MuttleyLaff:
Oh no, nlPoster, c'mon now. Please, I beg you, I rather someone else does, so I pass. Sorry.

Hm, ok.

nlPoster:


Nudity outside the private setting.

Full on or just showing things like thighs and boobs etc?

kimco:

Full on or just showing things like thighs and boobs etc?

Anything you consider nudity.

Let me clarify further.

As a Nigerian, Christian African , I know of some views about nudity in Nigeria. As I already mentioned, African traditional religion encourages nudity and doesnt always attach a negative connotation to it.

Another Nigerian view of nudity is the mentally unbalanced people who wander the streets nude, this is a common sight in many parts of the country and people just pretend they are not in fact n.aked, ie they ignore them.(The recent instance of a female is something of an exception perhaps)

But nudity is mostly seen as sinful by the majority of Nigerians. There is a deep shame attached to unclothedness.

nlPoster:


Anything you consider nudity.

Well i will be biased here....i really like seeing mature ladies show what they feel comfortable showing off in the appropriate settings, however wouldnt be too happy if my immature family member showcase her asserts too. Sometimes its a bit too much but a classy showcase can go a long way of telling me who you are vrs otherwise. But usually, a confident woman has my respect, irrespective of the level of the showcase.

nlPoster:
Anything you consider nudity.

kimco:
Lol i think he gets ur point....i feel his attention was on the female anatomy...it usually is.

nlPoster:
I'm female and I dont subscribe to the wanton immorality that goes on here.

I'm also not a mod so there's little I can do about it.

So, no, my attention is not on female anatomy regardless how often its displayed on this forum.

---

---

---

nlPoster:
Hm, ok.

kimco:
Full on or just showing things like thighs and boobs etc?

My contribution(s) so far and/or on all quarters have been on point and without references per se to the female anatomy. I've actually talked about the stark reality of nudity. I have jokingly and seriously said something about and/or on nudity

@kimco


See my previous post.

nlPoster:
@kimco


See my previous post.

Well... If one feels comfortable being unclad, and it does in fact raises one confidence, why should it be a problem to anyone? Is it destructive? If so then to who and why should one care? These are things to consider...in a married home for eg, you are given the go ahead to be unclad because its for your husby. But why? Shouldnt the lady dress to feel confident even outside? Why should the husby feel embarrassed that her woman looks sexy and feels sexy in and outside the home? So my take is, if it boosts your confidence, y should anyone feel worried? There is nothing worse than a tame well woman. As for men, we really dont have issues on the subject as much.

Sry if this isnt what you were looking for. But that is my take on it

Your view is quite ok since it's what the topic asked.

The female I meant was the lady who was recently rescued from the streets and featured extensively on nairaland although we dont know her background story yet.

Usually, people walking the streets naked in Nigeria, are ignored and assumed to be mentally ill.

nlPoster:
Let me clarify further.

As a Nigerian, Christian African , I know of some views about nudity in Nigeria. As I already mentioned, African traditional religion encourages nudity and doesnt always attach a negative connotation to it.

Another Nigerian view of nudity is the mentally unbalanced people who wander the streets nude, this is a common sight in many parts of the country and people just pretend they are not in fact n.aked, ie they ignore them.

But nudity is mostly seen as sinful by the majority of Nigerians. There is a deep shame attached to unclothedness.

I recall my long time ago RIP paternal grandma, who use to go about the home, balcony and all, showcasing her opened for all to see, hanging down limply boobs. She just puts on her wrapper at waist level and be going about her business. She wasnt crazy, senile or anything like like that. No one bats an eyelid, no one cared and no one thought anything untoward about it. I doubt that its still being done nowadays. Its just as you said nlPoster, it was an unashamed African culture thing going on, with no negative connotation attached to it.

kimco:
Well i will be biased here....i really like seeing mature ladies show what they feel comfortable showing off in the appropriate settings, however wouldnt be too happy if my immature family member showcase her asserts too. Sometimes its a bit too much but a classy showcase can go a long way of telling me who you are vrs otherwise. But usually, a confident woman has my respect, irrespective of the level of the showcase.

