Talk:Nudity

	This Sociology related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Rewrite

I will continue with revising this article, but have removed the "Needs help" tag.

Since I want the article to reflect a point of view that nudity is not all about sex, the Sexuality navigation box is a problem, because it loudly proclaims the opposite.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spud - I am disappointed by the restoration of the Sexuality nav template to this article. After less than a week I would not presume to know what the RW community thinks, but rewriting an article that had not been touched for years after the addition of a "Help Me" notice is something that would be supported.

Your edit summary states "Yes, for millions of people nudity has nothing to do with sex. But for millions of people, it does." I am trying to present the rational evidence that the latter group is wrong, as wrong as those that think skeptics (and nudists) will all burn in hell forever. The navigation links say "no, its all about sex".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC "Original research is allowed" is not the same as "It's OK to push your own fringe beliefs." The idea that associating nudity with sex is as wrong as believing skeptics will burn in hell is a fringe belief. It's fine to point out to our readers that millions of people live happy lives without associating nudity with sex. But to tell those readers that they are wrong if they connect the two things, that's just pushing your opinion. This is not an appropriate forum for converting people to naturism. Spud (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spud I don't think nudity should be associated with sex. We've literally have spent thousands of years in the nude before we started wearing clothes. To this day people go swimming in the nude (known as skinny dipping). Ψ (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Sociology}} is probably the closest alternative to the sexuality navbar for this article Plutocow (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ψ And I'd strongly disagree that skinny dipping has nothing to do with sex for many of the people that do it. But I'm happy to see the Sociology nav template on the page. Spud (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was responding, but encountered an edit conflict, after which the issue became moot with the change to the Soc template, although I consider nudity to be an anthropology topic. I realize that the "burn in hell" analogy is over the top, and distracted from the point I was trying to make: the sex template is too attention-grabbing, as in "a visual image is worth a thousand words". I am not a naturist, and don't think my text pushes a point of view, but seeks to balance the sexualization of everything. I have been skinny-dipping a few times (everybody did in the 70s) but did not think it any more sexual than socializing in bathing suits.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nudity may not be about sex to you, but it certainly is for many people. There is a whole porn category based on people being "nude in public" for example. Then there are voyeurs who get off on seeing other people nude. Whether people "should" regard nudity as sexual is one question - whether (some) people do is another.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the importance of nudity and its association with sex in areas such as only fans, strip clubs and pornography in general - we certainly need a section on this. The idea that nudity (in modern western culture) is not sexual would be frankly absurd.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that WriterArtistDC protests too much that nudity is never about sex. But really, it's all about context. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not say never, but neither is it alway, as many Americans seem to assume. It is difficult to establish that there is a moderate, balanced point of view, with this article emphasising non-sexual nudity, and other articles about sexual behaviors.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The introduction is kinda citation-lite. The whole of the first two paragraphs seems probable - there logically must have been a time in our evolutionary past when humans (or proto humans) didn't wear clothes. But the article seems to be stating conjecture as known fact.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have included "citations to follow" in my edit summaries. I have lots of sources, having added them to the Wikipedia Nudity article myself, but the text here is new so I am writing that first.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis

I have finally gotten to the point where I have added a clear statement in the intro that synthesizes all details in the body of the article, and why nudity is not a trivial topic relative to the mission of RW.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment from the AFD page, per request

I find the Jungian argument on locker room unconvincing. I've witnessed heterosexual bullying in nude male locker rooms because of appearance, so the argument that the practice of nude male locker rooms has ended because of gay liberation seems weak at best. The traditionally gender-segregated nude baths of Korea would seem to raise some doubt about nudity shame being restricted to Abrahamic religions. The naked Hindu ascetics (sādhus) would seem to be restricted to males, though there are female Hindu ascetics (sādhvīs), I've never heard of a naked sādhvī. Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I add the Jungian article first because it is the only journal article on the topic of locker rooms. There are news articles that just note the decline of showering without solid explanations; being naked in the flesh has become weird at the same time that nude selfies are popular. I said sexual shame is unique to Abrahamic religions, but there are other forms of shame. In Asia it is usually shame due to loss of status or dignity; the untranslatable concept of loosing "face". I added a reference to one female ascetics, a 12th century poet.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Another thought, what is your view of Ed Lange (photographer), probably the most public proponent of naturism during the 1960s. He seemed to exist at the nexus of naturism and the free love/1960s sexual revolution. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I started college in 1968, and lived the counterculture, so did not pay much attention to Ed Lange or other members of the older generation jumping on the bandwagon. Looking at his photos online, they seem to be standard glamour shots.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The most public proponent of naturism to me was Lee Baxandall, who advocated having more clothing-optional areas (legal or simply secluded public land) when others wanted US nudism to remain within private resorts.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lange was actually publishing naturist photography throughout the 1960s, including at one point collaborating with exploitation film director Russ Meyer. I've been to a nudist resort and a nude beach, but the naturist photography has always seemed kind of odd to me. It seems to strain itself to present normality, but one always gets the impression that the publication of pictorial works were aimed at those with prurient interests, rather that to fellow-naturists. It's kind of like Playgirl magazine was superficially marketed to women, but the real audience was to gay men. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the sentence "Merely being looked at while nude has become a form of assault." (now thankfully removed) was grossly inappropiate regardless as to whether the Jungian stuff was reliable or not. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Creating sub-pages

