# Nudity everywhere: does it make everything worse or better? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2005, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795 "2005-10-25T10:56:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/41 "2005-10-26T14:14:14Z")
> [@Spartydog](#): > > I am asking for a rational explanation why so many people in this country find it necessary to make sure that children are not exposed to a female nipple. The JJ incident is one of many examples. Magazine covers, swimwear, TV and movies are full of exposed female flesh but when the nipple is exposed all hell breaks loose and censorship to a greater or lesser degree is exercised (such as movie ratings). It only makes sense that for something to cause that much of a reaction there must be a fear of some underlying harm. I want to know what harm is feared. Oh, you want to know that? I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to know why it is harmful. I think there are a few explanations, though I agree that a lot of it is not rational. One is that it potentially leads to the objectification of women. Again, with Janet Jackson, we are not talking about casual nudity on a beach, we are talking about an event that shocks for a reason. You are supposed to be excited at seeing her breast, not treat it as “so what.” That’s part of the reason why I have less problem with casual nudity than “shock” nudity. Second is that if it is prohibited or disapproved by your religion, it is by default harmful, as it is by default harmful to not obey your religious code. You might not agree with that, but then I’m sure there are plenty of things that you find “harmful” that others would disagree with. The point is that if your religion states that it is wrong, by the fundamental nature of religion, it is wrong. Otherwise, I generally agree with you. It’s not so much the nudity, as the attempt to intentionally offend/shock/turn Janet Jackson into a set of breasts and a hole as opposed to a singer that is harmful in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/42 "2005-10-26T14:17:27Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > I was offended by the JJ incident, not because of the idea that a youngster might catch a glimpse of bare bosom, but because both the song and the action implied that aggressively tearing off a part of a young woman’s clothing was an O.K. thing to do. Yes, that is problematic, but that message has been presented before and while there is usually some outcry, it doesn’t lead to every live broadcast being put on a 3-second delay. Like every Red-Blooded American Male, I was in the can at the time, but my kids saw it and I don’t have a real big problem with that. I wish they hadn’t had to see Janet Jackson in the first place, but the FCC won’t do anything about that. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/43 "2005-10-26T16:33:18Z")
Off to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/44 "2005-10-26T17:11:54Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > I was offended by the JJ incident, not because of the idea that a youngster might catch a glimpse of bare bosom, but because both the song and the action implied that aggressively tearing off a part of a young woman’s clothing was an O.K. thing to do. Yes, bodice-ripping … women hate that sort of thing. That’s why it’s so common in all those romances they read … ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/45 "2005-10-26T19:01:02Z")
My limited experience at CO beaches is that a) You’ll see far more wangs on fat old men than boobies on nubile young women, and b) nobody enforces the nudity. Optional means optional. > [@gitfiddle](#): > > It seems to me that a lot of Americans would think that having nudity everywhere would lead men to be more sexually excited all the time, and thusly lead them to treat women more violently. Hold on a minute – what leads you to believe that male arousal automatically leads to violence? Or did I read that wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/46 "2005-10-27T01:35:49Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them? > [@SlyFrog](#): > > So in summary you are saying you have difficulty reading? Well, OK, so parse this for me then: > [@SlyFrog](#): > > Whether you think there is harm or not, people generally speaking do not want their children exposed to nudity. To accomodate this societal preference, we generally do not allow nudity on primetime, network television. The incident was effectively Janet Jackson saying, “Fuck you and your values,” to those people. Yes it was tasteless, and it was intentionally done to shock and offend. That is harm in its own right. Because it wasn’t the children who who were shocked and offended. It was the parents. So what you are saying in effect is it is harmful for children to see that others don’t agree with their parents values. > [@SlyFrog](#): > > Or would you like a NAMBLA member who doesn’t agree with what you think is harmful for your kids to decide to ignore the decisions you’ve made? Firstly, Spartydog’s question, once again, is why is it harmful to be exposed to a nipple. No one here is questioning whether pedophilia is harmful, so your comment about NAMBLA is a non sequitur. Secondly, the question, once again, is not whether parents decisions should be ignored. Thirdly, it is a common phenomenon that when a person asks for a rational basis for another person’s decision, if the latter person has none they will say “how dare you question my authority” or “are you saying I didn’t have a right to make that decision?” You might like to think about why it is that while Spartydog’s question is and always has been “where’s the harm?” you persistently try to segue into a defence of the authority of parents to make decisions for their children. > [@](#): > > Second is that if it is prohibited or disapproved by your religion, it is by default harmful, as it is by default harmful to not obey your religious code. You might not agree with that, but then I’m sure there are plenty of things