TOTALLY GEEKED!

Don't like my posts? Don't read 'em.
But you can't say nobody is making fun while calling people lardos.

Ilumine wrote:

---

These conversations just bemuse the average European.

Context matters and to say it doesn't is just obtuse.

---

 I know, right?

flan

According to Lilly being nude before you step into the shower is no different than streaking through downtown at the Daycare.

I don't understand why the parents wouldn't use the family changing room. I would think it'd be easier than having to watch your kid in the main locker room.

Maybe the guy who is uncomfortable could use the family changing room and just be done with it. It's there and not getting used so why not.

Tangerine wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

These conversations just bemuse the average European.

Context matters and to say it doesn't is just obtuse.

---

 I know, right?

flan

---

I would THINK that if just the act of seeing a stranger's nude body would increase things like premarital sex, homosexuality and pedophilia (and the subsequent acts of child abuse, kidnapping etc) then countries like Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, etc would just be the most dangerous places to go to and we would have State Department Warnings. 

 

---

 One of my favorite memories from living in Germany was family night at the indoor water park. Only families were allowed and the whole thing was no swimsuits allowed. We went many times, I think they had it once a month? I was 9-10 years old.

Do you know how fast you can go down a water slide when you are naked?! It was awesome. 

And yes, I saw many nude adults. I was not the least bit traumatized. I actually think it is good for children to see that there are many variations of "normal" bodies. 

---

 I wonder if they still do this?  I love swimming naked.  I imagine a water slide would be a lot of fun.

There is a place in Indy called "Sybaris," a couples-only retreat.

Rooms come with a variety of amenities and my favorite is the one with a small pool. Floating naked is incredibly soothing.

flan

-- Edited by flan327 on Monday 15th of February 2016 12:56:11 PM

I'm not talking about being attacked.

I'm talking about one being acceptable and the other not.

Context?

Both are little girls possibly seeing naked men.

And Ed, if a dad is taking his little daughter to a man's locker room, how do you know he isn't "grooming" her?

I'm not saying that is at all the case. But you tend to go there before others. But here, it's no big deal.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tangerine wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

These conversations just bemuse the average European.

Context matters and to say it doesn't is just obtuse.

---

 I know, right?

flan

---

I would THINK that if just the act of seeing a stranger's nude body would increase things like premarital sex, homosexuality and pedophilia (and the subsequent acts of child abuse, kidnapping etc) then countries like Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, etc would just be the most dangerous places to go to and we would have State Department Warnings. 

 

---

 One of my favorite memories from living in Germany was family night at the indoor water park. Only families were allowed and the whole thing was no swimsuits allowed. We went many times, I think they had it once a month? I was 9-10 years old.

Do you know how fast you can go down a water slide when you are naked?! It was awesome. 

And yes, I saw many nude adults. I was not the least bit traumatized. I actually think it is good for children to see that there are many variations of "normal" bodies. 

---

 I wonder if they still do this?  I love swimming naked.  I imagine a water slide would be a lot of fun.

---

 Oh yes. our local pool had clothing optional day every Wednesday. We went a number of times, becuase if it was warm and sunny enough to get into the outside pool, you GO, clothing or no clothing. 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

According to Lilly being nude before you step into the shower is no different than streaking through downtown at the Daycare.

---

 No.

But you say context.

Ok.

So a little girl in a mens locker room is ok, but that same little girl in a women's bathroom with a cross dresser is not? 

Why is one ok and the other not?

---

 Where did i say both of those were OK?

---

 Huh?

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I agree with the points that Tangerine and Illumine made. We are too hung up on modesty. Adam and Eve were created naked, and God didn't have a problem with it. Why should we?

Being modest shouldn't have to do with attire, it should have to do with attitude. You can be naked without being naughty. It's been proven in Europe for a long time.

---

 Well, that's not entirely true.  God didn't have a problem with nudity PRIOR to Adam and Eve sinning and allowing Sin to enter into the world and hearts of men.  Once they sinned, God actually killed some animals for their skins and clothed them.

