5 ms·

Is there any evidence that seeing topless women is bad for kids in some way, or is that just a US cultural norm?

by t_mann 4y ago

djbusby 4y ago
In the USA we can show bloody violence on over-the-air TV, guns and shooting. Naked humans are too scary for us.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  Somebody once summarized this as hacking off a boob with a machete is R-rated, while kissing the same boob is X-rated. Only in America.
- Tao3300 4y ago
  I remember a Louis CK bit about a crime serial he was watching where the (albeit fake) ejaculate on a dead woman could be shown but the breasts had to be censored. Of course, he turned out to be a creep and good luck ever finding one bit on that topic considering the massive news coverage of his bad behavior. But ad hominems aside, he had a point. It's really disturbed when you think about it: the degree to which an influential subculture in America elevates and defends violence while censoring and degrading women's bodies exposes a sick preference for death over life. Even if portions of it claim to be "pro-life" they are, to all intents and purposes, a death cult.
mrkramer 4y ago
Idk I'm not an expert in this matters but people talk about exposing kids to anything including nudity is harmful to them. I really don't know but I think there is consensus that kids shouldn't be exposed to nudity.
- t_mann 4y ago
  Evidence means scientific studies, not 'people talking'. A hundred years ago people would have told you that corporal punishment is good for kids, whereas studies now clearly show the opposite. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/
  - mrkramer 4y ago
    That's why I said >I'm not an expert in this matters but if you know any relevant studies claiming that nudity is not harmful for kids, please show them to me.
    - t_mann 4y ago
      The onus is generally on whoever claims the presence of an effect, harmful or otherwise. The null hypothesis is always that there is no effect.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        When dealing with laws and culture, it seems the onus would be on the side wanting to change the status quo. Without a reason, why would they use political capital/effort on this (or anything else)?
        eyelidlessness 4y ago
        There are multiple onuses, determining whether a status quo should change is only one of them. But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence. If that scenario arises, generally those demanding change have already met the criteria (at least those available to them). At which point the status quo thing is in the same philosophical position of making a claim and has the logical burden of proof that the status quo itself is justified. This reasoning is sometimes used hastily in radical-left politics, eg in some forms of anarchism where any power relationship is subject to justifying its existence. But, and I’m saying this no longer an anarchist, you don’t need to be a radical or revolutionary to see it play out. This is essentially exactly how many cannabis legalization efforts have worked. After decades of dedicated effort to establish plurality support for questioning the status quo of prohibition, the question of whether prohibition is justified becomes scrutinized at a policy level and it the justification isn’t there. The only remaining barriers are weak pluralities and successful counter-marketing. If either of those are absent, the unjustified status quo has been changed. Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong, the onus is to motivate people to know and care that it’s wrong, and to agree that it matters. From there, the onus is the same as GP said: you’re making the claim, you defend it. Otherwise the assumption is just, like, your opinion man.
- TheCycoONE 4y ago
  I don't think there is a consensus. Actually I've never heard anyone cite any specific harm at all. There is certainly an appeal to social norms and probably some ingrained racism: "we wear clothes unlike those primitive savages," but real benefit to shielding kids from nudity - what's the hypothesis to test against?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Near as I can tell, the only benefit is usually that the parents get another year or two to dodge the sex conversation they keep avoiding.
    - Tao3300 4y ago
      Which is very misguided! My ultimate parenting hack that I have discovered is to answer my kids honestly and in detail. This was born out of frustration when, as a toddler, one of my kids would become distraught when confronting the fact that she wasn't in our wedding pictures because she did not exist. Eventually I said "look, the egg that would become you was in your mother". A few how & whys later and she was fine before we even got into the mechanics of it. Now I've honed this to the point where my kids just hear me go into that tone of voice and realize that they should drop the subject before the old man goes on another one of his 45 minute lectures. They've got more fun things to do.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "People talk" has no value, is there evidence ?
- dragonsky 4y ago
  I'm a little shocked that anybody could claim that viewing a naked body at any age could be considered harmful. There are many cases where children would benefit from seeing a range of naked bodies, and realise that there are many people out there that look just like them. they don't have to look like the photoshop models who do get exposed. Body shame is a real thing, and the only way around it is for people to realise that bodies come in a wide range of shapes and colours, and they have no reason to be ashamed of theirs.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    I mean, it depends on the pose. Goatse (a man stretching open his anus) is in one sense "just a naked person". I agree that seeing a range of nude people [in completely non-sexual contexts] is good for one's personal development.
microtherion 4y ago
How could you even ask such a question? Never, in the history of human civilization, have babies ever been exposed to the sight of a naked female breast </s>.
giantg2 4y ago
At least until it's normalized there will be a lot of teen boy neck injuries from looking this way and that rapidly lol
spacemadness 4y ago
I guess breastfeeding is scarring these poor kids at an early age. I think it’s safe to say adults are the ones with the twisted sensibilities and kids are going to be just fine,
- autoexec 4y ago
  I've actually seen that argument made against breastfeeding in public. Like someone actually said "You can't do that here! There are children present!" without any clue of how absolutely dumb that was. It seems like the ones who are most concerned about nudity are the ones we should be the most concerned about. I don't know whats going on in their heads, but it must be pretty sick stuff from the way they overreact. I just don't feel like it should be our burden to keep their demons at bay.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    I was banned on reddit for sexualizing children. I said that the fact you can show murdered children but not bathing children on US television is a sign of cultural mental illness. I guess parents in the US make their children wear a swimsuit when bathing them?
    - exitb 4y ago
      It's a bit more complicated. Murder on TV is pretend, but nudity is real. Even if you think nudity is ok, showing it needs all parties to consent and we decided that children can't give consent to such things.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        Ok, so let's have deep fake nudity instead. The child actors will at all times be wearing a whole body cgi suit. Somehow I doubt Americans will be any more ok with this pretend nudity than actual nudity.
    - bezier-curve 4y ago
      I was banned on Reddit for simply calling out a Reddit admin on my own profile. I keep trying to appeal it, but they don't care about my 12 years of good faith contributions to dozens of communities, hundreds of dollars given to their company through premium and awards, no the final straw was me simply calling out an admin who was on a power trip, who is also responsible for a PR blunder relatively recently with their place event. I've lost so much respect for this company and it's actually made me also take a step back from social media in general. All of these companies can abuse you at any point without any transparency, and I'm not willing to take the risk anymore.
tomcam 4y ago
I know I’m all for it

