4 ms·

> there are plenty of other things that are more important I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. skinny dipping aversion isn't a random quirk, i

by Chris2048 4y ago

> there are plenty of other things that are more important I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. skinny dipping aversion isn't a random quirk, it follows from general conservatism. > effected by culture and religion clustering of affinities. > they would be excluding their nudity-averse friend. So all these groups would end up looking for something else to do. or exclude their friend from the activity? The original post made the point: "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable" > No one is saying about "strife". This is not a polarizing issue! "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable". > This shows a complete disconnect to reality and/or wishful thinking. I think the same of you.. > Do you know any Muslims? yep > Do you understand how display of modesty is a central part of their beliefs? I'm sure for some it is.

rglullis 4y ago
> it follows from general conservatism Does it matter? What is your argument? That people can only be friends if they share a very similar outlook in life? > "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable" Aren't you reading a bit too much into this? "Making someone uncomfortable" is not something that needs to lead people distancing themselves from a friendly relationship. > or exclude their friend from the activity? So, in a group of friends who are looking for something to do together, you think that the the more natural course of action is to remove your friend from the circle, instead of finding another activity that can be inclusive. Is this your idea of friendship?
- Chris2048 4y ago
  > That people can only be friends if they share a very similar outlook in life? No, that they are more likely to, you are adding the hyperbole. > remove your friend from the circle No, you added the scenario "a group of friends who are looking for something to do together". The scenario is "a group of friends want to go to the sauna". I don't know what "remove your friend from the circle" means, but it means the friend who won't want to go, won't be asked. > finding another activity that can be inclusive The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > a group of friends want to go to the sauna You are looking at this as one specific instance of an event, like this is a static system. What I am talking about is if you look at a ongoing series of "Here is a group of friends that like to hangout together (i.e, there is established affinity) and want to find something to do." Do you agree that all it takes is one member of the group to say "I will definitely not go to sauna, how about we go {to non-nudist lake/ out for an ice-cream / make a pic-nic at the park / outdoor cinema} instead?" to cause a substantial drop in overall "friends going to the sauna events"? > The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't. Of course it is exclusive. It's not about "does not want to go", it is inviting to do something that violates their core beliefs. It doesn't mean that the excluded person "needs to feel offended" or "take it as a micro-aggression" or any other woke BS like that... but it is undeniable that if part of the group (frequently) opts into an exclusionary activity instead of something that all can do, then these people should really evaluate if they are really close friends.

rglullis 4y ago

> it follows from general conservatism Does it matter? What is your argument? That people can only be friends if they share a very similar outlook in life? > "You've just made 5 people uncomfortable" Aren't you reading a bit too much into this? "Making someone uncomfortable" is not something that needs to lead people distancing themselves from a friendly relationship. > or exclude their friend from the activity? So, in a group of friends who are looking for something to do together, you think that the the more natural course of action is to remove your friend from the circle, instead of finding another activity that can be inclusive. Is this your idea of friendship?

Chris2048 4y ago
> That people can only be friends if they share a very similar outlook in life? No, that they are more likely to, you are adding the hyperbole. > remove your friend from the circle No, you added the scenario "a group of friends who are looking for something to do together". The scenario is "a group of friends want to go to the sauna". I don't know what "remove your friend from the circle" means, but it means the friend who won't want to go, won't be asked. > finding another activity that can be inclusive The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > a group of friends want to go to the sauna You are looking at this as one specific instance of an event, like this is a static system. What I am talking about is if you look at a ongoing series of "Here is a group of friends that like to hangout together (i.e, there is established affinity) and want to find something to do." Do you agree that all it takes is one member of the group to say "I will definitely not go to sauna, how about we go {to non-nudist lake/ out for an ice-cream / make a pic-nic at the park / outdoor cinema} instead?" to cause a substantial drop in overall "friends going to the sauna events"? > The activity is exclusive if you're invited. That some don't want to go doesn't mean it isn't. Of course it is exclusive. It's not about "does not want to go", it is inviting to do something that violates their core beliefs. It doesn't mean that the excluded person "needs to feel offended" or "take it as a micro-aggression" or any other woke BS like that... but it is undeniable that if part of the group (frequently) opts into an exclusionary activity instead of something that all can do, then these people should really evaluate if they are really close friends.