Are Irish women too prudish around other women?

Reward

caseyann wrote: »

Here is a note,you tell your children what you like and do not tell me how my views make my children think in future.
I was reared correctly and in exactly the way i intend on rearing mine,and i have no bad view of sex or anything to do with sex.

And no most women i know wear what they wear because they like i,just in your head its says that.
I tell you what tell all women to wear turtle necks and die in heat of a club or pub to not make men think they somehow dressed for them.lmao

Nobody said anything about turtle necks or heat stroke, and someone changing down the beach is not akin to pedophilia as you alluded to in an earlier post.

(Thanks catholicism for contributing to pedohysteria).

People are here scratching their heads over the prudishness of many Irish women/people, well when adults overreact to nudity and sex in front of kids, it breeds sexual shame into society, thats all I was saying. I'm not actually trying to tell you how to bring up your kids.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was the Irish State and Irish parents who did that, exploiting the religion to utilise sadistic measures towards the women and children of its own nation.

It is the state and the people who continue to passively allow a lack of accountability for a public tribunal on these historical human rights abuses.

You seem to be wanting to absolve the RCC of any responsibility in terms of the control they exerted or dogmas they insisted upon on fear of social castigation that they themselves encouraged - was it parents that set up and ran the laundries? Perhaps it was parents who moved the priests around? I'm not sure you can lay the blame at one set of feet or the other tbh - the point being made was the influence of religion and what was preached at the pulpits in the past resonates to this day.

caseyann

Reward wrote: »

Nobody said anything about turtle necks or heat stroke, and someone changing down the beach is not akin to pedophilia as you alluded to in an earlier post.

(Thanks catholicism for contributing to pedohysteria).

People are here scratching their heads over the prudishness of many Irish women/people, well when adults overreact to nudity and sex in front of kids, it breeds sexual shame into society, thats all I was saying. I'm not actually trying to tell you how to bring up your kids.

I alluded to it did i,point out where i said that or even brought it up? :rolleyes:

And further than that i have nothing more to say to you.
Scaremongering catholic hater.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to be wanting to absolve the RCC of any responsibility in terms of the control they exerted or dogmas they insisted upon on fear of social castigation that they themselves encouraged - was it parents that set up and ran the laundries? Perhaps it was parents who moved the priests around? I'm not sure you can lay the blame at one set of feet or the other tbh - the point being made was the influence of religion and what was preached at the pulpits in the past resonates to this day.

No. The people of this nation are too quick to judge the religion when it wa the people of this nation who carried out these obscenities.

The parents SENT their kids to those laundries. THe parents encouraged their sons to become clergy. The parents and the communities turned blind eyes to what was going on and people knew what was going on. It was the people who put money in those baskets every Sunday to fund those laundries. And it was the parents who castigated and exiled their daughters.

Sex abuse: Read the Ferns Report. The guards knew, the dept of ed knew, they all knew and did NOTHING.

Its the IRISH and not Rome. Just as in the Phillipines, those crazy people who crucify themselves on Good Friday, have nothing to do with Rome or Catholic doctrine, but their own religious ferver and whatever other cultural dynamics are at play.

Ickle Magoo

Enough caseyann, if you can't have intelligent debate without resorting to cheap insults and rollyeyes, then please don't post.

parker kent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to be wanting to absolve the RCC of any responsibility in terms of the control they exerted or dogmas they insisted upon on fear of social castigation that they themselves encouraged - was it parents that set up and ran the laundries? Perhaps it was parents who moved the priests around? I'm not sure you can lay the blame at one set of feet or the other tbh - the point being made was the influence of religion and what was preached at the pulpits in the past resonates to this day.

I think the Catholic Church influence is shown in how these issues seem to influence girls more than guys. Whilst I am in no rush to run around Brittas Bay nude, I have no problem getting changed after football in front of a group of men. The Church in Ireland have always focused their attention on female sexuality so it makes sense that it is women who have these issues more than men.

Then again, it could be argued that men are just more used to changing in front of others for various reasons (greater participation in team sports, less sexualized bodies are emphasized by how men can freely go topless in public in Summer etc)

RoadRunner

Any swimming pools I've been to in Austria (skiing) have strictly nude saunas, steam rooms, showers etc. Most of the Irish guys I've been with in these pools quickly get used it. The girls (and one guy) just can't hack it at all though.

Reward

parker kent wrote: »

I think the Catholic Churuch influence is shown in how these issues seem to influence girls more than guys. Whilst I am in no rush to run around Brittas Bay nude, I have no problem getting changed after football in front of a group of men. The Church in Ireland have always focused their attention on female sexuality so it makes sense that it is women who have these issues more than men.