that you find “harmful” that others would disagree with. The point is that if your religion states that it is wrong, by the fundamental nature of religion, it is wrong. I’m not aware of any religion that says that if you are watching TV and someone unexpectedly flashes a breast you have not obeyed your religious code. I could be wrong, I’m not much up on religion. > [@](#): > > Otherwise, I generally agree with you. It’s not so much the nudity, as the attempt to intentionally offend/shock/turn Janet Jackson into a set of breasts and a hole as opposed to a singer that is harmful in my mind. The whole “offend/shock” thing is all so “me, me, me”. Just because someone does something that shocks or offends you, doesn’t necessarily mean they did it to shock and offend you. Perhaps you just have an attitude that causes you to be shocked and offended. There is no more reason why a child being exposed to a breast would then consider Jackson to be a “set of breasts and a hole” than would a child being exposed to her singing then consider her to be “a set of lungs and a larynx”. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/47 "2005-10-27T14:46:16Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Because it wasn’t the children who who were shocked and offended. It was the parents. So what you are saying in effect is it is harmful for children to see that others don’t agree with their parents values. No, I am saying it is harmful to disrespect a parent’s decisions regarding how to raise his or her child. The fact that you seem to have great difficulty with that does not surprise me. > [@Princhester](#): > > Firstly, Spartydog’s question, once again, is why is it harmful to be exposed to a nipple. No one here is questioning whether pedophilia is harmful, so your comment about NAMBLA is a non sequitur. Do you know what non sequitur even means? What I said was in response to your stupid and baseless comment: > [@](#): > > So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them? which completely mischaracterized, and intentionally ignored, exactly what I was saying, which is that if I tell you that I do not believe my child should be playing Playstation games for hours on end, and you then let him play Playstation games for hours on end, that is wrong. You are trying to substitute your judgment for mine with respect to how my child should be raised. In so doing, you are an arrogant douche. My comment, which you seemed to have intentionally ignored once again to try to make it fall into one of your “logical fallacy” camps so as not to have to try to understand a viewpoint different than yours, is that the same logic could be apply by a lot of people for things _they_ think are acceptable that you do not. I don’t need people second guessing my decisions for my children, and inserting their own. I don’t do it to other parents, and do not expect them to do it to me. > [@Princhester](#): > > Secondly, the question, once again, is not whether parents decisions should be ignored. No, it is why is it harmful for Janet Jackson to flash nip at a Superbowl. I gave an answer; ignoring a parent’s decisions with respect to their children, and forcing your own in their place, is harmful. I have since responded to the question of, “How is a child seeing a nipple in itself harmful.” > [@Princhester](#): > > You might like to think about why it is that while Spartydog’s question is and always has been “where’s the harm?” you persistently try to segue into a defence of the authority of parents to make decisions for their children. You might like to question your arrogance over attempting to appear to have an open mind while dismissing without thought those who disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/48 "2005-10-27T15:32:21Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > No, it is why is it harmful for Janet Jackson to flash nip at a Superbowl. I gave an answer; ignoring a parent’s decisions with respect to their children, and forcing your own in their place, is harmful. No, actually, you haven’t addressed the question. You have postulated your belief that a parent’s rights over their children are so great that others are not allowed to even debate the issues of why a particular thing might or might not be harmful. This is demonstrably false. Here in Georgia we have had parents (a Christian religious cult) who honestly believed their children would be harmed if they were not beaten vigorously with sticks for minor misbehavior. They lost custody of their children. Clearly, there is room for debate over what parents can and cannot decide on behalf of their kids. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/49 "2005-10-27T15:43:46Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > No, actually, you haven’t addressed the question. No, actually, I have. Go back and read, rather than presuming what I have and have not said so that you don’t have to think. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/50 "2005-10-27T20:02:50Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > I also agree on the alcohol issue. IMHO, those raised with the idea that giving a sip of wine to a child on Thanksgiving is sinful and lawless behavior are more likely to want to binge away when they finally get access to same, legal or not. Kids raised with the idea that wine, beer and spirits are no big deal in moderation and that overindulgence eventually causes one to become boorish and ridiculous are far less likely to use alcoholic beverages irresponsibly. It’s an interesting theory, but not one that is borne out in my experience. In my experience, people who are brought up with the idea that drinking alcohol is immoral in general turn out to have pretty much the same range of attitudes toward alcohol as everyone else as adults. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/51 "2005-10-27T22:58:40Z")
