A child's point of view
Posted Wed Nov 09, 2011 06:37 PM
Posted Wed Nov 09, 2011 08:22 PM
Posted Wed Nov 09, 2011 09:52 PM
You see, I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but it's highly dependant on the environment in which takes place. If the environment is positive, it shouldn't really affect a child; how the child feels about it and their emotional background are extremely important as well. However, something that I have always had issues with is my children meeting men who aren't relatives... That simply doesn't happen in my home. The only men who visit my home are the ones who come to make repairs of some sort and my girlfriends' SOs when they come together. I don't even entertain phone calls from my male friends unless the phone calls have been scheduled at a specific time. I think it's been very difficult for my children to see their father leave, and I'm not about to make them feel like I'm replacing their dad or giving more importance to someone else.
I'm sure I'll be able to entertain a more suitable relationship with someone in the future, but not at the moment. So, I guess if I had been your lady friend back in your 20s, you wouldn't have even met my children in the first place, and you wouldn't have thought about the suitability of how I raised my children either. Children, like adults, are unique in their needs... Both my children are extremely creative in their ways, and I allow them certain latitude so they get used to think out of the box. They're both different, and one enjoys more liberties than the other, and this is exactly the point of knowing how a child feels about their surroundings because they don't experience the world in the same way we do. For that, however, we need to listen to them a great deal.
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 01:18 AM
I grew up in a nudist environment, so am of course biased.
Depends completely how the child was raised... In that case, regularly seeing naked adults, in a non sexual manner, was normal for her. I can bet that she has grown into someone who has fewer hangups then average...
When I was 14, I modelled for the life drawing class at the local college.... Nude, of course! It was all good, until some uptight straight classmates found out....
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 01:54 AM
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 02:50 AM
And, I would disagree with the statement that nudity alone promotes sexual interest. I would even hazard to say that it may in fact do the opposite... I would assume that the models were not posed in an overtly sexual manner....
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 05:27 AM
We are exposed to those parts on a daily basis and for most they are not highly sexualized and are acceptable. the same claim could be used for the girl seeing nude people. Because of the high exposure to nudity from a young age with no stigma attached, she would see the human body as skin before she would see it as sex.
I hope to one day teach my children that the human body isnt something to be ashamed of. Nudity has nothing to do with sex until an adult's brain starts thinking of it as such.
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 08:54 AM
As for nudity promoting sexual interest in children... Oh boy, that makes me think that we can hardly breath with that huge elephant in the room. It's not nudity per se... It's a lot more complicated than that. In the country I was born, women used to go to the river to do their laundry (not anymore for envirnmental concerns), and while doing the laundry they bared their upper body and they only left an underskirt (something nobody wears these days) down to the knees... They did this, day in and day out, and the only men who stared where foreigners; local men were oblivious to the display of breasts. Now, compare this to the local night club scene, where women do wear low cuts, very short skirts, high heels and make up... They're not naked, but you bet they're promoting sexual interest with their little outfits.
Another example, I spent my honeymoon at some beach in Northeastern Brazil, and when we got there, my now ex bought me a tiny little bikini that barely covered my nipples and pretty much exposed my entire butt. I had never worn a bikini in my life because I'm stupidly prudish with my body, but I did that time because people would've been staring at me if I had worn my one-piece. In Brazil beaches, all, and I mean ALL women wear tiny things at the beach... the pretty ones, the ugly ones, the pregnant ones, the granny ones, the kiddy ones... Everyone... And guess what, the local men don't go after them drooling like wolves. Then again, I saw a couple of girls with tight jeans, tight shirts and heels swinging their big round butts while walking on the streets in Sao Paulo, and let me tell you, the men just went beserk with the most interesting catcalls I've ever heard. The men were not shy in their expressions of interest, the girls were not shy in the way they received them. It was a rather entertaining scene...
Now, I'd say that nakedness does not necessarily ascribe a lack of agency, at least if you exclude the case when people are actually engaged a sexual act (i.e. porn). Scant dressing and a come-hither pose, on the other hand, instigate sexual interest more effectively than just being nude going about your business (like the women washing their clothes in the river). I'd say that nakedness does not make anyone be perceived as less human, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive, vulnerable and emotional (i.e. a visit to the doctor). Again, the problem arises with the pornified view of nakedness, and this is what I think people should teach their children.
This post has been edited by Olive: Thu Nov 10, 2011 09:07 AM
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 09:54 AM
If I walk from the shower to the washroom looking for clothes to put on, I am not creating a sexual environment.
When I was in highschool, after my athletics class - the entire class (all girls) would change clothes, shower, etc in the locker room... that wasn't a sexual environment either.
I have artwork hanging in my house that shows nudity. There are none depicting any type of sexual act, just simply without clothes. My daughter doesn't really give it a second thought other than they don't have clothes on.
It seems to me that the taboos our society put on simple nudity is what really promotes the sexualization of it regardless of context.
