T O P I C R E V I E W
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 12-14-2009 11:03 PM
Hey, I hope the title of this thread isn't alarming anyone. If it is, let us know and perhaps you mods can change it if needed? I was just really curious, why has it become considered a bad thing to talk about (or look at) people's "private areas"? Why did society start having this negative attitude. Why can't people talk about their bodies? Your penis is just as much a normal part of your body as your nose or your mouth or your armpit, so why can't you talk about it if it's your body? Why is it that some of my friends consider hair on your legs or back or chest (all perfectly normal) to be gross? I just don't get why society has us trained to not be able to talk about (or for other people to look at) perfectly natural parts of our bodies.
Heather
Member # 3
posted 12-15-2009 03:00 PM
This is perhaps a bigger question than you know. But maybe not: I never know what someone's understanding of sexuality and history is. In short, this has a whole lot to do with a longstanding cultural sentiment and agenda when it comes to sex and shame, and about a push for people (especially women) to feel like their bodies are shameful, their genitals are icky to everyone but sexual partners, and the idea that if people talk about sex and their bodies...well, any kind of order as we know it will somehow completely fall apart. Cultural control like this IS an effective way to control people. In other words, if you want people to feel afraid of sexuality and the parts of their body which most often are part of sexuality, messages like this work and have worked all too well.
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 12-15-2009 05:56 PM
Sorry, but I'm interpreting this in riddles. Can you break this down in a simple fashion?
Heather
Member # 3
posted 12-15-2009 05:59 PM
I'll do my best. This has been a pervasive cultural message sent and enabled in order to make people feel ashamed and fearful about their sexuality in the hopes this will allow others to control that sexuality.
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 12-15-2009 08:21 PM
But for what purpose? Why does it need to be controlled? My dad said (yep, he's old) that when he was in Jr High/High school all of the boys in his PE class would take showers (completely nude of course) without any dividers and no one thought anything of it. I just don't get why as a culture we send the message that it's wrong to look at or talk about certain natural and normal parts of our body.
Heather
Member # 3
posted 12-15-2009 08:26 PM
Well, understand that there are a handful of historical issues people felt this addressed. Paternity was a biggie: because people could only (especially before paternity tests, which are very, very new) accurately identity who someone's mother was, trying to control female sexuality was something people felt was one way to assure paternity. The control of women, full-stop: again, remember that here in the west (and in many places still) women did not have any actual legal rights as people until 100 years ago, for the most part. Women were controlled in a million different ways, but controlling women's sexuality was one of them. For a long time, too, and again, in some places (and for some people) still, people have felt sexuality was this thing that was a lot like a hurricane: if left uncontrolled, it would overtake people and society. But just FYI? Your Dad's experience of locker rooms wasn't everyone's. Plenty of men my age (I'll be forty in a few months) or a generation or two older did not have that same experience in locker rooms. As well, a lot of this private parts stuff has always been applied far more to women than to men. In other words, if that gave you the idea this "private parts" stuff was new in this or the last generation, know that's not at all the case. It has very, very old roots, way older than anyone's Dad or Grandpa here. I'd also like to say that not all of us are on board with these kinds of cultural messages. I'm certainly not. However, what messages get heard most aren't and haven't always been up to all of us. [ 12-15-2009, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Heather ]
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 12-15-2009 08:27 PM
Others are invited to comment as well.
