Shame or Culture

[Stu2630]

It says on the home page of the CFI website:

We need to respect our bodies by not declaring it dirty or shamefully hiding it. Censoring or pixilated innocent images of adults or children only sexualizes them.

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the non-nudist perception of our own naked bodies and the bodies of others. I don't believe that most non-nudists do regard their bodies as "dirty" or "shameful", but rather as generally "private", and something not to be exposed to strangers of the opposite sex. Similarly, we don't regard the naked bodies of others as "dirty" or "shameful" - but exposure outside of certain, narrowly-defined contexts are simply taboos - but so deeply ingrained as to give rise to various negative emotions if those taboos are breached. Nudists have divested themselves of these taboos along with their clothes and so they have become incapable of understanding how others are incapable of, or unwilling to, follow suit.

There is no basis for the claim that censoring or pixelating images of nudity sexualizes them: it doesn't. All it does is shows a respect for the feelings of those of us who are still sensitized to the sight of nudity owing to us having retained our deeply ingrained attitude towards nudity. Nudists often say that the non-nudist public need to be 'educated' in their attitudes towards nakedness. Perhaps nudists need to be 'educated' to appreciate that our hostility towards unexpected nakedness is far too complex to be written off as "shame" or "sexualization": that, as social beings, these feelings are part of our social conditioning and acculturation and, while not being strictly logical, they are part of our make-up and should be respected.

Stu

[Sanslines]

......... Nudists often say that the non-nudist public need to be 'educated' in their attitudes towards nakedness. Perhaps nudists need to be 'educated' to appreciate that our hostility towards unexpected nakedness is far too complex to be written off as "shame" or "sexualization": that, as social beings, these feelings are part of our social conditioning and acculturation and, while not being strictly logical, they are part of our make-up and should be respected.
Stu

Non nudists need to stop being so self centered and stop placing ridiculous demands upon nudists. In the grand scheme of things, nudity is a real non issue unless some dysfunctional person wants to waste their precious life stressing over that which is entirely unimportant. If a non nudist does not wish to see a naked person, then avoid them entirely or just look away. Better yet, just grow up, seek proper help, and stop pushing problems onto the backs of nudists. Simple nudity is never the problem. The problem is with the dysfunctional who are either unwilling or incapable of change and demand that nudists do all of the work and accomodation.

[HaroldTheNudist]

Sanslines

I know non nudists who would tell you as a nudist to "grow up, stop acting like a baby wanting to walk around nude, and put some clothes on and if you like to be nude you need help"

very true.

non nudists in a public area have a right to you those areas at a comfort level. rather than "look away" as you say they tell you to "put some clothes on to cover your genitals"

Harry

[Stu2630]

Better yet, just grow up, seek proper help, and stop pushing problems onto the backs of nudists.

People don't need 'help' to overcome social conditioning they are comfortable with. And, if they are comfortable being as they are, they don't have 'problems' so long as their comfort zones are not threatened.

Simple nudity is never the problem.

There are plenty of examples even on this nudist site to show that what you call 'simple nudity' can be a problem.

The problem is with the dysfunctional who are either unwilling or incapable of change and demand that nudists do all of the work and accommodation.

In nearly all modern societies, nudity is limited and constrained: in most cases, it is not acceptable in public. No minority interest has the right to demand that everyone else in that society should 'change' to accommodate them.

Nudism is like a coin with two sides. One side is the responsible, thoughtful side - a side which people can admire because it advocates ideals which are at least harmless and at best positive and healthy. This side recognises that nudism is a specialist interest that not everyone shares and that, if nudism is to be tolerated and accepted, then nudity-free textilism should be equally respected. The public face of nudism usually shows this side, as we can see by the home page of this very site:

" Cover up when asked or ask other others if they mind that you or your family continues to skinnydip or sunbathe nude. Showing respect for others will increase their respect for you and your lifestyle."

http://www.clothesfree.com/

But the other side of the coin is nudism's ugly side. It advocates that textiles have no right to be upset by nakedness - it dismisses that offence as unimportant and suggests that people should just grow up or look away. It believes in "pushing the envelope" - confronting textilism at every opportunity - arrogantly trying to "de-sensitize" and "educate" the public who stubbornly persist with their misguided textile values.

In many respects, nudists have had a very poor deal in society. They have been sidelined, ignored and ridiculed: they have been misunderstood, suspected of harboring all kinds of unsavory motives. They are right to challenge this kind of treatment and fight to get their just entitlements, recognition and respect. But that's a two-way street and, if the ugly side of the nudism coin shows itself, the worst fears of the textile majority about nudism will seem to have been confirmed.

Stu

[HaroldTheNudist]

you get naked in public around here-push the envelope-and you could well end up listed as a sex offender with your name published in the paper!

most nudists will not do this or they are foolish if they do.

Harry

[Agde]

I actually think the conflict may be much simpler. Aside from practical aspects like warmth and protection, clothing sends social signals, like wealth, affiliation or enticement. The signaling can get very complex even among the fully-clothed -- a fellow wearing a yarmulka is unlikely to be successfully seduced by a woman naughtily revealing an ankle from under her burkha. Pixelating her ankle would also be unlikely to have the desired effect.

Nudity removes all the clothing signals, but can be a signal itself. In some cultures, nudity simply signals poverty, in others impropriety or decadence. In a naturist context, nudity signals nothing whatsoever.

So the choice in a case of mixed social signals is simple: either to recognize each other's social signals and evaluate them according to the signaler, or to evaluate all social signals and react on the basis of what we would be signaling. The former clearly takes more knowledge and effort, but the latter is a sure recipe for constant personal angst and general social discord.

[Sanslines]

People don't need 'help' to overcome social conditioning they are comfortable with. And, if they are comfortable being as they are, they don't have 'problems' so long as their comfort zones are not threatened.

So very true for nudists do not need help or restrictions to overcome social conditioning that they are comfortable with. And if nudists are comfortable being as they are, they don't have 'problems' so long as their comfort zones are not threatened. So why threaten nudists comfort zones by trying to force textile comfort zones upon them.

In nearly all modern societies, nudity is limited and constrained: in most cases, it is not acceptable in public. No minority interest has the right to demand that everyone else in that society should 'change' to accommodate them.

Exactly true. Minorities are just that and have no say or right to demand any changes. They must take what the majority dictates to them. If the majority wants to persecute and jail nudists, then nudists, being the minority, have no right to complain!

Nudism is like a coin with two sides. One side is the responsible, thoughtful side - a side which people can admire because it advocates ideals which are at least harmless and at best positive and healthy. This side recognises that nudism is a specialist interest that not everyone shares and that, if nudism is to be tolerated and accepted, then nudity-free textilism should be equally respected. The public face of nudism usually shows this side, as we can see by the home page of this very site:

" Cover up when asked or ask other others if they mind that you or your family continues to skinnydip or sunbathe nude. Showing respect for others will increase their respect for you and your lifestyle."

http://www.clothesfree.com/

But the other side of the coin is nudism's ugly side. It advocates that textiles have no right to be upset by nakedness - it dismisses that offence as unimportant and suggests that people should just grow up or look away. It believes in "pushing the envelope" - confronting textilism at every opportunity - arrogantly trying to "de-sensitize" and "educate" the public who stubbornly persist with their misguided textile values.

In many respects, nudists have had a very poor deal in society. They have been sidelined, ignored and ridiculed: they have been misunderstood, suspected of harboring all kinds of unsavory motives. They are right to challenge this kind of treatment and fight to get their just entitlements, recognition and respect. But that's a two-way street and, if the ugly side of the nudism coin shows itself, the worst fears of the textile majority about nudism will seem to have been confirmed.

Stu

Consideration is a two way street and since the playing field is not level, the textiles can get whatever they chose at the expense of the nudists. When nudists realize equal protection under the law, then textiles will be forced to be more considerate of nudists. Such equal consideration terrifies textiles for then the playing field would be level and textiles would be forced to either treat nudists as equals or be subject to the same kind of treatment that they now can lodge against nudists with impunity.

[Agde]

Consideration is a two way street
In terms of my "social signals" point, Stu's recurrent "show respect" theme requires people not only to be knowledgable about each other's social signals, but then to evaluate them according to the signal receiver (ie.Stu) and instantly translate them into the signal receiver's personal dialect. This is even more complicated than my recommended solution to evaluate social signals according to the signal sender. Short of an omnipresent United Nations-style cadre of multilingual interpreters, learning to speak everyone else's dialect simultaneously seems a bit unrealistic. Of course Stu assumes people still live in essentially homogeneous Saxon villages.

[Sanslines]

In terms of my "social signals" point, Stu's recurrent "show respect" theme requires people not only to be knowledgable about each other's social signals, but then to evaluate them according to the signal receiver (ie.Stu) and instantly translate them into the signal receiver's personal dialect. This is even more complicated than my recommended solution to evaluate social signals according to the signal sender. Short of an omnipresent United Nations-style cadre of multilingual interpreters, learning to speak everyone else's dialect simultaneously seems a bit unrealistic. Of course Stu assumes people still live in essentially homogeneous Saxon villages.

Stu unfortunately continues to demonstrate that he will accept you ONLY if you submit to his lifestyle requrements. His compromise involves no give (and all take) on his part and all give on the nudist's part.

[MoonShadow]

Gawd!

Has been so nice not hearing that irritating recording, but it is back!!!!!

Back he comes to torque our noodles with his incessant and repeating anti-nudity theme.

Well, it was nice having the break.

Whirrrrrrr Whirrrrrrrrrr

[Bob S.]

Stu: "There is no basis for the claim that censoring or pixelating images of nudity sexualizes them"

Stu, does the BBC or stations over there censor cursing over the air with a silence or a beeping tone? They do that over here and for a good reason. But what if they placed a sound censor over a normal word but didn't let the audience know that? It would send the message that the person just cursed, which might alter the publics' perception of what was said.

The same goes for censored nudity. The censored nudity becomes the forbidden to see and therefore sexualized. The burkha is the ultimate form of censored nudity. Women must cover up so that the men do not get any sexual thoughts. It is why Playboy, Hustler, and the other adult magazines are so popular--they dare to show the taboo parts of the body, in these cases in sexualized positions.

If nudity were more commonplace, the adult magazine industry would fall apart drastically because men would be able to see the real think everyday.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Stu unfortunately continues to demonstrate that he will accept you ONLY if you submit to his lifestyle requrements. His compromise involves no give (and all take) on his part and all give on the nudist's part.

I have tried to steer this thread away from the same old ground and on to a slightly different topic, namely whether it's 'shame' which motivates textiles to avoid nudity, or something more complex. But you keep on dragging the thread back to Stu and his anti-nudist attitudes.

OK, I'll bite this time. I do not you submit to MY lifestyle requirements - merely that you have places where you can enjoy YOUR lifestyle and allow me to have places where I can enjoy mine. Give and take? I'm prepared to GIVE nudists a fair share of public space to practise nudism in return for them respecting the textile conventions on non-nudist places. And that seems to be all many nudists are asking for.

MoonShadow

You must have seen that I had started this thread. You could have just skipped over it - but you chose to come and have a gawp. Now you are griping about it.

BobS

Stu, does the BBC or stations over there censor cursing over the air with a silence or a beeping tone?

Yes, they do have that option - but it does depend upon the time of day and the likely listener audience. I have heard some very fruity language being used on our "Radio 4" late at night.

But what if they placed a sound censor over a normal word but didn't let the audience know that? It would send the message that the person just cursed, which might alter the publics' perception of what was said.

The problem with that would be one of comprehension: people wouldn't know what the word actually was. I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison between that and a picture of a naked person with the private parts pixelated out because we all know exactly what it is that we're not seeing.

The burkha is the ultimate form of censored nudity. Women must cover up so that the men do not get any sexual thoughts.

I completely agree with you. The burkha, and some other religiously-inspired dress forms have been brought in originally to discourage lustful thoughts. But over time they take on a cultural significance of their own. In the Islamic countries where they have this garb, women cover themselves even where it is inconceivable that the sight of them would inspire such desires, like very elderly women or women who are disfigured or just plain ugly. This is the basis of the point I was making - that the old religious idea of "body shame" has been replaced by norms and taboos which are entirely cultural and have little to do with their religious antecedents.

It is why Playboy, Hustler, and the other adult magazines are so popular--they dare to show the taboo parts of the body, in these cases in sexualized positions.

You are right again. Mind you, the whole context and co-text of these pictures is sexual; the magazines are sex publications containing young and conventionally attractive women wearing heavy make-up and little else - and what they are wearing is usually sexually provocative in its own right. They will, for example, be naked except for a pair of very high-heeled shoes.

If nudity were more commonplace, the adult magazine industry would fall apart drastically because men would be able to see the real think everyday.

I'm not sure that is true - nor is it especially desirable.

If nudity were more commonplace, then the "soft-core" industry would flourish only by using the most beautiful women in the most provocative sexual poses. I'm sure that what we see on a typical nudist beach bears little similarity to what is photographed in Hustler or Playboy. In the meantime, the harder core material would be largely unaffected.

People will always find some focus for their sexual predilections. Partly because it is not a common sight and partly because it is involved in sexual activity, nudity often provides some of that focus (along with various other accessories like the high-heels, stockings, short skirts, bright lipstick and so on). Is that a bad thing? Well, I can see why nudists think it is because they have decided to draw a clear distinction between nakedness and sex. The rest of us haven't and many relish the fact that opposite sex nudity is a bit 'exotic'. Why take that away from us?

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

OK, I'll bite this time. I do not you submit to MY lifestyle requirements - merely that you have places where you can enjoy YOUR lifestyle and allow me to have places where I can enjoy mine. Give and take? I'm prepared to GIVE nudists a fair share of public space to practise nudism in return for them respecting the textile conventions on non-nudist places. And that seems to be all many nudists are asking for.

Stu

Stu,

The reality is that you do not have those places to give nudists. What you propose is theoretical in nature only. Reality is a very different kettle of fish. The reality is that there may not be enough nudists in particular areas to support nudist only beaches. Beaches designated as such would remain empty most of the year. Nudists certainly can not go nude on the plethora of textile beaches now can they? Therefore, the only solution is to share beaches and textiles need to accept that nudists will get nude on their beaches. Nudists are not demanding that textiles get nude but textiles are certainly demanding that nudists always remain clothed. Is this fair or balanced? Not on your life. The only sensible compromise involves a degree of educating textiles so that they do not fear seeing others who chose to be nude. Once this irrational fear is conquered, then the vast majority of textiles won't give a hoot if a nudist can share their beach. For those textiled individuals who are incapable of change, a few beaches should be set aside for textiel only use. However, the vast majority of beaches should be designated clothing optional.

[Agde]

Just one small observation on the idea that textiles don't view bodies as "shameful" just "private", that pixelating shows respect for the feelings of textile viewers, and that sometimes religious ideas of "body shame" are replaced by norms and taboos which are entirely cultural.

Taken together this would suggest that media operators should, on the one hand, be careful to pixelate whatever a filmed individual considers private about their person and, on the other hand, be careful to pixelate whatever an individual viewer feels is too private about another person. The first is technically easy to do and, with the advent of digitalization, offering the choice of pixelation services to concerned viewers (eg. an Evangelican stream of the Movie Channel) wouldn't be particularly difficult. It's a simple matter of market segmentation and a few algorithms.

The point is that, whether pixelating or burkha-izing, censorship should be the choice of the individual person whose body is involved or the choice of an individual viewer according to their personal feelings, whether based on shame or culture -- not a matter of an individual viewer demanding that everyone else in the world pixelates and covers-up to accommodate their particular personal standards.

[HaroldTheNudist]

nudists aren't being discrimated against with laws against nudity.

only the conduct is.

I dont feel nudism will ever become a protected right

Harry

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Your solution is not the way forward. It presumes that everybody else is wrong and need educating. That's a pretty outrageous thing to suggest and doesn't demonstrate any respect for the textile perspective. It is, frankly, unacceptable to me and many other textiles and we have rights too.

Suppose 5% of people consider themselves to be nudists. So, assuming that there are textiles who don't mind sharing beach space with nudists, we could allow, say, 10% of beach space to be allocated as either "nudist" or "clothing optional". Of course that's not in my gift - if it were I would give it! But it gives nudists something reasonable and achievable to campaign for: it's something that I don't think most textiles would object to.