Then again, it could be argued that men are just more used to changing in front of others for various reasons (greater participation in team sports, less sexualized bodies are emphasized by how men can freely go topless in public in Summer etc)

Men don't have fertility symbols on their chest, if we did, we would have been expected to keep them/it covered too.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. The people of this nation are too quick to judge the religion when it wa the people of this nation who carried out these obscenities.

The parents SENT their kids to those laundries. THe parents encouraged their sons to become clergy. The parents and the communities turned blind eyes to what was going on and people knew what was going on. It was the people who put money in those baskets every Sunday to fund those laundries. And it was the parents who castigated and exiled their daughters.

Sex abuse: Read the Ferns Report. The guards knew, the dept of ed knew, they all knew and did NOTHING.

Its the IRISH and not Rome. Just as in the Phillipines, those crazy people who crucify themselves on Good Friday, have nothing to do with Rome or Catholic doctrine, but their own religious ferver and whatever other cultural dynamics are at play.

I think for the most part, when people blame Catholicism, they are just using that word as short-hand for the institution in Ireland instead of blaming the actual religion itself. Words on a page or a belief system have never hurt anybody, it is the people that interpret them that have hurt people.

I would blame the Irish Catholic Church and the Governments that gave them such power equally. Often it is easy to blame to ordinary people, but many were simply scared of the consequences or power of the people involved. I don't mean to sound like a patronizing 25-year-old, but really they often did not know any better. It is only when people became more aware and educated about what was happening that the Church lost the power they once held.

And I do agree that many often form a pitch-fork wielding mob attitude about the Church too. But that does not absolve them of any blame. Nor does it absolve the wider Catholic Church of any blame.

parker kent

Reward wrote: »

Men don't have fertility symbols on their chest, if we did, we would have been expected to keep them/it covered too.

That is what I meant by saying men have less sexualised bodies. I was saying that some would argue that male bodies are different, hence the different attitudes.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. The people of this nation are too quick to judge the religion when it wa the people of this nation who carried out these obscenities.

The parents SENT their kids to those laundries. THe parents encouraged their sons to become clergy. The parents and the communities turned blind eyes to what was going on and people knew what was going on. It was the people who put money in those baskets every Sunday to fund those laundries. And it was the parents who castigated and exiled their daughters.

Sex abuse: Read the Ferns Report. The guards knew, the dept of ed knew, they all knew and did NOTHING.

Its the IRISH and not Rome. Just as in the Phillipines, those crazy people who crucify themselves on Good Friday, have nothing to do with Rome or Catholic doctrine, but their own religious ferver and whatever other cultural dynamics are at play.

I have read the Ferns report - I hold those who let it happen and those who did it equally responsible. However, no degree of reverence absolves those that preached at the pulpit and created that culture, those that set up and ran the laundries, those that prayed on the weak and poor and made threats regarding their souls, their babies borne out of wedlock, etc, etc. I think it's fair to say there are also many who are loath to lay blame where it belongs, too.

There are lots of branches and facets that moulded to create the kind of conditions that existed here, no arguments there - but to suggest the irish people were oppressing themselves just sounds unfairly apologetic.

caseyann

Reward wrote: »

Nobody said anything about turtle necks or heat stroke, and someone changing down the beach is not akin to pedophilia as you alluded to in an earlier post.

(Thanks catholicism for contributing to pedohysteria).

People are here scratching their heads over the prudishness of many Irish women/people, well when adults overreact to nudity and sex in front of kids, it breeds sexual shame into society, thats all I was saying. I'm not actually trying to tell you how to bring up your kids.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Enough caseyann, if you can't have intelligent debate without resorting to cheap insults and rollyeyes, then please don't post.

ah is against the charter to use rolls eyes and say some is a catholic hater when they are spouting bull and accusing people of being pedohysteric.And basically trolling on my posts.When i never even brought it insto the conversation or even said a word to do with it.
But they can say sex in front of kids is ok? :rolleyes:

No rules against me using rolls eyes is there and where is the insult?

Ickle Magoo

The charter clearly states:

Keep things civil. No name calling, personal abuse, unneccessary aggression, snide comments, or backseat moderating. If you have an issue with a post - report it. Do not get dragged into a flame war.

and

DO NOT

9) Argue with a moderator instruction in thread. This is considered derailing a thread. If you have an issue with a moderator instruction or warning, please pm one or more of the other moderators. Please be advised that moderators will discuss this amongst themselves if it is in relation to the moderating of the forum. This makes sure nothing untoward is happening from either side.

If you can't adhere to the charter then you won't be posting here, it's as simple as that. Please do not comment regarding this on this thread again.

caseyann

I stand by my previous comments keep your junk in the trunk and dont force anyone else to be having to feel uncomfortable around you,called manners and respect for other peoples wishes.Wearing a pair of trunks or bikini isnt disrespecting you so if you want nude go to the nudist beaches.
Because i will and most of the women in this country and men not want it around themselves their kids or their wives or husband.
And being prude has nothing to do with wanting to cover up.


