long as no one minds, it's fine" approach, it will eventually lead to a problem.
"I do think that it's petty, small-minded and fairly stupid"
And there you go, judgement. You are anti-judgement that doesn't go with your own, that doesn't expand the same distance as your own.
"let alone a relaxed attitude to pre-pubescent nudity within the family"
You made it clear you found post-pubescent nudity fine too.
"but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority."
You're a fool if you think my entire basis is grounded on nothing more than what I personally am comfortable with, as you show with your last few lines as well.
"I've not offered you pity or sympathy"
You announced "I do not feel sorry for you" as if I asked you to or would consider any sympathy you offered.
"Everyone who has posted so far in defence of this has posted in defence of non-sexual nudity within the family unit."
She wasn't having sex with her dad and she wasn't nude, so it's a perfectly relevant question. Besides, if you take the "as long as no one minds, it's fine" approach, it will eventually lead to a problem.
In one case we were talking washing hair in the bathtub, which involves non-sexual pre-pubescent nudity in the family.
In the other case we were talking about bikini waxes as preparation for sex work on the sexual regions of the body involving non-sexual post-pubescent nudity.
Now, sure, if you remove the sex work thing then it's merely a bit odd and squicky, but that's no basis for moral concern. As long as it's non-sexual and they're okay with what they're doing then there's no need for me to stick my nose in and start judging people.
But when you add the sex work in thing then you are clearly opening up an entirely different can of worms.
And there you go, judgement. You are anti-judgement that doesn't go with your own, that doesn't expand the same distance as your own.
You've made up the 'anti-judgement' thing.
I've been clear; I am not anti-judgement. I'm just anti-stupidity and anti-small mindedness.
You might as well suggest that I'm anti-opinion for disagreeing with you and thus a hypocrite for holding opinions. It's a nonsense argument.
"but that's not the same as you're knee-jerk 'ew, sex work' reaction that you seem to think is the pinnacle of moral authority."
You're a fool if you think my entire basis is grounded on nothing more than what I personally am comfortable with, as you show with your last few lines as well.
It's the corner you decided to point yourself into.
You didn't try to provide rational arguments to the truth of your moral claims. You've just assumed that they're universal truths because that's how you feel.
Even in your attempts to convince me that you're right, you haven't been presenting evidence or rational arguments as to why pre-pubescent nudity within the family is damaging or hurtful to anyone... you've just built increasingly emotive scenarios in order to try to appeal to my emotive reactions.
You can't pretend to be engaging in rational moral philosophy given the position you've already established yourself as holding.
You announced "I do not feel sorry for you" as if I asked you to or would consider any sympathy you offered.
You tried to pretend to be some kind of victim for being judged, as if you hadn't just been throwing around your own judgements on an Internet forum for other people to read and comment on.
Yeah, I know that's all part of that weird strawman argument about me somehow being 'anti-judgement' just because I told you that your judgements are wrong and silly, but that doesn't make the attempt to pretend to be some kind of victim to be less pathetic.
share
No, you decided my views needed a corner to exist in because you don't understand where they could come from, and you assumed it was from an entirely self-identifying place. You decided to judge my opinions as stupidity and small-mindedness, so once again, you're judging and not using much space to do it in. I don't consider myself a victim of strangers on the web, especially not ignorant ones.
"you've just built increasingly emotive scenarios in order to try to appeal to my emotive reactions"
I used your own subjective judgement based on the "as long as no one minds" scenario to see how far it would expand; a lot of discussions lead to bigger scenarios and questions, which seems to baffle you. Sure enough, your own argument stretches into territory similar to that of West Saxon: you don't think it's wrong for a father to apply wax strips on "the sexual regions of the body". Good luck with that, it tells me all I care to know.
you decided my views needed a corner to exist
It's purely the case of the position you choose to present.
You didn't provide a reasoned argument.
You didn't provide evidence.
All you did is make the claim that it's not respectful.
You ignored people who pointed out that modesty norms are culturally diverse.
You failed to engage with the fact that some families don't have them (nudists)
You've been quite keen to argue that it doesn't matter whether anyone was hurt or upset.