Confession time is it now, lol. Same with me. I walk down the high street, just like as if gone into a car sales showroom, and start admiring the curves, bends, rounds etcetera of women and be thanking God for fearfully and wonderfully making such creations, lo. Women are a God work of art, God's pièce de résistance. Praise God. Alleluia. You must have seen a fair share of female backa talking, lol. Anyway, yeah, just like you, it all, has to be tastily done, appropriately and rightly done etcetera. May God help us men. Amen.

kimco, lets bring this biblical and/or closer home a bit with King David and Bathsheba. It had to do with nudity right?. OK, then here we go:
1/ The Bathsheba bathing incident, was it private or public nudity?
2/ What should have been expected of King David to have done or not have done, lol, in this circumstance?
3/ Should women be sexually objectified, treated without so much regard to their personality or dignity?

kimco:
Well... If one feels comfortable being unclad, and it does in fact raises one confidence, why should it be a problem to anyone? Is it destructive? If so then to who and why should one care? These are things to consider...in a married home for eg, you are given the go ahead to be unclad because its for your husby. But why? Shouldnt the lady dress to feel confident even outside? Why should the husby feel embarrassed that her woman looks sexy and feels sexy in and outside the home? So my take is, if it boosts your confidence, y should anyone feel worried? There is nothing worse than a tame well woman. As for men, we really dont have issues on the subject as much.

Sry if this isnt what you were looking for. But that is my take on it

This is one thing that fascinated me about my missus. My missus, unfazed, easily at the drop of the hat will go butt nakẹd at home, whereas I formerly was a naturally inhibited person, but because of her, learned to be carefree and indifferent to nudity.

I actually thought you were female.

Anyway, being naked in private is another topic entirely, I think people decide for themselves how much they want to show in private. For many, private/public is the same thing, none in private and none in public.

These days when CCTV is everywhere, it's not always a choice for those who are sensitive about nudity, to display the same to known and unknown viewers.

Our forefathers were not as squeamish about unclothedness, true, it was a common sight for older Nigerian women to go around topless both publicly and privately.

nlPoster:
I actually thought you were female.

nlPoster, many have an image of me, but few get the picture, lol. Please, promise you would not judge me by what you are told by anyone else here because I give you my word, it is all going to be a lie, like every other lies and/or slanders perpetrated on the Religion forum.

I was not told anything about you, as you're aware. I guess you want me to say I either discuss or dont discuss with nlers privately, as many of you do.

I simply assumed you were female from your moniker and also your posts.

nlPoster:
I was not told anything about you, as you're aware.

If I am that much of a betting person. I'll bet that sooner or later you'll be told things, lol. People are free to gossip and/or slander, its their entitlement. It doesnt faze me.

nlPoster:
I guess you want me to say I either discuss or dont discuss with nlers privately ...

I merely gave you a fyi and nothing more than a simple advanced warning. Just remember that rumors, slanders and ad hominem attacks are carried by haters, spread by fools and accepted, hook line and sinker by idiots

nlPoster:
... as many of you do.

Who are you lumping together in and/or with that your "as many of you do" remark?

nlPoster:
I simply assumed you were female from your moniker and also your posts.

There is nothing feminine about or in the moniker. What is feminine in the MuttleyLaff moniker make up? What aspects of my posts, specifically are feminine? Tbh with you, I think, it must have been the feminine side of me, you've been seeing, lol before noticing the rearing head testosterone that kimco encouraged to surface up, lol

PS: If the same person I think you are, then you used to be in Australia or New Zealand, a couple of years ago, right? Are you still in any of those region?

Just remember that rumors, slanders and ad hominem attacks are carried by haters, spread by fools and accepted, hook line and sinker by idiots

There's a method to the madness.

There is nothing feminine about or in the moniker. What is feminine in the MuttleyLaff moniker make up? What aspects of my posts, specifically are feminine?

Just an impression.

PS: If the same person I think you are, then you used to be in Australia or New Zealand, a couple of years ago, right? Are you still in any of those region?

Why do you ask?

nlPoster:
There's a method to the madness.

No method in the madness, just plain being a tool in the devil's workshop

nlPoster:
Just an impression.

Give two or three examples of the impression

nlPoster:
Why do you ask?

Curiosity got the better of me. So were you ever before in Australia or New Zealand?

MuttleyLaff:
No method in the madness, just plain being a tool in the devil's workshop

Both

Give two or three examples of the impression

Cant say for sure, I just assumed.

Curiosity got the better of me. So were you ever before in Australia or New Zealand?

I reside everywhere. Also, I dont answer questions on a personal level, unless I know who I'm talking to and the place.

nlPoster:
Both

Are you always as generous as this. You give them too much credit than they deserve. Method ko, method ni. Who dash monkey banana. I maintain they have no method, they even cant tie up their shoe laces to save their lives. They are just tools in the devil's workshop, period.

nlPoster:
Cant say for sure, I just assumed.

Just like that assumed, without any checking or without having any example that indicates moniker is feminine? Thats weird.

nlPoster:
I reside everywhere. Also, I dont answer questions on a personal level, unless I know who I'm talking to and the place.