I can already see the need to create new articles about particular aspects of nudity in order to maintain readability. The first would likely be about childhood nudity. As with this article, the justification would be that the topics are not trivial, but consistent with the stated purposes of RationalWiki:

• Religion: Nudity of any kind is a target of fundamentalism.
• Conspiracy theories: Childhood nudity is associated with pedophilia, yet it is the political right that has created this association as part of their characterization of liberals as perverts.
• Science denial: Studies find kids running around naked is healthy and normal, at least until school age. Conservatives want to teach kids to be ashamed of their bodies. There is also evidence that mixed gender nudity promotes gender equality.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDCIf you want to use this wiki to push the idea that kids should be naked in public, then as far as I'm concerned, you can FUCK OFF! Spud (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before a few times, the fact that a study agrees with you doesn't mean you're correct. There are studies "proving" everything. The climate change denial and the anti vaccination movements for instance, have "studies" backing their points, but they are still wrong. We definitely don't need a page saying that kids should be running around naked. I think I would leave the site if this thing ever reaches the main space... GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@GeeJayK Me too. Spud (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. Carthage (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Me also. Scream!! (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Studies find kids running around naked is healthy and normal,". Wait what? This is "normal"? It's generally normal in modern western societies? Well, no it's obviously not. I'm looking out the window now and it's not happening. I'm guessing that you were trying to say something else, but I'm not sure what.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally saw a dad out with his naked child in their front yard this last summer, I see shit like that every summer. It doesn't usually draw attention, it is typically considered a pretty mundane thing. I guess we are just bred differently outside the US. Y'all sound like that creepy uncle who has very strong opinions about the visibility of their pre-teen neice's bra-strap. It is not the child (or their parents) that is sexuallizing themselves here. If you see that as an kind of invite for CSA that's on you. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes!!!

@Bongolian Thank you for putting the fact that millions of people do associate nudity with sex back on the page. Spud (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, Spud! Bongolian (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I find the need for validation here extremely bizarre when this like very obviously something that is both a culturally contingent attitude, and something that is fairly commonly felt. Like yes, of course, many people feel this way. It's a huge component of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. I think though Spud this kind of insecurity just suggests you are not the sort of person who should be allowed to work within the fine arts department at a university (where life-drawing classes are practiced), or a healthcare setting (especially if you think the dead bodies in the morgue have some sort of sexual associations simply by being nude). That doesn't mean your emotions aren't real or are intensely felt. Think about this when looking at another culture that has strong emotional reactions to things you can't seem to relate to. Culturally contingent does not mean emotionally artificial. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that Spud can speak for himself, but this issue came out of the belief by the main author of the current page (User:WriterArtistDC) that nudity was never sexual, which is really a fringe belief. I think it more common that people would have different reactions to nudity depending on the context. Bongolian (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb A lot of other users here would react angrily to what you wrote. Fortunately for both of us, I am much more easygoing than that. Yes, Bongolian was right. I have always said that I know millions of people do not associate nudity with sex. I do not have a problem with that and I think it's something that people who do associate nudity with sex should be aware of. And there are also plenty of people who do associate nudity with sex who are able to disassociate it, like artists and doctors. I've had to show my cock to a doctor before. I didn't think he was gong to suck it. And no, I do not get excited by seeing naked corpses because I'm not a necrophile. I don't much like being accused of cultural insensitivity. As an Englishman in Taiwan, I have to deal with cultural differences every single day. I will also say that whether or not some depictions of nudity in Western art were intended to be sexually arousing or not is a matter of debate. My main concern all along has been not wanting another RationalWiki article to be used by one editor to present a fringe belief as fact. As Bongolian said, it was the stated belief of WriterArtistDC that people who associate nudity with sex are wrong. I could not accept that. And, to be quite honest, I'm really glad he's fucked off. Spud (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

