TS, Masterbation, and Shame

[clarsct]

Ok, I should probably lead off with the fact that this thread came about in response to TruthSeeker's thread, here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=61876

In which she said:

As I used to tell my godson when he was 4 years old, "there are some things we don't do in front of other people"

I found this vaguely disturbing on some level. Why not?

The only response I could think of was shame. We are ashamed to do some things in public. But why? Does this make any damned sense whatsoever?

Or is this a result of judeo-christian values learned at 'our mother's knee', so to speak? Well, does it make sense to preserve values based on religion if one is an atheist? Can we NOT do so?

I understand there are legal things to consider, as well, but do we not make the laws, and can we not change them? If a law is restrictive and makews no sense, do we have an obligation to follow that law?

As skeptics and atheists, should we be ashamed of what we do in private?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by clarsct
As skeptics and atheists, should we be ashamed of what we do in private? First, not all here are skeptics, nor are all (including all skeptics) atheists.

Second... As humans and members of our respective cultures, should we be somehow immune from culturalization and socialization? If we are raised to believe X, we may feel it in our gut even after we have intellectually accepted Y. Shame is not a terribly rational emotion; I may, personally, feel no shame whatsoever, or a great deal, and the amount I feel is relatively independent of what behaviors I engage in. I have personally known people who thought masturbation was shameful (or misspelling masturbation), and others who felt no shame at [seriously, fill in your own blank, this guy was worse].


Anyway...

Short answer--no. Skepticism is relatively independent of "need for shame". Longer answer....what exactly are you doing, anyway?

[clarsct]

First point acknowledged. Supposing one was a skeptical atheist, then.

Socialization. At what point do our ideas differ enough that we reject the superstitions we grew up with? Should we conform for the sake of conformity? Do we control our emotions or allow our emotions to control us? Which is more civilized?

As for your longer answer, nothing I'm ashamed of.:D

I was actually asking out of curiousity. Looking at one view, the other doesn't make sense. Yet we do both. The paradox fascinates me.

[Dogdoctor]

As a child growing up I rejected all teaching which I did not understand or understood but found illogical. Years later I learn that much of society is conforming without knowing the reasons for their actions. There may be none or there may actually be relatively good reasons that no one is aware of. For one thing nudity, clothes never really made sense to me although I pretty much conformed in public , it was because I was aware of repercussions for not wearing them. Now I think clothes have a function beyond hiding our cultural shyness to show our bodies to others. If we all walked around naked there would be at least much wasted sexual energy and angst which is not there now. I know there are nudists but everyone else is not a nudist and many for reasons other than cultural conformation. They simply would not be able to function well in a naked society. Some things are better not being out in the open and while in more private situations they are perfectly harmless. These are just my thoughts and observations and I have no proof. So I think we should be careful to step away from conformity since in my opinion there may be a reason to conform that we don't understand. I can control almost all of my emotions yet generally live my life letting all my feelings out since it conveys who I am better to others (which is important to me). Another reason to not step away from conformity is to avoid alienating ourselves from the rest of society

[clarsct]

Dogdoctor:

Interesting take on things. I rather thought that clothing was more of a tease than an inhibitor. After all, why else would sexy lingierie be so popular? Because what you don;t see is the enticement. A scantily clad woman is more interesting than a naked one, if they are just walking around. If the nake done is aroused and interested in you, ...well...that makes it a different story, obviously.


I agree we shoudl allconform to driving on the proper side of the road, but then again, this makes sense to do, as well. What about the things that don't. I'm a pretty bright fellah, if there's a reason to conform, I'm all ears. But if not, shouldn't we drop old falsehoods in the light of new truths?\

I'm not sure if people could function in such a society if it was VASTLY different from their own, but from all accounts those "scientific explorers" who studied newly discovered tribes that commonly went topless, men and women, seemed to function just fine, after a small adjustment.

Monkeys get by just fine without clothes. If you're in Minnesota in February, then by all means, bundle up. But some of this Purityrannical attitude we learned growing up, we should modify in the light of reason, should we not?

[Dogdoctor]

Yeah modify but to what degree. Topless? Maybe... By the way I never understood lingerie or for that matter makeup or tattoos or piercing. How could these alterations of what I think is the most beautiful thing in the world be better? They are cultural symbols and not ones I have found attractive.

[Soapy Sam]

I remember at about eleven years old being sexuoverbally frustrated because I didn't know masturbation had a "u" in it and so failed to find it in the dictionary.

I'm not sure if looking up "dirty" words is a reprehensible act, but I do think it's better done in the home than the street, as one might be knocked down through inattention.

I've always liked the term "self abuse". I'm a naughty, naughty boy.

"Self referential" is good too.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I remember at about eleven years old being sexuoverbally frustrated because I didn't know masturbation had a "u" in it and so failed to find it in the dictionary.

I'm not sure if looking up "dirty" words is a reprehensible act, but I do think it's better done in the home than the street, as one might be knocked down through inattention.

I've always liked the term "self abuse". I'm a naughty, naughty boy.

"Self referential" is good too. What else is there to do in Scotland?

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by clarsct
Ok, I should probably lead off with the fact that this thread came about in response to TruthSeeker's thread, here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=61876

In which she said:

As I used to tell my godson when he was 4 years old, "there are some things we don't do in front of other people"

Shame is one part of the equation, that is a learned emotion, but what about respect for others?

