[badpun]

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures (Christian, Muslim) have/had rules against public nudity? I had, and my (layman) conclusions were that public nudity creates too much sexual tension, and that is bad for stability of society. Hence, societies just function better without public nudity.

[qazwse_]

A brief reading of Wikipedia states that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks didn't have much against nudity. Minimal clothing was worn in Egypt. And the Greeks even said that other countries disliked their nakedness: "generally in countries which are subject to the barbarians, the custom is held to be dishonourable; lovers of youths share the evil repute in which philosophy and naked sports are held, because they are inimical to tyranny;"

Edit: Reading further, it's saying that public topless-ness was common in Japan until the American occupation after WWII, so there's a more recent example as well.

[int_19h]

Have you wondered why extremely successful cultures today are the ones that tend to be less rather than more prudish?

[badpun]

I'd say the weakening of prudishness is recent phenomena and it's too soon for it to have an impact on society's success. We'd need to wait a couple hundred years to see where it leads.

[sydd]

Not true, the US is quite prudish and successful. The OP I'd a fine example; if Google would be French or Japanese I doubt this would be an issue.

[int_19h]

US is far less prudish than median. If you compare it to other developed countries, sure, it's on the more prudish end. But if you compare it to most everywhere else, it's a whole different story.

For example, Sayyid Qutb - the grandfather of modern Salafism - became radicalized after visiting US in 1940s, and observing its culture. Here's how he describes it in his writings:

"The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it."

"They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire."

[matwood]

Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society. Do you think that is also true?

Going back to the nudity example, have you ever been to a topless beach? As an American who grew up in the religious south, my first trip to a topless beach in Europe was interesting for a bit but then just became normal. There was not any growing 'sexual tension'.

I have friends who are nudists and they say the same thing. It becomes normal quickly, and then it's not even a thing.

[badpun]

> Without any evidence to back up your claim, this is simply a case of correlation != causation. If we follow your example, then the subjugation of women also leads to a better functioning society.

It's a bit stronger than that, because not only all successful cultures banned public nudity - also all cultures that tried public nudity failed.

Re: topless beach - going to a topless beach once a while vs living in a society where everybody around you is naked all the time are two different things. Imagine a workplace where your female colleagues (if you're a straight male) are naked. There's a reason why some of the best schools in the world still separate pupils by sex.

[zozbot123]

> Imagine a workplace where your ... colleagues are naked.

I just imagined that - and indeed, you're right that the possibility is quite offensive to my personal taste, and even frankly disquieting. But whereas you might try to explain this as the result of "too much sexual tension", I would instead place the blame on its very opposite. (And the fact that the colleagues might be of the gender I'm occasionally attracted to does not improve things one bit.)