(Old French prude meaning honourable woman)[

The name is generally considered to suggest excessive modesty, and is hence unflattering, often used as an insult by people who do not share the moral standards of the "prude". A person who is considered a prude may have reservations about nudity, participating in romantic or sexual activity, drinking alcohol or consuming other drugs, or participating in mischief. These reservations usually stem from, or are at least justified by, moral beliefs. Actions or beliefs that may cause someone to be labeled a prude include advocating or practicing abstinence, advocating prohibition, advocating censorship of sexuality or nudity in the media, disapproval of being nude in public, avoiding or condemning public display of affection, or exhibiting unusual levels of discomfort with sexuality, alcohol, drugs or mischief.
The term is generally used in a relative sense. For example, one may be viewed as having relatively liberal standards regarding sexuality and drug usage compared to the overall population in which one resides, but compared to a smaller, specific subculture, one may appear to be unduly conservative and thus be labeled a prude because one refuses to participate in more illicit behaviors.
In historical contrast, the word prude was originally a noble compliment. Traditionally, it was usually associated with wisdom, integrity, usefulness, and profit. Even in present day language, it forms the root of the word prudence, meaning "sound judgement in practical affairs".
The degree of prudery can vary among different cultural frames.

Dudess

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with others baring all in changing rooms etc, it just isn't for me - neither of us is wrong. Still in disagreement with all the credence being given to catholicism being at the root of our reluctance to be seen nekkid - even subconsciously. Perhaps it is one part of it, but I'd be surprised if it was a very significant part, especially for younger generations. As has been pointed out, the covering-up preference is prevalent in the UK too, not a country that has ever been hugely influenced by the catholic church.
I don't get this "We're a nation of prudes", "We're sexually repressed" stuff either.

axer

What is wrong with the naked body? Are people so twisted that they automatically assume something durty just because someone is naked? Are fairly regular male or female naked bodies that disgusting to people?

Some Many people in Ireland have some serious issues with regards body image and nude = durty. Everybody is nude under their clothes. All males have the same parts and all females have the same parts - so whats the big deal?

People really need to chill out and realise that its all in their heads - self imposed nudity issues.

Dudess

axer wrote: »

What is wrong with the naked body? Are people so twisted that they automatically assume something durty just because someone is naked? Are fairly regular male or female naked bodies that disgusting to people?

Can't say I spotted much of that attitude on this thread. Think people are more self conscious too about wobbly bits than their genitals, so it's not the naked body, moreso the condition of it.

Jelly2

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was the Irish State and Irish parents who did that, exploiting the religion to utilise sadistic measures towards the women and children of its own nation.

It is the state and the people who continue to passively allow a lack of accountability for a public tribunal on these historical human rights abuses.

You're right, and what is more, there is a long history of such institutions as laundry-type 'homes' in many European countries, not just in Ireland. And not just in Catholic countries. But most abandoned them somewhat earlier than we did. That's no excuse to us for allowing it to happen here, of course, but it is a partial explanation.

sam34

axer wrote: »

What is wrong with the naked body? Are people so twisted that they automatically assume something durty just because someone is naked? Are fairly regular male or female naked bodies that disgusting to people?

Some Many people in Ireland have some serious issues with regards body image and nude = durty. Everybody is nude under their clothes. All males have the same parts and all females have the same parts - so whats the big deal?

People really need to chill out and realise that its all in their heads - self imposed nudity issues.

it's not necessarily to do with nudity being "durty" or disgusting.

it may just be privacy.
for me, thats all it is.

my naked body is private, as is my mind and as are my emotions. hell, the contents of my handbag are private, as are the details of my bank account.

i dont go revealing those private things to randomers without good reason. i keep a lid on my emotions and on what thoughts i disclose, and i keep my naked body under cover.

i like my naked body, i enjoy it, but i see no reason for it to be on public display.

Wibbs

Dudess wrote: »

Still in disagreement with all the credence being given to catholicism being at the root of our reluctance to be seen nekkid - even subconsciously. Perhaps it is one part of it, but I'd be surprised if it was a very significant part, especially for younger generations.

I agree. TBH when I see "de church" being wheeled out as a reason I do tend to switch off to the rest of the argument trailing in it's wake. The church makes for an all too easy scapegoat, yet as you say the UK a non catholic country would be similar in attitude. Ditto for the US of A. Yet the Latins, pretty much Catholics all, aren't like this(and have quite a different non dour and whiney catholicism to boot). I dont buy the climate thing so much either. The Scandinavians are easy going to the point of it being a cliched joke, yet they're not exactly basking in Caribbean sun.