Agde

Personally, I have no objection to there being unpixelated nudity on TV and in films on two conditions. Firstly, it should be in media which is not accessible to children - so it should be confined to adult-only films or late night TV. Secondly, it should always come with a clear warning so that people like me can avoid it.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

Your solution is not the way forward. It presumes that everybody else is wrong and need educating. That's a pretty outrageous thing to suggest and doesn't demonstrate any respect for the textile perspective. It is, frankly, unacceptable to me and many other textiles and we have rights too.

Suppose 5% of people consider themselves to be nudists. So, assuming that there are textiles who don't mind sharing beach space with nudists, we could allow, say, 10% of beach space to be allocated as either "nudist" or "clothing optional". Of course that's not in my gift - if it were I would give it! But it gives nudists something reasonable and achievable to campaign for: it's something that I don't think most textiles would object to.

Stu

Stu,

You are not a 'typical' textile and you know it. You lump all textiles on one basket. This completely and totally ignores the diversity that exists among textiles comcerning nudism. For example some textiles might chose to never be nude themselves and yet have no objection to others being nude or seeing others nude. I believe that the majority of textiles fit this category. We also have a much smaller group of extreme textiles who must be completely isolated and insulated from any form of nudity, including a woman's bare breasts, for a wide variety of reasons. You certainly fit into a very small group of extreme textiles. Hence, you would certainly object to any form of education or anything that might jeapordize your total ban on seeing any nudity including a woman's breasts. However, it it the majority of 'moderate' textiles that we will reach out to and unfortunately you are not one of them. The bottom line in a nutshell is that you do not represent the majority of textiles and certainly can not speak for them. Reaching out to the majority is the way forward to gain nudism acceptance. Trying to negotiate with an extremist is not productive and wastes valuable time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere. I know that deep down inside you will agree with this even if you will not either admit it or accept it coming from this forum. You also know that you can not be negotiated with and you will keep repeating the same old and tired anti nudity slogans in this forum for years to come.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You are not a 'typical' textile and you know it.I have never suggested that I am a "typical textile".

You lump all textiles on one basket. This completely and totally ignores the diversity that exists among textiles comcerning nudism. For example some textiles might chose to never be nude themselves and yet have no objection to others being nude or seeing others nude.Obviously I don't. I recognised the diversity of attitudes towards nudity in the textile sector in my last post when I said:

So, assuming that there are textiles who don't mind sharing beach space with nudists, we could allow, say, 10% of beach space to be allocated as either "nudist" or "clothing optional"

I believe that the majority of textiles fit this category.You may believe that. I don't.

Hence, you would certainly object to any form of education or anything that might jeopardize your total ban on seeing any nudity including a woman's breasts. However, it it the majority of 'moderate' textiles that we will reach out to and unfortunately you are not one of them.I object to the notion that a small group of people with a "specialist" interest think they have the right to brainwash the rest of society. This is what "extremists" do - just like Islamic extremists want to educate the world about why we should live under Sharia law. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone, or change anyone's way of live or perceptions. I'm not the extremist - you are.

Reaching out to the majority is the way forward to gain nudism acceptance.You aren't advocating "reaching out" to anyone. You want to foist the sight of your nakedness onto them whether they like it or not. You want to force them into sharing your perceptions because you are arrogant enough to think they need educating because your perceptions are right and theirs are wrong. Like I said - you are the "extremist".

You also know that you can not be negotiated with and you will keep repeating the same old and tired anti nudity slogans in this forum for years to come.No. YOU are the one who have dragged this discussion back to the same old topics, not me, and that's in spite of me asking you not to. Instead of doing that, why don't you look again at my first post in this thread and discuss the points I raised there? It's there for all to see that I said nothing remotely anti-nudist.

Stu

[HaroldTheNudist]

I share beaches with textiles all the time as a nudist. I just wear something on. I also live amongst them as a nudist but just wear some clothes.

it's really easy.

the general public would not tolerate having beaches designated clothing optional and wouldnt give up a portion for it. they would fear that doing so would compromise the surrounding area.

Harry

[boatsteve]

I have never suggested that I am a "typical textile".

Your nose is growing stu! Why do you insist in coming here and irritating us all? Does it get you off being where you aren't wanted?

Stop blaming everyone else for repeating yourself. Gosh, we've had years of it now! Last week was so peaceful without you here.

And take Harry the troll with you. I strongly suspect that Harry is the same troll that used BobS 's handle, among a hundred others like Rocket. That is sick and so very sad....

[HaroldTheNudist]

Your nose is growing stu! Why do you insist in coming here and irritating us all? Does it get you off being where you aren't wanted?

Stop blaming everyone else for repeating yourself. Gosh, we've had years of it now! Last week was so peaceful without you here.

And take Harry the troll with you. I strongly suspect that Harry is the same troll that used BobS 's handle, among a hundred others like Rocket. That is sick and so very sad....


hey! I resent that! I've certainly dont know what you are talking about and have done much to further nudism. I've organized many nudist parties and not only have seen them flourish, but I've seen other nudists grow into nudism on my behalf.

we simply dont need anything from the general public. I like the exclusitivity of nudism. when we advocate to be naked infront of the general public and if they dont like it then they can just ignore it makes us look silly

Harry

[Stu2630]

That's right, Boatsteve, just ignore the subject matter of the thread, throw out the same old attacks on me and then accuse me of repeating myself.

I have introduced a topic about whether it's "shame" which makes textiles reluctant to accept or even hostile to nudity or whether it's something else. That is a bit complicated for you perhaps - a subject for intellectual debate. So why don't you just butt out and leave this one to those of us who are capable of pursuing it?

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Sanslines wrote "I believe that the majority of textiles fit this category"

You may believe that. I don't.



Jersey, one of the Channel Islands is considering a naturist beach, is currently has none, the survey yielded an interesting fact for Stu to consider. 85% of those interviewed wouldn't get uptight about nudity, the interesting comments of the against lobby reflect some very strange attitudes, almost as odd as Stu.

BBC - Jersey (http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2007/11/09/nudist_beach_2007_feature.shtml)

British Naturisms Research and Liaison Officer has on file a number of other surveys that back that figure, all this in complete contrast with Stu's assertions yet he keeps peddling the same old stuff as if he expects us to believe it one day.

Pete Knight

[KNude]

Try this subtitution;

White for Textile, Black for Nudist.
Or
Christian for Textile, Jew for Nudist. etc.

Sounds like comments I have heard before.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I object to the notion that a small group of people with a "specialist" interest think they have the right to brainwash the rest of society. This is what "extremists" do - just like Islamic extremists want to educate the world about why we should live under Sharia law. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone, or change anyone's way of live or perceptions. I'm not the extremist - you are.

You aren't advocating "reaching out" to anyone. You want to foist the sight of your nakedness onto them whether they like it or not. You want to force them into sharing your perceptions because you are arrogant enough to think they need educating because your perceptions are right and theirs are wrong. Like I said - you are the "extremist".

No. YOU are the one who have dragged this discussion back to the same old topics, not me, and that's in spite of me asking you not to. Instead of doing that, why don't you look again at my first post in this thread and discuss the points I raised there? It's there for all to see that I said nothing remotely anti-nudist.

Stu

Stu,

That's right, blame me for your same old and tired diatribes against nudity. You are a real mystery man for you claim to be an educated person and then make derogatory remarks against education as some form of 'brainwashing'. You know fully well that education is not brainwashing. Education merely presents the truth and the facts about nudity and nudism and will clearly demonstrate how the popular media distorts and perverts nudity and nudism for their own special interests. Once people are awakened and enlightened and realize that nudists are not freaks but are instead very normal people who find being nude to be a very stress eliminating and relaxing state, then I believe that far more people will come to be more accepting of nudism. It is going to take a large and strong education campaign to counteract the very harmfull distortions and perversions that the media has constantly bombarded people with over the years.

The reason that you are afraid of 'education' and refer to it as brainwashing is simple due to your own distorted phobias concerning nudity. You can not accept any form of nudity as it terrifies you and you certainly can not accept any process, most importantly education, that will challenge and jeapordize your fragile control over nudity.
In your particular situation, it really would be far better for you to admit that you have a serious problem, and spend your time trying to overcome your problem rather then coming to a forum and bombarding nudists with your same old and tired diatribes against nudity (yes, also indirectly against nudism too!)

As for the question at hand, mainly as to whether shame is a reason why textiles resent nudism, shame is one reason. Another reason is ignorance and misperceptions and this is why education is so very important to challenge and overcome these two major setbacks.

[Stu2630]

Pete

Jersey, one of the Channel Islands is considering a naturist beach, is currently has none, the survey yielded an interesting fact for Stu to consider. 85% of those interviewed wouldn't get uptight about nudity

Would you care to equip yourself with a nice new pair of reading glasses, Pete? What the article really says is:

In fact, in a non-scientific poll of more than six hundred people, 85% were in favour of designating one of Jersey’s beaches for naturists, compared with just 8% who were against it (the remaining 7% didn’t mind either way).

Yup. I may "get uptight about nudity" but, if I lived in Jersey, I'd be delighted if there were to be a nudist beach. Most people support the existence of nudist beaches in Jersey and anywhere else - but that doesn't mean they would be comfortable at the prospect of seeing naked people in the places they frequent. That's a very different thing.

Sanslines

That's right, blame me for your same old and tired diatribes against nudity.

Ah! Someone else who could use a pair of reading glasses. Go back and look at my #1 message in this thread and show me where I have said anything in it which could be described as a "diatribe against nudity".

You know fully well that education is not brainwashing.


Education is informing people of facts and equipping them with skills.
Education is neutral: it explores all points of view and does not try to impose the value system of the educator on the students.
Education is a consensual process, given only to adults who actively seek it.
Exposing your nakedness to people who have not consented to see it has nothing to do with education and everything to do with trying to engineer people's sensibilities to suit your own agenda.

Education merely presents the truth and the facts about nudity and nudism and will clearly demonstrate how the popular media distorts and perverts nudity and nudism for their own special interests.

Most people don't particularly want to know about nudism any more than they want to know about the teachings in the Koran. It is unacceptable to force people to be "educated" about Islamic philosophy and it is unacceptable to expose your nakedness to people who you know may be offended by it. If people really DO want to know about nudism, let them research it for themselves.

You can not accept any form of nudity as it terrifies you and you certainly can not accept any process, most importantly education, that will challenge and jeapordize your fragile control over nudity.

I saw a couple of guys nude about two hours ago in the changing rooms at my gym. Was I terrified? Nope. They were nude in an appropriate place.

In your particular situation, it really would be far better for you to admit that you have a serious problem, and spend your time trying to overcome your problem rather then coming to a forum and bombarding nudists with your same old and tired diatribes against nudity (yes, also indirectly against nudism too!)

Again, see how you are dragging the thread away from my main subject area and back onto my own perceptions of the naked body.

As for the question at hand, mainly as to whether shame is a reason why textiles resent nudism, shame is one reason. Another reason is ignorance and misperceptions and this is why education is so very important to challenge and overcome these two major setbacks.

Hurra! At last you are getting close to what I started this thread to discuss - so let's follow that. You say "ignorance and misperceptions" - but ignorance and misperceptions about what exactly? Remember we are talking about nudity and not nudism. People know what nudity is - virtually everyone spends time in their lives when they are nude. With regard to the nudity of others, they know where they find it appropriate. I would say that shame plays only a very small part in people's discomfort with their own nudity (or people seeing their own nudity) and that their desire for certain parts of themselves to remain private, perhaps even mysterious, is a far greater factor. Shame plays no part in their discomfort of the nudity of others - how can it?

I suspect the main factors underlying the textile's discomfort with nudity stems from the privacy/mystery phenomenon: people only want others to know certain things about them. People become embarrassed when, for example, others talk openly about their sexual fantasies or their toilet habits: in fact, they'd rather not have to deal with these as they may think they are "too much information". Their objection to nudity is a visual manifestation of that same phenomenon.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Ah! Someone else who could use a pair of reading glasses. Go back and look at my #1 message in this thread and show me where I have said anything in it which could be described as a "diatribe against nudity".

Stu,

Perhaps you need new reading glasses as you know very well that you have been launching one diatribe after another against nudity for the past five years. Nothing has changed in five years! Absolutely nothing!!



Education is informing people of facts and equipping them with skills.
Education is neutral: it explores all points of view and does not try to impose the value system of the educator on the students.
Education is a consensual process, given only to adults who actively seek it.Exposing your nakedness to people who have not consented to see it has nothing to do with education and everything to do with trying to engineer people's sensibilities to suit your own agenda.

Eduacation is pretty much as you state above with one exception and clarification concerning your third point. Education is indeed consensual and is RECEIVED by all (including adults AND children) who are willing to receive the message. There are times when I am NOT actually seeking out education but inadvertently learn something new at times when I least expect it.


Most people don't particularly want to know about nudism any more than they want to know about the teachings in the Koran. It is unacceptable to force people to be "educated" about Islamic philosophy and it is unacceptable to expose your nakedness to people who you know may be offended by it. If people really DO want to know about nudism, let them research it for themselves.


There is an old phrase that floats around many academic institutions in the USA: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance instead". To modify this phrase slighty, the alternative to education is ignorance. Ignorance may suit the needs of a government that wants no opposition to it's policies and is a clear way of controlling people, but in the USA, education is cruical to an engaged and effective populace. As far as nudism is concerned, we will not allow you and your phobias to prevent an education process to occur where the media generated misunderstandings about nudism to stand ie that nudism is somewho a form of sex. You obviously resent anything that replaces ignorance and misunderstandings about nudism with real understanding because it threatens your weak and tenuous control of nudism and nudity. You would rather promote ignorance to maintain the status quo then allow anything, such as any form of education, to occur which will threaten your phobias. It really is very sad when you allow your own phobias and selfish interests to dominate over that which will replace general ignorance with factual information. Shame on you!


I saw a couple of guys nude about two hours ago in the changing rooms at my gym. Was I terrified? Nope. They were nude in an appropriate place.

Sadly, you still won't ever accept the point that it is NOT about you and your ideas of where nudity is and is not appropriate.


Again, see how you are dragging the thread away from my main subject area and back onto my own perceptions of the naked body.

Your perceptions and phobias are the reasons why you state what you do and until you admit that your phobias color your responses, nothing will ever change.



Hurra! At last you are getting close to what I started this thread to discuss - so let's follow that. You say "ignorance and misperceptions" - but ignorance and misperceptions about what exactly? Remember we are talking about nudity and not nudism. People know what nudity is - virtually everyone spends time in their lives when they are nude. With regard to the nudity of others, they know where they find it appropriate. I would say that shame plays only a very small part in people's discomfort with their own nudity (or people seeing their own nudity) and that their desire for certain parts of themselves to remain private, perhaps even mysterious, is a far greater factor. Shame plays no part in their discomfort of the nudity of others - how can it?

Shame plays a great roll in nudity as people are constantly bombared by the message that no matter who they are, their bodies are imperfect and they should feel ashamed to allow others to see their bodies. I believe that most real nudists are courageous in that they stand up and reject the extremely unhealthy attitude about the human body. The media has distorted and perveted any sense of a person's own body self acceptance.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

you know very well that you have been launching one diatribe after another against nudity for the past five years

I was talking about this particular thread. And so were you. Then you realised you couldn't quote anything I said which is anti-nudist, so you are now trying to side-step my specific point by making yours a general one. That's a well-known tactic used by politicians.

Education is indeed consensual and is RECEIVED by all (including adults AND children) who are willing to receive the message.

Textiles who use public places have not, in using those places, given any express or implied consent to you getting naked in their presence in order to "educate" them.

There are times when I am NOT actually seeking out education but inadvertently learn something new at times when I least expect it.

That applies to all of us. But that's very different to someone trying to engineer a situation in order to impose their views on you because they think you need "educating".

To modify this phrase slighty, the alternative to education is ignorance.

That's a very simplistic, and hence fragile, argument. Al Qaida could claim that, when they plant their bombs in western countries, they simply want to "educate" people about the situation in Palestine.

As far as nudism is concerned, we will not allow you and your phobias to prevent an education process to occur where the media generated misunderstandings about nudism to stand ie that nudism is somewho a form of sex.

Firstly, it's not about allowing me to do anything. The police and courts are there to protect people like me from people like you - and they do a pretty good job, most of the time. Secondly, you don't have to get naked in the presence of textiles to prove to them that nudism isn't "a form of sex": you can inform and persuade people just as well with your clothes on, and not risk offending them in the bargain. Besides, most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not.

because it threatens your weak and tenuous control of nudism and nudity.