World citizen, I'll say, lol. Never mind. That déjà vu particular and/or stand out line, has confirmed your identity to me. The leopardess never changes its spot, lol. but you surprisingly, compared with old, have become mellow ooo sha. Wow. Anyway, nice to see that after all these years, you're still around. Lots of interlocutors in that long period of time, like water, have passed under the bridge, never to return back to Nairaland.

MuttleyLaff:
Are you always as generous as this. You give them too much credit than they deserve. Method ko, method ni. Who dash monkey banana. I maintain they have no method,

Their methods are not as random as they appear, that's what they carefully contrive. You're trying too hard.

Just like that assumed, without any checking or without having any example that indicates moniker is feminine? Thats weird.

It is.

World citizen, I'll say, lol. Never mind. That déjà vu particular and/or stand out line, has confirmed your identity to me. The leopardess never changes its spot, lol. but you surprisingly, compared with old, have become mellow ooo sha. Wow. Anyway, nice to see that after all these years, you're still around. Lots of interlocutors in that long period of time, like water, have passed under the bridge, never to return back to Nairaland.

I could be anywhere at anytime, I like to imagine. Neither am I a leopard/ess.

@ bolded nlers haven't changed, what changed is my focus. I noticed I can counter their lies and mischief using more than one type of response. Thanks for the compliment. Most people here never really left, they just change ids.

ok, I looked up some bible references to nudity and overall, unclothedness is definitely negative. It represents shame, in the scriptures. I asked for people's views in order to see if there's any specific deviation from this context, obviously not among (Nigerian) Christians.

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked

So, the first mention of nudity in the bible, did not come with shame. What happened to turn nudity into shame?

Was nudity itself the sin? Or Adam and Eve's perception/enlightment that made them classify being naked with sinfulness?

I think the knowledge of their disobedience, together with their heightened awareness (of having done wrong), made them link their nudity with their sin. Meaning they began classifying hitherto innocuous things, as sin/sinless. The first set of man made (as opposed to God made) laws after their disobedience. Their judgement was corrupted.

Now when the disciple heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,)

From Paul:

In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and n.akedness.

nlPoster:
Their methods are not as random as they appear, that's what they carefully contrive. You're trying too hard.

I am trying too hard at what?

nlPoster:
It is.

Bizzare

nlPoster:
I could be anywhere at anytime, I like to imagine. Neither am I a leopard/ess.

OK let me change my leopardess comment if you're averse to leopard/ess, to old habits are difficult to break then, lol

nlPoster:
@ bolded nlers haven't changed, what changed is my focus. I noticed I can counter their lies and mischief using more than one type of response. Thanks for the compliment. Most people here never really left, they just change ids.

You're welcome. Some left, some changed their IDs and werent as enthusiastic nor show same great energy as before changing IDs.

nlPoster:
ok, I looked up some bible references to nudity and overall, unclothedness is definitely negative. It represents shame, in the scriptures. I asked for people's views in order to see if there's any specific deviation from this context, obviously not among (Nigerian) Christians.

Since I know whom I am dealing with, I am comfortable now to discuss shower and grower with you. I previously asked you if you had the privilege to be at boarding school, at which you didnt reply, but it didnt matter because being a female, you probably wouldnt easily be able to relate since females arent growers. OK here the deal about growers and showers. In the hostels, often few boys regularly go about in the dormitory rooms or hallway to the bathrooms buck nakẹd. Now nlPoster, showers are boys blessed by God with very well-endowed massive danglings, meaning it is already long looking without even being erect. Such guys are proud of this, that they flaunt it by going about places in the hostel buck nakẹd. Meanwhile the growers, are those with initially looking small chinese noodle when limp that only grows to become cucumbers when erect. The growers wrap up in towels going to the bathrooms etcetera, to hide what's under, unlike the showers who let everything out to the cold breeze and whole wide world have a free look peek at it.

Now you know why my previous comment on nudity was:
"My thoughts is the difference between shower and grower, as in, if you've got it, flaunt it, oftentimes is what showers do. lol. Afterall, in the beginning the body was meant to be seen and not all covered up with clothes or in human fabrics lol. On a more serious note, aside nudity being natural, I, for one, any time, any day, prefer a nakẹd truth to a well and/or best dressed lie"

nlPoster:
So, the first mention of nudity in the bible, did not come with shame. What happened to turn nudity into shame?

Man right from the beginning and before the fall from grace was always physically nude, but were clothed in God's protective righteousness and so though nude, they didnt mind their nakẹdness. It was at the point of fall from grace, that they lost their protective cloth of righteousness. Upon realisation of this, they then embarked on hiding themselves from God and tried cover up, with fig leaves, the incriminating evidence, showing they have eaten off the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil

nlPoster:
Was nudity itself the sin?