We like our scapegoats as a nation and as part of our group psyche. "De Britz", the church, now it's NAMA/banks/FF government. What have all of these got in common? They let us avoid the hard questions of why do we let "others" influence us? Noe of these exist in a vacuum and we need to take responsibility for ourselves.

Me I'd be with sam34 on this. Privacy. And TBH some people just need to cover up. I really dont want to be looking at peanut willies and arses that look like they've fainted thanks very much. If you do, then cool. I dont see it as "liberating" though. Like sexuality it should be choice and not just an oft childish reaction to a less open past.

axer

Wibbs wrote: »

And TBH some people just need to cover up.

Why? just because you have issues with nudity? Nobody is asking you to look at the naked people i.e. someone getting changed or even going for a naked swim at the beach.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have read the Ferns report - I hold those who let it happen and those who did it equally responsible. However, no degree of reverence absolves those that preached at the pulpit and created that culture, those that set up and ran the laundries, those that prayed on the weak and poor and made threats regarding their souls, their babies borne out of wedlock, etc, etc. I think it's fair to say there are also many who are loath to lay blame where it belongs, too.

There are lots of branches and facets that moulded to create the kind of conditions that existed here, no arguments there - but to suggest the irish people were oppressing themselves just sounds unfairly apologetic.

If it's not the Church, it's the banks, its American cultural imperialsim or its the Britz. It's ALWAYS someone else. Dont buy it.

stripysocks85

The reason I do not get naked in a communal changing area etc has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Church or my religion. I don't stand there, struggling with the towel around me thinking 'The Church has made me like this!'

The reason I don't is because I am not comfortable with my body, plain and simple. I don't even go swimming, so I can avoid such situations. I am extremely self conscious, and don't want people looking at me. That is why. It's a confidence issue. I'm not a prude at all [bedroom antics will prove that!] so I dont think that's a valid reason.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

If it's not the Church, it's the banks, its American cultural imperialsim or its the Britz. It's ALWAYS someone else. Dont buy it.

Buy what? I think it impossible to rule out something that's had such an enormously conservative impact on society for so long, especially in relation to sex, nudity and peoples perceptions of their bodies. I think the subconscious ramifications passed on via "culture" and social conditioning will be felt for many years to come.

I'm not sure I agree with some claims that the UK is the same...swearing on TV, porn, contraception, the UK has always been less conservative and moved away from traditional absolutism and towards a wider acceptance of moral relativism much faster than here. It has taken much longer for certain aspects to change here compared with other countries who became more secular and those things that take the longest are those that have religious objection. If you want to suggest it's just something inherent in the irish psyche and political and social muscle flexed by the churches is just co-incidence - that's your prerogative, I don't buy it.

It's actually a fascinating way of looking at the situation. Just out of interest, would you say countries where it's common for women to wear jilbāb, ḥijābm or niqāb have been influenced by religion re behaviour and dress code or would you say that country just happens to be a population that chooses that method to oppress themselves - since less conservative islamic countries also exist?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Buy what? I think it impossible to rule out something that's had such an enormously conservative impact on society for so long, especially in relation to sex, nudity and peoples perceptions of their bodies. I think the subconscious ramifications passed on via "culture" and social conditioning will be felt for many years to come.

I'm not sure I agree with some claims that the UK is the same...swearing on TV, porn, contraception, the UK has always been less conservative and moved away from traditional absolutism and towards a wider acceptance of moral relativism much faster than here. It has taken much longer for certain aspects to change here compared with other countries who became more secular and those things that take the longest are those that have religious objection. If you want to suggest it's just something inherent in the irish psyche and political and social muscle flexed by the churches is just co-incidence - that's your prerogative, I don't buy it.

It's actually a fascinating way of looking at the situation. Just out of interest, would you say countries where it's common for women to wear jilbāb, ḥijābm or niqāb have been influenced by religion re behaviour and dress code or would you say that country just happens to be a population that chooses that method to oppress themselves - since less conservative islamic countries also exist?

I think any ideology can be exploited to exert and establish power, just look at marxism. I think RC was used also by the Irish to create a theocracy which replaced the Brits, and not done so by the choice of the people but by the choice of the few unelected who have a showcase now on O'Connell Street.

There is a theory [sorry I cant remember exaclty because it was 15 years ago that I read about it] relating to instability in Latin America that post colonial nations like to be dominated so that putting in place a kind of false monarchy, one which is symbolic rather than having any power, would provide a kind of national psychic comfort which could bring about a more stable political climate.

It is interesting to compare how religion mixes in and is modified by local nationalities. I do not know enough about Middle Eastern history to comment but I'm not so certain about other nations insistence on female modesty [Western Turkey, Thailand, India] compared to their middle eastern counterparts.