 

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.   Genesis 3:21-22

Well, that's not entirely true. God didn't have a problem with nudity PRIOR to Adam and Eve sinning and allowing Sin to enter into the world and hearts of men. Once they sinned, God actually killed some animals for their skins and clothed them.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:21-22
- Lady Gaga Snerd

__________________________

I know God made them clothes. However, the point I was trying to make was "God is all knowing and in his wisdom, he made them without clothes or the need for them" Why are we to question God's preference or ideas or beliefs?

Before Adam and Eve knew of good and evil, we were innocent, as children even. Just look at children today to see how much we are supposed to care about being clothed. They don't care about clothes until we teach them how evil it is to be immodest. I'd bet just about any parent can come up with some story about how their child wanted "naked time" or whatever it was called in their house.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Well, that's not entirely true. God didn't have a problem with nudity PRIOR to Adam and Eve sinning and allowing Sin to enter into the world and hearts of men. Once they sinned, God actually killed some animals for their skins and clothed them.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:21-22
- Lady Gaga Snerd

__________________________

I know God made them clothes. However, the point I was trying to make was "God is all knowing and in his wisdom, he made them without clothes or the need for them" Why are we to question God's preference or ideas or beliefs?

Before Adam and Eve knew of good and evil, we were innocent, as children even. Just look at children today to see how much we are supposed to care about being clothed. They don't care about clothes until we teach them how evil it is to be immodest. I'd bet just about any parent can come up with some story about how their child wanted "naked time" or whatever it was called in their house.

---

 Well, God also made the clothes to cover them, so then why are you to question that decision of God's either?  Once Sin entered the world, God was aware that nudity now would be something that man would warp for evil.  That with that would come evil and sinful thoughts.  So, God made the garments to at least shield their eyes from situations that might promote this type of impropriety.

  God prounounced the world "Good".  And, it was Good.  And, yes Adam and Eve were Good as well and with out clothes.  However, when they sinned, that changed the dynamics of who we are.  And, God addressed that and is still addressing that to this day.

---

Yeah, and this depends upon the translations.  There is an ambiguity in the ORIGINAL Hebrew text.  The word could have been eromim = naked, without clothes or arumim = which means uncovering of deceptions.  The original text was written using ONLY consonants, no vowels.  This leaves the translation up to the translators interpretation. The same can be said about the Hebrew word chagowr, which literally means a belt around the waist. But Christian biblical translators have always translated that word to meaning a covering that at least covers the genitalia, if not the whole body.  

All of the other handful of passages that denote nakedness as sinful can have other interpretations, especially when you use the context of the time the bible was written vs the context and of the time the bible was translated and the purpose of the translators.  

When Noah cursed Ham's son Caanan, was it because Ham just happened to see Noah naked or was it because Ham ridiculed his father when he called his brothers into the room?  Given there are later versus in the bible that condemn sons for ridiculing or shaming their fathers (note the paternal theme here?  If we wanted to follow the bible to its dotted "Is" and crossed "Ts" we would have different rules for men and women). 

Baptism was always done naked, in groups,

And finally in John 13:4-5 Jesus "riseth from supper and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin and began to wash the disciples feet and wiped them wherewith the towel he was girded."  

Dude, he was naked.  

I am going to go with Pope John Paul. " Nakedness itself is not immodest...Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object of enjoyment"  A little girl having to change with her father in a pool's locker room because there are no family stalls is not immodest, for the little girl or the father or the men who may have innocently flashed his genitalia while changing.  

Well, God also made the clothes to cover them, so then why are you to question that decision of God's either? Once Sin entered the world, God was aware that nudity now would be something that man would warp for evil. That with that would come evil and sinful thoughts. So, God made the garments to at least shield their eyes from situations that might promote this type of impropriety.

God prounounced the world "Good". And, it was Good. And, yes Adam and Eve were Good as well and with out clothes. However, when they sinned, that changed the dynamics of who we are. And, God addressed that and is still addressing that to this day.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

___________________________

This is just my belief, but I believe that God knew he was right in leaving them unclothed when he created them, and that he only made them clothes because he knew that leaves wouldn't work for long, so if they wanted clothes he would make them good and sturdy ones.

That's my interpretation of God declaring the clothes "good", because God is perfect as well as all knowing and doesn't make mistakes, so if he had deemed they would need clothes he would have made them originally. Others may interpret it differently and that's o.k.