And I'm now sorry he hasn't completely fucked off and still doesn't want any reference to sex or sexiness on this page at all. For fuck's sake! Millions of people associate nudity with sex. They are not wrong to do that. Don't try to push your fringe beliefs here. It won't work. Spud (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The implication *from the get go* that nudity is a social taboo restricted to "Abrahamic religions" is pretty problematic to me. I've also traveled to many countries; rest assured, nudity has various degrees of taboo in non-Abrahamic religions as well. In fact, I would say that the societies with the *least* amount of nudity taboos are European (post-Abrahamic!) societies with strong naturalism movements, such as Germany / FKK. Even in *Germany*, nudity still is not "non-taboo" by any means; people aren't running around naked willy-nilly all over the place. Nudity is just "more accepted" in particular scenarios, such as sunbathing, saunas, beaches, etc; restrictions on sexuality is also more relaxed.

There's a few Asian countries which are a *little* bit open to nudity in certain contexts (eg Japanese onsens), but by and large, the same modesty rules apply to Eastern cultures / religions as it does to Abrahamic religions, and sometimes actually even more so. China for instance is *quite* conservative in my experience on nudity and sexuality (not Islam conservative by far, but still), and the influence of Abrahamic religions in China has been rather limited. In a twist to the current article, it's actually "Abrahamic religions" that allow legal porn! That is, much of North and South America, and much of Europe (eg Christian countries) allows the porn. Africa's mixture of religious culture in general trends very modest and frowns on nudity; pornography is illegal in almost all of Africa. Same with almost every Asian country (Japan being one of the exceptions), pornography is illegal in most of Asia. The "general rule of thumb" for a tourist is that you dress "more modest" than a typical Westerner in both continents (though there's *considerable* variation on what this implies, some countries are far more open than others). Yes, there are also exceptions like ritualistic nudity in a few India religions, but still. BobJohnson (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is disentangling modern mores from pre-Abrahamic/Western contact ones. A lot of E.g., Africa still has been Christianized or Islamized, and there are still colonial-era laws on the books (e.g., anti-sodomy laws). I've been to parts of the world where women traditionally did not wear top coverings (what Westerners would call "half-naked"), and generally it was no only old women in rural areas who still went topless. This was undoubtedly due to Western and Abrahmic influence. Bongolian (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem in a lot of Asian and African countries. The Chinese Confucianism tract is the interesting one here in a sense simply because the influence of Abrahamic religion is pretty minimal even in the present (though obviously more than before). My high level understanding is that many post Confucianism eras (neo-Confucianism, the Quing Dynasty, and the communist era) were all very morally conservative on sexual / gender matters in various ways. Though China is a big country and some of the other religions (eg Daoism) were more permissive. I do not know the nitty gritty details, of course, beyond what you find in Wiki articles.

The two aspects that seem to stand out to me among the colonial influenced countries that died off to some degree, is that: A) There's not too many cultures that was fully naked all the time like a FKK beach, but as you noticed, in many cultures, a topless female was not a big deal in earlier times; B) Nudity as a ritualistic experience or a religious aesthetic was far more accepted in certain cultures (eg India, where it persists some, eg Jainism.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Y’all need to stop labeling any expression that evokes an emotional reaction in you as trolling. Especially considering the lack of mindfulness to the principle of charity being applied. WriterDC explicitly states that “nudity is never sexual” was never something he said, and it is seems on the face of things a pretty obvious example of a strawman fallacy. I also only listed the norms of abrahamic religions as an example, not as the sole contributor. Upon reflection you’d have to admit to yourself that there many cultural contexts even for yourself where nudity is not particularly sexy. From changing diapers, to giving seniors a sponge-bath, (at least I hope these things aren’t sexy for you). Context, presentation, and intentions matter. I dabble in visual art, I had a friend who worked as a nurse in an ICU, and my best friend has a degree in illustration. Reflective of my own lived experience, their lived experience, and the experience of people I know who attend life drawing classes (as well as those I know who work in healthcare or mortuary services) — the more time you spend in cultural contexts where nudity is presented in a context unintended to be erotic, the more you simply get used to it and don’t really see it as inherently sexual. I think for example when I draw a nude figure, the extent to which it is “sexy” depends on how the figure is posed, what aspects of the anatomy are the focal point, the facial expression of the figure, and sometimes unfortunately if the figure conforms to contemporary beauty standards, i.e. is thin. I think there is a lot of nuances here being missed but part of me thinks this in parts boils down to a lack of lived experience, education, and (no offence) maturity. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, not on behalf of those who are acknowledging the cultural nuance and contingency. I think though there other factors that also can be associated with the discomfort we have we nudity which is not strictly speaking sexual, but feeling vulnerable and exposed. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This article is exemplary of how a ideologically-motivated person (a pro-nudity advocate) in this case) can write a high-quality article on both WP and RW, and get it accepted, and perhaps how much more easily one can get away with it when NPOV is the standard, as on WP. The problems show up not by sins of commission but sins of omission. The article as WriterArtistDC had written it up to the call for demotion was great in my view except for the paragraph relying on Jung as a source, which I deleted. The sins of omission that I've found, are:

