Understanding nudism, one stu at a time

[soofreeemateomanian]

When you say the nude human body is obscene or gross, you are saying 3 million years of evolution made us to be ashamed. Answer this one question to yourself. If you see nudity in art, is that obscene or inapropriate. Then why would a real Homo sapien be inapropriate

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: vertebrata
Class: Mamalia
order: Primate
family: homo
genus:homo erectus
species: homo sapien
if you do not believe in evolution, do you think god would have created us with clothes if that is what he wanted? Wasn't he angry at Adam and Eve for being ahamed of their nakedness?

[soofreeemateomanian]

When you say the nude human body is obscene or gross, you are saying 3 million years of evolution made us to be ashamed. Answer this one question to yourself. If you see nudity in art, is that obscene or inapropriate. Then why would a real Homo sapien be inapropriate

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: vertebrata
Class: Mamalia
order: Primate
family: homo
genus:homo erectus
species: homo sapien
if you do not believe in evolution, do you think god would have created us with clothes if that is what he wanted? Wasn't he angry at Adam and Eve for being ahamed of their nakedness?

[Rex]

Mateo, you are so logical and well-informed.
People who are logical, well-informed and gutsy should be seen as amongst the most valued members of society, but they are not because they are frequently perceived to be a threat to the "establishment" and the establishment's superstitions.
As you are no doubt aware, homo sapiens means "wise man" and with the state of the world as it is, it must be humankind's greatest conceit to describe ourselves, as a species, as "wise".

Mateo

"When you say the nude human body is obscene or gross,"

Where did I say that? My objection isn't to nudity per se - it is to inappropriate PUBLIC nudity.

"...you are saying 3 million years of evolution made us to be ashamed. Answer this one question to yourself. If you see nudity in art, is that obscene or inapropriate."

I don't have a problem with nude pictures or sculptures in an art gallery or museum. Anyone going to such a place can expect to see such objects and so they have given implied consent.

That's vastly different to someone walking down the street, or enjoying a game of netball in the park, being unexpectedly confronted by a real live naked adult human being. Many people find that shocking and disgusting - including me!

Of course you may think that's illogical and maybe it is. But human beings don't always react with pure logic. Don't believe me? Just try openly slaughtering cows, sheep, pigs and chickens in a compound just outside your local supermarket and see the reaction. It won't be just the veggies you'll upset, I can assure you!

You have to take people as they are.

Stu

[FireProf]

I don't usually respond to stu's posts but I will this time. Slaughtering animals publicly would be a horrible sight but seeeing a person nude in public equated to this is obsurd.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Trailscout]

My great grandfather slaughtered a hog in his back yard every winter. It was an occasion of much celebration and brought men from around the neighborhood to socialize and help process the meat.

I used to have a flock of some thirty chickens and I slaughtered one from time to time in full view of the neighbors. No one objected to this either. We would share a nice pot of chicken and dumplings an hour or two later!

I am perplexed at how disconnected city folk are from the simple facts of everday life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Many people find that shocking and disgusting - including me!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No they don't. Stop saying that!

FireProf

"Slaughtering animals publicly would be a horrible sight but seeeing a person nude in public equated to this is obsurd."

Sorry but to me they would be equally repugnant.

Trailscout

"I am perplexed at how disconnected city folk are from the simple facts of everday life."

You make a very valid point. Most of us are hypocrites in one way or another. We'll tuck into a steak wih relish but for the average city dweller the thought of witnessing the killing of the creature who was the source of the meal (the cow, not the chef!) would be truly stomach-churning! But that's how people are.

cyndiann

"No they don't. Stop saying that!"

Maybe they don't in Tampa, Florida but take it from me, cyndiann, they certainly do here in Yorkshire! Try sunbathing nude - or even topless - in my local park and see the reaction you'll get from the populace. You'd be lucky to escape with your life.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soofreeemateomanian:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: vertebrata
Class: Mamalia
order: Primate
family: homo
genus:homo erectus
species: homo sapien
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Homo Erectus is not a genus.

The Family is either Hominidae or Pongidae. Many (if not most) modern taxonomists (http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/taxonomy.html) consider humans to be part of the same family as the great apes, the previous separation into separate families was just human chauvanism.

The four genus' are Pongo (orangutan), Pan (chimpanzee), Gorilla, and Homo.

Further, we are of the sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which distinguishes modern man from other Homo Sapiens such as Neanderthal Man (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis). This sub-species category is the real scientific definition of 'race'. What most consider 'race' has no scientific basis, all modern humans are a single race.

Thus:

Kingdom: Animalia
.Phylum: Vertebrata (or Chordata)
..Class: Mammalia
...order: Primate
....family: Hominidae (or Pongidae)
.....Genus: Homo
......species: Homo Sapiens
.......sub-species: Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Even more radical is a new restructuring of primate taxonomy based on the findings of molecular biology and DNA analysis which brings some of the great apes into the Homo genus:

Family Hominidae
.Subfamily Homininae
..Tribe Hominini
...Subtribe Pongina, Pongo: orangutans
...Subtribe Hominina
....Gorilla: gorillas
.....Homo (Homo): humans
.....Homo (Pan): chimpanzees, bonobo


http://www.loxieandzoot.com/stuff/tan_gallery/evolution.jpg
from http://www.loxieandzoot.com/

[hairyhomer]

Seeing Gods' greatest work of art in its natural form could never be shocking or disgusting to him so why should it be to anyone who believes he created us in his own likeness and image? There will probabely be a lot of shocked people when they get to heaven since we leave this world the same as we came into it, with nothing.

Trailscout,

I remember at age 15 helping a farmer, from whom we rented a house, remove the heads from chickens. It was the most hilarious thing I ever saw. When we chopped its head off, it lay on the ground clucking while the body ran around in circles. I nearly laughed MY head off.

I spent a lot of time nude out there in the country. One time when my parents were gone, I went out after dark and walked a long way down the country road nude. I had no clothes with me and nearly got caught when a car went by, but I ducked into the weeds until they went by. I didn't think about what I would do if my parents came home while I was out like that. I had a door on my bedroom and could also go out without them knowing--at least until I saw a BIG rat going down the basement stairs that were in that room. All I actually saw was the tail that was over a foot long. I had no desire to find out how big the rat was.

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Trailscout,

I remember at age 15 helping a farmer, from whom we rented a house, remove the heads from chickens. It was the most hilarious thing I ever saw. When we chopped its head off, it lay on the ground clucking while the body ran around in circles. I nearly laughed MY head off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see nothing funny about that at all. I wouldn't be laughing at the scene of chicken that got cut his/her head off and is still alive and plucking in pain. There's absolutely nothing funny about that. Only a selfish and unemotional monster would find such a horrific scene funny.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
I see nothing funny about that at all. I wouldn't be laughing at the scene of chicken that got cut his/her head off and is still alive and plucking in pain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree it's a bit gross but actually the chicken is dead once its head has been cut off so it's no longer in pain.

Rik

[FireProf]

I rest my case...

Stu finds the slaughter of animals and the view of a nude body equally disturbing.

He now says if you're found nude in a park in his hometown of Yorkshire, you'll be lucky to escape with your life.

I remember now why I didn't waste my time posting a reply to any of his.

I guess I needed a booster shot of him to fend off any further contact. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hey FireProf gimme one of them shots too! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[MaxUK]

Why are you all STILL arguing over the 'public nudity' issue thing?? What is this eternal argument about anyway??? Let me spell it out:

Will unrestricted public nudity ever be the norm? - NO. (Those that think it should/could be are advised to seek the help of a good shrink)

Will public nudity in more places /locations ever become the norm? - QUITE POSSIBLY

Is 'nudity' per se, offensive? NO WAY (even Stu agrees with this one)

Should there be more 'nude friendly' places? DEFINITELY (Stu agrees with this one as well)

Do people who do not agree with the naturist way of life need 'educating'? OF COURSE NOT!! IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SIMPLE 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG' - NOTHING IN LIFE EVER IS!!

