Talk:Nudity

The brief bit on Islam

It mentions here that women in Islam are required to completely cover themselves due to purdah. I may be wrong, but isn't purdah an Indian custom? I agree there are some similarities in custom, but would purdah be the correct appelation? Also, while there are varying degrees to which women (and men) cover, or don't cover themselves in Islamic societies as far as I know the main stipulation based on religion was the Koranic injunction to dress modestly. The specifics as to what this (dressing modestly) means are spread across the multiple interpretations of Islamic law - not to mention those who attempt to go beyond the four (five w/shia) schools. While the article is good enough to mention that the hadith is the inspiration for much of the debate that followed, it would be more appropriate to note that there are many schools of thought regarding awrah. The sentence "For women, Islam requires them to observe purdah, covering their entire bodies, including the face (see burqa). A common misconception, however, is to cover everything but the hands and face," is incorrect in that it is reductionist and makes a POV judgment in regard to schools of thought that may differ from that which the editor had subscribed to. This is not to say the sentence is wholly wrong in that it may fit with a certain view, but it is only one among many. Perhaps, however, it might be wise to separate perceived religious injunctions from how people actually behave. After all, religious and cultural mores are very different between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, yet they are both generally considered Muslim countries. 18 February 2007 jankyalias

Considering the lack of response I am making a slight edit. jankyalias 21 February 2007

Overuse of pictures

I noted that this article seems to have a picture, or even multiple, every few lines. Considering that the Manual of Style suggests using not that many pictures, would the editors who run the article like to cut down on the overuse of pictures? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's borderline at best. This article needs some clean-up first then aligning images to match text would be more appropriate. -- Banjeboi 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any such suggestion in the Manual of Style. In fact, I daresay the encyclopedia would be vastly improved if all topics had as many free-use images as this one does. Powers ^T 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's incorrect to state that this article not only has a higher ratio of pictures than average, but especially so considering the content and the benefit that they bring. Seems just like a bit too much sensationalism for me, which is fine so long as it isn't just for that sake alone like that appears to be. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what benefit are we talking about? With a few exceptions (say, [1][2][3][4]) for contrasting different contexts and uses, most of these images are just gratuitous. That is, it's gratuitous nudity--and thus somewhat pornographic. NotARusski (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Each picture illustrates nudity in a different context or of a different sort. The lead image is an excellent generic example. The next image illustrates streaking. The next shows public nudity. The next shows a nude beach. The next is a depiction of child nudity in an innocent context. The next shows nudity in advertising. The next shows toplessness as a subtype of nudity. The next shows skinny dipping. The next shows nudity while bathing (probably the least useful of the images). The next shows nudity in a tribal culture. The next shows Adam and Eve. The next shows Abu Grahib. And the last shows ritual nudity. None of them are redundant; they all illustrate different aspects of nudity and make for an extraordinarily well-illustrated article. Powers ^T 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bit about Japan in the Segregation paragraph. In Japan open urinals, common (non-segregated) toilets containing urinals and common (non segregated) bathing exists and is acceptable. Also in public baths there are few (open) shower stalls and a main "bath-room" where nudity is the norm. There are also (mostly in the country-side) many non-segregated (mixed) baths (onsens) where also nudity is the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.184.68 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's out right PORN!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.255.21 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there seems to be an excessive amount of pictures, however I don't particularly have a problem with it. Remingtonhill1 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

650,000 year old origin of clothing

The article states:

"Based on scientific research into lice it is estimated that humans have been wearing clothing for 650,000 years."

The citation link provided is not freely accessible, but the this article appears to have the same title and author, and does not support this claim; if anything, this particular article is challenging the claim of a half-million-plus year-old origin of clothing. Nowhere in the text does "650,000" appear to show up; the closest is 500,000. In addition, most of the facts appear to be speculation (albeit from knowledgeable people). I'm going to pull the sentence, since it isn't really core to the article and the support for the date seems to be pretty sketchy.

Mark7-2 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Birthday suit and other terms

I see that birthday suit currently redirects to this article, yet the term itself never appears in the article. This violates the general Wikipedian principle of least astonishment, in that someone looking for the term (i.e., who really doesn't know what it means) won't learn anything about its specific meaning and use. ("It has something to do with nudity, but…".) Of course, there must be a huge number of similar redirects here for such terms. While the actual meaning and use can be left to Wiktionary (e.g., see wikt:birthday suit), we must still provide a connection between the term entered in the Search box and the actual location of the information.

I'd like to know how regular readers and editors of this article feel about adding these terms to the "Terminology" section, perhaps in a multi-column list (maybe even rendered in a smaller font) that gives a very terse (5 words or less where possible) definition and a link to the Wiktionary entry. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. From WP:ASTONISH: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." I think that's the case here. Powers ^T 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense if you already know what "birthday suit" means. But then why are you looking for "birthday suit"? It's up to the writers to explain why something makes sense, not for the readers to guess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think we need to put text in that doesn't belong just because we have a redirect in place. If you can find a natural place for it in the text, fine, but I'm afraid an annotated list would just look out of place. Powers ^T 13:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a common theme among many redirects. I've fixed some of them already. Usually articles get nominated for deletion and end in a merge then they gradually disappear. I see this as a way to disregard decisions made. I remember this particular one and other terms being in the article. By all means Jeff Q if you can find the proper section or make one for it then you're welcome to add it. I don't see any problem that it doesn't belong in the article. Biofase (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked vs. Nude

"Naked" redirects here...

It shouldn't. Robert Graves said it best,

For me, the naked and the nude

(By lexicographers construed

As synonyms that should express

The same deficiency of dress

Or shelter) stand as wide apart

As love from lies, or truth from art.

The two words mean almost entirely different things. To be naked is (1) to be in one's natural state, or (2) to be defenseless. To be nude is to be deficient of clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.15.52 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

please show us a picture of a naked man or lady, alongside a picture of a nude man or lady, and explain why either term can not apply to the other photo.--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked can apply to many things (living and non living). Nude is a human state exclusively. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you can write an encyclopedic article on nakedness that doesn't just duplicate the information here, by all means do so. The redirect is there for the writing. Powers ^T 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Indecent exposure" in England

I've slapped my first ever [citation needed] on the claim that English law forbids "indecent exposure". To the best of my knowledge there is no such offence any more. Most statute law relevant to the subject was repealed and replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This act does define an offence of "exposure", but sensibly drops the "indecent" part to forestall argument over what exactly is supposed to be indecent about the natural human body. The offence of exposure is intended to be used against "flashers", and while I haven't re-read the statute just now I believe I'm right in saying that it requires the intent to cause alarm or distress. The "intent" part is significant - even if an unusually prudish person comes along and is distressed, if the naked person didn't intend them to be then this particular offence has not been committed. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chances are your interpretation is correct, and the article is out of date. Please feel free to make whatever revisions are necessary. Powers ^T 13:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Asia

"In Asian cultures such as Korea and Japan the public bath is very common. Bathing nude with family members or friends of the same and opposite sex in public bath houses, saunas, or even natural hot springs is popular." - this requires references ... The article on Japanese hot springs, e.g., says this is uncommon nowadays ... --JensMueller (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)