Evidence means scientific studies, not 'people talking'. A hundred years ago people would have told you that corporal punishment is good for kids, whereas studies now clearly show the opposite. [0]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/

"Studies" can show a lot of convenient things. Just don't ask them to replicate.

I think 100 years ago the metrics for good vs bad would have been different, fwiw.

That's why I said >I'm not an expert in this matters

but if you know any relevant studies claiming that nudity is not harmful for kids, please show them to me.

The onus is generally on whoever claims the presence of an effect, harmful or otherwise. The null hypothesis is always that there is no effect.

When dealing with laws and culture, it seems the onus would be on the side wanting to change the status quo. Without a reason, why would they use political capital/effort on this (or anything else)?

There are multiple onuses, determining whether a status quo should change is only one of them. But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence. If that scenario arises, generally those demanding change have already met the criteria (at least those available to them). At which point the status quo thing is in the same philosophical position of making a claim and has the logical burden of proof that the status quo itself is justified.

This reasoning is sometimes used hastily in radical-left politics, eg in some forms of anarchism where any power relationship is subject to justifying its existence. But, and I’m saying this no longer an anarchist, you don’t need to be a radical or revolutionary to see it play out.

This is essentially exactly how many cannabis legalization efforts have worked. After decades of dedicated effort to establish plurality support for questioning the status quo of prohibition, the question of whether prohibition is justified becomes scrutinized at a policy level and it the justification isn’t there. The only remaining barriers are weak pluralities and successful counter-marketing. If either of those are absent, the unjustified status quo has been changed.

Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong, the onus is to motivate people to know and care that it’s wrong, and to agree that it matters. From there, the onus is the same as GP said: you’re making the claim, you defend it. Otherwise the assumption is just, like, your opinion man.

"But where status quo is also an expression of power, there can also be an onus to justify its existence."

That's literally every law.

"Which is all to say, the onus isn’t on anyone to unjustify something that’s wrong"

The onus would be to show that "something" is wrong for that logic to even apply. As you said "you’re making the claim, you defend it.". Society already decided that it was wrong and formed a law, so now it's time to hear why it shouldn't be (I'm interested in research on either side).

I disagree. You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law and that's not only illogical but dangerous to boot.

"You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law"

This is a gross misinterpretation bordering on trolling. I'm not sure how you could even come to this position.

Please show me how what I've actually said is illogical and dangerous. Please remember that in the scenario we are talking about neither side has provided evidence one way or the other. Somebody would need to provide evidence one way or the other to shift the status quo, as shifting that requires flipping the convictions of the population, or at least the leaders.

You seem to be more interested in the argument than the conversation. Thankfully, I no longer want either.

You have to prove harm, not the other way around

Jesus H Christ. Stop sowing this absolute garbage. Proof? How about the fact that we didn't go extinct prior to the invention of clothing? How about the necessity of it for procreation, birth, rearing, washing? If you think the very sight of a naked body is harmful, you are a sick fuck, and that's the nicest way I can put that while getting my meaning across. Please get therapy before your anxieties boil over and make you harm others or vote for like-minded idiots.

I'm a little shocked that anybody could claim that viewing a naked body at any age could be considered harmful. There are many cases where children would benefit from seeing a range of naked bodies, and realise that there are many people out there that look just like them. they don't have to look like the photoshop models who do get exposed. Body shame is a real thing, and the only way around it is for people to realise that bodies come in a wide range of shapes and colours, and they have no reason to be ashamed of theirs.

I mean, it depends on the pose. Goatse (a man stretching open his anus) is in one sense "just a naked person".

I agree that seeing a range of nude people [in completely non-sexual contexts] is good for one's personal development.

I don't think there is a consensus. Actually I've never heard anyone cite any specific harm at all. There is certainly an appeal to social norms and probably some ingrained racism: "we wear clothes unlike those primitive savages," but real benefit to shielding kids from nudity - what's the hypothesis to test against?

Near as I can tell, the only benefit is usually that the parents get another year or two to dodge the sex conversation they keep avoiding.

Which is very misguided! My ultimate parenting hack that I have discovered is to answer my kids honestly and in detail. This was born out of frustration when, as a toddler, one of my kids would become distraught when confronting the fact that she wasn't in our wedding pictures because she did not exist. Eventually I said "look, the egg that would become you was in your mother". A few how & whys later and she was fine before we even got into the mechanics of it.

Now I've honed this to the point where my kids just hear me go into that tone of voice and realize that they should drop the subject before the old man goes on another one of his 45 minute lectures. They've got more fun things to do.

"People talk" has no value, is there evidence ?