No, au naturel or even full frontal nudity itself was not the sin. It is the act(s) that developed from nursing and toying with the idea to eat off the ToKGE that itself turned to sin

nlPoster:
Or Adam and Eve's perception/enlightment that made them classify being naked with sinfulness

Nah, it was the shame. Why do you think, petty thieves are stripped buck nakẹd? It simply is to shame them

nlPoster:
I think the knowledge of their disobedience, together with their heightened awareness (of having done wrong), made them link their nudity with their sin. Meaning they began classifying hitherto innocuous things, as sin/sinless. The first set of man made (as opposed to God made) laws after their disobedience. Their judgement was corrupted.

There is more than the eyes see. That racy Genesis chapter 3, is full of double entendres, lol. If you know, you know. Who no know, no go know.

The shame was what they assigned to the condition of nudity. Nudity in itself was not shameful as shown when they were first created. There was nothing different about the nudity they had before and after the fall, what changed was how they felt about it. That was why God asked them "Who told you you were naked?" And because their unclothedness no longer sufficed, they had to have extra coverings in addition to the previous one ie the lack of shame.

They made a new set of laws "good" and "bad", nudity, like most or all of creation, was under bad.

Basically I'm saying it was the same thing as before, but now they had a different view. Just theorizing.

I looked up the grower and shower thing after the other poster explained those terms mean something different, I now have an idea it refers to nudity, as the thread title says.

nlPoster:
The shame was what they assigned to the condition of nudity.

How much of the area of the human body would a fig leaf cover?
Why attach the fig leaves to areas around hip and/or mid region?
Nobi janjanla ordinary tree small harmlessly looking fruit, only, dem go pluck chop ni, lol? Or is there more to that, lol?

nlPoster:
Nudity in itself was not shameful as shown when they were first created.

We both see and agree on this that nudity in itself was not shameful. As a matter of fact, it was the loss that brought on shamefulness. The bible before the fall from grace, at Genesis 2:25 says: "And the man and his wife were both nakẹd, and they were not ashamed" so something happened (i.e. that made them to lose) and this caused them to first cover up an incriminating object and secondly to then hide from God under the excuse of being nakẹd

nlPoster:
There was nothing different about the nudity they had before and after the fall, what changed was how they felt about it.

The difference is the absense of the protective righteousness of God they had initially had on as a spiritual covering. The introduction of sin, sin now present and being there caused them to realise something, the spiritual covering has gone amiss, AWOL. They felt , the spiritual covering has done a runner on them, lol. Panic kicks and sets in, they are vulnerable, they didnt mind from the beginnning being nakẹd. Afterall, from the beginning the human body was meant to be seen and not all covered up with clothes or in human fabrics lol. Besides all that, they even have the spiritual covering of God, but that all gone now. So what do they do, but to first hide the incriminating evidences and hide when God comes in the evening breeze.

nlPoster:
That was why God asked them "Who told you you were naked?"

This is just the first half of the questioning. The second half was: "Have you eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?" Why would God ask such a double barrel question. It is because eating from that tree is the only way to lose the spiritual covering and for you to now that didnt mind all along nakẹdness be now, turning round to, in a kind of funny way of admission of gulit, say, you are nakẹd

nlPoster:
And because their unclothedness no longer sufficed, they had to have extra coverings in addition to the previous one ie the lack of shame.

Of course, their unclothedness would no longer sufficed. They had to have extra and proper coverings in order to face and withstand the harsh reality of life they've let themselves into

nlPoster:
They made a new set of laws "good" and "bad", nudity, like most or all of creation, was under bad.

Thats the general idea behind what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is all about now. Isnt it interesting that, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was näkedly put and openly left in the attractive centre part of the garden of Eden. It wasnt blocked off. It wasnt covered up. It wasnt cordoned. Na wa ooo, lol. What is/was going on, lol.

If I can squeeze in the time, we could discuss some surprising fact(s) that arent generally known about the Tree of the knowledge of Good and evil and Tree of life (i.e. TokG&E and ToL). They for some, will be very surprising, astonishing, remarkable, overwhelming and/or startling facts, lol.

nlPoster:
Basically I'm saying it was the same thing as before, but now they had a different view. Just theorizing.

I think in order to make the parameters of this topic less confusing and more comprehensible you need to define what sort of nudity you're discussing here
1/ Is it full monty, also known as frontal nudity?
2/ Is it complete buck stark nakẹd nudity?
3/ Is showing your bare bum classed as nudity?
4/ Is sunbathing on beach in tongs and skimpy bras classed nudity?
5/ Are barechested no shirts on men classed as nudity?

nlPoster:
I looked up the grower and shower thing after the other poster explained those terms mean something different, I now have an idea it refers to nudity, as the thread title says.