No. I am happy to leave that to law enforcement. Steve Gough simply wanted to "educate" people and he doesn't worry me in the slightest.

You would rather promote ignorance to maintain the status quo then allow anything, such as any form of education, to occur which will threaten your phobias. It really is very sad when you allow your own phobias and selfish interests to dominate over that which will replace general ignorance with factual information. Shame on you!

Now you are dragging my aversion to nudity back into this - shame on you! This thread is about textiles in general and whether "shame" is the main factor in their discomfort around nudity.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> I saw a couple of guys nude about two hours ago in the changing rooms at my gym. Was I terrified? Nope. They were nude in an appropriate place. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Sadly, you still won't ever accept the point that it is NOT about you and your ideas of where nudity is and is not appropriate.

No - you are the one who keeps dragging me and my "phobias" into this, so I simply pointed out that I don't always react to all situations of nudity in the way you suggest. I am also perfectly entitled to state what situations i consider to be appropriate for nudity and what situations are not. In that respect, I'm pretty much in tune with the vast majority of the population.

Shame plays a great roll in nudity as people are constantly bombared by the message that no matter who they are, their bodies are imperfect and they should feel ashamed to allow others to see their bodies.

Back on topic. Good! :) But I disagree. Most "imperfections" of our bodies are not ones which are rendered invisible by, for example, swimwear. A bikini does not hide a huge backside, flabby waist or even sagging breasts. A pair of swimming trunks can't conceal bad teeth, a bald patch or a scar from knee surgery. People don't think their worst bits are those parts of them they keep inside their swimming costumes, and I have no doubt that nudists are just as likely to be embarrassed about less attractive parts of their body as textiles are. So that argument doesn't hold water.

I believe that most real nudists are courageous in that they stand up and reject the extremely unhealthy attitude about the human body.

I believe that most real nudists are courageous in that they are prepared to defy convention and relax as they prefer to be. But I don't see any evidence that I am less healthy than you are, physically or mentally, merely because I don't allow strangers to see my genitals or bare backside.

The media has distorted and perverted any sense of a person's own body self acceptance.

Without doubt. That's something we can agree on. They parade a never ending stream of perfect faces with perfect teeth and ideal figures before us constantly - and they even use photographic tricks to iron out the real models' imperfections. Where we disagree is that I think it is possible to have body acceptance without total nakedness because genitals and backsides are not the parts of the body which people generally think are their most attractive, or most repulsive, features.

Stu

[boatsteve]

Stu, the only reason you are here at all is because of your phobias.

[KNude]

A few posts up there was an agrument about separate beaches, textile and nude. Does this sound like the old "separate but equal" line that this country dumped years ago. Separate just never really equates to equal.

[Stu2630]

boatsteve

Stu, the only reason you are here at all is because of your phobiasNo, the reason I come here is because I find the subject matter interesting.

KNude

Separate but equal isn't always wrong. It's generally wrong when founded on inherent differences like race, but it's perfectly reason when based upon what a person wants to do at a particular time. We have places for gambling and drinking and adult entertainment where people are not permitted to bring children - does that mean parents are discriminated against? Would you allow a rock concert to occupy the same premises as a geriatric nursing home? Would you allow Formula 1 drivers to take their racing cars onto the highways? Or me to take my Mercedes saloon car on to a race track on a race day? Nudists are free to go to exactly the same places as textiles - so long as they follow exactly the same rules as the textiles follow while there. And there are nudist places where nudity is compulsory. It is often the case that segregation is both necessary and desirable.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Stu writing utter, and biased, rubbish yet again, the same old tiresome diatribe, when are you going to admit that that you are trying to control us, we are a larger part of society than you and you phobic types, why don't you alter your attitudes to fit our preferences.

The reality is that, apart from the uneducated who think that nudism is about sex, very few people are offended by mere nudity, you are the exception, but then you are not the same as normal people.


Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete

when are you going to admit that that you are trying to control us

Never. Because I'm not. As I said - the law enforcement agencies and the courts usually manage to control inappropriate nudity.

you and you phobic types, why don't you alter your attitudes to fit our preferences.

We can all live happily and co-exist in the same country - nudists with their beaches etc and in the rest of public space, clothing must be worn. That's how it is now and it ain't going to change any time soon.

The reality is that, apart from the uneducated who think that nudism is about sex, very few people are offended by mere nudity, you are the exception, but then you are not the same as normal people.

Read the comments from people on the Jersey article which YOU linked to. Most commentators there are very happy for you to have beaches set aside for nudism - so long as they are away from normal beaches and signposted. That's exactly my position - which makes me a normal person. :)

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines
I was talking about this particular thread. And so were you. Then you realised you couldn't quote anything I said which is anti-nudist, so you are now trying to side-step my specific point by making yours a general one. That's a well-known tactic used by politicians.

Stu,

You know that your tone has been consistently anti nudism and anti nudity for the past five years regardless of what word games that you play. You know that you consistently inflict your 'controls' upon nudists to keep them out of your sight. You have serious phobias against the sight of the nude human body and as such will always attempt to 'negotiate' a way to prevent you from ever witnessing nudity. You are once again playing games with your comments above by insisting that I find specific anti-nudist words that you have used in this case when you know fully well what your truthful intentions are and those intentions are consistently and clearly to prohibit any form of nudity or nudism which threatens you extreme sensibilities that are based upon your irrational phobias.

Why is any of this important? It is important because it is what really motivates you. You clearly have no love of nudism or nudity and only seem to be attracted to those individuals who follow a lifestyle that you would personally find repusive for yourself or your immediate family. This is just plain bizarre.



Textiles who use public places have not, in using those places, given any express or implied consent to you getting naked in their presence in order to "educate" them.

According to Stu, education must never involve the unauthorized sight of a naked human body. This is just another example of Stu's phobias at work and the absolute need to prevent any intentional sight of a naked human body. Such an edict clearly represents Stu's opinion only as Stu can not speak for the general population.



That applies to all of us. But that's very different to someone trying to engineer a situation in order to impose their views on you because they think you need "educating".

You are clearly adament to prevent any form of nudism education for you know very well that any form of education (which may not necessarily involve any form of real life nakedness) will threaten your ability to severly limit and control when and where another person gets naked. Hence your anti education ranks are nothing more then a thinly veiled means to promote and propogate the distortions that the media have consistently portrayed in order to advance their own self interests. If people knew exactly what nudism was and what it involved , I know that there would be much greater acceptance of nudism in general and places for nudists to be nude. The general populace, as it stands now, has much more important things to worry about, and any form of education would further illustrate that genuine and plain nudism is a non issue that is never worth all of the wasted legal resources when there are far more important things in life to deal with such as real crime.



That's a very simplistic, and hence fragile, argument. Al Qaida could claim that, when they plant their bombs in western countries, they simply want to "educate" people about the situation in Palestine.

You are grasping at straws and this is just more anti education ranting on your part to prevent any form of education that expalins and presents to the general populace what nudism is really about.



Firstly, it's not about allowing me to do anything. The police and courts are there to protect people like me from people like you - and they do a pretty good job, most of the time. Secondly, you don't have to get naked in the presence of textiles to prove to them that nudism isn't "a form of sex": you can inform and persuade people just as well with your clothes on, and not risk offending them in the bargain. Besides, most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not.

The police and courts are supposed to represent the people. There is much great and fine work being done by the NAC to prevent anti nudist zealots from imposing their nonsensical laws against nudists. The bottom line with all of you comments is that nudists need to have laws passed which prevent them from witnessing you in person. Such laws would be very similar to yours in that they would severly restrict you from going to places where you might encounter nudists. Stu, what you have clearly demonsrtated is that the nudist community does indeed need laws to protect them from those with severe and irrational phobias against the sight of any form of nudity.


No - you are the one who keeps dragging me and my "phobias" into this, so I simply pointed out that I don't always react to all situations of nudity in the way you suggest. I am also perfectly entitled to state what situations i consider to be appropriate for nudity and what situations are not. In that respect, I'm pretty much in tune with the vast majority of the population.

Your phobias are what motivates you to keep ranting against nudists and nudity. You are not in touch with any group other then a very small and select group of those with severe and extreme phobias against the naked human body. Your views are yours alone and represent nothing beyond that.



Back on topic. Good! :) But I disagree. Most "imperfections" of our bodies are not ones which are rendered invisible by, for example, swimwear. A bikini does not hide a huge backside, flabby waist or even sagging breasts. A pair of swimming trunks can't conceal bad teeth, a bald patch or a scar from knee surgery. People don't think their worst bits are those parts of them they keep inside their swimming costumes, and I have no doubt that nudists are just as likely to be embarrassed about less attractive parts of their body as textiles are. So that argument doesn't hold water.



I believe that most real nudists are courageous in that they are prepared to defy convention and relax as they prefer to be. But I don't see any evidence that I am less healthy than you are, physically or mentally, merely because I don't allow strangers to see my genitals or bare backside.

It all depends upon what motivates you to keep certain parts of your body covered AND to deny others who wish to not keep certain parts of their bodies covered in your presence. No one is demanding that you be nude anywhere and at anytime. You consistently demand to control other people's behavior by preventing them from ever being nude in your presence.



Without doubt. That's something we can agree on. They parade a never ending stream of perfect faces with perfect teeth and ideal figures before us constantly - and they even use photographic tricks to iron out the real models' imperfections. Where we disagree is that I think it is possible to have body acceptance without total nakedness because genitals and backsides are not the parts of the body which people generally think are their most attractive, or most repulsive, features.

You are sadly too hung up and focused upon genitals and women's breasts. You will never understand that to a nudist, genitals and breasts are all part of the same human body and do not stick out any more then someone's head or feet or hands stick out. There is nothing shocking or abnormal about any part of a human body to a nudist. Nudists accept the entire human body as being very normal. Unfortunately, those with severe phobias will never be able to accept this unless they admit that they have a phobia problem and deal with that problem to conquer it. Trying to force others to accomodate their phobia restrictions is unfair to nudists and does nothing to conquer their own phobias.

[Sanslines]

A few posts up there was an agrument about separate beaches, textile and nude. Does this sound like the old "separate but equal" line that this country dumped years ago. Separate just never really equates to equal.


Separate but equal accomodates Stu's phobias against nudity. Stu can't accept anything that promotes further acceptance of healthy nudity in our society for he is totally afraid of the day when more and more of the restrictions and laws against nudists start to go away.

[Sanslines]

The reality is that, apart from the uneducated who think that nudism is about sex, very few people are offended by mere nudity, you are the exception, but then you are not the same as normal people.


Pete Knight

This is very true and Stu is terrified of a result that bears (bares) this out. Hence why Stu is against any form of education which will shine a light on the fact that most of society does not care about nudism and is not particularly opposed to it. Stu can't accept this for it would threaten his fragile contol on keeping any form of nudity from his sight. Stu does have severe phobias against nudity and instead of admitting that he has this problem and dealing with it in a constructive and healthy manner, he would rather come to this forum and inflict his problems upon others in a veiled attempt to make others accomodate his problems by restricting their actions.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You know that your tone has been consistently anti nudism and anti nudity for the past five years regardless of what word games that you play.Oh, it's my tone now is it - forget what I actually say, just look at my tone. There are plenty of real anti-nudists in the world. There are people who think nudists are a bunch of perverts and they shouldn't be allowed any places to practise. Others agree that nudists should have places, but they should be few and far between and they should have to make do with the grotty backwaters they presently have. I think nudists are generally decent and responsible people who get a raw deal from society: I want them to get a fairer share of public spaces and I have actually assisted where I have been able to. And that makes me 'anti-nudist' does it?

you know fully well what your truthful intentions are and those intentions are consistently and clearly to prohibit any form of nudity or nudism which threatens you extreme sensibilitiesI simply want there to be a RIGHT to practise nudism in either private places outside of public view, or public places designated for nudists. Beyond that, I have no problem nudism being practised elsewhere so long as it is done with consideration for those of us who are less than comfortable being around it. That's not "extreme" - it's "mainstream": it's pretty close to the policy stated by British Naturism!

You clearly have no love of nudism or nudity and only seem to be attracted to those individuals who follow a lifestyle that you would personally find repusive for yourself or your immediate family. This is just plain bizarre.Of course I have no "love of nudism" - I'm not a nudist and never will be. I come here because I enjoy the debate. I have also met some splendid and fascinating people here who are nudists and I enjoy corresponding with them. That's not "bizarre" at all.

According to Stu, education must never involve the unauthorized sight of a naked human body.Being exposed to someone else's nudity is rather like having someone else see your own nudity - it should only occur if the subject consents to it otherwise it it offends their sensibilities and can leave people feeling violated. It's regrettable that some nudists don't understand this and it's why there needs to be laws to control inconsiderate and irresponsible nudism.

You are clearly adamant to prevent any form of nudism education for you know very well that any form of education (which may not necessarily involve any form of real life nakedness) will threaten your ability to severly limit and control when and where another person gets naked.That's simply not true. If you want to 'educate' people about nudism, offer them WORDS to inform them. If they then wish to see nudism for themselves, they can be told where to go. Of course I do want to limit where people can get naked and I look to the law to regulate nudity in public so that I can avoid it if I wish.

If people knew exactly what nudism was and what it involved , I know that there would be much greater acceptance of nudism in general and places for nudists to be nude.I don't think people WANT to know any more about nudism. They're not interested. Nudism is something that happens at nudist colonies: some people think it's funny, some think it's a bit sad, and some think it's a great idea - but it's still not for them. Leave people be to decide for themselves whether they want to explore and understand nudism, or whether they are content to be as they are - wearing clothes or swimwear and among others who are also wearing clothes or swimwear.

What a lot of textiles don't know is that nudism contains people like you - people who insist on foisting the sight of their nakedness on non-nudists and their families whether they like it or not because they think they need "educating". You had better hope that the textile world doesn't wake up to your views in this respect because, if it ever does, they'll become indignant at your arrogance and they'll turn against nudism in a heartbeat.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

What malarky, Stu. You are anti-nudity and anti-nudist. You spew such anti-ness post after post. Your facade that you enjoy being here for "debate" is laughable. You are here to speak against anti-nudity. Like the recording you are. You enjoy provoking members here. You enjoy throwing in our faces here "cultural" desires and wants as if you are the textiles' authority on such while we are working to change those twisted thoughts about nudity and nudism. You want to keep the status quo. We don't and we work to change attitudes, thinking, and educating textiles that the nudist lifestyle is a wonderful life experience.

BTW, there is no such thing as nudist colonies. That is an archaic term no longer used.

[KNude]

Stu
You and only you have control of your body. You can decide what to look at and what not to look at. It appears you want external sources to control your envirnoment so you do not have to excerise self-control.
If you don't want to see don't look. IF you don't want children to see, do what the rest fo us do, don't take them there.
You don't have to punish us for your lack of the ability to control yourself.

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

You are here to speak against anti-nudity.

I'm glad you admit it. As you rightly say, I am very much against "anti-nudity" people who don't think nudists should be accommodated in our society.

You enjoy provoking members here.

I enjoy a good debate, but when I say something then I'm sincere - I'm not merely saying it to provoke a reaction..

You enjoy throwing in our faces here "cultural" desires and wants as if you are the textiles' authority on such while we are working to change those twisted thoughts about nudity and nudism.

If people have "twisted thoughts" about nudity and nudism, then I'll be just as keen to challenge these misconceptions as you are. But I won't do it in such a way as may cause offence.

You want to keep the status quo.

Yes, I do. But I also want nudists to have more opportunities to practise.

We don't and we work to change attitudes, thinking, and educating textiles that the nudist lifestyle is a wonderful life experience.

You have no business trying to "change attitudes" of textiles any more than textiles have any business coming to a nudist beach and spoiling your enjoyment of it by shouting to you that you are all a bunch of sinners and will burn in eternal damnation. You enjoy your nudist places and allow us to enjoy our textile ones - and stop trying to make US more like YOU.

BTW, there is no such thing as nudist colonies. That is an archaic term no longer used.

I know. If you look back, you'll see I used the term to show that some people do still think that nudists all go to these "nudist colonies".

KNude

If you don't want to see don't look.

When you are naked, I don't want you anywhere in my ambit of view. So I stay well clear of nudist beaches.

IF you don't want children to see, do what the rest fo us do, don't take them there.

I don't take my kids anywhere near nudist beaches - and I just ask that nudists don't expose their nakedness to my kids when we choose to avoid their beaches and stick to textile ones.