I hope that we can all agree to agree/disagree on everything now and perhaps move on?

Merry Christmas everyone!

Max

[sawdust]

...the scene of chicken that got cut his/her head off and is still alive and plucking in pain.

Think about what is being said hear folks, before you get all excited. The chicken has had its head removed. It can not make any clucking/plucking sounds as the head has been removed from the rest of the body...IT IS DEAD! All that may be happening is the nervious system is making spazmotic movement. As for the chicken, it is feeling nothing...IT IS DEAD! Get the picture? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Sawdust

[Jochanaan]

"It can not make any clucking/plucking sounds as the head has been removed from the rest of the body...IT IS DEAD!"

But the voice box isn't in the head; it's in the throat.

Besides, death is almost never an instantaneous thing. Remember French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, whose eyes blinked twelve times after he was guillotined.

City folk may disbelieve us, but we who grew up in the country DO know what we're talking about in this instance. I too have seen chickens without heads run about and cluck wildly--for about ten seconds. And if you eat meat at all, you're contributing to this death.

BTW, what's really awful is the conditions in which most animals who wind up in grocery stores are raised. I am no vegetarian, but I haven't eaten veal in decades because those calves are imprisoned in stalls and hardly allowed to wiggle! I recently read that many Thanksgiving turkeys are raised in similar conditions. If you love animals, you might want to consider buying range-fed beef and eggs from free-range chickens. They're more expensive, but healthier.

All right, back to the original topic! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also most meat animals are overfed on antibiotics which might be why humans are becoming so resistant to our own antibiotics when we really need them.

[Jochanaan]

I have heard evolution used to justify both nudism and the forbidding of nudity. Those who would forbid nudity say that, since we have evolved the ability to cover our bodies, we should do so. But just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should. After all, it's not that hard to design implements or machines to kill people. (No, clothing people isn't as bad as killing them. But I still think the comparison is valid.) "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient." (I Corinthians 10:23) That's a view that even secular thinkers can accept.

And those Christians who would forbid nudity based on that unfortunate incident in Eden haven't read Genesis 2-3 accurately. God never forbade nudity, except in one very limited instance relating to priestly service. (See Exodus 28:42-43) King David sang, "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psalm 139:14) And the Song of Songs shows that God takes great delight in the human body--even the sexualized human body. (He did make us male and female, and command us to be fruitful and multiply. Gen. 1:27-28)

Question: Is Islam as anti-body as it seems to us non-Muslims? Of all the major religions, it seems to be the least friendly toward the naked body.

[MikeJB]

Seeing Gods' greatest work of art in its natural form could never be shocking or disgusting to him so why should it be to anyone who believes he created us in his own likeness and image? There will probabely be a lot of shocked people when they get to heaven since we leave this world the same as we came into it, with nothing.
-------------------------------------------------
Yeah its ironic that my dad says that when people die and go to heaven that they will wear some sort of clothing BUT he says that we will be perfect *mind and body* and not be sinful anymore, so this really doesnt make any sense to me, isnt the only reason most christians say god created clothing in the first place was to cover up those "sinful parts"? So why would we need clothing in heaven when we are supposedly free of that sin? Besides why do we even need clothing here, god died on the cross for us, forgiving us for our sins so what is the real point of even worrying about being naked, he's gonna forgive us in the end anyways!!!! That is one reason why I dont take what my dad says seriously, there are lots of loopholes in what he says and he repeats himself and wont be open and listen to reason and he treats me like im immature and dont know what im talking about but im 19 and he has always said that im intelligent and know what im talking about????? So I mean honestly he really is screwy in my eyes.

[MikeJB]

Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Trailscout,

I remember at age 15 helping a farmer, from whom we rented a house, remove the heads from chickens. It was the most hilarious thing I ever saw. When we chopped its head off, it lay on the ground clucking while the body ran around in circles. I nearly laughed MY head off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothing funny about that at all. I wouldn't be laughing at the scene of chicken that got cut his/her head off and is still alive and plucking in pain. There's absolutely nothing funny about that. Only a selfish and unemotional monster would find such a horrific scene funny.
-------------------------------------------------

You must be one of those animal rights people who doesnt like to see animals getting killed because this seems to be the typical attitude of such people who insist that we dont kill animals or put them in zoos or do anything to harm or cause stress upon them. I mean I think trailscout was just refering to the fact that the spasmatic movements of the chicken was funny, he didnt think the actual act of killing it was funny and its not like the chicken was in pain, im sure if there was any pain it was quick and merciful, if he had tortured the animal and beaten it or done other things until it died then yeah I would say that is a bit excessive, but to just cut its head off quickly so he could later eat it isnt too much to ask for, these animals are here for us to eat, thats their purpose and while we need to respect them and treat them as living things and not do anything to really upset the balance of nature too much, we also need to eat and sometimes we gotta kill these animals to eat them. People cannot live a healthy life just on veggies and even those who do probably wont live any longer than people who eat mostly or all meat products, so it really makes no sense to eat these supposedly healthy foods and it surely makes no sense to bicker about our creulty to animals over and over again, because most people like to eat meat and wont give it up merely because of your fight to save the animals.

[Bob S.]

"Where did I say that?"

stu, you just said here that it was repugnant and disgusting. That's bad enough.

"it is to inappropriate PUBLIC nudity."

Or more precisely to nudity outside of the accepted areas.

"or enjoying a game of netball in the park"

I am trying to learn more about British culture, pleasse enlighten me. Is netball like volleyball?

"Try sunbathing nude - or even topless - in my local park and see the reaction you'll get from the populace. You'd be lucky to escape with your life."

So if I am naked in Yorkshire, I could get killed. Now that is a great reason to educate them about nudism and the benefits of outdoor nudity. It is also another benefit of accepting nudity, you won't be driven to homocide.

"I see nothing funny about that at all."

Croydon, sometimes something just strikes us as funny and we can't help it. Have you ever seen someone walking and trip over their feet? That is funny sometimes. Heck, the premise of the show "America's Funnoiest Home Videos" was to highlight funny moments in life, and a good number of those involved the person getting hurt. Just because Jon-Marc found it funny to see a headless chicken running around doesn't mean that he is a "selfish and unemotional monster." It just means that at that specific time, he found it funny.

"Why are you all STILL arguing over the 'public nudity' issue thing??"

Max, the only argument in this topic so far that had to do with public nudity came from stu who says he was against it. No one has argued here for public nudity, yet. Jon-Marc regaled about his past when he actually was naked at night and Homer talked about the naked body.

"Do people who do not agree with the naturist way of life need 'educating'?"

Depends on the meaning of the word "need." If they themselves do not feel they "need" to be educated, than that is fine, but we may feel we "need" to educate them in order to sway public opinion. I don't "need" to be saved, but some Christians feel that they "need" to save me.

"I hope that we can all agree to agree/disagree on everything now and perhaps move on?"

We do agree/disagree on everything. But it doesn't mean that we can't still talk about it.

sawdust, it may just be me, but your talking about beheaded chickens with your avatar seems a bit strange to me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bob S.

Gee, I had no idea that mentioning the chicken would cause such a stir. I was only 15, and it was my first time at seeing this strange sight. I'm sorry, but it WAS funny to a 15-year-old city boy who had never seen that before. The head (or voice box) WAS making clucking sounds. Besides, I mentioned to Trailscout who, being from the south, I just assumed he had probably seen this happen.

Croydon,

I may be a city boy, but I know the difference between a chicken (she, hen) and a rooster (he). So, naturally, the chicken that had its head removed was female. Roosters are not generally called "chickens" --just roosters. I've never heard of anyone eating roosters, but maybe some do if they don't do their job.

Also, I don't appreciate being called a "selfish and unemotional monster" just because as a 15-year-old city boy I thought a clucking head and a headless body running around was funny. Your emotional outbursts and name calling are uncalled for and unappreciated.