Thank you for this update and being that kind enough to come back admit that growers and showers have connections that have to do with nudity

How much of the area of the human body would a fig leaf cover?
Why attach the fig leaves to areas around hip and/or mid region?

The fig leaves were sewn together, that's like a dress.

We don't know for sure if they only covered the bare essentials or the whole body.

As per the rest of your questions, nudity is unclothedness, I'm trying to not make the thread too graphic. Thoughts on nudity means what do you think about nudity, it's assumed you already know what nudity is.

nlPoster:
The fig leaves were sewn together, that's like a dress.

[img]https://s5/images/loincloth.jpg[/img]
nlPoster, you really think that "the fig leaves were sewn together, that's like a dress" hmm? Well, I beg to differ and say the fig leaves were not sewn together, to be like a dress. In fact, the fig leaves actually were used to create and/or make a girdle, and this means, made something worn round the waist. You might even further and/or loosely say, the fig leaves were used to make a loincloth. Loincloth, as in meaning, look at the pasted above, to see an example of an interesting picture of a male version loincloth, lol.

nlPoster:
We don't know for sure if they only covered the bare essentials or the whole body.

On the contrary, we do 110% know for sure, that they only covered the bare essentials part of the human body and not cover their whole or entire human body. How do we know this? We know this nlPoster, because the bible at Genesis 3:7, specifically tells, what part of the human body the fig leaves were used to cover up with.

nlPoster:
As per the rest of your questions, nudity is unclothedness,

If really "nudity is unclothedness" and period for you, then I just have to re-ask my earlier posed question which was, why was it that the fig leaves were put together, to be attached to just the area around hip and/or mid region only then? Why not the boobs, why not the upper body parts, why not the entire rest of the human body, lol? Why not make a dress out of the fig leaves? Why specifically just the mid region area? What is going on here? What went down there, to now be self conscious enough to be covering up just that part of the body alone? What really are they hiding or trying to conceal with covering up with them fig leaves erhn? What made them want to cover up just that part of the body? What compelled them to do this? What is the reason? There is a method in my questionings. There are reasons for asking all these questions, there are reasons for asking the questions, the way they each and all are asked.

nlPoster:
I'm trying to not make the thread too graphic. Thoughts on nudity means what do you think about nudity, it's assumed you already know what nudity is.

We are all grown ups contributing on the thread. You can see for yourself, that the thread so far and up to this point has been self regulated and also to a good standard sanitised. No one has used sexually explicit unpleasant, shocking expressions or graphic descriptions that would give others discomfort or make them squirm. Of course, certain words and/or wordings have been codely advanced by interlocutors, such that, if you know, you know, and if unfortunately you dont know, then sorry, its as simple as that then, you just dont know then and wont know. Nobody is asking anyone, to be unnecessarily graphic, all we are trying to do here is extricate information and hopefully make some, if not all, discoveries from question(s) we ask each other and/or get an epiphany or aha moment(s) from question(s) answered and not dodged or prevaricated questions

PS: Why didnt I get a notification you've quoted my comment, lol?

"They sewed fig leaves and made aprons"


An apron is a cover all. What you have there is loin cloth from Africa.

Apron:

nlPoster:
"They sewed fig leaves and made aprons"
An apron is a cover all.

Nope. Aprons, are all, not necessarily, a cover all.

nlPoster:
What you have there is loin cloth from Africa.

The bible specifically at Genesis 3:7, said and/or mentioned loin covering. Alternatively called it girdle. I am 110% quite sure, you know what girdle is, lol.

nlPoster:
Apron:

You're really trying hard, lol. The bible without giving room for doubt, at Genesis 3:7, clearly states its a loincloth nlPoster, meaning, covering the loins, as in, to make it clearer and a bit graphic, which you arent a big fan off, covering the region and/or areas of the sexual organs, lol. Now if you're that determined to advance and push for aprons, no problem then, but I'll help you, at no cost, to qualify that it is a waist apron, they made from the fig leaves and not that your run of mill type chef apron you have pasted up above there nlPoster, lol

Genesis 3:7

NIV

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

KJV

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

ISV

As a result, they both understood what they had done, and they became aware that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

ERV

Then it was as if their eyes opened, and they saw things differently. They saw that they were naked. So they got some fig leaves, sewed them together, and wore them for clothes.

AMP

Then the eyes of the two of them were opened [that is, their awareness increased], and they knew that they were naked; and they fastened fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.