What you've done is you've taken a norm that you've grown up with and mistaken it for a moral truth.
I used your own subjective judgement based on the "as long as no one minds" scenario to see how far it would expand
You've clearly not understand any of my judgements or arguments.
All you've done is thrown around other examples that strike you as weird. Fathers being overly involved with personal grooming. Incest. Polygamy. Sex Work. You've evidenced no indication of any moral philosophy beyond 'if it seems weird, then I don't like it'.
If you had anything more sophisticated to say, then I'd wager you'd have said it by now. share
If polygamy and incest don't strike you as weird, lol, wow.
shareThis is a two year old conversation... but the idea seems to be that what strikes people as 'weird' is irrelevant to any kind of rational moral judgement. 'Weird' =/ 'Not okay'
sharePlenty of rational moral judgement as to why those things are harmful or even disgusting, but I'm not interested in reviving a dead horse.
shareIf you're not interested in riving dead horses, then why reply to a two year old thread?
The whole point here was that no rational harm-based moral argument here.
This is someone calling labelling something as 'wrong' because it -feels- weird to them and using that as a justification to make claims about how other people behave.
It's curious that you refer to 'harmful or even disgusting' though, as if the latter was somehow worse than the former.
If other people choose to do things that disgust me then I will just mind my own business; it's only when people choose to do things that are harmful (particularly to people other than themselves) that there's any cause for alarm.
[deleted]
Your personal predicament of grossness does not necessitate inappropriate behavior by others. The problem here is your incorrect perception of the reality you live in, resulting in your extremist puritanical ideas.
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess the same way an adult can continuously ACT like a child.
Oh Thank you God! Thank you so BLOODY much!Basil Fawlty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fjZi9aSHsM/
shareThis whole thread is hilarious.
'SOMEONE was molested as a child!'
Seriously though, come on. Nothing at all wrong with a dad seeing his nine year old daughter naked. I suspect you are trolling.
But she didn't really stop aging. Once she take of the make up (hiding her pours, wrinkles etc) & removed the false teeth (to hide her adult ones), she pretty much looked her real age. Also, she was binding her breasts, so she did go through puberty.
The claim that "without her makeup, false teeth, & chest binding, she looked much older" was definitely Hollywood special effects at work, because the actress who played Esther was a little younger than age 12 at the time that the movie finished filming.
---
IF I want your opinion, I'll GIVE it to you. share
Exactly wakan, weren't they amazing effects??
shareYes, there would be a lot wrong with it if it was done deliberately with no regard for privacy. If you can't see the extreme inappropriateness of someone like Esther being treated with such disrespect by a male adult, you're a pitiful creature.
I don't take any grounds from freaks who are ok with child sex, which is way beyond anything discussed here.
shareSorry, I'm with the others. Nothing wrong with a father seeing his young children naked. We are quite a naked house, my sons (11 and 8) sometimes see their father and I naked. The older one does like his privacy and is now more self conscious etc so I cover up more now rather than just walk round naked - but he decided the age where he felt it was time.
I think more nudity without the sexual element would be good. As kids it was much more common to see little kids running up and down naked - the beach, the garden etc. I prefer that way and mind set.
Needless to say, I disagree with your naked household. "Little" kids are not what I consider 9 and 11 year olds, and certainly not parents.
shareDisagree all you want - hopefully my kids won't grow up as repressed and ashamed of their bodies as you.
shareLOL That's right, I don't parade around naked because I just hate my body. Or just think it's my private business, but strangely the more "liberated" people don't seem open-minded enough to consider the logic of that possibility. Besides, even seeing someone naked in passing is different from bathing someone (the topic that somehow became a debate here); I doubt you let your kids give you baths.
shareLOL That's right, I don't parade around naked because I just hate my body.
Personally, I think that it's all fine as long as you're not hurting anyone. If you feel embarrassed or shy about other people seeing you naked, even in a non-sexual context, then that's just your quirk and it's all good. I'm sure that you can lead a healthy and fulfilled life with that quirk.
However, there's no advantage in it over not having those feelings.