[MikeJB]

Gee, I had no idea that mentioning the chicken would cause such a stir. I was only 15, and it was my first time at seeing this strange sight. I'm sorry, but it WAS funny to a 15-year-old city boy who had never seen that before. The head (or voice box) WAS making clucking sounds. Besides, I mentioned to Trailscout who, being from the south, I just assumed he had probably seen this happen.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah I dont get what the big deal is over animals getting killed, I mean its not like theyre people or anything. I mean yeah having someone's dog get killed I can understand that because for one those are more personal animals and people dont use them as food and there are laws protecting them but as for chickens and other farm animals theyre used for food and are MEANT to be killed. Im against people abusing animals but I dont mind them killing them as long as the death is quick and merciful. I bet half of these animal activist people eat meat and dont even know it, but im sure theyd try to say that im some funny way its ok for them to eat meat but its not ok for others to kill animals. I wonder how you go about doing that?

Max

Nice to see you back!

And nice to read your invariablythoughful and wise contributions again.

Bob S

"stu, you just said here that it was repugnant and disgusting. That's bad enough."

I was saying that I find seeing people nude in public was repugnant to me.

"I am trying to learn more about British culture, pleasse enlighten me. Is netball like volleyball?"

No it's not, Bob. It's more like basketball if anything. When I was at school I was picked for my school team and even county championships! I have played as an adult - that's how I injured my knee. It is a very fast and exciting game and is now played in the US. Santa Monica's "Waves" is one of the best squads in your country. See this:

http://wavesnetball.homestead.com/Netball.html

"So if I am naked in Yorkshire, I could get killed."

I was speaking figuratively, but there are plenty of people especialy in our old mining and industrial towns who would react violently to inappropriate nudity. Steve Gough discovered that even a laid-back sort of place like Cornwall has people who will resort to violence for that.

"Now that is a great reason to educate them about nudism and the benefits of outdoor nudity."

No. They need educating that the correct response when encountering public nudity is NOT to become violent, but to call the police.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Bob S

"stu, you just said here that it was repugnant and disgusting. That's bad enough."

I was saying that I find seeing people nude in public was repugnant to me.
------------------------------------------------

Why would you find someone being nude in public repugnant to you, especially if they werent doing anything provocative or lewd and were just minding their own business? Why would you wanna go to all the trouble to get someone in trouble for being nude just because they were minding their own business and trying to stay comfortable, especially if the police would probably either just not arrest the guy and tell you thry have more important things to do or arrest him only to have a judge find him not guilty and let him off and either way youre just basically wasting your time and causing him more trouble and greif than he is causing you just because you get shocked and think its the police moral duty to take this guy away so you dont have to deal with your emotions anymore?

-----------------------------------------------
"I am trying to learn more about British culture, pleasse enlighten me. Is netball like volleyball?"

No it's not, Bob. It's more like basketball if anything. When I was at school I was picked for my school team and even county championships! I have played as an adult - that's how I injured my knee. It is a very fast and exciting game and is now played in the US. Santa Monica's "Waves" is one of the best squads in your country. See this:

http://wavesnetball.homestead.com/Netball.html
------------------------------------------------

Playing basketball nude would be fun and usually most basketball courts that you find *except some of the ones at schools and parks* are inside and away from the general public, so I mean really what would be your problem with them playing nude?, especially if you couldnt see them nude, I mean even if you couldnt see them nude but still knew they were nude, would you think it was your duty to call the cops on them unecessarily, especially since it was in a privately owned place away from the public?

------------------------------------------------

"So if I am naked in Yorkshire, I could get killed."

I was speaking figuratively, but there are plenty of people especialy in our old mining and industrial towns who would react violently to inappropriate nudity. Steve Gough discovered that even a laid-back sort of place like Cornwall has people who will resort to violence for that.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah I would agree with the figureitively part of that statement, but I dont really get how you can be laid back but really have anything against nudity. I thought those little small towns in the south and such thought things like skinny dipping and nude walks in the woods were common and everryone did it? I think those people are questionable if they resort to violence just because of a person's nudity and really those people should get arrested for that and not the nudist because im sure the nudist was just enjoying himself, minding his own business and not hurting anyone, so those people could control their emotions and even if they dont like nudity its no reason to get violent and it sure isnt any reason to call the cops, weither its against the law or not, if they would just ignore it and go about their busy lives then nothing would happen, I would think thetd be inviting a bigger scene if they called the cops and arrested the guy for something as simple as nudity, besides dont people in mining towns have enough to do and are busy enough to not have time to worry about such trivial things as nudity?????

------------------------------------------------
"Now that is a great reason to educate them about nudism and the benefits of outdoor nudity."

No. They need educating that the correct response when encountering public nudity is NOT to become violent, but to call the police.

------------------------------------------------

Why create a scene and cause an uneeded arrest? Police are in short supply and are needed in REAL crimes and I would think youd actually be doing something wrong by detering them from their actual duties to arrest a nudist, especially if he was just walking through town, probably being friendly, minding his own business and probably would be walking through so fast you wouldnt even notice or have to worry about it. People like you are what make the police unavailable when the real crimes sprout up because they are wasting time with your stupid nudity calls.

[MikeJB]

Hey Stu, I know youd probably flame me for that last post and tell me about how nudity is bad and how you should call the police n all but I just thought you could look at the whole police thing this way and kind of talk from a position youd understand. I just think that say your local police force is undermanned as it is and you doing whatever you do during the day, see a nudist stroll by on the street, not doing anything and minding his own business and not even offending anyone, so you get shocked and in doing so you call the police, they come, they arrest the guy and such, but meanwhile while they are taking care of your crime, as they have to do whenever someone calls them, someone robs someone;s house or rapes them, they call the police, no one can come because the one officer is busy with you and most of the others are busy with other things or not in the area and thus a crime is commited and the theif/pediphile gets away, now imagine if you didnt call that cop, that pediphile, which is alot more dangerous to public saftey thanm the nudist would be caught and the nudist while not being arrested would just go on his merry way and everyone *maybe except you* would live happily ever after. So I mean as absurd as that sounds, it is possible and logical so I mean that might make you think twice before calling the cops on someone thats not really causing any crimes.

[Rex]

I grew up in Yorkshire and I have been in Australia for 41 years.
I just wonder what kind of image Stu is creating of Yorkshire people in everyone's mind.
I swam nude on the Yorkshire coast [and I know people still do]. Also in the beautiful river Wharfe and other rivers of the Yorkshire Dales [valleys of the Pennine mountains]. Also Lake Semmerwater, also regularly in a man-made lake in a mining area.
I was reasonably discrete, but then I still am unless in a recognised area, or out in the middle of nowhere.
The "old industrial city" of Leeds has a ring of statues representing nude nymphs in City Square.
Leeds had 2 theatres which regularly featured nudity, including the beautiful old Leeds City of Varieties theatre, which had nudity in almost every show.
Leeds also had a cinema, I seem to remember it was the Tatler, which screened the early nudist films. One was about people from all over Europe going to the French Island of Levant [still a nudist resort], another called "Nudes of the World" had a nude actor who was at that time well-known in British mainstream films.
As another example of tolerance and acceptance, Leeds also had a gay pub, the Robin Hood.
The girls, if they so wished, could go to the Leeds and area public swimming pools, indoor and outdoor, wearing string bikinis, without raising a disapproving comment. I'm talking about 45 years ago, when such swimwear would get a woman ordered off an Australian beach.
I believe that the Leeds City Council big indoor swimming complex has hosted nude events. On police priorities, when my wife and I were arrested for being nude on a Fremantle beach [story under "cops"], I was at that time head of Neighbourhood Watch for North Fremantle. At every meeting, people would complain, often from personal experience, that when terrible crimes were being committed, you could not get a police officer. Try being nude on the beach. You get one [or more] in 5 minutes. In my opinion, people who can't rationally set priorities, are not fit for public office.