Latin America is VERY catholic, they dont nearly have the same shame that the Irish do, neither do the poles or the Italians. in fact Catholic girls in America are quite notorious.

Ickle Magoo

Latin america has a completely different relationship with religion and religious power though, doesn't it? Especially as it evolved from spanish jesuits. Didn't the spanish crown control the clergy originally? If my history serves me correctly despite the numbers who identify as catholic; there has been almost continuous conflict between the church and the successive governments and the "anti-clericals"....not quite the willing church/state entanglement that occurred/is observable here - in fact, the way that "irish catholic" is used as a descriptor mainly for those not even in ireland is telling in terms of cultural nuances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Catholic

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Latin america has a completely different relationship with religion and religious power though, doesn't it? Especially as it evolved from spanish jesuits. Didn't the spanish crown control the clergy originally? If my history serves me correctly despite the numbers who identify as catholic; there has been almost continuous conflict between the church and the successive governments and the "anti-clericals"....not quite the willing church/state entanglement that occurred/is observable here - in fact, the way that "irish catholic" is used as a descriptor mainly for those not even in ireland is telling in terms of cultural nuances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Catholic

Latin America is incredibly complex because it depends on class and this all mixed in with previous pagan religions too.

Yes there has been conflict between the local churches and anti clericals because they are vying for power and ideological control. Castro is one example of being victorious there, but Catholicism was then replaced by santa ria in Cuba which, quite frankly rates as cuckoo to me, while the exported and emigrant Cubans remained Catholic in the US.

In the US, Irish Catholic does have particular nuances. The Boston and Chicago child scandals have added a whole different dimension to what it previously meant. I can tell you by having a very typical Irish last name, I am often asked in the US if I have 8 brothers and sisters and if I like to party. And they are differentiated from their Italian or Latin or even Polish Catholic counterparts, by being particularly waspish, repressed, sexually neurotic [which is why they have to drink so much], unaffectionate and prudish.

But its important to be careful here too in WASP America because pretty much every Catholic ethnic group has its stereotypes projected onto it [the Italians for being tacky with their iconography on their front lawns, the Puerto Ricans and Latins for being lazy and promiscuous, the Poles for being stupid. And now....the Mexicans.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

And they are differentiated from their Italian or Latin or even Polish Catholic counterparts, by being particularly waspish, repressed, sexually neurotic [which is why they have to drink so much], unaffectionate and prudish.

Waspish mean white, anglo-saxon, protestant doesn't it? Never heard branches or areas of catholicism being judged repressive and sexually neurotic due to being too protestant before!

I thought waspishness was to do with status and wealth than morality, no? Or do you mean waspish as in tetchy and easy to offend?

pickarooney

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not irish so I hope you don't mind my interjection...

I think ireland's long and chequered history with religion and the monopoly that the church's had/have in state education plays a big part in coyness and embarrassment around a whole raft of subjects like sex, nudity and even breast-feeding in public. It's a bit unfair to suggest women from a society that have been told their bodies are sinful and any kind of appreciation for their own sexualisation dirty for generations that they are "too prudish".

I'm sure in time ireland will grow to have a more relaxed attitude to nudity - but given how far behind the rest of europe ireland was in fully legalising contraceptives (1985) and how slow it remains to be in terms of legislative changes (divorce was still illegal up until 1995!) and the apparent apathy by the political establishment to disentangle state/church, it is going to take a while for the majority of women to be comfortable with shows of public nudity and not consciously or subconsciously conflating nudity with sexuality.

Compare with many Arab countries where full nudity in hammams is normal for women but frowned upon for men despite similarly archaic attitudes to sex and public attire.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Waspish mean white, anglo-saxon, protestant doesn't it? Never heard branches or areas of catholicism being judged repressive and sexually neurotic due to being too protestant before!

I thought waspishness was to do with status and wealth than morality, no? Or do you mean waspish as in tetchy and easy to offend?

Technically it means WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT,removed and reserved. It's not really a moral label. Yes it can also have to do with status and wealth, but its more to do with demeanor and temperment [often perceived to be passionless].

But when you think about Ireland is the only English speaking Catholic nation.

Dudess

axer wrote: »

just because you have issues with nudity?

Looks like you're trying to find "issues" with nudity that aren't there - going by your first post anyway.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

Compare with many Arab countries where full nudity in hammams is normal for women but frowned upon for men despite similarly archaic attitudes to sex and public attire.

Isn't that because there is also a widespread cultural fear of the phallus? It is a no go area in terms of representation.

The defining element of porn technically speaking is an erect penis. Once that is in a film it has a pornographic rating.