bluejumprope
Member # 40774
posted 12-16-2009 12:30 PM
Messages about what's "natural and normal" have also varied tremendously from culture to culture and in different time periods. So, there isn't one single perspective enforcing this stuff, but lots of different mores and belief systems with similar aims and results. You may want to read about things like Victorian morality and how religions like Islam enforce these perceptions. We can probably recommend a ton more reading if you want some more historical perspective. My minds boggling a little with the enormity of the question. So, I'm just going to get a few thoughts out, and I may come back. I think historically--and Heather touched on this--men's bodies haven't tended to be sexualized in the same way women's have. Males, in general, have been socialized to be more comfortable with nudity around other males. I mean, I don't think there's an equivalent female experience that corresponds to urinals, you know? Where women regularly display their genitals in front of other women? I also assume that the boys your father talked about wouldn't have felt so comfortable taking showers with girls. If it really was about fundamental comfort with bodies, rather than being socially conditioned in a very specific way, wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd feel similarly showering with girls? Or, for that matter that they'd be able to talk about sexual anatomy and sexuality accurately and explicitly? I think my father had similar experiences of showering with other men, but he was also taught masturbation would make him insane, etc. So, I think we have to be really cautious about romanticizing the past. (I also wonder about how during that time period cultural messages restricted people from voicing various kinds of discomfort--or even feeling safe to be aware of it--in the first place.) It may be an obvious point, but I think looking at the power of shame is an essential part of this question. Shame about bodies and sexuality is deep stuff, passed down through cultures and families, and it's hard to throw off. Knowing intellectually that one's genitals are nothing to be ashamed of doesn't tend to totally resolve these feelings. [ 12-16-2009, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: bluejumprope ]
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 01-10-2010 12:11 AM
Hi. I saq this when you posted but read it and never replied. Now I've decided to come back and continue (if you guys don't mind me reviving a thread or two *smile*). I admit that yes, like just about everybody else, I'm modest. Why? Because we've all been conditioned to think that way. But as I mature and go through some problems in the "down there" department (resolved now) I find myself having less trouble talking about this kind of stuff. I've realized that if you know how to do it and who to do it with, it's okay to talk about normally taboo topics. Despite as helpful as you've been, I guess this is a question that really can't be answered. I, however, wish that we weren't conditioned this way. I almost wish that I wasn't modest about being completely nude because really I feel that there's no reason for me to be 'ashamed' so to speak about my body. Everything that I have is the same as what a lot of other people have (with some minor difference in appearance/size) and is completely normal. I just wish that as a culture/race we weren't practically brainwashed like this. Am I making any sense here or does it sound like I'm jabbering and yacking away?
Heather
Member # 3
posted 01-10-2010 09:44 AM
What race are you talking about: the human race, or a more specific race? And like I made clear the last time we talked about this, everyone hasn't been conditioned this way. Many people have, to be sure, but not everyone. Other folks were conditioned differently, and it also isn't always consistent. For instance, I got radically different messaging from my parents about nudity: one sent one message, one sent another, and what wound up taking, for me, perhaps in part because I had other influences that were louder on this "side", was a lack of shame with nudity as well as a lack of assumption that nudity = sex.
Heather
Member # 3
posted 01-10-2010 09:50 AM
(Just WHY, I deleted your THIRD additional post about this is another thread. Adding a question you've already asked and started a thread for to one other relevant thread is one thing, but adding it to more than that just winds up with us having the same conversation again and again, okay?)
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 01-10-2010 09:57 AM
Sure. Sorry about that, Heather. I'll try to be more careful. I am referring to the human race. Did it make any sense what I said in the post below bluejumprope?
Heather
Member # 3
posted 01-10-2010 09:59 AM
It might help if you fill me in on what felt unanswered in your last thread about this subject.
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 01-10-2010 10:06 AM
I guess this is one that is just too big of a question. I don't know, I just don't really feel that I do understand how this 'conditioning' came to be, but I suppose that this is one that just about nobody can answer.
Heather
Member # 3
posted 01-10-2010 10:10 AM
Well, it certainly has a strong historical precedent that's primarily religious. Genesis, in the Old Testament, is where it most often seemed that this particularly idea of modesty (physical/sexual, rather than other types of modesty) had its origins. Check it: quote: Genesis 3:7-11,21 (7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (9) And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (10) And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (11) And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (21) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [ 01-10-2010, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Heather ]
grizzly_boy
Member # 44932
posted 01-10-2010 10:18 AM
That's quite a quote. I don't actually own a copy of The Bible, and am not religious, but thanks. That obviously adds some insight.
Heather
Member # 3
posted 01-10-2010 10:20 AM
The thing is, you need to remember about how many people were/are not religious but were -- then and now -- still impacted by religion and the mores and ideals of very popular religions. The Crusades also played no minor part. Religious or not, reading the Bible is actually quite an education in a lot of the staples of western culture: it's not my tradition, but I did a full semester of Bible study in college which I'm grateful for because it's been very helpful for me to be schooled in that, culturally-speaking. So, for anyone with questions about cultural history of any kind in the west, I'd always advise getting your hands on it and reading it. It impacts most of us quite strongly, even if you've never stepped foot in a church. [ 01-10-2010, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Heather ]
atm1
Member # 37835
posted 01-10-2010 10:42 AM
As another non-Christian who took a class on the bible in college, I strongly recommend the Harper Collin's Study Bible . The historical introductions to chapters as well as the footnotes (there are more of them than Bible text in the book) are really great and do a good job informing you about likely authors and historical context. It's an NSRV version (so, Catholic/some protestant types, which is quite different from the King James). Edited to add: It's also got lots of maps, showing political situations around when the Bible was written, as well as indicating where some things written about in the Bible happened. I found that super insightful. [ 01-10-2010, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: atm1 ]