You don't have to punish us for your lack of the ability to control yourself.

I am perfectly capable of controlling myself. I control myself by making sure that I don't go near nudist beaches so that I won't have to see you and my presence won't bother you. I just ask that you to return the favour and stay well clear of me and mine.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow

You have no business trying to "change attitudes" of textiles any more than textiles have any business coming to a nudist beach and spoiling your enjoyment of it by shouting to you that you are all a bunch of sinners and will burn in eternal damnation. You enjoy your nudist places and allow us to enjoy our textile ones - and stop trying to make US more like YOU.

Stu

Back at you, Stu. Stop trying to make us more like you. Can't believe you posted this.

[Stu2630]

Back at you, Stu. Stop trying to make us more like you. Can't believe you posted this.

Moonshadow

Can't you see that's the whole point? I don't want you to be more like us. I don't want you to abandon your love for nudism and 'see the light' and become textiles. I have no desire to "change attitudes" or "educate" nudists - I simply want you to enjoy your nudism while allowing us to continue to live our lives in a nudity-free environment, if that's how we choose to live.

Stu

[boatsteve]

Besides, most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not.

They do? What are you basing that statement on? Have you really spoken to most textiles? I doubt that.


Now you are dragging my aversion to nudity back into this - shame on you! This thread is about textiles in general and whether "shame" is the main factor in their discomfort around nudity.Because of your aversion you can't judge a textile's feelings about nudity.


No - you are the one who keeps dragging me and my "phobias" into this, so I simply pointed out that I don't always react to all situations of nudity in the way you suggest. I am also perfectly entitled to state what situations i consider to be appropriate for nudity and what situations are not. In that respect, I'm pretty much in tune with the vast majority of the population.
No you aren't, and anyone that has read a post or two from you can see that. Your phobias prevent that from ever happening.

But I don't see any evidence that I am less healthy than you are, physically or mentally, merely because I don't allow strangers to see my genitals or bare backside.How come so many others here *do* see your lack of mental health? How about you be truthful about the extent of your phobia? This goes way past you not allowing strangers to see your genitals. Even your own wife hasn't seen them! And you have never seen your own children nude! Sorry, you can't explain away what we all know.

[MoonShadow]

I concur with you, boatsteve. Stu, does not have a healthy mind-set about his own nudity. He will always say otherwise, but the rest of us know that he does not have a healthy mental state about his own nudity, that of his wife, or of his children. He is not normal when it comes to nudity at all.

[Sanslines]

MoonShadow

You have no business trying to "change attitudes" of textiles any more than textiles have any business coming to a nudist beach and spoiling your enjoyment of it by shouting to you that you are all a bunch of sinners and will burn in eternal damnation. You enjoy your nudist places and allow us to enjoy our textile ones - and stop trying to make US more like YOU.

Stu

Stu,

What a self centered load of total horse manure. Nudist have just as much right to challenge the status quo as anyone else. We also have the right to correct the many false notions concerning nudism that are floating around society. You do not have any right to dictate what nudists can and cannot do. You are not the supreme judge in all of this. You certainly can enjoy your textile places but you insist upon coming to this forum to meddle in nudist affairs that you have no business meddling in. You continue to try to force your controls upon nudists here and don't seem to get the clue that nudists will reject you and your controls. In plain and simple langauge, nudists are not interested in you and your anti nudity and anti nudism issues. The process of education about real nudism is NOT for you. You have already made up your mind about nudism and nudity and there is absolutely NOTHING that any nudist can do or say to make you change your mind. Your mind is totally closed and any attempt to reason with you is wasted time that is better spent on educating those in soceity with an open mind. In short, let's leave the education to those who are open minded and tolerant enough to consider what is being presented. Let's also leave the closed minded to stew in their own self created miseries and minsunderstandings.

[Sanslines]

I concur with you, boatsteve. Stu, does not have a healthy mind-set about his own nudity. He will always say otherwise, but the rest of us know that he does not have a healthy mental state about his own nudity, that of his wife, or of his children. He is not normal when it comes to nudity at all.

I agree with you both. Stu is like an alcoholic who continues to deny that he has a problem. He is the type who would drink right in front of you and then deny that he even drinks. Based upon my own past experiences, such individuals need to hit rock bottom and wake up on their own as there is nothing that anyone else can say to wake them up. Stu will continue to deny that he has some rather serious issues and is wasting his life feeding these issues rather then admitting that he has issues and then going to seek the honest and proper help for those issues. Sadly , Stu seems to be a real lost cause.

[Naturist4Ever]

No, the reason I come here is because I find the subject matter interesting.


....whirrr...whirrr....

If you REALLY found the subject matter interesting (as many others do, including those before you here at CFF that rejected nudism for themselves but still wanted to learn more about it) you would engage in an interesting dialogue. But the only thing you reiterate over and over again is "fine these nudists, as long as I don't have to see them - oh, ps respect my rights". Well we have heard you, and since we have heard this a zillion times now and nothing else of any value we probably all think you are a nutter of some sort and it may be time (for you) to find a life more interesting, somewhere else that is.
PS - for someone so averse to nudity you appear rather well up to date with the content of mags like Hustler and PBoy!

[Pete Knight]

Well I think Stu is right about conforming to laws, they should be rigid and unchangable, and women shouldn't have got the vote!!

Pete Knight

[tiggy]

Well I think Stu is right about conforming to laws, they should be rigid and unchangable, and women shouldn't have got the vote!!

Pete Knight

I think there are certain ladies who would hang you for that Pete.
Tiggy

[GrayWolf]

Well, I think that Stu has a great time pulling our chain and most likely isn't most of the thinks he professes to be. If he really is all that he says, then he is one troubled dude. If he is a dude. If he is older than 15 or so. Who knows. Who cares.

[Bob S.]

OK, everyone take a breath, push away from their keyboard, and relax. It's getting a bit heated. You may disagree with Stu just as he disagrees with us, but do so respectfully. Do not name call or bash opinions. If you have a disagreement, as we all do, argue your points.

Bob S. Moderator

[Stu2630]

Boatsteve

They do? What are you basing that statement on? Have you really spoken to most textiles?

I said "most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not". That's what I'm basing it on. In the absence of empirical data, we all base our judgments on our experiences.

Because of your aversion you can't judge a textile's feelings about nudity.

I have an awareness of my particular level of aversion, but that doesn't negate my perceptions of how other textiles feel about this.

How come so many others here *do* see your lack of mental health?

You are seeing what you choose to see and from your own perspectives. I live in the real world and interact with countless other people in work, familial, social and business situations and nobody has ever questioned my mental state - not even psychiatrists I know.

Moonshadow

he does not have a healthy mental state about his own nudity, that of his wife, or of his children

I think it's perfectly healthy: it doesn't cause me a problem in my life. Perhaps you should be careful talking about what is and is not "healthy". I suspect many textiles would question whether the attitude of some nudists on here that they want the right to get naked wherever they please regardless of how others may feel about it is not a "healthy" attitude.

Sanslines

Nudist have just as much right to challenge the status quo as anyone else.

Of course you have. In a democratic society, you have freedom of speech, you can organise campaigns, seek support from the media, academics, the public at large, lobby your elected representatives, and so on. Just keep within the law and don't go around upsetting people.

We also have the right to correct the many false notions concerning nudism that are floating around society.

Indeed. By use of information via the medium of language. But you have no more right to get naked in public contrary to the law to make your point than Al Qaida has to change public opinion through terrorism.

You certainly can enjoy your textile places but you insist upon coming to this forum to meddle in nudist affairs that you have no business meddling in.

I'm not meddling in anything: I'm discussing. This is a public forum after all - for the exchange of views. I have spoken to nudists on here who broadly agree with many of my views. And they certainly don't appear to be too far from those which were published in British Naturism as their "Public Acceptance Policy".

You continue to try to force your controls upon nudists here and don't seem to get the clue that nudists will reject you and your controls.

Really! Stating a point of view is not "forcing controls". :laugh: You are the one who is trying to "force" what you call "education".

In short, let's leave the education to those who are open minded and tolerant enough to consider what is being presented.

I don't need any education about nudism, thanks. I'm glad you are beginning to realise that. But you know what? I reckon most textiles feel the same way as I do.

Based upon my own past experiences, such individuals need to hit rock bottom and wake up on their own as there is nothing that anyone else can say to wake them up

Funny. I got married age 20 and I've been married to the same lady for 30 years. We have three kids - two now grown up and all doing just fine. We're about to emigrate and start a new life. Rock bottom? Just because I find inappropriate nudity offensive?

Sadly, Stu seems to be a real lost cause.

I'm not a cause - I'm a thinking adult with my own views. You want to change my views - do it with reasoned arguments. I did see some when I first came here and I was grown-up enough to take some of them on-board. But I have to say that, of late, any attempt I make to raise an intellectual point is rapidly lost in the rubbish about my "phobia". This thread is a case in point.

Naturist4Ever

you would engage in an interesting dialogue. But the only thing you reiterate over and over again is "fine these nudists, as long as I don't have to see them - oh, ps respect my rights".

Go and look at my #1 message on this thread. I tried to engage in an interesting dialogue but, as always, it gets hijacked by the "Stu has problems and really hates us" brigade.

PS - for someone so averse to nudity you appear rather well up to date with the content of mags like Hustler and PBoy!

I know that they contain pics of naked or semi-naked women in provocative poses. My 83-year-old mother would probably know that, too, but it doesn't mean to say that she subscribes to them.

Pete

Well I think Stu is right about conforming to laws, they should be rigid and unchangable, and women shouldn't have got the vote!!

You do keep putting words into my mouth, don't you? (Well, either that or distorting statistics). I have never said that laws should be rigid and unchangeable. I can think of plenty of laws I would like to change. The issue is how you go about effecting such changes in a democratic society. Where there are means of voicing opposition to bad laws and influencing our law-makers, then any action to change a bad law should generally be within the law. That's a basic tenet of democracy.

Stu

[Home Nudist]

As a Home Nudist, I don't really feel I have a dog in this fight. I agree with Stu's position that he doesn't have to see naked people.

My question is, Who is forcing him to? What kind of life does he lead that he is in mortal danger of encountering naked people at every turn? Where ARE all of these people that offend him so? In my nearly 60 years of living in a textile world, I can't say that I've encountered any. So, it's a non-issue.

If any of us disrobe on a textile beach or decide to walk don't the street naked, we would be arrested. And, Stu's precious right not to see us would be protected, and rightly so.

So, I don't understand why this is an issue with him. I really do not. Or, why he has such strong feelings about any of this. And, his railings against nudity are, in my opinion, moot, meaningless, and quite frankly, repetitive and boring to read.

Live and let live.

He either, as he has said, likes to debate. Or, he's just a fraud and is pulling everyone's chain.

Either way, I think he's wasting his and everyone else's time and should find a new hobby. Frankly, I don't get it. :shrug:

-Peace

[boatsteve]

Boatsteve



I said "most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not". That's what I'm basing it on. In the absence of empirical data, we all base our judgments on our experiences.

But we don't state them as facts when they aren't. There is a thread where you wouldn't accept a poll by a well known company on nudism because you said it wasn't empirical evidence and yet you feel it's ok to state that something is factual based only on asking a few friends.


But you have no more right to get naked in public contrary to the law to make your point than Al Qaida has to change public opinion through terrorism.

In many places mere nudity isn't "contrary to the law". And even when it is there are exceptions like using nudity to make a political point. And those rights are increasing over time, sometimes incrementally like topfreedom which is becoming increasingly legal. Sometimes they become legal due to people pushing the limits of what is legal and yes, breaking existing laws. Rights don't always agree with the law. I hope you are moving to someplace that insists on burkas because there will be more and more nudity in public places as time goes on.


I reckon most textiles feel the same way as I do.

Reckon all you want to, just don't state it as factual.



Funny. I got married age 20 and I've been married to the same lady for 30 years. We have three kids - two now grown up and all doing just fine.


And your wife had to do all the diaper changing, all the bathing, all the clothes changing because you weren't able to. If not for her they'd have died from diaper rash because you wouldn't have known it was there. :rolleyes:



I'm not a cause - I'm a thinking adult with my own views. You want to change my views - do it with reasoned arguments. I did see some when I first came here and I was grown-up enough to take some of them on-board. But I have to say that, of late, any attempt I make to raise an intellectual point is rapidly lost in the rubbish about my "phobia". This thread is a case in point.

Yeah, blame us for the thread turning to rubbish. Lots easier than looking at yourself isn't it? We've given you reasoned arguments while you give us "facts" you got from talking with your friends.

I will be spending the rest of the day in a stu free zone, which is just about every other nudist site than this one.

[MoonShadow]

[QUOTE=boatsteve;184797

Yeah, blame us for the thread turning to rubbish. Lots easier than looking at yourself isn't it? We've given you reasoned arguments while you give us "facts" you got from talking with your friends.

I will be spending the rest of the day in a stu free zone, which is just about every other nudist site than this one.[/QUOTE]


I'm with you, boatsteve! Think I will join you in a Stu-free zone too! Just the same recording of the same stuff over and over. Note his last post here; same stuff, arguing with nudists on a nudist forum with his anti-ness. Whirrrr ---------whirrrrrrrrr

Over and out!

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist

What kind of life does he lead that he is in mortal danger of encountering naked people at every turn? Where ARE all of these people that offend him so? In my nearly 60 years of living in a textile world, I can't say that I've encountered any. So, it's a non-issue.

You are absolutely right. Look at my #1 post in this thread and you will see that I was hoping to generate a discussion on whether the textile discomfort with nudity could be explained away as "shame", or whether there are deeper, cultural reasons for it. I begged people not to drag it back to the same old stuff about "Stu hates nudists" (which I don't) and "Stu is not normal" and so on, but that happened.

So I don't encounter nudity in my daily life and you are right: it is a non-issue.

If any of us disrobe on a textile beach or decide to walk don't the street naked, we would be arrested. And, Stu's precious right not to see us would be protected, and rightly so.

Right again! This is what I have been saying so I fully agree with you - but there are others here who don't. They insist that they have some moral mandate or mission to "educate" the textile world to show us how wrong we are and that has to involve exposing their nakedness to us in public places whether we like it or not.

So, I don't understand why this is an issue with him.

Because you recognise my right to live in a nudity free environment if I choose to, but others here do not.

Boatsteve

But we don't state them as facts when they aren't.

Of course we do. We gain our perceptions about what others think and state them as though they were both factual and demonstrable even if we don't have the empirical data at hand to prove it. If I said that Nelson Mandela was ""widely admired" or that most people would be pleased to see our forces being brought home from Iraq, I wouldn't expect a demand for cast iron proof of statistical certainty. If you disagree because your perception is different, then you can say so and we'll just have to agree to differ until either of us can show solid evidence.

There is a thread where you wouldn't accept a poll by a well known company on nudism because you said it wasn't empirical evidence and yet you feel it's ok to state that something is factual based only on asking a few friends.

I accepted the poll - except that (a) it wasn't constructed to the ethical standards of academic research, so the questions were loaded, and (b) I didn't accept your interpretation of the results; I believed they actually supported my arguments rather than yours.

In many places mere nudity isn't "contrary to the law".

In most of Europe, nudity isn't a specific violation of any law - but other laws can be used to deal with inappropriate nakedness.

And those rights are increasing over time, sometimes incrementally like topfreedom which is becoming increasingly legal. Sometimes they become legal due to people pushing the limits of what is legal and yes, breaking existing laws.

For every case where there is a move which appears to relax the legal position on nudity, there is another case where the law clamps down and restricts or punishes nudity. Check out the "Nudes in the News" section on this website and you'll see what I mean: every time you take a step forward (from your perspective), somewhere else you take a step back.

Rights don't always agree with the law. I hope you are moving to someplace that insists on burkas because there will be more and more nudity in public places as time goes on.

And your wife had to do all the diaper changing, all the bathing, all the clothes changing because you weren't able to. If not for her they'd have died from diaper rash because you wouldn't have known it was there.

My wife didn't do all of it. We had a paid helper for our eldest two kids who themselves helped out with the youngest. I said at the time that, if it had ever been essential for me to have changed our children, I'd have got on with it - but it never was. No problem.

Yeah, blame us for the thread turning to rubbish. Lots easier than looking at yourself isn't it?

I do blame you. You haven't made any attempt to engage with the topic of this thread - all you have done is use it as an opportunity to take a swipe at me.