[Bob S.]

"And nice to read your invariablythoughful and wise contributions again."

I also am glad to see Max again. But stu, I am hurt. You never call my contributions invariably thoughtful and wise /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"I was saying that I find seeing people nude in public was repugnant to me."

But in the appropriate context, it isn't repugnant. So am I to assume that you actually find the crime repugnant? It can't be the nudity if it isn't repugnant in a locker room.

"When I was at school I was picked for my school team and even county championships! I have played as an adult - that's how I injured my knee."

Congrats for the school success! And thanks for the info. Learning something new every day or two. I am assuming that you have stopped playing because of that darned knee?

"They need educating that the correct response when encountering public nudity is NOT to become violent, but to call the police."

But what if they do not want to be educated? Do you have the right to educate them?

"Playing basketball nude would be fun.."

Mike, I would tend to agree, but it seems that you are trying to goad stu into saying something just so you can rip him apart. You need to stop that. stu would have no problem with a group of people playing basketball together, so long as they were doing it privately. And I would agree with that. Believe it or not, I actually think that right now, the public is not ready for sudden nudity. They are not ready for a clothing optional scoiety, but they are ready for a gradual introduction to nudity. And if we had more "public" places for nude R&R, then we could make greater strides in that. And even stu agrees that we need more places.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yeah but most nudist places are secluded and away from society????? I mean those are privately run places and wont help society if they cant even find them and if these places are secluded from the rest of society then that'll just make people think they are even more bad. Besides about the whole public nudity thing, im sure even the most extreme people once they got used to nudity on a regular basis it would be second nature to them. I think if we dont do anything about nudity now then society will never be ready for it. Besides whos gonna decide when society is ready?

[MikeJB]

Mike, I would tend to agree, but it seems that you are trying to goad stu into saying something just so you can rip him apart. You need to stop that.
------------------------------------------------

I am just saying what I beleive in and I really dont think Stu needs any goading because he would rip me apart reguardless because he is just against public nudity and I think it would be helpful and beneficial for society and he just doesnt try to see it in that context.

[MichelleCA]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You must be one of those animal rights people who doesnt like to see animals getting killed because this seems to be the typical attitude of such people who insist that we dont kill animals or put them in zoos or do anything to harm or cause stress upon them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mike, Some people really dont, I can *proudly* say I've never personally killed an animal, Or put one in a zoo or have done anything to harm an animal, As for stress..I dont think I have really. But I'm by NO MEANS an animal rights activist. I raised a Lamb for slaughter my freshmen year of high school. I saw a Turkey get killed (pure accident though). I know animals get killed and it doesnt bother me as long as I dont have to see it. Animal Rights Activists (some) take things to far, I mean way to far. But that's their life, and that's what they believe in. Who are we to bash their beliefs? but they shouldn't interfear with other peoples lives.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I mean I think trailscout was just refering to the fact that the spasmatic movements of the chicken was funny, he didnt think the actual act of killing it was funny and its not like the chicken was in pain, im sure if there was any pain it was quick and merciful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Getting your head chopped off isn't the most wonderful feeling, But it's better then other acts that could of been done. My major thing is, Some of the people whom are complaining about his "chicken" story are the very same people who if shown a CARTOON of the same thing happening, Would laugh. Granted it's not a real chicken, But there is some substance there too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if he had tortured the animal and beaten it or done other things until it died then yeah I would say that is a bit excessive, but to just cut its head off quickly so he could later eat it isnt too much to ask for, these animals are here for us to eat, thats their purpose and while we need to respect them and treat them as living things and not do anything to really upset the balance of nature too much, we also need to eat and sometimes we gotta kill these animals to eat them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I completely agree with this comment, If he had said he bashed the chicken into a wall until it died or something, My reply would be very *very* different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> People cannot live a healthy life just on veggies and even those who do probably wont live any longer than people who eat mostly or all meat products, so it really makes no sense to eat these supposedly healthy foods and it surely makes no sense to bicker about our creulty to animals over and over again, because most people like to eat meat and wont give it up merely because of your fight to save the animals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true, I completely believe you have to eat meat to live a healthy life, I have yet to meet a completely healthy Veggie. People have been fighting to save animals probably since before we all were born. It just seems with the passing years people get more and more passionate about the curelty towards slaugther house animals. But the truth of the matter is It was just a CHICKEN, and althought I'm sure that Chickens have feelings and emotions. I also dont think that it's completely wrong to chop a chickens head off, as long as it's done quickly. As I said before, as long as I dont have to see it, I dont care that it happens.

[MikeJB]

Getting your head chopped off isn't the most wonderful feeling, But it's better then other acts that could of been done. My major thing is, Some of the people whom are complaining about his "chicken" story are the very same people who if shown a CARTOON of the same thing happening, Would laugh. Granted it's not a real chicken, But there is some substance there too.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah it seems more like people are against killing the chicken because it is a living thing but also I dont think some people like seeing things get killed real or fanticised. I think its funny on cartoons when stupid things happen to animals but ive never honestly seen a chicken get its head cut off in a cartoon, of course with people's attitudes these days you wouldnt want that to happen because some activist would complain about how the cartoon somehow harmed their child and honestly I feel as long as the kid knows the difference between cartoons and real life then they are ok and no harm is done.

[MikeJB]

I dont mind animal activists having their opinion but when they try to force their views on others I mean to the point where they force them to do certain things for their cause then I get a bit upset because I think if these people really wanna save the animnals they oughta do it themselves and if they need some help then they can ask people to help them and not require people do ridiculous things in the name of saving the animals. I mean im not gonna stop eating meat just because they dont wanna see animals get killed, id rather be healthy than worry about something so silly when most of these animals are killed quick and mereciful and theres still plenty more to go around.

[Trailscout]

Time to set the record straight!
Jon-Marc was the one who told the story about the chicken running around with its head cut off.
I can understand his reaction. He was just a boy and it must have been right peculiar to see such a thing.

My chickens were free-range and never had a care in the world. They were never fed anything but table scraps, cracked corn, wheat and whatever bugs they could dig out of the grass and given oystershell grit (free-choice). I built two houses for them, made out of western cedar and they are still standing and watertight after some 20 years. They always had fresh hay and in the winter I knocked the ice out of their water bowls and refilled it before heading off to work. And many a night I would get up out of a warm bed to run off a possum that was trying to steal eggs or kill an unwary hen.

I had a tender heart for those birds. I enjoyed watching their antics in the barnyard and was particularly delighted to watch them raise their chicks. They were like pets and it was with reluctance that I killed one of them for food, generally when a hen stopped laying eggs. When it came time to kill one, I did it quickly and efficiently and I always breathed a prayer of thanks for the life that was given to sustain me.

By the way, you can eat a rooster, but they are rather tough and making stew out of him is probably the only way to enjoy the meat.

Some folks make capons out of their excess cockerels (young roosters) and everyone I have talked to agrees that a capon is good eating.
For breeding stock, most breeders keep one rooster for every three hens and that is plenty to replenish your flocks. Otherwise it makes more sense to butcher the males while they are still cockerels. Some people prefer to do without roosters altogether and simply buy from a hatchery every year, ordering only female chicks. I did a bit of both, raising Barred Rocks, Rhode Island Reds, Jersey Giants, Buff Orpingtons, and bantams, (mostly of the Cochin variety).

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Getting your head chopped off isn't the most wonderful feeling <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspect it causes no feeling at all. Instantaneous total loss of blood pressure means instantaneous loss of consciousness. Severance of the spinal cord means the nerves that would have transmited the sensation would have no route to do so. The guillotine was considered the most humane of all methods of execution.

A chicken can run around without a head because it's muscles just keep firing on their own. Same thing about the beak muscles spasming, doesn't need a funtional brain to happen. The bird itself is definitely unconscious in a neurological sense. There is a record of a headless chicken surviving for years. The owner dropped food and water directly down the open gullet.