Is there any evidence that seeing topless women is bad for kids in some way, or is that just a US cultural norm?

by t_mann 4y ago

Is there any evidence that seeing topless women is bad for kids in some way, or is that just a US cultural norm?

djbusby 4y ago

In the USA we can show bloody violence on over-the-air TV, guns and shooting. Naked humans are too scary for us.

rippercushions 4y ago
Somebody once summarized this as hacking off a boob with a machete is R-rated, while kissing the same boob is X-rated. Only in America.
Tao3300 4y ago
I remember a Louis CK bit about a crime serial he was watching where the (albeit fake) ejaculate on a dead woman could be shown but the breasts had to be censored. Of course, he turned out to be a creep and good luck ever finding one bit on that topic considering the massive news coverage of his bad behavior. But ad hominems aside, he had a point. It's really disturbed when you think about it: the degree to which an influential subculture in America elevates and defends violence while censoring and degrading women's bodies exposes a sick preference for death over life. Even if portions of it claim to be "pro-life" they are, to all intents and purposes, a death cult.

mrkramer 4y ago

Idk I'm not an expert in this matters but people talk about exposing kids to anything including nudity is harmful to them. I really don't know but I think there is consensus that kids shouldn't be exposed to nudity.

t_mann 4y ago
Evidence means scientific studies, not 'people talking'. A hundred years ago people would have told you that corporal punishment is good for kids, whereas studies now clearly show the opposite. [0] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/
- mrkramer 4y ago
  That's why I said >I'm not an expert in this matters but if you know any relevant studies claiming that nudity is not harmful for kids, please show them to me.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    The onus is generally on whoever claims the presence of an effect, harmful or otherwise. The null hypothesis is always that there is no effect.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      When dealing with laws and culture, it seems the onus would be on the side wanting to change the status quo. Without a reason, why would they use political capital/effort on this (or anything else)?
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        There are multiple onuses, determining whether a status quo should change is only one of them. But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence. If that scenario arises, generally those demanding change have already met the criteria (at least those available to them). At which point the status quo thing is in the same philosophical position of making a claim and has the logical burden of proof that the status quo itself is justified. This reasoning is sometimes used hastily in radical-left politics, eg in some forms of anarchism where any power relationship is subject to justifying its existence. But, and I’m saying this no longer an anarchist, you don’t need to be a radical or revolutionary to see it play out. This is essentially exactly how many cannabis legalization efforts have worked. After decades of dedicated effort to establish plurality support for questioning the status quo of prohibition, the question of whether prohibition is justified becomes scrutinized at a policy level and it the justification isn’t there. The only remaining barriers are weak pluralities and successful counter-marketing. If either of those are absent, the unjustified status quo has been changed. Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong, the onus is to motivate people to know and care that it’s wrong, and to agree that it matters. From there, the onus is the same as GP said: you’re making the claim, you defend it. Otherwise the assumption is just, like, your opinion man.
TheCycoONE 4y ago
I don't think there is a consensus. Actually I've never heard anyone cite any specific harm at all. There is certainly an appeal to social norms and probably some ingrained racism: "we wear clothes unlike those primitive savages," but real benefit to shielding kids from nudity - what's the hypothesis to test against?
- lazide 4y ago