We've given you reasoned arguments while you give us "facts" you got from talking with your friends.

Reasoned arguments? If only! You show me ONE POST in this thread where you have discussed the topic about whether the textile discomfort with nudity could be explained away as "shame", or whether there are deeper, cultural reasons for it. Just one. Bet you can't!

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Of course you have. In a democratic society, you have freedom of speech, you can organise campaigns, seek support from the media, academics, the public at large, lobby your elected representatives, and so on. Just keep within the law and don't go around upsetting people.

Stu,

You just don't seem to understand or are willing to accept the fact that the laws are stacked against nudists. In order to change laws, nudists need to stand up and challenge the laws in any way that they can. The issue of nudism will also upset people at times and this is normal. If we did things as you suggest nothing would ever change and I do beleieve that this is exactly what you want. If people want change, then they need to speak up and keep challenging the system until the system gives and changes. Case in point concerns civil rights. If people did not take to freedom rides and peaceful marches in the streets, then we would not have anything close to what we have today in terms of the advances made in civil rights and equality.



Indeed. By use of information via the medium of language. But you have no more right to get naked in public contrary to the law to make your point than Al Qaida has to change public opinion through terrorism.



I'm not meddling in anything: I'm discussing. This is a public forum after all - for the exchange of views. I have spoken to nudists on here who broadly agree with many of my views. And they certainly don't appear to be too far from those which were published in British Naturism as their "Public Acceptance Policy".

Just who are these people who agree with you? Please list.



Really! Stating a point of view is not "forcing controls". :laugh: You are the one who is trying to "force" what you call "education".

I made myself perfectly clear and can not be held responsible for your continuous refusal to acknowledge the obvious.



I don't need any education about nudism, thanks. I'm glad you are beginning to realise that. But you know what? I reckon most textiles feel the same way as I do.

A closed mind is beyond any form of education. You have proven this over and over again.


I'm not a cause - I'm a thinking adult with my own views. You want to change my views - do it with reasoned arguments. I did see some when I first came here and I was grown-up enough to take some of them on-board. But I have to say that, of late, any attempt I make to raise an intellectual point is rapidly lost in the rubbish about my "phobia". This thread is a case in point.

Sadly, you have demonstrated over and over again that you are beyond reasoning with. Your mind is closed and you know it. Your extreme phobia is what motivates you and is very important to demonstrate your real intentions.

[MoonShadow]

Sanslines, how many times must Stu hear this from many of us? He will not listen or comprehend any of it. He just wants to be an antagonist and a good one he is. He will continue to post the same anti-ness. No matter what thread he is in or one he has started, it is the same over and over. You would think he would get tired of his rhetoric.

And the recordings continue.

[Home Nudist]

Stu,

I don't wish to debate with you. God knows, it's been run into the ground. But, while you have every right to be here, I don't understand your mere presence on this board.

With every fiber of your being, you convey the thought that you find nudity so repugnant that you choose not to diaper your own children. On the other hand, you say "the reason I come here is because I find the subject matter interesting."

That sounds a little conflicted to me.

At the risk of being psychoanalytical, something about this subject attracts you. Perhaps you wish you could be as free as some of the people here, but something within you prevents it. So (and I'm not accusing you of anything here), you rail against nudism, the same way that a person rails publicly against pornography to soothe his own conscience, while privately he has a stash of it somewhere in the house. Maybe you'd really like to get naked, but something in your psyche tells you it's wrong or immoral? So, you fight it by bashing nudism.

You also remind me of the person who doesn't smoke or drink, and who doesn't want to see others do it either. That, I feel, is a control issue.

People normally want to associate with people like themselves; people they have things in common with. You have nothing in common with the people here. You only set yourself up for abuse. I have no interest in knitting. Why would I post on a board full of knitters?

You repeatedly say that people here are trying to make the rules and convert you and all textiles. I can't say I can find that to be true, except when something you say comes across as an attack on their life style, and they defend themselves, just as you defend yourself. When you come here, you are on "nudist turf," so to speak. So, if you say anything unfavorable about nudists, you have to expect backlash.

As for nudists making the rules, you have to remember that textiles are the majority, and the majority rules. It is the nudists who have to alter their life styles and behaviors to suit the textiles, not the other way around. So, I really don't understand your beef.

As, I said in my earlier post, no one is forcing you to look at anything you consider abhorrent. (And you agreed with me.) Nudists aren't jumping out of the shadows or the bushes to frighten you. So, I really don't understand what it is you want.

You write and express yourself very well. That shows a certain level of intelligence. If you are who you say you are, you are no kid. But, your views seem rather immature, in my opinion. Immature, in the sense that they are all self centered: me, me, me.

You'll, no doubt, answer this with your usual psycho-babble and repetition, and we'll be right back to square one.

This is exhausting..... :wall:

Have a good day.....

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

If we did things as you suggest nothing would ever change and I do believe that this is exactly what you want.

The change I would like to see for you is a public understanding that nudist beaches are no threat to anyone and that nudists are taxpaying citizens and should have their needs catered for.

If people want change, then they need to speak up and keep challenging the system until the system gives and changes. Case in point concerns civil rights. If people did not take to freedom rides and peaceful marches in the streets, then we would not have anything close to what we have today in terms of the advances made in civil rights and equality.

I agree. So speak up and organise marches. I'll join you.

But you have no more right to get naked in public contrary to the law to make your point than Al Qaida has to change public opinion through terrorism.

I agree again. And that includes getting naked on a textile beach.

Just who are these people who agree with you? Please list.

It wouldn't be right for me to "out" people like that. If they want to speak up on the open forum, they are free to do so. We used to have a contributor here called "Max". He was a UK nudist, BN member and activist, but very much a moderate and had been coming here long before me. If you read what Home Nudist said in his first post, while he clearly doesn't like the overall perception he has of me and why I am here, even he doesn't seem to disagree with my main point, as evidenced by his statement:

If any of us disrobe on a textile beach or decide to walk don't the street naked, we would be arrested. And, Stu's precious right not to see us would be protected, and rightly so.

And then there's old Public Acceptance Policy of British Naturism, which accords reasonably well with my own views.

A closed mind is beyond any form of education. You have proven this over and over again.

It is patronising to talk about "closed minds" and "educating" intelligent and informed people. Dialogue isn't about that. I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I am accusing you of having a closed mind and I have no intention of trying to educate you. The best I hope to do is convince you that my position is both reasonable and pro-nudism, but I guess I'm on a hiding to nothing on that one.

Home Nudist

I don't understand your mere presence on this board.

I have told you why I am here - I don't know what else I can tell you.

That sounds a little conflicted to me.

It's a topic I have researched and found interesting - from an intellectual perspective. Nudists give me the impression that they think they are right - they have some kind of superior way of perceiving the human body, naked or otherwise. As such, they think our approach is ignorant, ill-informed or immature. Fair enough - but I think there is an intellectual case to be made for textilism and I like to make it. I also think that there are sound reasons to keep nudism out of sight of the textile majority. Fascinating stuff! Well, I think it's fascinating.

Perhaps you wish you could be as free as some of the people here, but something within you prevents it.

No, I'm afraid you're backing a loser with that one. I can see where you are coming from but it's not accurate. You see, I'm already as "free" as you are. If I wanted to try nudism, I'd go for it. A bit of hypnotherapy to diminish my aversion and I'd be fine. But I have no such desire. I like the intellectual stimulus of nudism as a topic for debate and discussion, not the idea of getting my clothes off.

You also remind me of the person who doesn't smoke or drink, and who doesn't want to see others do it either. That, I feel, is a control issue.

Again, a wrong perception. I genuinely support responsible nudism. I think it's a perfectly good, harmless, healthy and sociable activity and you should be given more opportunities to enjoy it. I have said that many times.

People normally want to associate with people like themselves; people they have things in common with.

I don't. I can't think of anything more tedious than just agreeing with people.

You only set yourself up for abuse.

But I don't abuse others. I always try to be polite - even in the face of some pretty nasty comments.

You repeatedly say that people here are trying to make the rules and convert you and all textiles. I can't say I can find that to be true,

I haven't mentioned nudists trying to "convert" people. Sanslines keeps on saying that textiles need to be "educated", which is subtly different. While he has every right to inform, and even to offer to educate, it is the height of arrogance for a minority to take it upon itself to "educate" the majority whether they like it or not and by in a way that risks causing offence.

except when something you say comes across as an attack on their life style, and they defend themselves, just as you defend yourself.

I have never attacked nudists' lifestyles: if anything, I admire them for living their lives as they see fit. I just want them to respect my lifestyle, and not think that I need "educating".

When you come here, you are on "nudist turf," so to speak. So, if you say anything unfavorable about nudists, you have to expect backlash.

I can't recall ever saying anything unfavorable about nudists. I believe that the majority of nudists are responsible and considerate people and I respect them for that.

It is the nudists who have to alter their life styles and behaviors to suit the textiles, not the other way around. So, I really don't understand your beef.

I agree. You live your life your way and enjoy your nudism and let me live my life my way and in a nudity-free environment. That's how thing pretty much are and it's how I want them to stay. I won't trespass on nudist turf if you don't get naked on my turf. If you agree with that - and I think you do - then you should realise that there are people here who don't. They are intent upon changing the textile environment to make it more accepting of nudity. If I have a "beef", it's because of that attitude.

This is not about "me me me", it's about retaining a public environment everyone can be comfortable with.

Stu

[HaroldTheNudist]

Stu2630

I have to admit I'm with Home Nudist. I don't see nudists threatening you and taking over society.

infact we are damn lucky to have what we got and even there we are losing. as far as Sanslines saying he wants to challenge the laws-well he can but I think he'll find himself dismissed.

textiles have all the power and as they say "clothes make the man". kinda hard to argue naked.

Harry

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

If any of us disrobe on a textile beach or decide to walk don't the street naked, we would be arrested. And, Stu's precious right not to see us would be protected, and rightly so.

Stu, you agree with this statement and know that it is true and so what are you complaining about. Your rights are extremely well protected and you know it so why do you feel so compelled to constantly remind people of this.


It is patronising to talk about "closed minds" and "educating" intelligent and informed people. Dialogue isn't about that. I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I am accusing you of having a closed mind and I have no intention of trying to educate you. The best I hope to do is convince you that my position is both reasonable and pro-nudism, but I guess I'm on a hiding to nothing on that one.

Stu, You have disputed just about everything that I have stated. In order to protect your rights, you dispute any form of education and yet you of all people who claims to be educated should understand that value of education. You have asked for debate. A debate (as defined by Webster's Dictionary) is this: to engage in , dispute, argue formally. a discussion of opposing reasons. a formal contest of skill in reasoned argument between opposing teams.

In the past, when I have brought up what are considered to be dictionary definitions of words, and have stated those definitions, you have stated that you do not have Webster's Dictionary and furtehrmore have even disputed the generally agreed meaning of words by stating that dictionary definitions have no real meaning to you. Cleary, as a person who claims to be educated, you must realize how utterly absurd it is to make such a claim as you are basically stating that there is absolutely no initial common ground from which to being any form of logical or reasoned debate. You have demonstrated to me on numerous occasions that you are not interested in reasoned or intelligent debate and I do believe that you are here to wind us all up. You are also obviously attracted to nudists who represent certain forms of activity ie nudity of which you claim to detest. There are psychological terms to describe those who are attracted to that which they detest but I will not go into such detail here. You claim to be pro nudist and yet each and every chance that you get you have refused to post anything positive about nudism. All that you have done for the past five years is to basically repeat your position over and over again about how you want your sensibilities protected so that you will not ever have to witness any form of nudity including topfreedom. You have disputed anything that may threaten your sensibilities and which may rock the boat by disputing anyone who wishes to educate others as to what real and proper nudism is all about. Such is not what a pro nudism person would ever promote and discussing and /or debating this fact with you appears to be rather pointless as you will never accept anything which may challenge your perceptions. In short, you appear very unreasonable.

[Home Nudist]

Stu

You live your life your way and enjoy your nudism and let me live my life my way and in a nudity-free environment. That's how thing pretty much are and it's how I want them to stay. I won't trespass on nudist turf if you don't get naked on my turf. If you agree with that - and I think you do - then you should realise that there are people here who don't. They are intent upon changing the textile environment to make it more accepting of nudity. If I have a "beef", it's because of that attitude.

You know as well as I do that the people here who "sound like" they want to force nudity down the textiles' throats stand as much chance of ever seeing that happen as a fart in a gale of wind. I think they are just letting off steam as to how they WISH the world would be. And, I think you know that too. The minority doesn't stand a chance against the vast majority.

Therefore, this entire discussion, any debate with you, is completely academic.

But Stu, you remain a complete puzzle to me..... :bonk:

[Bob S.]

Stu: "The change I would like to see for you is a public understanding that nudist beaches are no threat to anyone and that nudists are taxpaying citizens and should have their needs catered for."

Stu, nude beaches were not just created because a group of people asked for it and viola, a nude beach was established. Nude beaches were created because a group of people chose to violate the law and go naked in public. The official nude beaches were the ones that became very popular and whose closure would cause more problems than it would solve. This is the same concept for nudist parks and other areas of public nudity. it is going to take someone to break the law before anything will get done. In the US, it took a court case to make nudist gatherings legalized.

Stu: "I said "most textiles already know that nudism isn't about sex. I know it's not and nearly everyone I have ever spoken to on the subject knows it's not". That's what I'm basing it on. In the absence of empirical data, we all base our judgments on our experiences."

Stu, if that is the case, then explain the reactions regarding adult nudity and children. Why is it seen as so horrible? What about the exposure in public is wrong? The "what about the children?" argument is constantly brought out when it comes to public nudity. See Hippie Hollow. See Virginia's nudist camp law, the Texas day care regulation changes, the investigation into Florida's nudist summer camps, the twice proposed Ohio bill that would ban family nudity, art exhibitions, etc. I am sure you can find some examples in England regarding nudity and children.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Stu



You know as well as I do that the people here who "sound like" they want to force nudity down the textiles' throats stand as much chance of ever seeing that happen as a fart in a gale of wind. I think they are just letting off steam as to how they WISH the world would be. And, I think you know that too. The minority doesn't stand a chance against the vast majority.

Therefore, this entire discussion, any debate with you, is completely academic.

But Stu, you remain a complete puzzle to me..... :bonk:

Homenudist,

I have told Stu in the past that people in this forum come for a variety of reasons. Some come to relax with like minded people. Others come to let off steam or to share dreams and ideas. Even though some dreams about nudism and nudity will never come to pass (such as being nude anywhere and everywhere), this forum provides at least an outlet for nudists to openly express and share their ideas. Stu knows all of this and yet he choses to fight each and every dream and idea that does not conform to his rigid set of rules regarding nudity and nudism. Stu just can't seem to live and let live and he is far too uptight about nudity and nudism. His posts demonstrate this fact over and over again.

[Balloon_Artist]

I keep seeing the argument that nudists trying to educate people <i>while nude</i> is like terrorists <b>exploding a bomb and causing death and destruction</b>. How is this in any way equal? I know you didn't say this exactly, but the repeated simile firmly ties nude protest to a life-ending event.

As to the reasons some textiles think that nudity is wrong, there are many. shame is a big reason no doubt, but I would like to put forth the idea that these people think that social nudity is in it's self a sin.

This idea is predicated in the belief that in the act of being nude in the presents of others is immoral. If you believe the Bible, and that God would not cause someone to sin, then you will have to believe that nudity is NOT a sin. God told his prophet Isaiah to go nude in front of Everyone for three years.

I have to ask if you think nudity is wrong, then why is it wrong?

[fre2bnude]

I just can't understand Stu at all. If he's so terrified of nudism and nudists why jump in amongst them and confront them? There are a lot of things in life that I don't agree with so I keep away from them, the only way I'd confront something or someone that I disagreed with was if I WANTED to overcome the problem. Is that what Stu wants to do??
There are so few places that nudists can use that Stu is very unlikely to come face to face with these strange unclothed people that would freak him out in his normal life. He has to go to places, and websites, that specially accommodate us to confront us. Why? Because he wants to argue? He's a very strange argumentative person. He appears a bit like one of the missionaries of long ago that had to go out to remote parts of the world and convert the natives to Christianity!

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist

I think they are just letting off steam as to how they WISH the world would be. And, I think you know that too. The minority doesn't stand a chance against the vast majority.

That's a fair point. But do you not think that a dose of realism is sometimes beneficial so that we don't lose touch with how things really are?