People don't do this because their neurology is far too complicated. We need a cerebrum and at least some cerebellum to keep the voluntary muscles and the heart working. In a bird a lot of these functions are handled up in the brain stem.

<Segue>

In order for humans to live, other creatures must die.

Even if you are a complete vegan, the plant material you eat comes at the expense of animals who died and continue to be killed because the land that was formerly their habitat is now cultivated.

The circle of life is also the circle of death.

[MikeJB]

Ok im not saying that I oppose what you just said but i just want you to see this from another viewpoint. Some animal activists would say that a human killing an animal isnt the same as another animal killing an animal because that would be just the law of nature but a person killing an animal would be different because he/she could chose weither to kill it or not, an animal doesnt have such thoughts and wouldnt think twice about it. I agree with the fact that you NEED to kill animals I just thought id put that little couterpoint in.

[aunaturelone]

I think they are wrong on this.

When you take wild land and plow it, you kill a lot of animals outright. Then, once you have farmland in production, you have to keep any surviving displaced animals out so that the food you grow won't be all consumed by wildlife. (When I was a kid we did that with a gun, insecticides and rat poison.) Even if you fence the area off so effectively no animals can get in, (Fat chance of that!) the loss of habitat means that many will starve and they can never be as numerous as before.

The vegan is kidding themselves that they aren't killing animals. They are merely passing it on the farmer who must kill in order to grow crops.

[MikeJB]

Yeah thats why farmers should only take what land they need and be consciensous of the animals, I mean I know people gotta grow food n all but also there needs to be enoguh room for animals to roam free without our farmers comin in and plowin up land or some real estate developer coming in and making homes or a community where animals live, especially if they dont need to. Theres too many buildings and people as it is, it gets old boring and quite annoying at times. I like being out in nature, away from all the hassles of the city and just having it be quiet and cerene without noisy cars and people keeping me up till all hours.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
...these animals are here for us to eat, thats their purpose and while we need to respect them and treat them as living things and not do anything to really upset the balance of nature too much, we also need to eat and sometimes we gotta kill these animals to eat them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think we need to be a little careful here. In the beginning God ordered the earth so that mankind ate vegetables and fruits, "every herb bearing seed." (Genesis 1:29) It was only after the Flood that God made provision for mankind to eat meat. So it is not really Scriptural to say that the animals were created only for our use. They are a part of God's creation and as such should be cherished.

[sawdust]

There is a record of a headless chicken surviving for years. The owner dropped food and water directly down the open gullet.

Are we to believe that if the above statement is true, this chicken that had no head or brain, still functioned as a chicken? Was it able to find its way to its nest to lay eggs? In that it did not have any eyes, it probably was able to do this using a white cane that the farmer taught it to use, right? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif It is a marvel what intelect a headless chicken can have! More so then some people I would guess. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sawdust

[Jochanaan]

Back to the original topic! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I respect Stu a lot because of his intelligent and sometimes witty replies, and for his honesty in telling some of the reasons why he feels the way he does about nudity.

Stu, I suppose you have asked yourself why you think public nudity is repugnant to you. Would you feel free to share your reasons? No, I'm not insisting, and I understand that's a very personal question. But your openness regarding certain personal issues leads me to ask.

As for me, I was never taught to be ashamed of my body. Also, I was exposed to nude art and photography from a young age. So when I stumbled on a website that was both nudist and Christian, I was ready to study the issue for myself. I realized right away that my own thoughts had been inconsistent and unclear, and I hate inconsistency and muddiness in my own thoughts! So I changed them. In particular, I realized that if nudity was all right for some in some circumstances, it was impossible to say it might not be right for everyone in all circumstances. The rest followed from there.

[MikeJB]

I think we need to be a little careful here. In the beginning God ordered the earth so that mankind ate vegetables and fruits, "every herb bearing seed." (Genesis 1:29) It was only after the Flood that God made provision for mankind to eat meat. So it is not really Scriptural to say that the animals were created only for our use. They are a part of God's creation and as such should be cherished.
-------------------------------------------------

Well my parents just explained it to me from a different point of view. Ive never honestly even heard that being in scripture but of course theres alot I dont know about scripture but the fact that nudity isnt lewd in gods eye I know more than anything.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sawdust:
There is a record of a headless chicken surviving for years. The owner dropped food and water directly down the open gullet.

Are we to believe that if the above statement is true, this chicken that had no head or brain, still functioned as a chicken? Was it able to find its way to its nest to lay eggs? In that it did not have any eyes, it probably was able to do this using a white cane that the farmer taught it to use, right? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif It is a marvel what intelect a headless chicken can have! More so then some people I would guess. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sawdust <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mike the Headless Chicken was actually a rooster. Not entirely headless, Mike did still have on ear and most of his brain, enough to survive.

Story (http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/headless_chicken/)

There is no record on Mike's views about nudism.

-Mark

[MikeJB]

What just because I beleive that god didnt condemn nudity? I think its obvious that he didnt or at least that he didnt specify weither he did or not and until he does we should just assume that it doesnt bother him. I mean we gotta decide this if we want the religous crowd to back us up.

[Jochanaan]

Mike, most of the Christians here, and there are a fair number, have already decided God doesn't mind anyone's naked body. (After all, He can see it anyway! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) But we represent only a small fraction of Christendom. Many of our leaders would be horrified if they even knew we liked to get naked with other naked men and women. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

And what about Santa? Does he condemn nudity?

I'd hate to get coal this year. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Nude in the North]

Santa Loves Nudity!
That's why he wants everyone to hang their stockings above the hearth.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Steve

[Trailscout]

Jochanaan,

A lot of Christians are content to deal with the issue of nudity intuitively. That is, if they feel that social nudity is consistent with a good life, they don't do an exhaustive exegesis, they simply enjoy being nude. I don't wish to condemn intuition or hunches. It is well-respected tool for reasoning in a wide variety of disciplines and in everyday life.

However, it is not infallible. Intuition, as you indicate has also led a lot of well-meaning Christians to summarily dismiss social nudism as sinful. Of course we both know that they are missing a big blessing by doing so.

If you can get a Christian to at least consider the evidence, then social nudism will stand up to scrutiny from a Biblical worldview.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Many of our leaders would be horrified if they even knew we liked to get naked with other naked men and women. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's an amusing way of putting it, and perhaps the way some religious people perceive us, but the truth is, most of us are not going to nudist resorts for the purpose of getting naked with other naked men and women, at least not in a carnal sense.

We do it because we are part of the nudist subculture and we want to associate with other members of our community. We do it because we seem to have a strong drive to return to the natural human condition. Our bodies were meant to interface with our environment, to feel the splash of rain, the warmth of sun, the touch of a friend, and the bristly brushing of meadow grass.

Of course that begs the question, "I understand why you don't like wearing clothes, but why do you have to be nude with a bunch of other people at these secret resorts?"

I think most of us know the answer:
Nudist resorts are one of the few places we can live the way God intended for humanity at the dawn of time. We can't be nude at the KOA Campground or the state park. We can't be nude at most of the public beaches. It is ironic that people make strict rules against our being seen in our natural condition, then they accuse us of wrongdoing when we, out of self-defence, create private sanctuaries where we can live the way our conscience dictates.

[Jochanaan]

Good points, Trailscout! I especially appreciate your "exposing" the circular argument that, because most of society condemns nudity, it's wrong. And why is it wrong? Because most of society condemns it! That's why intuition and tradition are poor guides for behavior.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
Many of our leaders would be horrified if they even knew we liked to get naked with other naked men and women. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's an amusing way of putting it, and perhaps the way some religious people perceive us, but the truth is, most of us are not going to nudist resorts for the purpose of getting naked with other naked men and women, at least not in a carnal sense.