I was in a hammam in Turkey and I have to say there is NO WAY you would ever see Irish women at ease in the same way.

parker kent

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. TBH when I see "de church" being wheeled out as a reason I do tend to switch off to the rest of the argument trailing in it's wake. The church makes for an all too easy scapegoat, yet as you say the UK a non catholic country would be similar in attitude. Ditto for the US of A. Yet the Latins, pretty much Catholics all, aren't like this(and have quite a different non dour and whiney catholicism to boot). I dont buy the climate thing so much either. The Scandinavians are easy going to the point of it being a cliched joke, yet they're not exactly basking in Caribbean sun.

We like our scapegoats as a nation and as part of our group psyche. "De Britz", the church, now it's NAMA/banks/FF government. What have all of these got in common? They let us avoid the hard questions of why do we let "others" influence us? Noe of these exist in a vacuum and we need to take responsibility for ourselves.

Me I'd be with sam34 on this. Privacy. And TBH some people just need to cover up. I really dont want to be looking at peanut willies and arses that look like they've fainted thanks very much. If you do, then cool. I dont see it as "liberating" though. Like sexuality it should be choice and not just an oft childish reaction to a less open past.

But the Irish didn't have a meeting in the past and decide that "well we are going to be private people". It has happened because we have a culture of privacy. The role of the church in forming Irish culture cannot be ignored. Ditto the role of the Church of England in the Uk and the various religions in the USA. They don't call it the Bible belt because they keep their trousers up with Bibles! The culture that all countries have is tied to their history. The USA is enormous and has people of every type. Some are extremely liberal. And there are others who are so conservative they probably wear clothes in the shower. Look at the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident. Then think about the role of the Bible Belt in modern American society. It cannot be denied that the two have some links.

I agree with Ickle Magoo about the UK having a different attitude to ourselves. One walk around London or any beach in the UK during warm weather shows that they have no problem with others seeing their bodies. Compare the treatment of Claire Tully with the thousands upon thousands of Page 3 girls in the UK. Ickle gives many other examples of where they differ from ourselves on anything to do with bodies, sex and sexuality.

Lastly, I am as far away from a rabble rouser who tries to find a scapegoat as is possible. It is why I cannot read threads on the economy on Boards due to the usual torch wielding mob who are shouting "Dey tooook our jobs!". But the role of religion in creating a society cannot be denied. The Middle East is a great example. And Ireland is another example. It is just one element in creating culture, but it is a pretty big culture. Environmental elements also play a part (Admittedly Scandinavians are very liberal as I very happily learnt when I befriended a lovely Swedish girl in college). And there are many, many other issues.

When I (or anybody else) mention the Church in this thread, of course we know it is not just the Church who have created a situation where Irish women are private about their bodies. That is why the effect of the Catholic Church (and every other religion) differs from country to country. Nor am I saying it is wrong as who am I to tell people whether they should get changed in front of people or not? Ditto whether they should wear a bikini at the beach. I am just saying it is the way it is and that there are some negatives involved. Maybe people would feel better about their wobbly bits if they saw that Mary or Molly down the road have the same wobbly bits.

Dudess

I don't buy the "We're less tolerant of toplessness, stripping" etc stuff either - firstly, have you not SEEN how a lot of Irish girls dress when going out? They'll catch their deaths! :pac: (not dissing them, just saying they hardly have a problem with baring flesh, if only in certain contexts). There's tut-tutting all right from jealous women or women who feel it's degrading, but viewing it as immoral in the catholic-influenced way - you're not gonna find that among younger generations.

parker kent

I think I said it earlier in the thread, the culture will change as each generation comes of age. So the girls that are dressing skimpily on nights out are a sign of the culture changing. Girls of that age are less likely to be worried about getting changed in front of others either.

Edit: And I have definitely seen those girls. That is why I'm glad to be 25 now and not in 1970!

Jelly2

Quote Parker Kent [One walk around London or any beach in the UK during warm weather shows that they have no problem with others seeing their bodies. Compare the treatment of Claire Tully with the thousands upon thousands of Page 3 girls in the UK. Ickle gives many other examples of where they differ from ourselves on anything to do with bodies, sex and sexuality. ]

Irish women are just as uncovered on beaches as British. You don't find topless women on most beaches in Britain. So I don't know what you mean by this.
I seem to remember that the Claire Tully observations were more along the lines of 'Why would someone who is clever and could make her living doing something worthwhile and brain friendly just want to titillate men?' And the Keating Foundation didn't want to be associated with her for just that reason.

Walls

I have exactly ten minutes to shower, dry, get dressed, dry my hair, make up and go, otherwise I'm late for work. I only noticed other people huddled around their towels in shame after a few days. Frankly I don't care, I have no time and I'm hurting no one by doing this, it is a ladies changing room, not Platform 2 at Connolly. I wondered for a moment if I should be all shy but frankly I have no time and by that stage I want mah breakfast in mah tummy soon, sod waiting. Sorry all, me ugly bits will be on show for a while longer.