This post has been edited by The Librarian: Thu Nov 10, 2011 09:58 AM
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:17 AM
All credit is due with regard to the nudist perspective, too, though. Im aware that there are nudist communities where the nudism has nothing to do with sex. And I agree that nudity does not have to equate to sexuality. But as for my personal feelings, children don't have the same ability to discern what adults can. Children go out of the house and everyone's wearing clothes. (well, except for Hilarious childhood...no one was wearing clothes) With pop culture pounding kids with nudity in a sexual context, combined with everyone wearing clothes in public day-to-day living....leaving it to kids to figure what's what and having them walk up to nude adults isn't the method I'm adhering to as a parent. Obviously, changing the stigma of nudity by promoting it in contexts other than sex would go a long way to change that. As I alluded to earlier, nudity doesn't have to be sexual....but it quite easily can be.
I'd be interested to hear more of Hilarious' perspective having grown up in a nudist environment. Does seeing nudity being the norm remove the sexual overtones it has in a non-nudist environment? If I'm being honest, if I see an attractive nude female body in a nonesexual setting, I still experience sexual impulses. But I did not grow up in an environment where the nude body was a typical sight.
This post has been edited by ilyushin79: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:27 AM
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:24 AM
Brazilian beaches - well I think I would go there to check out the hot babes in bikinis - a sexual interest thing.
In this country nudity is not common. I'm not talking about sexually suggestive adds or tv shows but just plain nudity.
When I walked in and saw my girlfriend sketching a nude person I knew this was simply just an art issue with her. But the nude person made me feel somewhat uncomfortable most likely because open nudity is not common in our country. Also, her non chalauntness about her daughter taking drinks to her nude models was just "strange" to me. I'm not trying to knock down my girlfriend at that time as a horrible mother because she wasnt - she was just a little bit excintrict. Also, speaking for myself, if I saw a nude woman at the age of ten my sexual curiousity would transform into a sexual interest. I think I would be a little more sexually interested in the girls around me.
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:28 AM
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2011 01:24 AM
I think believing that a non sexual environment can even exist is wishful in thinking. Infants and young children (1yr or 2 yr) maybe innocent but sexual curiousity exists. I've seen 2yr olds playing in a water sprinkler showing each other their genitals. This could be considered innocent but parents rushed in to correct their kids. Any innocent sexual connotations associated with nudity were dashed at that young age. Also every person is a sexual being. Thus making the environment our children live in a sexual environment. The sexual connotations associated with nudity need not exist. A mother walking out in just panties and bra would probably generate the same sexual connotations of nudity.
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2011 02:37 AM
there is a HUGE difference between the nudity in playboy and the nudity seen in art though. i'd imagine the nudity in the art was a bit more subtle than a woman sitting there with her legs spread with a "come fuck me" look on her face. although to be honest, i've never looked at a playboy magazine so i'm not entirely sure what's in it. but obviously in playboy the pictures are there to be sexy, but artistic nudity usually isn't meant to be seen as erotic, it's more about showing the body as a beautiful thing rather than a sexual object. i mean i doubt seeing the statue of david would promote sexual interest.
while i think kids should not be exposed to images of a sexual nature, i have no problem with them seeing this kind of non-erotic artistic nudity. you really can't compare it to the porn you'd see in a men's magazine.
i also agree that this was not a sexual environment for the daughter. nudity is not always sexual. when women breastfeed in public they may expose their breast but that does not make it a sexual environment. by the sounds of it these models were not making it a sexual environment, therefore (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with it. i doubt it will have had any negative effect on her upbringing.
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2011 03:36 PM
This just reminded me of the countless times I had to breastfeed my children in public. Not once I recall people being judgemental about me showing my breasts... In fact, many times people just would allow me the `privacy` of not watching me while I exposed myself. It sort of made a little more comfortable I suppose... However, that`s a far cry from a situation where the human body is considered for art purposes.
By the way, I show my breasts here and it`s a completely different story.
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2011 04:29 PM
I see your point.
My statement is just based on observation of a non-sexualized and innocent kiddo. She just simply looks at the world in a totally different way than grownups or even teenagers.
Posted Thu Nov 17, 2011 08:20 PM
Posted Tue Nov 22, 2011 06:14 PM
Posted Sun Dec 11, 2011 07:47 PM
We recently had an "artist" here in Australia who is was known for his work with the naked human body. One day however he decided to use under-age models (children) in his artwork and took pictures of them nude. Before his work was put on exhibition the media got wind of this and it was everywhere.
A majority of people were sickened by this but there was still a bunch of fuckwits claiming it was art and the human body is a natural and beautiful thing that we have nothing to be ashamed of.
Soon enough the police had to take action and before the day of the exhibition the art work was seized and he was arrested.
What he did was not art, it was a crime. Too easily people abuse people/things and push the boundaries, sometimes at the cost of a child's innocence which is truly sad.
There is art, but there needs to be a time and a place for it.
Children should not be exposed to this as it does raise alot of issues of risks to the children who are immature to deal with this. Developmentally they are usually not in a place where they are ready for this and it can cause much confusion.
At the end of the day I guess it is up to all of us as individuals as to how we raise our children, but in my mind is better to be careful and safe than it is to have views that children should grow up according to values that may put them at risk. You may be their parent, but you may not always have their best interests at heart.
This post has been edited by Harmony: Sun Dec 11, 2011 07:49 PM
Reason for edit:: spelling correction