**SlyFrog** , calm down. It did take you several posts (until #40) before you actually answered the question that was asked. Most to the replies to you have been legitimate paraphrases of your apparent position prior to that post. Rather than angrily blasting the posters who you claim had not read what you had written, you really should have noted that their basic point (that you had not yet replied directly to the question) was correct. On the other hand, **Evil Captor** , in post #40 **Slyfrog** did provide a reason for his position, so your most recent post (#47) demonstrates that you have not (on this occasion) followed teh thread with sufficient attention. Now, you can all have a merry donnybrook trying to decide whether **Slyfrog** ’s post #40 has any merit, but I want everyone to stop telling other posters what they have or have not said. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/52 "2005-10-27T23:24:20Z")
Okay, **slyfrog,** I’ll bite. How is it different if a parent says to his child, “Violence never solved anything. Only love can conquer hate.” Should we ban every cop show and action movie on television? Do we need to put the Oscars[super]®[/super] on a delay in case Clint Eastwood takes a pop at Tim Robbins? Does a network have to pay millions of dollars in fines for airing a movie where the good guy hunts down the bad guys and kills them, breaking his promise to kill them last? All of these things will be a resounding “fuck you” to our hypothetical parent’s values. What shall we do to stop it? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/53 "2005-10-27T23:49:39Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Okay, **slyfrog,** I’ll bite. How is it different if a parent says to his child, “Violence never solved anything. Only love can conquer hate.” Should we ban every cop show and action movie on television? Do we need to put the Oscars[super]®[/super] on a delay in case Clint Eastwood takes a pop at Tim Robbins? Does a network have to pay millions of dollars in fines for airing a movie where the good guy hunts down the bad guys and kills them, breaking his promise to kill them last? All of these things will be a resounding “fuck you” to our hypothetical parent’s values. What shall we do to stop it? Preface this by saying that I think nudity is great, whether we’re talking fat old men or skinny young women. I think the solution to your hypothetical is obvious: since the hippie parents know that television is full of cop shows and action movies, they know that they should not let their kids watch television. This is what my own hippie parents did–or, rather, they severely restricted the TV we could watch. If you’re opposed to your kids seeing boobies, you know that network television doesn’t show naked boobies, so you can safely plonk junior down in front of football games that show cheerleaders in tiny outfits suggestively cheering on muscular sweaty men beating hell out of each other for money without worrying about any nipplage. The problem with Jackson’s show was that it flouted parents’ expectations, and thereby took away their ability to prevent their kids from seeing boobies. I think that it’s really, really stupid for them to prevent their kids from seeing boobies, but I’m not Grand Daddy of the US, so that’s not my decision to make. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Kiminy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Kiminy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiminy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/54 "2005-10-28T00:41:47Z")
There’s a lot to be said here for VENUE!!! I was born and raised American. Other than a few Playboy magazines my father kept in his bathroom, I was exposed to very little nudity when I was growing up, and could probably be considered a “prude” by most standards. (I am female, by the way.) I spent several years living in France when I was in college and in the years after college. Nudity there is quite common, at least in advertising. And in advertising, it is mostly young, nubile females. I didn’t have regular access to television, but even in the 80’s, female nudity was not shocking if you saw it in a magazine or on a billboard. I also visited French beaches, which are all pretty much topless (optional). Women could choose to wear a bikini bottom or a one-piece, but very few French women appeared on any beach wearing a two-piece bikini. I generally went with American friends, but I really didn’t feel at all self-conscious about going topless at the beach, since it was expected. That said, I doubt if any French person would be less than shocked to see an adult woman walking around in a mall or on a street with just a bikini bottom on. In other words, while nudity may be more accepted, that does not mean it is universally accepted. It depends on where it is seen. Very few French people would have been shocked by the Janet Jackson incident, since nudity is seen on TV on a regular basis. But that’s a far cry from saying that nudity is a generally accepted practice. In Islam, it is an edict of the Qu’ran that women should cover themselves, and hide their feminity from men. This is essentially saying that it is a law of God, if not society, that female nudity is prohibited. In the US, though, we’re just plain weird. We don’t have any solid religious reasons prohibiting nudity (other than 1 Timothy 2:9-10, and that assumes that our society is based on Christian ethics). We have adult bookstores within a block or two of churches and schools. We have unlimited access to the Internet, and the “accidental” nudity that appears there. Prime time TV shows talk about sex and nudity on a regular basis, and partially-dressed (implying nude) people appear on daytime TV every day. On the flip side, we do NOT want to recognize the fact that women have breasts. We’ll admit on the radio and TV and advertising that women have sex (and that they are supposed to enjoy it), but not that they have breasts. Laws about breast-feeding in public are jokes just by their very existence–We certainly don’t have as many laws about changing a baby’s diaper in public, even though that involves much more nudity than breasts do. Right after the Janet Jackson incident, one of the local rock stations put up bulletin boards all over town showing three completely nude women, from the knees up, but with their backs turned toward the camera. There was no protest about the billboards at all that I was aware of, and they were up for more than a month. