• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How much bareness = nudity?

pwfaith

Active Member
but if a person wearing what we could call immodestly dressed, then doesn't that somehow imply that it is wrong to wear that? is there a place where what you would consider immoral on the suburban streets to be moral in say the beach?

and i agree that an immodestly dressed person doesn't equate to being nude, and i have one more question, is a female wearing a bikini at the beach considered immorally dressed in general?

Yeah, I'd say it's wrong to dress immodestly. The problem comes in that everyone defines immodest differently, often times depending on where they are from. I had a good friend from Florida in college, I was from NC. We both defined it differently due to the physical environments we had been raised in. That said, I go with "there is a time and place for everything" - wearing a swimsuit in to a fancy restaurant would be inappropriate, even if it was a very modest swimsuit. I wouldn't say it's a moral issue though, just one of appropriateness and social graces.

I'm on the fence about bikini's. I've worn them in my former days. I think intention is important. I know my intention for wearing a bikini was to get the attention of guys. I knew it was wrong at the time and still did it. It wasn't the type of attention I should have been seeking. My sister wears one but does not do it for that reason, she likes to tan and is out there all the time. It's practical for her. That said, I would prefer a tankini. I tend to not see a major difference between bra & panties and bikini, shows the same amount of skin, only ones called underwear and ones called a swimsuit. It's crazy, imo. But it's a personal thing. I would never tell someone else they shouldn't wear one. Now, that being said, there are some I find inappropriate and immodest no matter who's wearing it or wear it's being worn.

I'm all for practicality. If you've ever had to take a little girl to the pool, you'd know what I'm talking about or if you've ever tried to get a regular swimsuit off as a woman, you'd know. Once that thing gets wet and you have to potty, it's incredibly difficult to get off. Throw in pregnancy or having had a few kids or a few years on you and you're screwed LOL You'll hardly make it! So I prefer practicality and try to get myself and my girls tankini's if possible.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yeah, I'd say it's wrong to dress immodestly. The problem comes in that everyone defines immodest differently, often times depending on where they are from. I had a good friend from Florida in college, I was from NC. We both defined it differently due to the physical environments we had been raised in. That said, I go with "there is a time and place for everything" - wearing a swimsuit in to a fancy restaurant would be inappropriate, even if it was a very modest swimsuit. I wouldn't say it's a moral issue though, just one of appropriateness and social graces.
But what's the basis of the decision about what's "appropriate"? I don't think it's a matter of amount of skin per se; I mean, it wouldn't be any more appropriate to wear flannel pyjamas that covered you from neck to ankles to a restaurant, right? I think it's just a social convention we have that certain modes of dress are considered appropriate for certain situations. I'd look just as out-of-place wearing mechanic's overalls to a business meeting as if I wore my swimming trunks.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
1. how much uncovering of the body equates to nudity?
To me, nudity is being without any clothing whatsoever. Au natural, as it were. Naked as a jaybird. In one's birthday suit... etc...

2. what is nudity?
See answer above

3. why someone whose body shows 70%-90% isn't considered naked? doesn't the majority always win?
Clearly, it is because the person is not nude. Is this hard to grasp? If you have an orange and have removed 60% of the skin would you say that you had an unpeeled orange?

i don't understand non-islamic societies on this issue so i want to know why or better how one can uncover so much of their body and still call themselves dressed?
It's drop dead simple, Eselam. Wearing ANY clothing, at all, takes away from nudity. Failure to appreciate this may be the result of "Prudity".


Personally, I have no issues with the body of the human animal and am completely comfortable with full nudity (ie. No clothing whatsoever). Go try it on a beach sometime, you may well find it to be a wonderful, non-sexual, thrill.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
like the title says and a few more questions;
1. how much uncovering of the body equates to nudity?
Having no clothing.

2. what is nudity?
The state of being nude.

3. why someone whose body shows 70%-90% isn't considered naked? doesn't the majority always win?
Because the definition of naked means no clothing.
So if they have even .000001% of their body covered, they are not, by definition, naked.

Might does not make right.

i don't understand non-islamic societies on this issue so i want to know why or better how one can uncover so much of their body and still call themselves dressed?
Because they are not changing the definitions of the words to fit their their beliefs?
 

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
1. how much uncovering of the body equates to nudity? If someone is completely nude, it's full nudity. If you can only see some private parts, It's partial nudity. I wouldn't call a woman with one breast showing, full nudity. It's only partial.

2. what is nudity? Either being completely nude or partially nude.

3. why someone whose body shows 70%-90% isn't considered naked? doesn't the majority always win? If someone is wearing a bathing suit at the beach, I would not call it nudity... unless they have any private parts showing.
 

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
Always found it curious that Americans criticize Muslims for mandating 'modest dress', yet they're shocked at topless eight year old girls at the beach.

Personally, I have never seen this happen, but maybe that's because most kids are still wearing bathing suits, no matter how young they are. That's actually interesting in itself though. Most 1-5 years old girls I see at the beaches are still wearing a two piece. I find that kind of interesting since 1-5(+) year old's aren't developed... so why bother covering up their chests? Hmm... I think I might make a topic on this subject actually... :sarcastic Look out for it...
 
Top