Why is it ok to ban nudism but not the burkini?

Nudism is banned because:

- It represents a symbol people find distasteful and offensive (the Victorian idea that the naked human body is lustful, vulgar and immodest).

Because in the history of the entire world, it was only the Victorians who covered their private parts?

Nobody wants to see your vagina/penis in public, ever. It's not offensive, just gross.

The burkini was solely banned because of "its affiliations with ISIS" and "France is a secular country". Not because of misogyny, patriarchy, or anything else.

You are subjectively offended by the naked body on the basis that you feel it's "gross". Others are subjectively offended by the burkini for other reasons. One is not objectively worse than the other; all of this is based on subjective feelings towards things.

I have heard those reasons used as well. Again, it doesn't really matter the reasons why these two things are banned, because they are totally subjective. My question is why the double standards in the reaction from people.

How can I be offended by a body part?
I said it was gross, not offensive. I'm not personally insulted every time a penis pops up on an online advert - I'd just rather not see it. If I found a penis inherently offensive, there would be something wrong with me. If I found a burkini on a woman offensive in the sense that I found chains on a black man offensive, I would still be a retard, but it at least would make sense.

Nope. The reasons for the ban were posted by the respected French Mayors, in newspapers, as facts. No subjectivity here.

Nobody wants to see your vagina/penis in public, ever. It's not offensive, just gross.

Because nobody wants to see naked people in public :/

Nobody wants to see your vagina/penis in public, ever. It's not offensive, just gross.

This is semantics. "Feel grossed out", "feel offended" - there is no real distinction for the purposes of this discussion. Both are still subjective feelings which feed into my point about double standards.

The reasons for the burkini ban, as for banning nudism, are subjective. That's the point.

You guys really need to cut down on the "nobody wants x" business. What you mean is you don't want to see it.

Personally I see nothing wrong with people walking around as nature intended. It's not gross, it's natural. And if you think banning it is appropriate because you think it's gross, then I assume you're also of the mindset that anything else you think is gross should also be banned from being on tv? Even though you can change the channel, thus avoiding seeing it for any longer than necessary entirely. If only there was the equivalent of changing the channel in reality... oh yeah, it's called "looking in a different direction".

The Victorians would be proud of your prudish mindsets. I, however, think you're being childish.

Nudism is banned because:

- It represents a symbol people find distasteful and offensive (the Victorian idea that the naked human body is lustful, vulgar and immodest).

The burkini is banned because:

- It represents a symbol people find distasteful and offensive (misogyny, patriarchy, women being treated differently, religious conservatism).

They are essentially two sides of the same coin: extreme covering up of the body vs extreme exposure of the body.

So why the distinction? Why does no one bat an eye lid at nudism being banned yet people are going crazy and shouting "but muh freedoms" at the burkini being banned?

And yes, there may be nudist beaches but it is banned in general in the West.

For the record I don't agree with banning either, but I want to know why there are double standards.

Because nobody wants to see naked people in public :/

The ban on the burkini was absolutely not because of "misogyny, patriarchy, women being treated differently, religious conservatism".

So why is "gross" superior to "offensive" in the banning-of-things stakes, when both are entirely subjective?



It implicitly will have included those things (unless you think the people behind the ban do not believe the burkini represents those things?), but okay - it was banned because it offended secularism rather than principles of women's equality. What difference does that make to the argument?

Banning symbols doesn't stop terrorism, it encourages it.

Right, because not banning symbols has saved European countries from a flurry of terrorist attacks in recent times.

Just because it hasn't been done, it doesn't mean its the answer

seriously though, this just antagonises Muslims as the enemy, which makes them more likely to sympathise with radical extremist groups like ISIS

You guys really need to cut down on the "nobody wants x" business. What you mean is you don't want to see it.

Personally I see nothing wrong with people walking around as nature intended. It's not gross, it's natural. And if you think banning it is appropriate because you think it's gross, then I assume you're also of the mindset that anything else you think is gross should also be banned from being on tv? Even though you can change the channel, thus avoiding seeing it for any longer than necessary entirely. If only there was the equivalent of changing the channel in reality... oh yeah, it's called "looking in a different direction".

The Victorians would be proud of your prudish mindsets. I, however, think you're being childish.

That almost sounds like a threat: "let us do whatever we want in terms of conservative religious practices or we will join extremist groups."

I don't agree with the ban, but you can't base policy on people threatening to become radicalised if they don't get what they want. Gay people were persecuted to a much greater extent for years; did they threaten (or become) radicalised to the point of joining violent, extremist groups?