I'm pleased that you think the "vast majority" have issues with public nudity. Many people on here have being trying to convince me that it's only a tiny minority who have such issues.

BobS

Nude beaches were created because a group of people chose to violate the law and go naked in public.....

I'm sure that's true - but however we got to where we are at now, the fact is that there are many places for nudists to enjoy, and there are lawful ways in which nudists can influence legislators and decision-makers to gain even more places. Nudists have a voice and should use it to best effect to get a fairer share of the public environment. But they can't have it all.

Stu, if that is the case, then explain the reactions regarding adult nudity and children. Why is it seen as so horrible? What about the exposure in public is wrong?

Because many of us choose to bring up our children in a certain way. We choose to tell them that nakedness outside of certain contexts is both rude and wrong. We do not allow them to see any adult nudity because we wish to postpone some of the inevitable questions which arise when they see how the two sexes differ. You may not agree with this way of raising kids, Bob, but it's the parents who have the right to decide how their own kids are brought up.

the investigation into Florida's nudist summer camps, the twice proposed Ohio bill that would ban family nudity, art exhibitions, etc. I am sure you can find some examples in England regarding nudity and children.

You know I don't agree with the authorities interfering with nudists bringing up their own kids into their own lifestyle and values any more than I agree with nudists impinging upon our rights to bring up our kids not to see nudity.

Sanslines

Stu knows all of this and yet he choses to fight each and every dream and idea that does not conform to his rigid set of rules regarding nudity and nudism.

Instead of entertaining pipe-dreams, you nudists should be fighting for your rights to more opportunities to practise and better venues and facilities.

Balloon Artist

How is this in any way equal? I know you didn't say this exactly, but the repeated simile firmly ties nude protest to a life-ending event.

The principle is the same - the difference is the scale. Breaking the law and upsetting people to force societal change is generally wrong in a democratic state where lawful and considerate actions are permissible and can be effective.

As to the reasons some textiles think that nudity is wrong, there are many. shame is a big reason no doubt, but I would like to put forth the idea that these people think that social nudity is in it's self a sin

Nudity isn't wrong per se - what is wrong is behaving in a way which you know is likely to cause offence. As for 'sin' - there is no such thing as a sin: the concept of sin is a human invention. I personally don't believe that shame plays a significant role in our attitude towards nudity in the modern world. I believe the reasons we reject nudity are more complex and are founded in our culture.

If you believe the Bible, and that God would not cause someone to sin, then you will have to believe that nudity is NOT a sin.

I don't believe in either the Bible or God, so the idea of 'sin' is a human construct so far as I am concerned. Getting naked in public places where it is not reasonably expected (like a nudist beach) is wrong because it risks causing distress, offence and shock: it is an unwarranted assault upon the sensibilities just as is using obscene language or openly defecating.

free2bnude

If he's so terrified of nudism and nudists why jump in amongst them and confront them?

I'm not terrified of nudists or nudism: I come here because I enjoy coming here are debating the topic.

There are so few places that nudists can use that Stu is very unlikely to come face to face with these strange unclothed people that would freak him out in his normal life.

I'm about to emigrate to a country where there are dozens of clothing optional beaches right around the coastline, so that's not strictly true. Having said that, I will be able to find out where they all are and will avoid them.

He appears a bit like one of the missionaries of long ago that had to go out to remote parts of the world and convert the natives to Christianity!

That's a weird analogy. I'm not trying to convert you. I admire you for being nudists - but I have no desire to become one myself. All I ask of nudists is that they show consideration for the sensibilities of textiles when in places other than clothing optional and nudist venues. And that's it! I believe that they generally do show such consideration so it's not really an issue - except that there are those here who state that they believe they should get naked elsewhere to educate the rest of us about nudism. That's what I argue against!

Stu

[Sanslines]

That's a fair point. But do you not think that a dose of realism is sometimes beneficial so that we don't lose touch with how things really are?

Yes, and we have an entire world full of individuals who never cease to remind us of our limitations vis a vis how things really are. We really do not need you to constantly remind us of our limitations here in this forum in one posting after another. It is fantastic overkill!

I'm pleased that you think the "vast majority" have issues with public nudity. Many people on here have being trying to convince me that it's only a tiny minority who have such issues.

What you continue to fail to mention is the degree of variance in the 'issues' that the 'vast majority' have with nudism. The variance covers anything and everything in between two very opposite extremes - extremes such as those whose only issue with nudism concerns other non related behaviors that have nothing to do with nudism and the other extreme where someone is petrified of seeing a woman's breasts.


I'm sure that's true - but however we got to where we are at now, the fact is that there are many places for nudists to enjoy, and there are lawful ways in which nudists can influence legislators and decision-makers to gain even more places. Nudists have a voice and should use it to best effect to get a fairer share of the public environment. But they can't have it all.

Nobody wants it all but more importantly nobody wants you to decide what they can or can not have. You are not the ultimate authority of what nudists can and can not have. This topic is and will always be a shifting target as nudists push for more freedom and acceptance and textiles push back against them to further restrict their freedoms and acceptance. Just look at yourself, Stu. You reject any form of 'education' regardless of whether it involves any actual nudity or not.



Because many of us choose to bring up our children in a certain way. We choose to tell them that nakedness outside of certain contexts is both rude and wrong. We do not allow them to see any adult nudity because we wish to postpone some of the inevitable questions which arise when they see how the two sexes differ. You may not agree with this way of raising kids, Bob, but it's the parents who have the right to decide how their own kids are brought up.

To a certain extent this is true but you obviously have never heard of Child Protective Services. The state does step in and oversee or remove children from their home when, for example, they are malnurished, or abused physically, mentally, psychologically, sexually. The importance of nudism education is to make others aware that simple home nudity is, in and of itself, not harmful to the development of children and can actually be very beneficial. Those with their nudity paranoid attitudes would prevent any form of education and would obviously rather have the misunderstandings and confusion to remain so long as such misunderstandings benefit their own selfish interests by limiting or banning simple nudism and nudity.



You know I don't agree with the authorities interfering with nudists bringing up their own kids into their own lifestyle and values any more than I agree with nudists impinging upon our rights to bring up our kids not to see nudity.

You are certainly free to agree or disagree and to raise your children as you see fit so long as you do not abuse them with behaviors that are clearly understood by most to be abuse ie malnurishment, etc. However, try as you might, you are not free to tell nudists not to educate the public as to what simple nudism is all about in order to make clear to the public that simple nudism and nudity, in and of itself, is not child abuse.


Instead of entertaining pipe-dreams, you nudists should be fighting for your rights to more opportunities to practise and better venues and facilities.

Stu, in case you haven't noticed, the NAC of the Naturist Society is doing exactly that.


The principle is the same - the difference is the scale. Breaking the law and upsetting people to force societal change is generally wrong in a democratic state where lawful and considerate actions are permissible and can be effective.

What if lawful and considerate actions are not effective? What choices do people have then?



Nudity isn't wrong per se - what is wrong is behaving in a way which you know is likely to cause offence. As for 'sin' - there is no such thing as a sin: the concept of sin is a human invention. I personally don't believe that shame plays a significant role in our attitude towards nudity in the modern world. I believe the reasons we reject nudity are more complex and are founded in our culture.

There is always something that will always cause some level of offense to someone. The answer is for some to stop demanding that others do all of the accomodations to satisfy their own personal issues and to contribute in the spirit of compromise to a real and fair compromise. This may certainly involve that a person tolerates beahviors in others for which they would never engage in themselves.

Case in point. There was a Gay Pride March around here last year. There was also a group of so called 'religious' protestors who are adamently opposed to the gay lifestyle and did everything in their power to disrupt the march. What those religious fanatics failed to understand is that the gay marches did not damage or destroy public or private property, or engage in any other activity other then to march peacefully down the street. Instead of practicing some degree of tolerance, those fanatics took it upon themselves to abuse the marchers with their so called religious actions. Fortunately, those fanatics were found guilty of interfering with freedom of speech and now have to pay the price.



I don't believe in either the Bible or God, so the idea of 'sin' is a human construct so far as I am concerned. Getting naked in public places where it is not reasonably expected (like a nudist beach) is wrong because it risks causing distress, offence and shock: it is an unwarranted assault upon the sensibilities just as is using obscene language or openly defecating.

As has been said so many times before, if you don't like it then just look away. Instead of being fair, you wish to dictate what people can and can not do in society based upon your own fears and phobias. It is far past time for you to stop being so selfish and face up to the fact that you do not make the rules.


That's a weird analogy. I'm not trying to convert you. I admire you for being nudists - but I have no desire to become one myself. All I ask of nudists is that they show consideration for the sensibilities of textiles when in places other than clothing optional and nudist venues. And that's it! I believe that they generally do show such consideration so it's not really an issue - except that there are those here who state that they believe they should get naked elsewhere to educate the rest of us about nudism. That's what I argue against!

You again are so opposed to any form of nudity regardless of whether it involves education or not. You too can be considerate of others by just looking away from others and practicing tolerance towards others. Instead, you chose to come to this forum and basically dictate to others what they should and should not do. When others mention to you what you should you, you automatically reject their ideas.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

We really do not need you to constantly remind us of our limitations here in this forum in one posting after another.

Have you ever thought that maybe I don't need you to constantly remind me of my "phobia"? None of this would have happened if you had read my #1 post on this thread and confined your discussion to the issue I raised about shame vs culture.

What you continue to fail to mention is the degree of variance in the 'issues' that the 'vast majority' have with nudism.

I have mentioned that many times.

Nobody wants it all but more importantly nobody wants you to decide what they can or can not have. You are not the ultimate authority of what nudists can and can not have.

None of us are the "ultimate authority" on such matters - but that doesn't prevent us from expressing our opinions about what is acceptable in the environment we live in. That's all I'm doing.

Just look at yourself, Stu. You reject any form of 'education' regardless of whether it involves any actual nudity or not.

Education for adults is something which is voluntarily undertaken. Trying to force your own style of 'education' on people is patronising and impertinent. Make the information available - but don't appoint yourself as the public educator on this or any other topic.

you obviously have never heard of Child Protective Services. The state does step in and oversee or remove children from their home when, for example, they are malnurished, or abused physically, mentally, psychologically, sexually.

In the UK, we have "Social Services" who undertake this role.

The importance of nudism education is to make others aware that simple home nudity is, in and of itself, not harmful to the development of children and can actually be very beneficial. Those with their nudity paranoid attitudes would prevent any form of education and would obviously rather have the misunderstandings and confusion to remain so long as such misunderstandings benefit their own selfish interests by limiting or banning simple nudism and nudity.

This is your opinion. It is your opinion that nudity is not harmful to a child's moral or social development and that it can be beneficial. I don't entirely agree with that and, where my kids are concerned, my opinion on such matters trumps your opinion and even Social Services' opinion because I am their primary carer. Other than in the most extreme examples, parents are always given absolute discretion as to how to bring up their own children in terms of their moral, cultural, social and religious values.

However, try as you might, you are not free to tell nudists not to educate the public as to what simple nudism is all about in order to make clear to the public that simple nudism and nudity, in and of itself, is not child abuse.

Hang on - if you are talking about what nudists can TELL people - fine - I have no problem with that. That's more a case of informing than educating. But earlier you were talking about extending your nudity into textile locations as a means of 'educating' - and that's not acceptable in my book.

What if lawful and considerate actions are not effective? What choices do people have then?

Then you have two choices. You either accept the will of the democratically elected legislature which you, as an elector, have been instrumental in appointing. Or else you mount a sustained campaign and canvas support to change minds. But you don't have the moral right to flout laws just because you disagree with them any more than anyone else can do that.

There is always something that will always cause some level of offense to someone.

The acid test is whether there are more people who actually object to the behaviour than want to engage in it.

Case in point. There was a Gay Pride March around here last year. There was also a group of so called 'religious' protestors who are adamently opposed to the gay lifestyle and did everything in their power to disrupt the march.

A "Gay Pride March" is simply that - a march and marching has a long-established tradition in terms of communication. But the people on this march are not indulging in gay sex during the march because that would be unacceptable. If nudists want to have a march - fine - go for it. But they had better keep their privates out of sight while marching through public areas.

Instead of practicing some degree of tolerance, those fanatics took it upon themselves to abuse the marchers with their so called religious actions. Fortunately, those fanatics were found guilty of interfering with freedom of speech and now have to pay the price.

I totally agree. Abusing people is not the way to indicate your disapproval of their lifestyle.

As has been said so many times before, if you don't like it then just look away. Instead of being fair, you wish to dictate what people can and can not do in society based upon your own fears and phobias. It is far past time for you to stop being so selfish and face up to the fact that you do not make the rules.

I don't want to share my environment with naked people because I find that objectionable. There are very many more like me and we have rights just as you have rights. I may not be able to "make" the rules, but I am a citizen and I have a right to have my say on such matters.

You again are so opposed to any form of nudity regardless of whether it involves education or not.

I don't believe nudity has any role in education.

You too can be considerate of others by just looking away from others and practicing tolerance towards others.

As I said, I want to be able to use public places which do not contain nudity. I am prepared to allocate places for you to do your nudism out of my sight - places that would thereafter be inaccessible to me. That's my tolerance. Yours, because you consist of a very tiny minority, is to confine your nakedness to those places allocated to you.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Sanslines, excellent post!

And here comes Stu, whirring away, as usual.

"Education for adults is something which is voluntarily undertaken. Trying to force your own style of 'education' on people is patronising and impertinent. Make the information available - but don't appoint yourself as the public educator on this or any other topic"

Interesting comment as you don’t even walk your own talk here. And you have the audacity to print this? You do nothing but FORCE your view against nudity here post after post.

"But you don't have the moral right to flout laws just because you disagree with them any more than anyone else can do that"


Excuse me – we surely do have the moral right to flout some laws. Laws are always disagreed with and argued about, and changed.

"I don't believe nudity has any role in education."

Oh yes, it does! Children should know about nudity and that it can be enjoyed non-sexually as is the nudist lifestyle. If more enlightenment and education were provided to children today about nudity, we wouldn’t have the numerous “hang-ups” people have regarding nudity. Instead, children are not taught anything about nudity except that it is taboo.

"As I said, I want to be able to use public places which do not contain nudity. I am prepared to allocate places for you to do your nudism out of my sight - places that would thereafter be inaccessible to me. That's my tolerance. Yours, because you consist of a very tiny minority, is to confine your nakedness to those places allocated to you"

Of course you do. Another case in point where you rub our noses in your INTOLERANT world regarding nudity/nudists. Out of sight, out of mind. Same rhetoric you always post here.

And the recording continues. Whirr------Whirr

[HaroldTheNudist]

Stu could argue nudists need the education on morality.

given that there are laws with serious reprocussions against indecent exposure it would be foolhardy to challenge them by pushing the boundaries unless you dont mind being registered a sex offender.

best we can hope for real time is to maintain what we got and try to increase respect and tolerance for our lifestyle. we cant do that telling others they are wrong. we dont show respect and then we wont get any not that we are getting lots of respect right now.

Harry

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

You do nothing but FORCE your view against nudity here post after post.

I haven't said anything against nudity in general - just inappropriate and inconsiderate public nudity. My #1 post on this thread was about whether textiles are motivated by shame or more complex cultural issues. You, and others here, have chosen to drag this discussion back onto the ground we have covered so many times before - and then blame me for it!

Excuse me – we surely do have the moral right to flout some laws. Laws are always disagreed with and argued about, and changed.

That doesn't make any sense. You live in a democratic society then you obey the laws made by the people you elect to office - you don't flout them. I haven't said you aren't free to disagree with a law or try to get it changed; that is perfectly legitimate and is not the same thing as flouting the law.

Oh yes, it does! Children should know about nudity and that it can be enjoyed non-sexually as is the nudist lifestyle.

Your response was a reply to my statement that "I don't believe nudity has any role in education." I haven't said they children shouldn't know what a nudist lifestyle is all about. But they can be told that as a piece of information without being made to see naked adults. We can tell children about death without having to make them watch someone die.

Instead, children are not taught anything about nudity except that it is taboo.

Unless they choose to be nudists in their future lives (and the vast majority won't), nudity for them will be something that happens in the shower/bathtub and, when they are older, it may occur in a sexual context. Outside of these situations, nudity is a taboo and, for textile children, that's pretty much all they need to know.