If I was to try to judge one as being better than the other, then I'd definitely go with the one that evidences less hang-ups about our bodies. share
Less hang-ups about our bodies has helped lead to more loose sex-lives, "open relationships" and general moral disintegration.
shareThe problem is that when you talk about 'moral integration' you don't mean genuine morality, at least not terms of rational ethical philosophy.
Casual sex and/or non-standard romantic relationships are not incompatible with strongly held moral convictions and principles. It's not the sort of thing that clashes with Utilitarian moral philosophy (for example).
It does clash with people's whose moral outlook is based largely on societal norms and taboos, which is to say with people whose morality is not grounded in reasoned argument from principles or central guiding values.
And, yeah, I guess society is moving away from the latter. The western world is moving towards a 'liberal' society where people have to justify their moral condemnation in terms of how it actually hurts people... rather than just their own subjective emotional reactions to particular acts.
It's a world where small-minded bigotry about alternative lifestyles is increasingly not tolerated... but that's not moral disintegration, it's moral progress.
Keep your baseless knee-jerk emotive judgements. I'm happy with actually caring about other people's welfare and making reasoned moral judgements based on that.
"The western world is moving towards a 'liberal' society where people have to justify their moral condemnation in terms of how it actually hurts people.."
Yeah, where they're too dim to see long-term affects like increased divorce rates, pregnant and unhappy teens, disintegration in family. No harm at all.
That's factually incorrect.
Liberal attitudes to sexual education actually decrease STD spread, teenager pregnancy (and thus abortion) and actually increase the average age at which people have sex.
Whereas 'traditional' right-leaning approaches to sexual education (aka abstinence only education) does the exact opposite.
This general trend can be seen be contrasting continental Europe with the states. Continental Europe is significantly more liberal and tolerant than the USA, yet the USA has terrible problems with teenage pregnancy and STD spread.
Yet some Americans think they can take the high ground because at least they don't have an accepting attitude towards such things as same-sex relationships or casual sex. It's rank hypocrisy that should have died out with the Victorians.
Look at our divorce rates, our kids having sex, where 14 is now actually more common, where PP workers try to steer kids into their way of thinking, and where some don't blink when a nurse gets an abortion on camera and acts like it's no big thing. The reason we NEED so much sex ed is because hookups are now considered fine and normal. Hate to tell you, but things aren't so grand marriage-wise in other countries, either.
shareook at our divorce rates, our kids having sex, where 14 is now actually more common, where PP workers try to steer kids into their way of thinking, and where some don't blink when a nurse gets an abortion on camera and acts like it's no big thing
Yes, look at those statistics. Actually look at that.
Look at which regions are have the worst statistics in these areas. Look at what policies and cultural changes might be responsible.
You may surprise yourself. They're worse in areas where sexual puritanism is allowed to infect teaching and state policy. share
Divorce rates by and large went up after sex became considered less important and the body, especially the female one, less sacred. The US has more of a lot of things because we're a larger country.
shareDivorce rates went up as divorce became legal and easy.
People didn't used to get divorced as much because they either separated or lived in unhappy marriages. That we now have a more honest and tolerant approach to the end of relationships is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The US has more of a lot of things because we're a larger country.
All this tells me is that you don't understand how statistics work. share
Well said. That whitespirit dude has got an agenda and spammed his bigotry on many posts here.
shareLMAO Bigotry of what, inappropriate weirdness and no boundaries like the dumbass wight supports? Cute, hypocrite.
share[deleted]
You are confusing your unwilingless to show your naked body to others with need for everyone to hide their bodies. you not wanting to show your body is fine - you can hide it all you want. you have no business telling others to hide it, however.
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
I don't "need" to tell most others to hide their bodies, in fact it's illegal in most areas to display them; guess we haven't overcome that Puritanical hurdle.
shareShe's like a dwarf-version of Danielle Harris, who played teens until her 30s, fairly convincingly.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0364583/
Just look at her in the movie The Legend of Mary Hatchett.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3l7OIaR12U
Also, look at this clip from the movie Freaks with Harry Earles as Hans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5bQCQBji3I
Or do a Google Image search.