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/55 "2005-10-28T12:51:55Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I think the solution to your hypothetical is obvious: since the hippie parents know that television is full of cop shows and action movies, they know that they should not let their kids watch television. This is what my own hippie parents did–or, rather, they severely restricted the TV we could watch. I don’t understand why one parent gets to insist that the networks uphold his values, while the other must accept that they will not, though. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/56 "2005-10-28T13:29:43Z")
They’re saying the public nudity is causing a lowered sex drive, as people become used to seeing images of naked women posturing in public. And that there now is an actual problem of many men with a lowered sex drive. (Well I see no problem, I’ll be happy to pick up the shortfall.) Also the trend is towards less sexual content in commercials as they’re increasingly proving ineffective. There’re limits to what you can put up in public areas in Denmark; erotic is ok, sex is not. There’s a Danish company, Cult Shakers - maker of soft drinks, which specialises in just staying on the right side, or going a bit beyond. Then it gets dragged into court. And splashed all across the front pages of daily newspapers and discussed in talk shows – bonza of free add time. It’s the same every year, here are some: [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker1%202003.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker1%202003.jpg) [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker2%202003.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker2%202003.jpg) [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/Cultshaker%202004.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/Cultshaker%202004.jpg) etc. Apparently they’re now moving onto the US market. It could be interesting to see what kind of posters they plan to used there. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/57 "2005-10-28T13:44:03Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > here are some: > [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker1%202003.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker1%202003.jpg) > [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker2%202003.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/cultshaker2%202003.jpg) > [http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/Cultshaker%202004.jpg](http://www.textanalyse.dk/Billeder/Cultshaker%202004.jpg) > etc. Could you please indicate whether these links are workplace safe? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/58 "2005-10-28T13:46:57Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Could you please indicate whether these links are workplace safe? I don’t know. There are naked breasts. So probably not, on the other hand they have been plastered all over Copenhagen. So I guess they’re work safe here. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/59 "2005-10-28T13:57:11Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > There are naked breasts. This is sufficient info. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795/60 "2005-10-28T15:01:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **SlyFrog** , calm down. It did take you several posts (until #40) before you actually answered the question that was asked. Most to the replies to you have been legitimate paraphrases of your apparent position prior to that post. Rather than angrily blasting the posters who you claim had not read what you had written, you really should have noted that their basic point (that you had not yet replied directly to the question) was correct. I was not excited. I am tired, however, of people presuming that other posters will fit into one particular political, religous, etc. niche or another, and therefore just paraphrase what they assume is written rather than reading what is written. Their basic point was not correct. Nor is yours. Those who claimed I had not answered the question were wrong. I had. I have no idea why you are asserting that I had “not yet replied directly to the question.” Here was the question: > [@](#): > > What is it that you are afraid will happen to people, including children, who are exposed to the image of a female nipple? Specifically, what damage will occur? What are the horrible consequences that result from such exposure? Usurpation of a parent’s right to determine what is in the best interest of their child seems to me to be a perfectly direct answer to that question. When the question was phrased with greater specificity (basically, what damage will happen to the child himself), I answered that as well. Of course, because the viewpoint does not “fit” with this board, I was greated with such lovely responses as, > [@](#): > > So in summary you are saying that it is harmful to children for them to learn that not everyone agrees with their parents as to what is harmful to them? Which are apparently perfectly acceptable here. I answered the question as to why is it harmful. When someone asked how is it specifically harmful to the child, I then answered that question. I had no problem with people who wanted to me to answer a second question, and I did so. After I answered that second question, however, I grew tired of people ignoring the fact that I had in fact answered in a condescending attempt to belittle me. In other words, I’m not exactly sure how I should have “noted that their basic point (that you had not yet replied directly to the question) was correct.” It wasn’t correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nudity-everywhere-does-it-make-everything-worse-or-better/327795.md?page=4)