so just to start, honor refers to a person’s credibility. more specifically having honor reflects one doing the actions expected of them by societal norms. there is a (stupid) liberal lexical shift to use ‘respect’ in place of honor. the key to honor is that it is about personal traits, not argument. meanwhile respect is about viewing a seccond argument as both permissible and plausible until the argument itself proves itself invallid. they are similar but not the same.
now to talk about social standards. basicly if you are to expect a certain behavior of some disfavorable people you will generally have to expect it from all people or the double standard will cause you to be offended when those you consider some way dont’ consider themselves that way.
for example, clothing. if you want to be able to do some action, like walk around naked, you should be just as okay with any and all other people doing the same action- even ugly, disfigured, or diseased people. there are cultures where the spread of disease is frowned upon and so they reconcile/rationalize anti-disease clothing to be for the public welfare, by extension if there is a vollup of double standard there must be the ideological premise present to ‘reasonably’ rationalize the double standard. these cultural rationalizations don’t come into being by one person’s passion, but by collective myth crafting the narrative/reasoning; you can’t believe you are right ‘so hard’ that everyone else just gives in. and trying despite that nature will just lead to frustration; but i digress.
see to not respect culture will cause culture to not honor you. the entitled whining of ‘i deserve it’ meets a “like i care”. sometimes dis respect will beget more than a lack of honor, but active dishonor, where members of the culture are compelled to correct you. now here again, how will you spin the cultural narrative as it stands to favor your point of view?
i don’t particularly care about people wearing clothing, at first i’d probably find it gross to see certain people naked. but it also could be a helpful step away from puritanical moorings if culture so desires.
when arguing a cost benefit analysis one has to argue honestly. the negative delta of seeing ‘gross’ people would have to be taken into account. as would the diminished premise of exclusive intimacy in the reveal of one’s body. that attitude change of bodies as banal enough to not warrant exclusion could be good or bad. but the real issue with the reasoning is how the people making the pro nudity arguements are generally young and positive thinking unto being delusional. allot of the arguments boil down to either “i want to see that person’s hot body” or “i am entitled to be nude wherever”, from there they are vacuous due to no further consideration.
i seems the wants of others seem irrelevant and subhuman to these narcississtic/solipsistic idiots; not in a pejorative fashion, literally driven by id.
if the primary directive of society is to make people feel secure in their own bodies, thus not obliged to go any further to clothe; why? why should the standard of clothing as manditory/honorable be changed? and what should it be changed to? how should one support/rationalize the deviance as actually following an instruction by ‘culture’?