Of course you do. Another case in point where you rub our noses in your INTOLERANT world regarding nudity/nudists. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's not 'rubbing your nose in it' - it is simply trying to make you realise that we don't need to see you and don't want to see you when you are naked. There is nothing wrong with the 'out of sight, out of mind' approach. We see you when you are wearing clothes at work, at the supermarket, as neighbours and so on. We know you are nudists and go to nudist places to enjoy your chosen pastime - but at those times then it's right that you are out of sight because your nakedness offends our sensibilities. Overall, you are not living in an intolerant world - but rather a very tolerant world where people like you are catered for in the provision of public spaces and various opportunities. You may not get your fair share of these, and that's something which can be, and should be, remedied. But that doesn't mean we should all be compelled to re-calibrate our sensibilities to accommodate your particular chosen behaviour when you DO have opportunities to practise and offend no-one.


Stu

[Sanslines]

Moonshadow,

What Stu will never admit to is this. Not one nudist in this forum has ever demanded that Stu get nude anyplace, anytime, and anywhere. Absolutely no demands were ever placed upon Stu as far as nudism is concerned. To be honest the exact opposite has occured in this forum as people have tolerated Stu and his tirades against nudity and indirectly against nudism (in spite of the rubbish that he posts to convince people that he is some sort of nudist advocate).
Stu, on the other hand, seems to have no qualms coming into this forum and placing all sorts of demands against nudist behaviour that satisfies nothing more then his own selfish interests. He has placed demands against nudists as to where they can get nude and continues to try to control their behavior to satisfy his own phobias against nudity. Stu, either does not realize what he is doing or just plain doesn't care. In either case he is no advocate for nudism or anything to do with nudism. He is here only to advocate for his own selfish interests and each and every topic that he posts to always contains some form of his anti nudity tone. In the end, Stu fools no one but himself for just about everyone who is a real nudist in this forum will see Stu for exactly who he really is.

Ditto: And the recording continues. Whirr------Whirr..........ad infinitum...

[Balloon_Artist]

I love to break this news to you, Stu. It is in fact lawful in Austin, Texas to protest in the nude. In fact, that may be the only reason to be nude in a non-nudist local.

As for the most part, nudists *are* considerate of the people around them. People that are not considerate of the people where they are most often are not nudists at all. Some are protesters that are using nudity as a tool to bring attention to there cause, such as the PETA people and there "I'll go nude before I ware fur" campaign. Or the movement to reexamine beauty standards. Some of the people in these movements <i>may</i> be nudist, but you don't have to be a nudist to protest in the nude.

Nudists that I know would never dream of appearing nude where it was not tolerated. These same people would be the first to call an inappropriately unclothed person an exhibitionist and not a nudist. And by the way, exhibitionism has nothing to do with being nude, but about sexual titillation. I would call someone in that dental-floss thing called a thong or even a bikini an exhibitionist before I call someone that was completely nude an exhibitionist.

I think you may be going after the wrong group about this.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"I'm sure that's true - but however we got to where we are at now, the fact is that there are many places for nudists to enjoy, and there are lawful ways in which nudists can influence legislators and decision-makers to gain even more places."

Yes, we can try to affect positive legislation, but usually we are faced with going on the defensive. Legislators try to deal with sexual venues and throw a blanket ban on nudity that will sometimes affect nudists. The AANR and TNS are there to assure they are not successful.

And we do not have enough places. You acknowledge that. Nudists for the most part are lawful. We have no choice when the laws are created to make skinny-dipping a sex offense, but sometimes, we have to do more.

Stu:"You know I don't agree with the authorities interfering with nudists bringing up their own kids into their own lifestyle and values any more than I agree with nudists impinging upon our rights to bring up our kids not to see nudity."

Stu, you stated that textiles understand that nudism is not about sex. I provided you with examples of the opposite. Textiles do see adult nudity as sexual. And with the pedophile society we have, the issue becomes inflamed when children are involved. It is a fact that a number of textiles view nudity as sexual. It is why we keep on getting these anti-nudist laws, Wal-Mart's photo policy where they will call the police when they develop pictures involving children and nudity, and where simple nudity can get one placed on the sex-offender registry even if nothing sexual was done.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) recently fined ABC for airing a scene from "NYPD Blue" that involved a woman who was shown naked (backside nudity) and preparing to take a shower when her boyfriend's young son enters the bathroom.

Stu, nudity and sex is a very common pairing here in the States.

I do not care about how you or anyone else raises their children regarding modesty in their house. The problem is when their beliefs bleed over and infiltrate the whole of society that says that all nudity is bad, including nudist nudity. And that is what is happening. This is what nudists are fighting against. And it seems you, Stu, are failing to understand the impact of that on us.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Absolutely no demands were ever placed upon Stu as far as nudism is concerned.

So you don't expect me to tolerate nudity in the places I go to, then? You don't demand that I tolerate nudists sharing my beach? Great! You don't demand that people like me should submit to your "education"? I'm glad that's agreed. You stay on your beaches etc, and I'll stay on my textile ones. That was my only issue. No more arguments from me if that's the case - problem solved. :D

Balloon Artist

I love to break this news to you, Stu. It is in fact lawful in Austin, Texas to protest in the nude.

Not a problem for me. I don't live in Austin, Texas, and I can't envisage ever having any reason or desire to go there.

People that are not considerate of the people where they are most often are not nudists at all.

I know. I have said many times that most nudists are considerate.

Some are protesters that are using nudity as a tool to bring attention to there cause, such as the PETA people and there "I'll go nude before I ware fur" campaign.

Precisely. These people aren't nudists. They are using nudity for its shock value - something nudists don't do. Yet, for some curious reason, many nudists here revel in reports of nude protests. Why is that?

Nudists that I know would never dream of appearing nude where it was not tolerated.

That's what I would expect. And yet some here are talking constantly about "pushing the envelope", and supporting nude activists like Steve Gough (who, BTW, has declared that he is no nudist). I have absolutely no issue with responsible nudism as you describe. What concerns me is when real nudists show support for the irresponsible activists, nude protestors, streakers and such like, or when they advocate that they have some right or mandate to "educate" the textile population.

See where I'm coming from?

BobS

I agree with much of what you say. I think you may have overlooked how different our cultures are - what happens in the US does not necessarily happen in Europe - and I have to speak from a European perspective because it's all I know. Here in Europe, I reckon the vast majority of people know that nudism has nothing to do with sex. If anything, it is more likely to be viewed as a bit eccentric or even naïve rather than sexual.

I don't agree with Wal-Mart's blanket policy of calling the police each time they get a photo of a naked child to be developed. They should look at the circumstances and context of the picture, but they get thousands of pictures to develop and don't have the time or sufficient staff with the expertise to distinguish innocent pictures from disturbing ones. So they make a blanket policy. I'm not comfortable with that either, but I can see their reasoning.

As for the NYPD scene - I can see some concerns. Many people don't consider it appropriate for a child to see a naked adult, especially where the nudity is outside of a familial context. TV programmes like that shouldn't shock people and their makers should be sensitive as to what id likely to cause offence and what isn't.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines
So you don't expect me to tolerate nudity in the places I go to, then? You don't demand that I tolerate nudists sharing my beach? Great! You don't demand that people like me should submit to your "education"? I'm glad that's agreed. You stay on your beaches etc, and I'll stay on my textile ones. That was my only issue. No more arguments from me if that's the case - problem solved. :D

Of course you take what I have said out of context and twist it to suit your own selfish purposes. You know exactly what I meant and that is that no nudist in this forum has ever demanded that you get nude, naked, without all clothing on, anywhere, anytime, and for any purpose. You, on the other hand keep demanding that nudists stay far away by staying segregated on their beaches and in their nudist ghettos. Since you do not speak for the majority of textiles and you obviously have serious phobias against nudism, your arguments are rendered irrelevant because you refuse to own up to the fact that the problem lies within you and is not the fault or problem of nudists. Instead of solving your own personal problems, you continue to place unreasonable demands upon others in order to accomodate your phobias. In the end, real nudists will do whatever they can to promote and expand opportunities for nudism regardless of whether those promotions meet with your selfish demands or not. If you want respect, then give respect. If you place unreasonable demands upon others, then expect to be ignored. Your choice.


I know. I have said many times that most nudists are considerate.

Yes they are but sadly Stu is NOT considerate!


I agree with much of what you say. I think you may have overlooked how different our cultures are - what happens in the US does not necessarily happen in Europe - and I have to speak from a European perspective because it's all I know. Here in Europe, I reckon the vast majority of people know that nudism has nothing to do with sex. If anything, it is more likely to be viewed as a bit eccentric or even naïve rather than sexual.

Last I knew you claimed to live in ENGLAND and ENGLAND is NOT a part of Europe. As a matter of fact many people who live in England resent those who call them Europeans. The fear and attitude towards paedophiles in England is exactly the same as in the USA. The attitudes towards sex and nudism in England is pretty much the same as it is in the USA.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You know exactly what I meant and that is that no nudist in this forum has ever demanded that you get nude, naked, without all clothing on, anywhere, anytime, and for any purpose.

That's not what you said. You said:

" Absolutely no demands were ever placed upon Stu as far as nudism is concerned."

Now you admit that you ARE making demands of me and people like me to accept naked people into our textile environment. No thanks! :D

You, on the other hand keep demanding that nudists stay far away by staying segregated on their beaches and in their nudist ghettos.

Yes, you should stay segregated for those times when you want to enjoy naked recreation. I have never mentioned "ghettos" - that's your word. There are places where people indulge in all manner of activities in places set aside for those activities and nudism is one example. There's nothing wrong with that.

you refuse to own up to the fact that the problem lies within you and is not the fault or problem of nudists.

Problem? What problem? You have your beaches etc and we have ours. I'm happy with that. I don't see a problem.

you continue to place unreasonable demands upon others in order to accomodate your phobias.

I think most textiles prefer to share their public spaces only with people who are clothed. That's why segregated nudist beaches exist: I didn't invent them so they are nothing to do with what you call my "phobia".

In the end, real nudists will do whatever they can to promote and expand opportunities for nudism regardless of whether those promotions meet with your selfish demands or not.

I am in favour of expanding opportunities for nudists - you should have more places etc to enjoy your lifestyle. But if you pursue the line that you resist segregation and you want to be able to get naked in the presence of textiles, you are going to meet opposition. It'll be a BIG opposition and yes, I'll be part of it. Accept segregation and push for more nudist venues and you are likely to succeed and everyone will be - or should be - happy.

Last I knew you claimed to live in ENGLAND and ENGLAND is NOT a part of Europe.

Really? England not part of Europe? You're funny! :laugh:

As a matter of fact many people who live in England resent those who call them Europeans.

You hardly meet any British people these days who would deny that they are Europeans. In some cases, they are reluctant Europeans, but you can't seriously argue that Brits aren't Europeans any more.

The fear and attitude towards paedophiles in England is exactly the same as in the USA.

I'll take your word for that.

The attitudes towards sex and nudism in England is pretty much the same as it is in the USA.

I don't think it is. I live here and speak to people and nobody, perhaps except for those with zero education, conflates sex and nudism. If people get a negative impression of nudism here it's because they imagine nudists to be either health freaks, hippies or occultists. I'm not saying that sex plays no role in their perception, but it's very peripheral and people here generally know nudism isn't about sex. What I hear from our American friends is that nudism is thought by many of their countryman to be akin to swinging or something like that. Nobody in the UK believes that.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



That's not what you said. You said:

" Absolutely no demands were ever placed upon Stu as far as nudism is concerned."

Now you admit that you ARE making demands of me and people like me to accept naked people into our textile environment. No thanks! :D

Thats correct. No demands were ever placed upon you requiring that you get naked. You are intentionally misinterpreting what I have said and then further clarified for you in order to promote your own selfish interests. Will you stop at nothing in order to satisfy your own self interests? It appears that you will not.



Yes, you should stay segregated for those times when you want to enjoy naked recreation. I have never mentioned "ghettos" - that's your word. There are places where people indulge in all manner of activities in places set aside for those activities and nudism is one example. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nudists will decide for themselves what works and what does not work for them. You are but one opinion in a vast sea of opinions and you will never have the final word as to what nudists can anc can not do. You, of course, can and will lobby for more effective laws which regulate and control nudism but then again you are clearly against nudists as you actions continuously demonstrate.



Problem? What problem? You have your beaches etc and we have ours. I'm happy with that. I don't see a problem.

We will work to educate the public so that they do not fear nudists and then we will reach out to moderates in order to work out an arrangement in order to share beaches. Thanks to you, we should also create a nudist phobic list where we contact you and keep you informed as to what beaches and places to avoid. This is certainly a very reasonable and considerate thing for nudists to do for you and you will certainly appreciate the effort.



I think most textiles prefer to share their public spaces only with people who are clothed. That's why segregated nudist beaches exist: I didn't invent them so they are nothing to do with what you call my "phobia".

You think wrong and base this upon your phobias to control and segregate nudity.



I am in favour of expanding opportunities for nudists - you should have more places etc to enjoy your lifestyle. But if you pursue the line that you resist segregation and you want to be able to get naked in the presence of textiles, you are going to meet opposition. It'll be a BIG opposition and yes, I'll be part of it. Accept segregation and push for more nudist venues and you are likely to succeed and everyone will be - or should be - happy.

Nope we will always resist the likes of you who will attempt to manipulate nudists into giving up their rights and freedoms. You only speak for yourself and you are an extreme case who lives with irrational phobias about nudity. In spite of your oppositions, the more rational can and will accept simple nudity once they realize how much effort is being wasted on nonsense. Simple nudity is nothing compared to the REAL problems that society needs to deal with and can not longer ignore - problems such as murder and poverty. Nudism is a NON ISSUE compared to these real issues and most rational people will understand this.



Really? England not part of Europe? You're funny! :laugh:

Yup, as I am constantly reminded by one Englishman and Englishwoman after another. This is almost as ludicrous as saying that Scotland is really part of England.



You hardly meet any British people these days who would deny that they are Europeans. In some cases, they are reluctant Europeans, but you can't seriously argue that Brits aren't Europeans any more.[/quotes]

You are misinformed. Brits are no more Europeans then Brits are Americans. Brist have traditionally looked upon themselves as a bridge between American and Europe. Brits have their own unique culture and when I refer to Brits, I am referring to the English only.

[quote]I don't think it is. I live here and speak to people and nobody, perhaps except for those with zero education, conflates sex and nudism. If people get a negative impression of nudism here it's because they imagine nudists to be either health freaks, hippies or occultists. I'm not saying that sex plays no role in their perception, but it's very peripheral and people here generally know nudism isn't about sex. What I hear from our American friends is that nudism is thought by many of their countryman to be akin to swinging or something like that. Nobody in the UK believes that.

Stu

Then my experiences in England must have always been vastly different then yours. You really must get out and about more to be with people and spend less time on the computer. It might do you good to open your mind and learn from other people.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

No demands were ever placed upon you requiring that you get naked.

That's because I steer clear of naked beaches. No demands are ever placed on you be clothed when you are on nudist beaches. So what? Nude beaches are where you get nude, textile beaches are where you keep your clothes on. Simple. Why are you complicating the issue?

You, of course, can and will lobby for more effective laws which regulate and control nudism but then again you are clearly against nudists as you actions continuously demonstrate.

I am FOR nudism in nudist places, but generally AGAINST it in other public places. That's not being against nudism - but in favour of responsible and segregated nudism.

We will work to educate the public so that they do not fear nudists

They don't fear nudists - they just prefer you to have your own places away from them.

and then we will reach out to moderates in order to work out an arrangement in order to share beaches.

In your dreams! :laugh: Yes, there are a few examples in the world of nudists and textiles sharing beaches, but the vast majority are, and will remain, strictly textile

This is certainly a very reasonable and considerate thing for nudists to do for you and you will certainly appreciate the effort.

That won't be necessary. You are a tiny minority and every indication is that you will remain so and that most non-nudists prefer to use textile-only facilities. You are even having your activities curtailed in traditionally liberal places like Brattleboro!

You think wrong and base this upon your phobias to control and segregate nudity.

That's right, you keep blaming my "phobia". There is very little evidence that society is willing to desegregate nudism and plenty that it is unwilling to do so.

In spite of your oppositions, the more rational can and will accept simple nudity once they realize how much effort is being wasted on nonsense. Simple nudity is nothing compared to the REAL problems that society needs to deal with and can not longer ignore - problems such as murder and poverty. Nudism is a NON ISSUE compared to these real issues and most rational people will understand this.

