27 ms·

I disagree entirely. First, the notion that someone somewhere in society doing porn is bad for the society itself. The desire to shave off societies' "stray ha

I disagree entirely. First, the notion that someone somewhere in society doing porn is bad for the society itself. The desire to shave off societies' "stray hairs" is deeply immoral. It has always has been, but that does not make it right. Second, I strongly disagree that carefree attitudes towards sex/nudity is automatically dehumanising, animalistic or objectifying. Sexuality, the human body, etc. This stuff is deeply human. See: 100 thousand years of art history. Last... what is this animal-human dichotomy anyway. Humans are animals. Is childbirth or breastfeeding "farther from human and closer to animal?" These are as viscerally mammalian as key parties on a Wednesday.

rmbyrro 4y ago
Hey, thanks for adding more perspective to the discussion. I think these are points to meditate on. Clarifying, I didn't mean to express animal/human as a dichotomy. I see it more as a spectrum. We surely have a LOT in common with animals, but it's also evident that we have the freedom to face everything we do in a different way. Some animals will stop feeding their cubs to concentrate only on the strongest one. They will also stop feeding a cub if it's anomalous (i.e. physiological malformation). On this matter, humans used to behave exactly as animals in ancient Greece (i.e. in Sparta). But we chose to live in a better way. We chose it is superior to use our faculties and ingenuity to be able to feed typical babies without sacrificing the atypical ones. So, yes, for sure, we feed our babies. But we don't have to do it the same way as animals. Animals evolve slowly, pushed by nature. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition. That's where I draw a line between humans and other animals. Perhaps one day we will have evolved to deserve our own kingdom. As we behave right now, I agree with you that we're still much closer to the animal kingdom than anything superior...
- trasz 4y ago
  Your argument is fine as advocacy for contraception, abortion and sexual health in general, but I don’t see how it’s related to nudity. Especially given that the problems with nudity often correlate with problems with remaining sexual health aspects, ie are being promoted by institutions that equate human sexuality with that of cattle, namely the Catholic Church.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human. Is is caring for children animal or human? Being socially pleasant? What makes attending a naturist summer camp animalistic? FWIW, the majority of recent, western naturist subcultures came from rationalist origins... a sort of late enlightenment movement. They pondered why we behave as we do, and rejected rote knowledge. IE, they thought we culturally avoid nudity today just because we avoided it yesterday. It's a thoughtless, irrational habit. Being rational, thoughtful and highly evolved beings, naturalists decided they don't have to keep up pointless habits. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition, their own rational conclusions. This is pretty closely related to humanist thought broadly. So, why is naturism more animal than human? More importantly (to me), how can mindless adherence to tradition, custom, religion or habit possibly represent "choosing to use our superior faculties and ingenuity" or "evolving by our own volition." it seems to me that conscious, and free choice represents those things much better.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    > How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human That is actually quite a good question. I haven't thought about it thoroughly to reduce into an objective way. Will work on doing that in the future. This makes me think that the differences I perceive today are more of an intuition or an unconscious mental process. Thanks for engaging in the discussion! ;)
- fellowniusmonk 4y ago
  fwiw, here is how I loosely think about the problem: Humans are both 100% animal and 100% human. There is no dichotomy. A human acting "as an animal" is doing a maximally human thing. A human acting as a "civilized" person is also maximally human. Choosing not to play the game via "suicide" and choosing to stay in the game to see where it leads via "not suiciding" are both maximally human decisions. The most fucked up but also a maximally human expression is to try to enforce your chosen / memetically inculcated views of "acting human" on other humans. Forcing others whom you have never met into your is/ought for "reasons". It's fucked up because the coda one chooses to enforce shaves the weirdness of humanity off (being bullied for liking computers in the 80s slowed the rate of human computer adoption) in an attempt to socially decrease the range of acceptable expressions thus narrowing the global tree of human exploration and expression.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    Hi, I hope the way I expressed my views didn't cause any personal resentments. To be clear, I'm not enforcing anything. Just expressing, which is quite different. I think both of us can agree that expressing points of view through words is a human thing. It's also a human thing to do that even with strangers. That being said, I will certainly review my views in the future and hope to improve them. I expressed what is my current view on those topics. You can obviously disagree, discard them, or anything else your judgement indicates.