We do it because we are part of the nudist subculture and we want to associate with other members of our community. We do it because we seem to have a strong drive to return to the natural human condition. Our bodies were meant to interface with our environment, to feel the splash of rain, the warmth of sun, the touch of a friend, and the bristly brushing of meadow grass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I put it that way to keep my post short. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[nudejosh123]

My only question is that why does Stu keep visiting this site if he is so against nudity? I do enjoy reading his posts even though I don't agree with them. I guess it is how you are raised that has something to deal with this too.

Josh

"My only question is that why does Stu keep visiting this site if he is so against nudity?"

I'm not against nudity. I get nude myself every day when I take a shower or a bath. I'm just against inappropriate public nudity.

"I do enjoy reading his posts even though I don't agree with them."

Thank you. I enjoy writing my posts and reading others' responses. That's why I keep visiting this site. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

There is no such thing as inappropriate nudity.

[dharmabum]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
There is no such thing as inappropriate nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure there is, Cyndiann...inappropriate is defined at dictionary.com as "unsuitable or improper". So...

Examples of 'unsuitable' nudity:
- During a snowstorm.
- Around my step-daughter whose dad has nudity issues and would like any reason to stir up trouble with his ex (my wife).
- While in a society (such as a moslem country) that has religious/legal/moral injunctions against it.

You get the idea.

As for 'improper' nudity? Well, that depends on the majority zeitgeist - and that's what Stu and the rest of us are debating. I'd agree with you that most of what Stu claims as 'improper' isn't - but any definition of impropriety depends on what the majority says it is. This definition, as regards simple/casual nudity, has been changing over the last few decades. As it continues to gain acceptance, we might see the day where swimming with clothes on is deemed by society at large as 'improper'.

At least, we could tell them that they should be 'un-suit-able' /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Bob S.]

But stu is for appropriate public nudity. Of course, his idea of "public" is different than our definition.

Bob S.

[stevenf64]

Actually I think appropriateness, if thats a word, is in the eye of the beholder.
To say that nakedness is not appropiate is to slap old and new artists in the face. How many Norman Rockwell paintings are of younguns doing what they do best.
What I dont think most textiles comprehend is that body shame is something that has to be taught. Country boys to this day will strip down for a dip in the old swimming hole. Little babys will continue to get out of their diapers and run around as GOD intended...
IT is only because they are taught that they have to get dressed that they stop.
just my 3 cents
steve

[MikeJB]

I'm just against inappropriate public nudity.
-------------------------------------------------

There is no such thing as inappropriate nudity. I know that you dont support public nudity at all, but I mean just to be fair to us nudists, what would you say would be the minimal amount of nudity that would be appropriate in public that wouldnt be going overboard, that people would find the least offensive? I mean maybe us nudists cant have public nudity everywjere and maybe the public wont be able to have us clothes everywhere, so maybe you could think of some sort of mutual understanding that both sides could agree on and be happy with, without upsetting or alarming the other? I mean youd think there would be some way to make some law that would be more open to nudists will at the same time making public nudity so that its not such a big issue to alot of people, like say letting people be nude in public places that are away from the masses of public such as a park or a pool or someone's yard, which a few people may see it but the majority still doesnt need to deal with it and can still have their privacy. Thats the sort of thing I was thinking of, just like public places youd expect someone to relax with minimal clothing on, only naked. If people accept it at these places then they'll only go there if they intend to see it and if they dont then theyll avoid it and thus the only people who would be there are happy people who accept and understand the nudists and neither group of people would have a problem with it.

Mike,

Come up with a solution that would guarantee that nobody who finds nudity offensive would encounter it, and we could use most public places secure in the knowledge that we won't encounter it. That has to be the bottom line for prudes such as myself.

The obvious answer then is the allocation of more places to be set aside for naturist use (and that includes clothes-optional places). More beaches, areas within the larger public parks, sessions at leisure clubs and swimming pools etc. Provided that such places and sessions are thoroughly screened off and conspicuously signposted to warn innocent people of the potential dangers of nearby nudity then I would support such naturist provision. I really can't see why everyone would not be happy with that.

Stu

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mike,

Come up with a solution that would guarantee that nobody who finds nudity offensive would encounter it, and we could use most public places secure in the knowledge that we won't encounter it. That has to be the bottom line for prudes such as myself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For the 100th time you don't have a right to never be offended. We don't set the common denominator to it's lowest level. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The obvious answer then is the allocation of more places to be set aside for naturist use (and that includes clothes-optional places). More beaches, areas within the larger public parks, sessions at leisure clubs and swimming pools etc. Provided that such places and sessions are thoroughly screened off and conspicuously signposted to warn innocent people of the potential dangers of nearby nudity then I would support such naturist provision. I really can't see why everyone would not be happy with that.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In other words more ghettos. You've said this at least 100 times too. Got anything new to say? You can't see why we would not be happy with that because all you care about is that your personal boundaries aren't encroached upon. This is a nudist website.

For those who feel they can learn from stu, all you need do is go back and read past posts. He regularly repeats himself. There is no need for him to keep posting his same twisted logic over and over and over and over and over and over nad over.

Cyndiann

"For the 100th time you don't have a right to never be offended."

And for the 100th time - when it comes to public places I don't agree with you.

"In other words more ghettos".

A "ghetto" is "a densely populated slum area of a city" (Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1991). Where have I suggested that naturists should be confined to such a place?

"You've said this at least 100 times too. Got anything new to say?"

And I've told you 100 times that if you don't like my posts or you find them boring then skip them.

Mike has only been coming to this site for a very short time so he raises points that have been raised in the past unaware of that fact and unaware of the counter arguments.

Since I started coming here I have seen the same old subjects trawled out time and time again (e.g. erections, Biblical attitudes to nudity etc). If people want to discuss these issues then so what? Similarly, if people want to discuss the subject that most concerns me, i.e. public nudity, then what's the problem?

"You can't see why we would not be happy with that because all you care about is that your personal boundaries aren't encroached upon. This is a nudist website."

I know. And who else comes here and offers a non-nudist perspective?

Stu

[stevenf64]

Stu
I for one appreciate that you do come here and give a non nudist point of view. I agree that no one forces anyone to read everything thats posted. A long time ago I was on a committee that made regulations involving local soccer (your football). There was an older gentleman on the board who hadnt been involved in years and we used to butt heads all the time. However he believed what he believed. I believed what I believed and the Kids that we served were the better for it. Had everyone been just yes people, I believe the program would have crashed many times.
SO KEEP POSTING, I for one like to hear both sides.
Just my 2 cents
steve

[Bob S.]

"Come up with a solution that would guarantee that nobody who finds nudity offensive would encounter it, and we could use most public places secure in the knowledge that we won't encounter it."

That is impossible having the word "nobody" in it.

"Provided that such places and sessions are thoroughly screened off and conspicuously signposted to warn innocent people of the potential dangers of nearby nudity"

Again, I agree with most except for the "screened off" part. Maybe a few trees, but other than that, signs will be sufficient. And if it is publicized enough that this certain place is for naturist use, then most people who don't want to encounter that would be able to avoid it. But 100-500 feet of neutral space could be as good of a barrier as anything.

stu, please stop using the term "danger" when referring to nudity. Nudity poses no danger to anyone. Viewing the naked body is not dangerous. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob S.

What are the "potential dangers of nearby nudity"?
Walking in a busy street is dangerous. Playing with poisonous snakes is dangerous. A child playing with a loaded firearm is dangerous. There's a long list of things that are dangerous, but there's absolutely NOTHING dangerous about seeing a nude person--unless you've got a weak heart and might die from the shock.

[Aaron Adams]

Stu I enjoy reading your posts and hope you continue to post in the future but I have a couple of questions. What exactly are your views on nudity? Given that you apparently find public nudity offensive why do you visit this website? Even if you avoid the INA homepage you can't avoid the pictures of public nudity. No offense intended I'm just curious as to exactly what your views are. On the being offended in public issue. I don't think people have a right not to be offended. If they did this right would interfere with other people's rights to free speech and freedom of expression in a huge way. I've encountered lots of things that offend me but people still have a right to do stuff that offends me.