1. The issue of sex, as mentioned above
2. The strong strong influence of eugenics on the early modern nudists, and the fascism of the two German founders

   The eugenics idea in nudism was alleged to have continued into modern times in an attenuated form by one Guardian writer, but I couldn't find anything to back it up ("'We think that bodies are wonderful!' shouts the H&E website. But some, the culture they espouse hints, are more wonderful than others.").[1]

3. The ideology that the sun is curative in the panacea sense, and other alt-med beliefs by one of the founders.

WriterArtistDC has taken offense at our criticisms, and think that they've been cast out by the mob, "As you have just discovered in the discussion of the Nudity article, some topics cannot be addressed rationally, or even civilly, on RW. I did not LANCB, but was cast out by the mob."[2] The real issue here is that WriterArtistDC is thin-skinned and wants to have things their way. WriterArtistDC is an RW member in good standing (Sysop, never revoked, never blocked), so I don't see how they think they've been cast out. Bongolian (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I trust the accuracy of your criticisms and reporting of events. WriterDC no doubt is going to be incentivized against revealing those details to me. Which is misleading and warrants distrust.I can always check the backlogs for accuracy, and will do so upon having the time. That being said I can understand the concern of overemphasizing those historical details as it runs the risk of implicating a guilt by association, if not a genetic fallacy if we are not careful to distinguish from contemporary motivations to nudism. That of course doesn’t excuse giving that problematic history no mention, and if the fashy origins are still prevalent in the cultural attitudes of modern naturist communities it only makes sense to make those ties known for the sake of protecting the well being of members of certain oppressed social groups. That being said if it is something more historical than contemporarily reflected, our emphasis on such historical associations should be as consistent with our presentation of practices like birth control, and social democracy. Both having historical ties if not explicit origins in eugenicist movements. We also have to be mindful of the historicist fallacy, if we accept such objections to various post-modern and critical theories regarding certain social institutions and practices. I don’t think we can frame ourselves as rational if we don’t express consistency in values. We do not need to replay the problematic norms of explicitly acknowledging the racism of Karl Marx, but downplaying the racism of Charles Darwin for reasons that are equally applicable to both. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

They're a new user so may not understand what happened. It's possible WriterArtistDC could contribute to other articles constructively but if their sole interest is nudity I'm not sure they are gonna have a great time. I assume they have other interests. I hope so. Chillpilled (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

See the "Creating sub-pages" section above for why WriterArtistDC believes he was forced out. Spud (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's true that certain cultures are more blasé about letting very, very young kids run around without clothes in certain circumstances (eg at the beach). And it's true that there has been some limited studies of the effects of families who participate in nudism, with not much in the negatives and some positives. But those three bullet points sounded like they leaned into pedophilia apology at worst, woo-ish naturism over-promotion at best. Furthermore, concerns about pedophilia is not a political issue as the author implied. Yes, conservatives have weaponized pedophilia concerns (see QAnon) but that's not the same thing. (Pedophilia concerns also crosses into moral panic territory these days, but that's a topic for another day too.)

I actually am rather familiar with the "AANR resorts vs. others" debate in Pasco County, so good to see this made the article. AANR definitely frowns on any sort of sexual shenanigans at nudist clubs approved by them. But, as Caliente and Paradise Lakes have shown (both who left AANR for catering to "the sexy"), there clearly a market for the "nude=sex" swinger etc. crowd as well. It would be wrong not to acknowledge this. BobJohnson (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is why “nuance” has to be a focus here. I may agree with the premise that nudity is not “intrinsically” sexual, but that does not imply that in many cultural contexts and situations nudity is not presented for eroticism, nor does it only present itself with sexual connotations in only a minority of situations. Nudists themselves by what I can gleam are seemingly aware of this, as “gawkers” is a known problem in places like Vancouver’s wreck beach. There is also however an element of sexual predation that is being given somewhat of a pass on the assumption that “nude = sex” to dismiss cases of non-consensual recording, vouyerism, etc by law enforcement on the basis that it happened on a nude beach and so was “invited”. It overlaps a lot with feminist criticisms about the sexualization of breasts. Where women who wish to go topless are said to “invite” unwanted attention. Which is how this “nude = sex” mentality gets wrapped in rape culture. That being said yeah, it doesn’t ignore the very real types of cases where the pretext of nudisim is intentionally used as an invitation for sexual encounters. I mean nude beaches at famous gay vacationing spots sort of work with this as a guiding norm. There is a lot to unpack here which I think captures a lot of the inherent cultural complexities associated with nudity. I mean think also for example when “nude old people” is used as a trope for horror. Arguably yeah that is working upon some sort of existing cultural association between nudity and sex. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"It's boring"