rmbyrro 4y ago

Hey, thanks for adding more perspective to the discussion. I think these are points to meditate on. Clarifying, I didn't mean to express animal/human as a dichotomy. I see it more as a spectrum. We surely have a LOT in common with animals, but it's also evident that we have the freedom to face everything we do in a different way. Some animals will stop feeding their cubs to concentrate only on the strongest one. They will also stop feeding a cub if it's anomalous (i.e. physiological malformation). On this matter, humans used to behave exactly as animals in ancient Greece (i.e. in Sparta). But we chose to live in a better way. We chose it is superior to use our faculties and ingenuity to be able to feed typical babies without sacrificing the atypical ones. So, yes, for sure, we feed our babies. But we don't have to do it the same way as animals. Animals evolve slowly, pushed by nature. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition. That's where I draw a line between humans and other animals. Perhaps one day we will have evolved to deserve our own kingdom. As we behave right now, I agree with you that we're still much closer to the animal kingdom than anything superior...

trasz 4y ago
Your argument is fine as advocacy for contraception, abortion and sexual health in general, but I don’t see how it’s related to nudity. Especially given that the problems with nudity often correlate with problems with remaining sexual health aspects, ie are being promoted by institutions that equate human sexuality with that of cattle, namely the Catholic Church.
dalbasal 4y ago
How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human. Is is caring for children animal or human? Being socially pleasant? What makes attending a naturist summer camp animalistic? FWIW, the majority of recent, western naturist subcultures came from rationalist origins... a sort of late enlightenment movement. They pondered why we behave as we do, and rejected rote knowledge. IE, they thought we culturally avoid nudity today just because we avoided it yesterday. It's a thoughtless, irrational habit. Being rational, thoughtful and highly evolved beings, naturalists decided they don't have to keep up pointless habits. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition, their own rational conclusions. This is pretty closely related to humanist thought broadly. So, why is naturism more animal than human? More importantly (to me), how can mindless adherence to tradition, custom, religion or habit possibly represent "choosing to use our superior faculties and ingenuity" or "evolving by our own volition." it seems to me that conscious, and free choice represents those things much better.
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  > How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human That is actually quite a good question. I haven't thought about it thoroughly to reduce into an objective way. Will work on doing that in the future. This makes me think that the differences I perceive today are more of an intuition or an unconscious mental process. Thanks for engaging in the discussion! ;)
fellowniusmonk 4y ago
fwiw, here is how I loosely think about the problem: Humans are both 100% animal and 100% human. There is no dichotomy. A human acting "as an animal" is doing a maximally human thing. A human acting as a "civilized" person is also maximally human. Choosing not to play the game via "suicide" and choosing to stay in the game to see where it leads via "not suiciding" are both maximally human decisions. The most fucked up but also a maximally human expression is to try to enforce your chosen / memetically inculcated views of "acting human" on other humans. Forcing others whom you have never met into your is/ought for "reasons". It's fucked up because the coda one chooses to enforce shaves the weirdness of humanity off (being bullied for liking computers in the 80s slowed the rate of human computer adoption) in an attempt to socially decrease the range of acceptable expressions thus narrowing the global tree of human exploration and expression.
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  Hi, I hope the way I expressed my views didn't cause any personal resentments. To be clear, I'm not enforcing anything. Just expressing, which is quite different. I think both of us can agree that expressing points of view through words is a human thing. It's also a human thing to do that even with strangers. That being said, I will certainly review my views in the future and hope to improve them. I expressed what is my current view on those topics. You can obviously disagree, discard them, or anything else your judgement indicates.