If we have a right NOT to be offended as Stu has said, then that means I have a right NOT to be offended by the foul language coming from people with weak minds and limited vocabularies, or what is more commonly referred to as "adult language". What's so "adult" about it? I gave up offensive language at age 16 when I outgrew it and realized that I didn't need it, and it had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

I guess it also means I have a right NOT to be offended by people profaning the name of my God. I should also have the right NOT to be offended by the putrid stench of tobacco.


To me there is no difference in Stu being offended by nudity and me being offended by profanity. He says we all have a right NOT to be offended. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
If we have a right NOT to be offended as Stu has said, then that means I have a right NOT to be offended by the foul language coming from people with weak minds and limited vocabularies, or what is more commonly referred to as "adult language". What's so "adult" about it? I gave up offensive language at age 16 when I outgrew it and realized that I didn't need it, and it had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

I guess it also means I have a right NOT to be offended by people profaning the name of my God. I should also have the right NOT to be offended by the putrid stench of tobacco.


To me there is no difference in Stu being offended by nudity and me being offended by profanity. He says we all have a right NOT to be offended. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very well spoken, Jon-Marc. I agree with you on this. I, like many others on the forum, have been greatly offended by some things posted here.
Now let me get a few people mad at me. Even though I, myself, have done it, some here get so mad or disgusted that they supposedly leave the forum. At least they stop posting for awhile. Others then tell them not to leave because they like reading their posts or point out to them that their posts are valid responses and to come back.
Everyone on this forum, with the exception of some of the newbies, have read that one should not be offended just because others have a different view. They have a right to that opinion. While serious issues are at times debated here, one should not take the issue so seriously as to be "forced" into leaving the forum. We have to remember that just because someone doesn't agree with us doesn't mean that individual doesn't understand what we are saying. I understand a lot of views posted here but I do not agree with those views. Agreeing to disagree is easier said that done. Human nature at times leads us to believe that, "I am so right about this that the other person just doesn't understand what I mean; therefore, I must explain it to them in a different way because then they must surely agree with me". Of course when they don't, the cycle begins again untill one of the two becomes so frustrated or "offended" they feel they must leave the forum. I know it has been said so many times before but grow up and act like an adult. Is that statement too harsh? I certainly hope not. I don't want to offend anyone. Of course, if I don't want to offend or be offended, what the hell am I doing on a public forum? The word hell was used for effect and not to offend, as most cuss words are. If anyone doesn't agree with me on this, I will repost it untill you do or send you a PM. Just joking.

[luvnaturism]

The right of free speech creates vast restraints on a person's supposed "right" NOT to be offended. Courts in the US have ruled many, many times that speech?including the symbolic speech that commonly goes with political demonstrations?cannot be restrained merely because someone finds it offensive.

I'm not aware of anyone in this country who has ever been convicted of indecent exposure, or similar crimes, when nudity was used as part of a political demonstration. As long as the demonstration isn't violent, someone's assertion that they have a right not to be offended doesn't hold much water.

Unfortunately the concept of free speech hasn't been generally extended to the family that just wants to enjoy a day at the beach without clothes. In most places on state and federal lands law enforcement doesn't take action against nudity until someone complains?which I guess amounts to a de facto judgment that the complaining party has a right not to be offended.

Steve

"SO KEEP POSTING, I for one like to hear both sides."

Thanks for that. It's nice that some people appreciate me - even if they don't always agree with what I'm saying. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob S.

"That is impossible having the word "nobody" in it."

Fair comment. Substitute " a significant proportion of the populace"

"Again, I agree with most except for the "screened off" part. Maybe a few trees, but other than that, signs will be sufficient."

Bob - I'm not talking about the Great Wall of China, or the Berlin Wall. But I am talking about something sufficiently substantial and opaque that people could pass by close to the barrier without being at risk of glimpsing nudity. A "few trees" wouldn't be up to the job. A tall and thick hedge might be.

"And if it is publicized enough that this certain place is for naturist use, then most people who don't want to encounter that would be able to avoid it".

Kids might not be aware. Similarly some tourists could be in jeopardy who don't know the area. We can't put people at such risk.

"But 100-500 feet of neutral space could be as good of a barrier as anything."

100 feet? That's about twice the length of my living room. I think not! 500 yards should be a minimum.

"stu, please stop using the term "danger" when referring to nudity. Nudity poses no danger to anyone. Viewing the naked body is not dangerous."

Bob - we'll hav eto agree to differ on that one. Seeing nudity may or may not be physically injurious, but it can still be extremely traumatic. Something that can cause trauma is dangerous in my book.

Jon-Marc

"Walking in a busy street is dangerous".

So we build barriers and crossings and we establish speed limits and pedestrian-only streets.

"Playing with poisonous snakes is dangerous. A child playing with a loaded firearm is dangerous."

So we avoid snakes and keep firearms out of reach of kids (or better still, as we do here in the UK, out of reach of anybody other than, e.g. the military and specialist police units).

"There's a long list of things that are dangerous, but there's absolutely NOTHING dangerous about seeing a nude person"

See my response to Bob.

Aaron Adams

"What exactly are your views on nudity?"

There is nothing wrong with nudity for bathing or even changing. Personally I prefer not to see it or to be seen nude myself. I do, though, respect the right of naturists to have places set aside for them to enjoy their passtime. But I would strongly object to it being elsewhere in public.

"Given that you apparently find public nudity offensive why do you visit this website?"

I find nudity offensive but not words. Here I am exchanging opinions and provoking thought in others and also in myself. There are some very nice people here.

"Even if you avoid the INA homepage you can't avoid the pictures of public nudity."

I see the occasional picture of nudity here. I don't like it and I move away to find what I am looking for. This is a nudist site. People here are perfectly entitled to post pictures of nudity.

"I don't think people have a right not to be offended. If they did this right would interfere with other people's rights to free speech and freedom of expression in a huge way. I've encountered lots of things that offend me but people still have a right to do stuff that offends me."

I look at it differently. To me public places are places that belong to all of us. They have to be paid for by all of us and we have no choice but to use them in many cases. For these reasons I do have a right not to be offended. The authorities who regulate and manage these places have a responsibility to make them as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. Similarly, users of them have a responsibility to respect other users' feelings and sensibilities. Any user who behaves in such a way that he knows will cause discomfort to a significant proportion of the public who may be using the public places is irresponsible. If he does not cease this then he should be removed from that public place by the police.

Jon-Marc

"that means I have a right NOT to be offended by the foul language coming from people with weak minds and limited vocabularies, or what is more commonly referred to as "adult language".

You DO have such a right in public places here in the UK, Jon-Marc. People using such language are commonly arrested for a series of public order offences. There is even a specific offence of using "obscene language in a public place".

"I guess it also means I have a right NOT to be offended by people profaning the name of my God".

You DO have such a right here in the UK, Jon-Marc. There is still the crime of blasphemy on our statute books. The only problems you could have are that now there seem to be so few people who are taken aback by this in the UK that such objections, unless couched in the most extreme terms, are likely to be considered to be common parlence. In other words, you are effectively criminalising a behaviour that 90-95% of the population engage in.

"I should also have the right NOT to be offended by the putrid stench of tobacco."

Nearly all indoor public buildings now prohibit smoking. There are even pubs and restaurants where smoking is banned. In spite of that fact, almost one in three adults in the UK smoke (compared to one in fifty who consider themselves to be naturists).

"To me there is no difference in Stu being offended by nudity and me being offended by profanity. He says we all have a right NOT to be offended. What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Absolutely! I have no problem with the banning of any activity in public places that a significant proportion of the public find offensive. That includes profanity, blasphemy or smoking.

People should treat public places with respect, and respect the wishes of other people who use them.

shaybare

"They have a right to that opinion. While serious issues are at times debated here, one should not take the issue so seriously as to be "forced" into leaving the forum".

