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

Watch
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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.
17
reply
Another
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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.
18
reply
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Another)
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.
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.

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.
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.
6
reply
The Sexathlete
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Nudism should not be a banned and neither should the burkini.


The one caveat I would add however is that public transport companies should be allowed to ban nude passengers on the grounds of hygiene.
7
reply
Another
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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.
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 ******, but it at least would make sense.

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.
Nope. The reasons for the ban were posted by the respected French Mayors, in newspapers, as facts. No subjectivity here.
0
reply
username1292215
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Because nobody wants to see naked people in public :/
5
reply
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Another)
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 ******, but it at least would make sense.
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.

Nope. The reasons for the ban were posted by the respected French Mayors, in newspapers, as facts. No subjectivity here.
The reasons for the burkini ban, as for banning nudism, are subjective. That's the point.
0
reply
Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by SuperHuman98)
Nobody wants to see your vagina/penis in public, ever. It's not offensive, just gross.
(Original post by SuperHuman98)
Because nobody wants to see naked people in public :/
(Original post by Another)
Nobody wants to see your vagina/penis in public, ever. It's not offensive, just gross.
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.
12
reply
Another
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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.
You can't take two different words, with two clearly different meanings, then say "for the sake of my particular argument they are basically the same thing".
You might as well say that "no law should ever be based on emotional feelings or subjective morals" at this rate.

The reasons for the burkini ban, as for banning nudism, are subjective. That's the point.
The ban on the burkini was absolutely not because of "misogyny, patriarchy, women being treated differently, religious conservatism".


(Original post by Drunk Punx)
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.
Ah....

1) Well, 90% of the population would find it gross. At least.
2) Nothing wrong with people taking a piss, taking a crap, or giving birth either. It's natural. It's still gross.
3) I don't agree with the burkini ban, and couldn't care less about the nudity one. The logic in OP's post was just bugging me.
4) About the TV ban... no, just no...
5) Not wanting to see someone else's saggy tits and bush in public = being a Victorian Prude? Okay then.
1
reply
alevelstresss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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.
Its disturbing what lengths you people will go to justify plain religious discrimination. Should we ban anything and everything that is misogynistic and symbolic of oppression?

These sorts of divisions in our society play right into the terrorists' hands. It will only warrant more terror attacks.
0
reply
username402722
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by SuperHuman98)
Because nobody wants to see naked people in public :/
Except it is more comfortable to have a sauna without clothes, and swimming nude is pleasant. However, this should be in designated places, such as a beach that is away from a main road, or a spa.
1
reply
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Another)
You can't take two different words, with two clearly different meanings, then say "for the sake of my particular argument they are basically the same thing".
You might as well say that "no law should ever be based on emotional feelings or subjective morals" at this rate.
So why is "gross" superior to "offensive" in the banning-of-things stakes, when both are entirely subjective?

The ban on the burkini was absolutely not because of "misogyny, patriarchy, women being treated differently, religious conservatism".
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?
0
reply
alevelstresss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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.
4
reply
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
in my ideal libertarian/anarchist monarchic theocracy (where I'm the god-king, of course), nudity and burkinis would all be 100% legal
0
reply
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by alevelstresss)
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.
0
reply
alevelstresss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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 :laugh:

seriously though, this just antagonises Muslims as the enemy, which makes them more likely to sympathise with radical extremist groups like ISIS
0
reply
Grand High Witch
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by alevelstresss)
Just because it hasn't been done, it doesn't mean its the answer :laugh:

seriously though, this just antagonises Muslims as the enemy, which makes them more likely to sympathise with radical extremist groups like ISIS
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?
0
reply
Applepiex3
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
In both cases, men are telling women what to wear and what to not wear!

A woman can decide for herself if she wants to roam around on beaches "nude" or fully covered in a "burkini".

Just recently, there was no need for french police to go around acting like the fashion police. It would seem they would prefer nudes over burkinis; I would love to see the two types pair up and storm the beaches asking for their freedom.
4
reply
username1292215
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Drunk Punx)
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.
Alright fine I dont mind being childish if that means I dont want to see random nude people of all ages when im walking downthe street. I dont mind nudity on TV because i could change channel.

This is probably a dumb question, but if nature intended us to be walking around nude why dont we have thick fur? Isnt it too cold in winter to be walking around nude?
1
reply
alevelstresss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Grand High Witch)
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?
The threat is individual hateful Muslims becoming radicalised through segregation, alienation and discrimination which stem from this ban, and the consequences of this ban, which include the legitimisation of Islamophobic feelings throughout Europe. NOT the collective Muslim community threatening to join ISIS in response to these things.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (3)
3.75%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (11)
13.75%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (14)
17.5%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (9)
11.25%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (29)
36.25%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (14)
17.5%

Watched Threads

View All