It doesn't matter if it's boring, it matters if it's informative. Just because you find it boring doesn't mean everyone else does. You're deleting perfectly good information based off of subjective tastes. Carthage (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@CarthageHi Cart! I raised this with Bongolian at RationalWiki:Articles_for_demotion/Nudity. You can read my big auld text wall there. He suggested I prune and streamline the article. Not that I think I can actually do a good job of it, seeing as how I'm not an expert on the topic and I'm also pretty bad at writing. But he said it's okay with him, so...

"It doesn't matter if it's boring, it matters if it's informative." I'd respond to that with the classic "We're not Wikipedia" line. It's unquestionably informative (and very, very well referenced) but not everything in this article is relevant to our mission statement.

"Just because you find it boring doesn't mean everyone else does." That's true... but I could say that just because you find it interesting, doesn't mean everyone else will. ;) Interesting and boring are very subjective terms of course, but I'm of the opinion that when it comes to prose, less is more. (Won't copy and paste my "no vote" text wall here, but if you want to hear my full opinion on it you can find it there.)

"You're deleting perfectly good information based off of subjective tastes." Again, perfectly good... according to someone else's subjective opinion. Everything I have deleted is HIGH QUALITY information, but also IRRELEVANT information to (I think) most of our readers. Granted our many anonymous readers did not appoint me as their speaker so I can't claim to speak on their behalf, but as someone who spends a lot of time reading the mainspace and occasionally edits the website, I would have thought my opinion counted for something. And that perhaps my voice mattered as much as anyone else's.

I'm easy either way though, Cart. I think you are a good editor and you don't strike me as the bad sort. I've reverted the article to what it was before I started pruning it (You may also wish to cast a vote on the demotion page. I abide by the will of the mob.). I'm not offended in any way, and don't feel strongly on the state of the article.

Peace and friendship. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is context irrelevant? Carthage (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Context is of vital importance to understanding anything. The question is: How much context? Because if you think about it, ANY topic we might be interested in can always, ALWAYS, have more said about it. If you look at this particular section of our Ramzan Kadyrov article, well, I was actually going to make that even longer initially, cause I basically breezed past the entirety of not one, but TWO Chechen wars in like, one paragraph. And the amount of context that I could have given is eye watering (I also read 70 something sources on the f@cker and I wanted to harp on about him some more), like, understanding the modern Russia - Chechnya relationship needs a bit of prep work, I could have talked about their unique cultural identity, or how Russians (Tsarist, Soviet and contemporary) view the place and the people who live there.

But nobody has infinite time on their hands, Cart. So at some point, a line has to be drawn as to how much text goes into an article. And this line is always arbitrary. Some people will think it's too dense, others that it doesn't go far enough (in fact I have seen separate Wikipedia articles for Nudity, History of nudity, Nudity in film and History of the nude in art and they are LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG, like holy shit, so ya know, our behemoth here is really just a kitten in the grand scheme of things.)

Professor Peter Adamson does a podcast called History of Philosophy without any gaps, and in one of the episodes he addresses the problem of what a curriculum should look like when it comes to teaching history of philosophy, given that there isn't (realistically) enough time to cover everything. Then the idea of giving the highlights surfaces - but even that is dismissed. There isn't even enough time to do that. So in the end, you just pick the stuff you like, stuff you feel has been neglected, think is particularly influential, and hope for the best. Heck, he is like hundreds of episodes into the podcast and he deeply regrets that he HASN'T GIVEN MORE context.(About 6:30 into this episode, if you're interested) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 03:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

How much context? Silver articles are supposed to be expansive. You removed context vital to understanding. And explaining the sociology of nudity (and how power affects it/disproving myths about it) is pretty damn missional IMO. Carthage (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Like I said Cart, my feelings on this are not strong enough either way to kick up a fuss. I have already reverted the article to what it was, and if you are happy, then I'm happy for you. I'm unsure what you would like me to say. (Not saying you're boring me or anything, but I don't really have the time to go "Well actually" whereupon you reply with "Well said, however" and then I go "AHA! But have you considered" swiftly followed by "Forsooth! I feel like we are both ignoring...") Peace. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 04:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)