I agree!

"We have to remember that just because someone doesn't agree with us doesn't mean that individual doesn't understand what we are saying. I understand a lot of views posted here but I do not agree with those views. Agreeing to disagree is easier said that done. Human nature at times leads us to believe that, "I am so right about this that the other person just doesn't understand what I mean; therefore, I must explain it to them in a different way because then they must surely agree with me".

You are SO right, Shaybare! That was a very incisive and though-provoking post.

By the way, my knee is still painful at times but most of the time it doesn't trouble me. It hurts my wife more than me because I can't fix the fence or do a whole lot of other jobs she has earmarked for me. Shucks!

Stu

[shãybare]

I don't blame you, Stu. I'd milk that sore knee bit for all it's worth. haha

[Aaron Adams]

Stu thanks for responding to my post. I feel I have a fairly good understanding of your views on nudity now.

[Bob S.]

"Fair comment. Substitute " a significant proportion of the populace""

Hey stu, this could go on forever. Now if only we could get a grasp of "significant proportion of the populace." /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"Kids might not be aware. Similarly some tourists could be in jeopardy who don't know the area. We can't put people at such risk."

Egads! That would just be horrible, wouldn't it! (sarcasm, love that smell!) Are you going to put a guard at the entrance to the barrier? There has to be some entrance and people may go in there anyway, unaware of the nudity. Signs are only there for those who actually pay heed to them or read them. If you are busy, chatting with your family, or something else, you could miss the sign.

"100 feet?"

OK, so that is a bit short. My depth perception was turned off. Although if you are legally blind, it wouldn't be too far. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Seeing nudity may or may not be physically injurious, but it can still be extremely traumatic."

And we'll also have to agree to disagree on this one as well (but we don't have to stop debating this point). I say nudity cannot cause trauma to about 99.99% of the population (you and the rest of the gymnophobes are the only exceptions). Trauma, to me, means that they have had to seek professional help in order to get over it or had negative side effects such as nighmares, flashbacks, and other such episodes for at least a week or a month. For the 99% of the population, the nudity sighting lingers, at most for the rest of the day.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Bob S.

Fair comment. Substitute " a significant proportion of the populace"
------------------------------------------------

I seriously doubt that a significant propoertion of the population is against nudity in that way.


-------------------------------------------------
Bob - I'm not talking about the Great Wall of China, or the Berlin Wall. But I am talking about something sufficiently substantial and opaque that people could pass by close to the barrier without being at risk of glimpsing nudity. A "few trees" wouldn't be up to the job. A tall and thick hedge might be.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but if there are signs stating that nudity is there and thus people look anyways, thats their own fault and the signs are there to let people know that nudity is present so they wont look there or do anything if they dont like it. A few trees would be just fine, thus making it not very appearant but visible to those who wish to see it.

------------------------------------------------
Kids might not be aware. Similarly some tourists could be in jeopardy who don't know the area. We can't put people at such risk.
-----------------------------------------------

Well the kids parents need to keep them from such places then and the tourists need to just avoid this place from now on if they see it.

------------------------------------------------
100 feet? That's about twice the length of my living room. I think not! 500 yards should be a minimum.
------------------------------------------------

100 feet is good. If people close to get closer, especially with the signs there then they get what they deserved because they were warned of the nudity.

------------------------------------------------
Bob - we'll hav eto agree to differ on that one. Seeing nudity may or may not be physically injurious, but it can still be extremely traumatic. Something that can cause trauma is dangerous in my book.
------------------------------------------------

That would have to be something long term that you need serious treatement for, most people do not have such reactions from seeing nudity and if they do then they need medical assistance anyways because its obvious they have other mental issues. Ive never heard of simple nudity doing such a thing to a normal healthy person.

-------------------------------------------------
So we build barriers and crossings and we establish speed limits and pedestrian-only streets.
-------------------------------------------------

That doesnt always work. Over here we have such things and theres still a good chance you can get hit, they are by no means safe.

-------------------------------------------------
"Playing with poisonous snakes is dangerous. A child playing with a loaded firearm is dangerous."

So we avoid snakes and keep firearms out of reach of kids (or better still, as we do here in the UK, out of reach of anybody other than, e.g. the military and specialist police units).
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah you keep the snake away from the kid and the parents keep the gun locked up, teach the kid to be careful around such weapons and keep the gun unloaded or with the saftey on. Thats just common freakin sense.

-------------------------------------------------
"There's a long list of things that are dangerous, but there's absolutely NOTHING dangerous about seeing a nude person"

See my response to Bob.
-------------------------------------------------

I still dont see any long term problems that result from nudity and thus no danger.


------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with nudity for bathing or even changing. Personally I prefer not to see it or to be seen nude myself. I do, though, respect the right of naturists to have places set aside for them to enjoy their passtime. But I would strongly object to it being elsewhere in public.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah so basically you want their lifestyle hidden from the public even though it is safe and good for them, I really dont get this? You dont hide something that isnt dangerous.

-------------------------------------------------
I find nudity offensive but not words. Here I am exchanging opinions and provoking thought in others and also in myself. There are some very nice people here.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats understandable, but if you find nudity offensive then why not just let us enjoy our lifestyle in public and not worry about it, most of us dont even live near you, so youd never see it anyways.

-------------------------------------------------
I see the occasional picture of nudity here. I don't like it and I move away to find what I am looking for. This is a nudist site. People here are perfectly entitled to post pictures of nudity.
-------------------------------------------------


Yeah but wouldnt it be easier if you learned to like it then you wouldnt have to go to so much work to avoid it? Theyre just pictures.

-------------------------------------------------
I look at it differently. To me public places are places that belong to all of us. They have to be paid for by all of us and we have no choice but to use them in many cases. For these reasons I do have a right not to be offended. The authorities who regulate and manage these places have a responsibility to make them as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. Similarly, users of them have a responsibility to respect other users' feelings and sensibilities. Any user who behaves in such a way that he knows will cause discomfort to a significant proportion of the public who may be using the public places is irresponsible. If he does not cease this then he should be removed from that public place by the police.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but nudity isnt something that should cause offense in the first place and even if it does, it falls under the category of so many other things that cause offense that we just have to deal with everyday and cant do anything about because people have rights and priveledges to do them *here at least* and nudity should be no different. There are just some things that the public has to deal with weither it likes it or not.

-------------------------------------------------
You DO have such a right in public places here in the UK, Jon-Marc. People using such language are commonly arrested for a series of public order offences. There is even a specific offence of using "obscene language in a public place".
------------------------------------------------

If such a thing happened here, youd have all the "free speech" activists on you stating how youre going against their first amendment rights or something like that. People say basically what they want here, although there are some few exceptions.

------------------------------------------------
You DO have such a right here in the UK, Jon-Marc. There is still the crime of blasphemy on our statute books. The only problems you could have are that now there seem to be so few people who are taken aback by this in the UK that such objections, unless couched in the most extreme terms, are likely to be considered to be common parlence. In other words, you are effectively criminalising a behaviour that 90-95% of the population engage in.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah that doesnt happen here to the best of my knowledge, you can insult god as much as you want. *just not around my dad* /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


------------------------------------------------
Nearly all indoor public buildings now prohibit smoking. There are even pubs and restaurants where smoking is banned. In spite of that fact, almost one in three adults in the UK smoke
-------------------------------------------------

Geez why cant they be more strict with tobacco here? Its gross and thats something that really should be banned.

-------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! I have no problem with the banning of any activity in public places that a significant proportion of the public find offensive. That includes profanity, blasphemy or smoking.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but even if most of the public did like it, we could still use facts to prove that it is bad for us to have it. There are no real such facts for nudity as there is for tobacco.


-------------------------------------------------
People should treat public places with respect, and respect the wishes of other people who use them.
-------------------------------------------------

What about the nudists wishes? Shouldnt they be respected nude in public? I sure would think so.