Check out the last section of this Oatmeal for an excellent demonstration.... http://theoatmeal.com/comics/minor_differences2

Dudess

I hate this idea that it's "shame" and also the implications that those who cover up have a problem with others baring all - neither are true. There are a lot of assumptions and throwing stuff out without thinking on this thread..

parker kent

Jelly2 wrote: »

Irish women are just as uncovered on beaches as British. You don't find topless women on most beaches in Britain. So I don't know what you mean by this.
I seem to remember that the Claire Tully observations were more along the lines of 'Why would someone who is clever and could make her living doing something worthwhile and brain friendly just want to titillate men?' And the Keating Foundation didn't want to be associated with her for just that reason.

From my experience it is pretty common to see Irish people wearing vests, shorts etc on a beach. Of course there are girls in bikinis, but I would not say it is the majority. Maybe the majority of girls under 21 would, but again as I have said many times already our culture is changing. Whereas the English have had a culture of sunbathing in bikinis for much longer. I was referring to girls going topless either on a beach.

As for Claire Tully, there was a large element of "what would the neighbours say" about her being a Page 3 girl. The fact that she is still the only Irish Page 3 girl is another sign of a difference. On a sidenote, there were even threads on Boards where people doubted whether she actually got 600 points or a first.

Just to re-iterate, I am not talking in absolutes. It is also pretty evident that younger people have a different mindset to older people, even to those around 30+. A 20 year old was born in a very different Ireland to even somebody of 30. I would suggest that that is partly because they are one generation removed from the Ireland dominated by the Catholic Church/Government moral influences of the 20th Century. Then there are countless other issues that will have influenced them.

parker kent

Dudess wrote: »

I hate this idea that it's "shame" and also the implications that those who cover up have a problem with others baring all - neither are true. There are a lot of assumptions and throwing stuff out without thinking on this thread..

The only way to ensure that there are no such assumptions (or, as is likely, misunderstandings) or posts that look like they are not thought out is to write posts of over 1000 words. It is difficult to get everything across in short-ish posts without it seeming that other issues are being forgotten.

I'm not saying it is wrong to want to change in private, nor am I saying that everybody who gets changed in private has a problem with others who change in front of others. I don't think there are many people saying that. But there are pros and cons to both mindsets. And I'm not saying that Ireland is a land of fuddy duddies wearing wool jumpers to the beach. But there is definitely a difference between Ireland and other countries.

Jelly2

OK Parker Kent, you can reiterate that you are not talking in absolutes, but you keep doing it! The 'They' of the UK was certainly general, and was not rendered specific.:)

I'm not sure that I understand your 'What will the neighbours say?' reference? Who were these people, and who were the neighbours? Do you mean Irish people were concerned that an international audience would have an opinion on this? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Even if you are using the term in its cliched format, it still doesn't make any sense in this context.
Also, the aspersions on Claire Tully's intelligence might have been made, but that is another issue...the assumption that somebody with a good body cannot also be clever.
The P3 girls came up in earlier posts - this is typical of a certain type of 'peekaboo' approach to sex - hardly the indication of a mature attitude to the naked body.

parker kent

Jelly2 wrote: »

OK Parker Kent, you can reiterate that you are not talking in absolutes, but you keep doing it! The 'They' of the UK was certainly general, and was not rendered specific.:)

I'm not sure that I understand your 'What will the neighbours say?' reference? Who were these people, and who were the neighbours? Do you mean Irish people were concerned that an international audience would have an opinion on this? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Even if you are using the term in its cliched format, it still doesn't make any sense in this context.
Also, the aspersions on Claire Tully's intelligence might have been made, but that is another issue...the assumption that somebody with a good body cannot also be clever.
The P3 girls came up in earlier posts - this is typical of a certain type of 'peekaboo' approach to sex - hardly the indication of a mature attitude to the naked body.

You missed the point of my absolute reference. It was to point out that I was using absolute words for the sake of brevity, but that everybody should be able to read between the lines and realise I do not literally mean that everybody acts in this exact way. I don't have the time or space to write about every single aspect of every single thing I talk about. Think of it like a legal document, when I say "he", I actually mean "he and she" but I am saving space by using one word.

"What would the nighbours say" was a reference towards a pretty common attitude that some people have in Ireland (some not all!). Of course it made sense as I am saying that there is an attitude amongst many Irish people that you should not do X, Y or Z because somebody, somewhere might not approve. The same attitude that makes some Irish girls wear more on an Irish beach than they would on a foreign beach. As I said earlier in the thread, some of my female friends would wear a bikini or go topless on a beach abroad. But they would never, ever wear a bikini on an Irish beach. I quoted my friend earlier as saying "What if somebody you know saw you?". So in other words, she was thinking "What would the neighbours say?".