  Near as I can tell, the only benefit is usually that the parents get another year or two to dodge the sex conversation they keep avoiding.
  - Tao3300 4y ago
    Which is very misguided! My ultimate parenting hack that I have discovered is to answer my kids honestly and in detail. This was born out of frustration when, as a toddler, one of my kids would become distraught when confronting the fact that she wasn't in our wedding pictures because she did not exist. Eventually I said "look, the egg that would become you was in your mother". A few how & whys later and she was fine before we even got into the mechanics of it. Now I've honed this to the point where my kids just hear me go into that tone of voice and realize that they should drop the subject before the old man goes on another one of his 45 minute lectures. They've got more fun things to do.
themitigating 4y ago
"People talk" has no value, is there evidence ?
dragonsky 4y ago
I'm a little shocked that anybody could claim that viewing a naked body at any age could be considered harmful. There are many cases where children would benefit from seeing a range of naked bodies, and realise that there are many people out there that look just like them. they don't have to look like the photoshop models who do get exposed. Body shame is a real thing, and the only way around it is for people to realise that bodies come in a wide range of shapes and colours, and they have no reason to be ashamed of theirs.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  I mean, it depends on the pose. Goatse (a man stretching open his anus) is in one sense "just a naked person". I agree that seeing a range of nude people [in completely non-sexual contexts] is good for one's personal development.

microtherion 4y ago

How could you even ask such a question? Never, in the history of human civilization, have babies ever been exposed to the sight of a naked female breast </s>.

giantg2 4y ago

At least until it's normalized there will be a lot of teen boy neck injuries from looking this way and that rapidly lol

spacemadness 4y ago

I guess breastfeeding is scarring these poor kids at an early age. I think it’s safe to say adults are the ones with the twisted sensibilities and kids are going to be just fine,

autoexec 4y ago
I've actually seen that argument made against breastfeeding in public. Like someone actually said "You can't do that here! There are children present!" without any clue of how absolutely dumb that was. It seems like the ones who are most concerned about nudity are the ones we should be the most concerned about. I don't know whats going on in their heads, but it must be pretty sick stuff from the way they overreact. I just don't feel like it should be our burden to keep their demons at bay.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  I was banned on reddit for sexualizing children. I said that the fact you can show murdered children but not bathing children on US television is a sign of cultural mental illness. I guess parents in the US make their children wear a swimsuit when bathing them?
  - exitb 4y ago
    It's a bit more complicated. Murder on TV is pretend, but nudity is real. Even if you think nudity is ok, showing it needs all parties to consent and we decided that children can't give consent to such things.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Ok, so let's have deep fake nudity instead. The child actors will at all times be wearing a whole body cgi suit. Somehow I doubt Americans will be any more ok with this pretend nudity than actual nudity.
  - bezier-curve 4y ago
    I was banned on Reddit for simply calling out a Reddit admin on my own profile. I keep trying to appeal it, but they don't care about my 12 years of good faith contributions to dozens of communities, hundreds of dollars given to their company through premium and awards, no the final straw was me simply calling out an admin who was on a power trip, who is also responsible for a PR blunder relatively recently with their place event. I've lost so much respect for this company and it's actually made me also take a step back from social media in general. All of these companies can abuse you at any point without any transparency, and I'm not willing to take the risk anymore.

tomcam 4y ago

I know I’m all for it