If the vast majority of people find the action very offensive, we should respect that, at least until a time everyone is reasonably comfortable with it.

[toddjh]

Clothes? Not an issue of shame for me. I get naked at the drop of a hat, ask anyone. :) But I still wear them just about all day, every day, even when alone and in private. Why?

Well, they regulate body temperature. They prevent friction burns and chafing from chairs, sheets, etc. They stop me from getting burned when I'm cooking and spill something. They keep bugs off me when I'm outside. They insulate my skin from overstimulation (I'm very sensitive to tactile sensation). They make it so I don't stick to myself all the time. They stop me from sweating on other people's furniture. In public, they're a useful form of expression. Many people use them for easy identification.

Nudists may think it's "natural" to be naked, and maybe it is. But I'm betting that, even when we were living in "nature" (whatever that means for humans), clothes were just about the first things we invented. They're just too useful to do without.

Jeremy

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by clarsct

In which she said:

As I used to tell my godson when he was 4 years old, "there are some things we don't do in front of other people"

I found this vaguely disturbing on some level. Why not?

The only response I could think of was shame. We are ashamed to do some things in public. But why? Does this make any damned sense whatsoever?


There are reasons other than shame. I am not ashamed to wipe my behind, but I prefer to do it in private because I know other people don't want to see me perform that action.

I wear clothes not because I am ashamed of my body (in fact some of my clothes accentuate certain features of my physique), I wear clothes (and am happy that others do as well) because I do not want to sit down on a bus seat where hundreds of other naked people (some having questionable hygene) have previously sat.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally posted by Ladewig
There are reasons other than shame. I am not ashamed to wipe my behind, but I prefer to do it in private because I know other people don't want to see me perform that action.

How do you know that? (just kidding)

I wear clothes not because I am ashamed of my body (in fact some of my clothes accentuate certain features of my physique), I wear clothes (and am happy that others do as well) because I do not want to sit down on a bus seat where hundreds of other naked people (some having questionable hygene) have previously sat.
So I take it that when you aren't riding on the bus your clothes come off?

I lived for a couple of years on a commune. People often ran around naked there and the toilet was screened but open to the road so any one walking by could see you sitting on the toilet not to mention there were 3 side by side toilets. It took a little getting used to and I never felt entirely comfortable having others present while sitting on the toilet. The naked part I got used to but still chose to wear my clothes most of the time. There was an outdoor shower where we all went and stood in line naked waiting our turn at the end of the day and that became a pleasant routine that I maintained till I rated my own private shower. However this is nudity amoungst people who all knew each other relatively well. It is different out in public with people you don't know. (The wild orgies there are another story)(joke) (there were pretty tame orgies) (another joke)

[Z]

What I don't understand is clothes without pockets. I mean, what other purpose does clothing serve, if not to let your hands be free while carrying numerous necessary items?

:D

[John de Combe]

Originally posted by Zep
What else is there to do in Scotland?

Watch Balamory?

[shemp]

Originally posted by Zep
What else is there to do in Scotland?

Vomit up haggis.

[Zep]

I'm sorry I asked, now... :rolleyes:

[clarsct]

Hmmm. I think my point was wear clothes or not, why be ashamed either way?

Also pertains to most taboos. It seems to me that many are religious in origin. So shouldn't we drop some of them, if we are to practice what we preach. Moreover, shouldn't we be encouraging others to do the same?

We do one thing, intellectually, and quite different things for emotional reasons that do not reflect what we profess to believe.

Seems strange to me.

[skepHick]

Oh. I thought your point was something about why some people think masturbation is shameful. I would address that, but I'm kind busy right now. Please disregard that buzzing sound.

[clarsct]

Address away, M'dear.

;)

[TruthSeeker]

The very last thing I wanted to do was to shame him. I will ask him about it when I next see him (I'm sure that won't embarrass a 16 year old boy much! :D )

The way I saw it, I was saying "we all do this. There is nothing wrong with it. However, it is preferable to do this when you are alone."

I remember at the time, he asked if I did it. I told him the truth.

I'm curious how others have dealt with this or what they might recommend instead.

[clarsct]

Well, I hadn't meant that you shamed him. But what's the problem with masturbation? If it is as common as we have been led to believe, then why not?

I think there is some stigma attached that says we must be ashamed of sexual activities and must do them in private.

I would surmise this is religiously attributed, though I may be wrong.

So, if one were skeptical, and an atheist, why not masturbate in public? So what?

I do hope I'm making some sort of sense...sometimes I come from left field...

[skepHick]

Sorry, Truthseeker. I know you didn't mean it that way, and I didn't mean to imply that you did.

When my daughter was about 3 or so and used touch herself, say at the grocery store, I would tell her basically the same thing as you stated:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
...I was saying "we all do this. There is nothing wrong with it. However, it is preferable to do this when you are alone."


Effective, honest and doesn't instill any shame IMO.

[Dubium]

There's nothing shameful about masturbation - alone or with consenting others. As children we should learn though that if we aren't to be shunned or arrested, there are some things we don't do in view of people who could be offended or traumatised or embarrassed by our behaviour. Basically that's everyone with whom we don't have an intimate sexual relationship (unless we're a porn star!)

[Z]

I've told the boys, basically, keep it in their room, or in the bathroom, preferably when they're by themselves (which, sadly, is almost never - three boys in one room, two in another). Our daughter will probably have a much easier time - she already has her own room. For good reason.