I think a similar mindset caused some of the outrage about Claire Tully being a Page 3 girl. Of course, there were others who thought she should be working as a scientist, others who believe Page 3 is stupid, others who think any girl posing topless is wrong and there are possibly a thousand other reasons why they disagreed.

metrovelvet

^ I agree with this. I think its more the valley of the squinting windows than Rome.

LegacyUser

Jelly2 wrote: »

Irish women are just as uncovered on beaches as British. You don't find topless women on most beaches in Britain.

I'd disagree with this. My sister lives in Brighton and I've been going there regularly for years. On a summer's day you will regularly encounter topless women. It is not the norm (I'd say maybe 10% of women do it) but it *is* accepted. You will find the same thing at Hove, Bournemouth, and most other beaches in the south of England.

I've never seen a woman go topless on an Irish beach (undoing your bikini strap and lying on your tummy doesn't count). However Irish women seem to have no trouble taking off their tops when they go off on holidays to places like Tenerife or Mallorca. This suggests that Irish women as individuals are not prudish, but that they live in a prudish *culture*. I have no trouble agreeing with posters who say that this is related to the attitudes fostered by the Catholic Church.

metrovelvet

LOL. Id never go topless in the British Isles. Only so much of nipple erectus a girl can take. BRRR.... I'd still be wearing a down vest.

caseyann

Brighton-visitor wrote: »

I'd disagree with this. My sister lives in Brighton and I've been going there regularly for years. On a summer's day you will regularly encounter topless women. It is not the norm (I'd say maybe 10% of women do it) but it *is* accepted. You will find the same thing at Hove, Bournemouth, and most other beaches in the south of England.

I've never seen a woman go topless on an Irish beach (undoing your bikini strap and lying on your tummy doesn't count). However Irish women seem to have no trouble taking off their tops when they go off on holidays to places like Tenerife or Mallorca. This suggests that Irish women as individuals are not prudish, but that they live in a prudish *culture*. I have no trouble agreeing with posters who say that this is related to the attitudes fostered by the Catholic Church.

Nothing to do with catholicism more to do with Irish men creating that attitude of if she does she is a slut and looking for attention.As you can see from someone who posted,If she wears low cut top and mini she is looking for attention post made.

parker kent

caseyann wrote: »

Nothing to do with catholicism more to do with Irish men creating that attitude of if she does she is a slut and looking for attention.As you can see from someone who posted,If she wears low cut top and mini she is looking for attention post made.

I would not let one male poster speak for the rest of us Irish men. I have never called called any girl a "slut" because of what she wore.

axer

Dudess wrote: »

I hate this idea that it's "shame" and also the implications that those who cover up have a problem with others baring all - neither are true. There are a lot of assumptions and throwing stuff out without thinking on this thread..

I dont think we can generalise either way as to people's reasons.

There seems to be a good few people that think that someone changing at a beach or other public places is somehow perverted or even changing in front of kids as if to imply that there is a paedophilic air to it. I think this attitude is unhealthy for kids and is what most Irish people were brought up with which has affected many to be ashamed of how their bodies look.

Then there are others that are not happy with their own body image not realising that there are plenty others out there with wobbly bits too so its no big deal. If people weren't so afraid of public nudity then they might be more comfortable with their body image and realise that having wobbly bits is extremely common.

I dont think the church can be fully blamed for the way things are - its a culture thing which was largely influenced by Irish Catholicism. I think we will slowly get out of this mindset possibly due to the mix of migrants who settled here. I agree that people that are aged 30-35+ were brought up in a totally different Ireland than those under that age.

Jelly2

parker kent wrote: »

You missed the point of my absolute reference. It was to point out that I was using absolute words for the sake of brevity, but that everybody should be able to read between the lines and realise I do not literally mean that everybody acts in this exact way. I don't have the time or space to write about every single aspect of every single thing I talk about. Think of it like a legal document, when I say "he", I actually mean "he and she" but I am saving space by using one word.

On this point, I think that we are going to have to disagree, because in my profession, you write precisely what you mean, or you will be called out on it. Otherwise, generalisations render the specifics of evidence and argument meaningless. 'He' would never do when 'he' alone is not meant, for example. And I don't see why it should be any different in an internet forum. But anyway...:)

I think that I see what you mean by your use of the 'neighbours' line now, although I wouldn't be certain it was a principal reason - but neither of us can prove or disprove that, I suppose.
Thanks for engaging!:D

caseyann

parker kent wrote: »

I would not let one male poster speak for the rest of us Irish men. I have never called called any girl a "slut" because of what she wore.

Sorry i will say kudos to you:) and you are one of the few.:)

p.s we are talking about going into the past also.Like long ago the controls that were put on women by men.Which is still passed on to each man after.