Dream on old chap. :laugh: Even people here recognise that this is just the stuff of fantasy. While ever you waste your time with such delusions, you are missing opportunities to gain more and better facilities to practise nudism in decent surroundings segregated from textiles.

Yup, as I am constantly reminded by one Englishman and Englishwoman after another.

This is complete tripe. We are geographically part of Europe as the UK is situated on the European geological plates. We are politically part of Europe as the UK is a member of the European Union, is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, is bound by European law and is answerable to the European Court of Justice. We are ethnically part of Europe as we are all descended from European peoples, i.e. Britannic and Celtic tribes, Romans, Saxons and Nordic, sharing their hair colour, eye colour, skin colour and most of the genetics. And we are culturally European as English is a European language and our traditions are rooted in western European cultures.

This is almost as ludicrous as saying that Scotland is really part of England.

Scotland is not part of England and never has been. It is a member of the United Kingdom.

You are misinformed. Brits are no more Europeans then Brits are Americans. Brits have traditionally looked upon themselves as a bridge between American and Europe. Brits have their own unique culture and when I refer to Brits, I am referring to the English only.

If you have told me that 10 or 15 years ago, I may have agreed with you - to some extent - but you are way out of date. It's taken a while but you can believe me or not, Britain is now as much a part of Europe as Sweden or Portugal. A few of the older generation still cling to the old idea that we are a sort of mid-Atlantic nation with a foot in the US and one in Europe, but they are out of touch with reality. I'm not saying I agree with the Europeanisation of Britain - but you really can't deny its happening a pace.

Then my experiences in England must have always been vastly different then yours.

You need to come back and visit the UK: it's changed beyond all recognition. If you ever do, drop me a line and we'll continue our debate over a pint at my local pub! Better be quick, though, as I'm emigrating in July.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Stu's gloating again with his anti-ness! Sheesshhhh


Whirrrr ------- whirrrrr

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

Not gloating. Sanslines is deluding himself that textiles will be happy to share their spaces with people who are naked. They won't - and I'm just telling him that.

Anti-ness? I've said nothing anti-nudist. Responsible and considerate nudists wouldn't demand that the textile world put up with their nakedness on their textile beaches.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



That's because I steer clear of naked beaches. No demands are ever placed on you be clothed when you are on nudist beaches. So what? Nude beaches are where you get nude, textile beaches are where you keep your clothes on. Simple. Why are you complicating the issue?

I have not complicated any issues here. You either are intentionally twisting what I have very plainly and simply said into a mess or you unable to comprehend my simple explanations.

For the last time: No one in this forum has ever demanded that you get nude, naked, fully unclothed at anyplace, anytime, and anywhere. You (ie Stu) on the other hand have placed demands upon nudists in this forum as to where they can get naked or topfree.

I think that what I just said is very clear and easy to comprehend. I have no idea why you are unable to do so.



I am FOR nudism in nudist places, but generally AGAINST it in other public places. That's not being against nudism - but in favour of responsible and segregated nudism.So we make some of those public places into nudist or clothing optional places and then the problem is solved. A very simple and straightforward solution that even you can agree to. However, we will not agree to segregation in order to satisfy your extreme phobias at the expense of the vast majority of people who may agree to clothing optional facilities. Such people may never get nude themselves, but they certainly will not demand that others remain clothed in order to satisfy their own personal interests.



They don't fear nudists - they just prefer you to have your own places away from them.They does not mean people in general but they means you and your phobias. You do not speak for the majority of people so please stop trying to pass yourself off as someone who shares majority opinions. Your opinions are driven by your extreme phobias and the majority of people clealry do not have such phobias.



In your dreams! :laugh: Yes, there are a few examples in the world of nudists and textiles sharing beaches, but the vast majority are, and will remain, strictly textile

Your doom and gloom scenario which is based upon your extreme phobias will never stop real nudists from working through a variety of menas to further expand nudism and gain further societal acceptance. Your irrational phobias prevent you from ever admitting to this or accepting this.



That won't be necessary. You are a tiny minority and every indication is that you will remain so and that most non-nudists prefer to use textile-only facilities. You are even having your activities curtailed in traditionally liberal places like Brattleboro!We are what we are and it doesn't matter how large or small that we are. What is right is right and for people to ignore real problems such as murder in our society and beat up on nudists is ludicrous. We will constantly work to show the more rational and moderate in our societies that nudism is nothing to fear. People, such as yourself, have closed minds and can never be negotiated with or reached. Therefore, we will avoid and ignore you and reach out to those that we can negotiate fairly with. You obviously will stop at nothing to control and segregate us and force us back into our segregated places. You will eventually fail as all who attempt to oppress others do.



That's right, you keep blaming my "phobia". There is very little evidence that society is willing to desegregate nudism and plenty that it is unwilling to do so.We have not yet begun to fight to throw off the shackles of your oppression.



Dream on old chap. :laugh: Even people here recognise that this is just the stuff of fantasy. While ever you waste your time with such delusions, you are missing opportunities to gain more and better facilities to practise nudism in decent surroundings segregated from textiles.What you have just stated is exactly what was stated to Martin Luther King so many years ago. He was told that he was a dreamer and that Blacks should just accept discrimination and oppression. We all know what happened to those who professed such nonsense and it is the same that will eventually happen to you anr your oppressive kind.



This is complete tripe. We are geographically part of Europe as the UK is situated on the European geological plates. We are politically part of Europe as the UK is a member of the European Union, is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, is bound by European law and is answerable to the European Court of Justice. We are ethnically part of Europe as we are all descended from European peoples, i.e. Britannic and Celtic tribes, Romans, Saxons and Nordic, sharing their hair colour, eye colour, skin colour and most of the genetics. And we are culturally European as English is a European language and our traditions are rooted in western European cultures. The vast majority of English peopld do NOT consider them Europeans. England is NOT part of the continent as England is part of the British Isles. You fully know this and yet you keep misinforming people with your faulty understanding of the opinions of your own fellow countrymen and countrywomen.



Scotland is not part of England and never has been. It is a member of the United Kingdom.Finally you get something right!



If you have told me that 10 or 15 years ago, I may have agreed with you - to some extent - but you are way out of date. It's taken a while but you can believe me or not, Britain is now as much a part of Europe as Sweden or Portugal. A few of the older generation still cling to the old idea that we are a sort of mid-Atlantic nation with a foot in the US and one in Europe, but they are out of touch with reality. I'm not saying I agree with the Europeanisation of Britain - but you really can't deny its happening a pace.No doubt you will now argue from the point that literally half of Poland has come to work and live in England and hence why England is considered part of Europe. People from Poland are Polish and Poland has it's own unique language, customs, and culture which is clearly NOT English in nature. England has also NOT adopted the Euro as a currency and will retain the English Pound for the foreseable future.


You need to come back and visit the UK: it's changed beyond all recognition. If you ever do, drop me a line and we'll continue our debate over a pint at my local pub! Better be quick, though, as I'm emigrating in July.

Stu[/quote]

[Sanslines]

Moonshadow

Not gloating. Sanslines is deluding himself that textiles will be happy to share their spaces with people who are naked. They won't - and I'm just telling him that.

Anti-ness? I've said nothing anti-nudist. Responsible and considerate nudists wouldn't demand that the textile world put up with their nakedness on their textile beaches.

Stu

Moonshadow,

Stu is drowning in anti nudity and anti nudism now to the extent that it isn't even funny. He is demanding to keep nudists segregated from textiles, as if nudism is some form of communicable disease. Responsible and considerate nudists have extended a hand in friendship to Stu and he has responded by slapping their hands away. He is absolutely determined to protect his phobias at all costs and one of those costs involve coming into a nudist forum and trying to dupe nudists into giving up some of their rights and their fight. Stu is no advocate for nudism as he clearly wants to segregate and to control nudism. No real nudist would quietly give up their rights to practice nudism and yet Stu, driven by his extreme phobias, can stop at nothing to ensure that nudists are driven back into seclusion. It is so apparant that Stu will play any game and say anything in order to achieve his phobia driven objectives which are clearly ANTI NUDISM.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

No one in this forum has ever demanded that you get nude, naked, fully unclothed at anyplace, anytime, and anywhere.

I haven't said nudists have made that demand. But some people here demand that textiles accept nudity in textile places - and that is as unacceptable to many textiles as if textiles had demanded that people wear clothes on nudist beaches.

You (ie Stu) on the other hand have placed demands upon nudists in this forum as to where they can get naked or topfree.

Yes, I have. My "demand" is that you only get naked where you can be reasonably sure it won't antagonise or offend. Seems a fair thing to ask for.

So we make some of those public places into nudist or clothing optional places and then the problem is solved. A very simple and straightforward solution that even you can agree to. However, we will not agree to segregation in order to satisfy your extreme phobias at the expense of the vast majority of people who may agree to clothing optional facilities.

The "vast majority of people" don't want to share facilities with nudists - that is also very simple and straightforward. Far more people would object to being around nude people than there are people who want to get nude in those circumstances, so you lose the argument on numbers.

Such people may never get nude themselves, but they certainly will not demand that others remain clothed in order to satisfy their own personal interests.

Try it. Go and get naked in your local park on a warm Sunday afternoon and see if people are OK with it. You are deluding yourself if you think people will think that's acceptable.

You do not speak for the majority of people so please stop trying to pass yourself off as someone who shares majority opinions. Your opinions are driven by your extreme phobias and the majority of people clealry do not have such phobias.

That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying that because someone has a phobia about dogs, everything that person says about dogs is wrong and all dogs are safe and harmless. More people object to public nudity than want to indulge in it - so it's usually illegal. That's a simple fact.

What is right is right and for people to ignore real problems such as murder in our society and beat up on nudists is ludicrous.

Who's talking about "beating up on nudists"? It's just a case of regulating when and where they can get naked.

We will constantly work to show the more rational and moderate in our societies that nudism is nothing to fear.

People already know what nudity is - they don't "fear" it but they don't necessarily want it in their everyday environment.

Therefore, we will avoid and ignore you and reach out to those that we can negotiate fairly with.

You will have to negotiate with people like me whose bottom line will be segregation - so get used to it. Others here have recognised that even if you haven't.

You obviously will stop at nothing to control and segregate us and force us back into our segregated places. You will eventually fail as all who attempt to oppress others do.

I have no intention of trying to control you - just keep your nudism away from me and mine. And I see every indication that I will succeed because the authorities have shown they are willing to take action against inappropriate nudity.

What you have just stated is exactly what was stated to Martin Luther King so many years ago. He was told that he was a dreamer and that Blacks should just accept discrimination and oppression. We all know what happened to those who professed such nonsense and it is the same that will eventually happen to you anr your oppressive kind.

There have been various movements to protect minorities from discrimination - such as black people, homosexuals, the disabled, the elderly and so on. But each and every successful movement has been founded on people who belonged to a minority group based on some immutable characteristic. These people are as they are 24/7. They did not choose to be as they are and they can not choose to be other than as they are. Nudism is a behaviour - a chosen lifestyle. You will continue to be catered for by the provision of lands for your use, but people are not showing any signs of losing their discomfort with stranger nudity and so any attempt to insist on desegregation will be futile - in my lifetime at least.

The vast majority of English peopld do NOT consider them Europeans. England is NOT part of the continent as England is part of the British Isles.

Your argument is ridiculous. Geographically speaking, Britain lies on the "continental shelf" of the western European continent. Until a few thousand years ago, there was no North Sea and Britain was connected by land to France, Belgium and Holland. The vast majority of British people DO know that, in reality, they are Europeans. Many are reluctant Europeans, but that's what they are. You are unbelievably out of touch.

No doubt you will now argue from the point that literally half of Poland has come to work and live in England and hence why England is considered part of Europe. People from Poland are Polish and Poland has it's own unique language, customs, and culture which is clearly NOT English in nature.

Yes. I know that. And Poland is a European country just as Britain is.

England has also NOT adopted the Euro as a currency and will retain the English Pound for the foreseable future.

Nor has Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden - all European countries and members of the EU. Yes, the UK is one of the more Euro-skeptic nations, but we are part of the continent of Europe whether we like it or not.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

Nor has Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden - all European countries and members of the EU. Yes, the UK is one of the more Euro-skeptic nations, but we are part of the continent of Europe whether we like it or not.

Stu

Stu,

You are up to your old tricks by playing games with word technicalities. You know very well that the British Isles are just that - islands. The English Channel separates England / Scotland / Wales from the continent of Europe. The English Channel has had much more to do with the separate developement of England from the continent of Europe then some deep undersea continental shelf that you refer to. Heck, the English Channel is what prevented Germany from rolling their tanks straight across the continent of Europe and right into England thereby ending the war in short order. You should know all of this as well as the psychological and cultural barrier that the English Channel has provided and continues to provide. Native English people cling to their history and culture and consider themselves separate from mainland Europe. YOu may go now and dredge up all of the common similarities that are used to claim that England is part of Europe and I can also go and dredge up all of the common dissimilarities that are used to to claim the opposite but in then end none of this really matters. It is what people in England believe and I can tell you unequivocably that people that I have talked with recently have stated that they are English first and foremost.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

You will have to negotiate with people like me whose bottom line will be segregation - so get used to it. Others here have recognised that even if you haven't.

No we do not have to negotiate with you or anyone like you. We can better spend our time reaching out to those moderate textiles who are reasonable and willing to negotiate in good faith and without hidden agendas. Trying to negotiate with you and reach a really fair compromise is like trying to walk to the moon.



I have no intention of trying to control you - just keep your nudism away from me and mine. And I see every indication that I will succeed because the authorities have shown they are willing to take action against inappropriate nudity.

Better yet, keep your textiled attitude away from us and leave us all alone.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

The English Channel has had much more to do with the separate developement of England from the continent of Europe then some deep undersea continental shelf that you refer to.

Sorry to disillusion you, but the English Channel isn't some "deep undersea continental shelf" - it's a very shallow stretch of water which is less than 50 metres deep in most parts. We even have a tunnel now joining England with France! Notice, too, I said metres. Hardly anyone here talks about yards or pints any more. We have kept miles and, in a few places, you can still buy a pound of bananas, but European metric measures have now pretty much taken over.

It is what people in England believe and I can tell you unequivocably that people that I have talked with recently have stated that they are English first and foremost.

I would say the same. And most French people you speak to would say they consider themselves to be French first and foremost, and European second. But that doesn't mean they don't recognise the reality that they are Europeans, too. True, it's been a harder job in the UK to convince people that they are Europeans, but we are now well on the way to that.

No we do not have to negotiate with you or anyone like you. We can better spend our time reaching out to those moderate textiles who are reasonable and willing to negotiate in good faith and without hidden agendas.

I think you'll find that compared to most people in authority, I'm a very reasonable and generous person. Look at the problems nudists have had over the past decades even trying to keep the segregated beaches they already have! I have no "hidden agenda". I'm totally up front about what I want - a better deal for nudists in terms of land allocation BUT clear demarcation of nudist and textile areas.

Stu

[Sanslines]

From england.com:

"Humans settled here long before the islands broke away from the continent of Europe. They found there way here long before the seas formed what is now known as the English Channel, that body of water that protected the islands for so long, and that was to keep it out of much of the maelstrom that became medieval Europe. Thus England's peculiar character as part of an island nation came about through its very isolation."

"The first Roman invasion of the lands we now call the British Isles took place in 55 B.C. under war leader Julius Caesar, who returned one year later, but these probings did not lead to any significant or permanent occupation. He had some interesting, if biased comments concerning the natives: "All the Britons," he wrote, "paint themselves with woad, which gives their skin a bluish color and makes them look very dreadful in battle."

Stu,

You have clearly validated my argument by stating that "I would say the same. And most French people you speak to would say they consider themselves to be French first and foremost, and European second. But that doesn't mean they don't recognise the reality that they are Europeans, too. True, it's been a harder job in the UK to convince people that they are Europeans, but we are now well on the way to that."

I do not know where you come up with this claim that English people are being convinced that they are European. The only possible way that you can justify this is to refer to the overwhelming and enormous number of Europeans (ie Poles, Czechs, etc who have joined the EU) who have come to England to live and to work. This has set off an exodus of native born English people who have emmigrated to other countries. Perhaps this is what you mea when you state that England is becoming more European. From this perspective, of course it would become more European as more natives move abroad and more Europeans arrive. Of those who remain in England and are native born, many are very resentful of the foreigners as their country is rapidly being taken over by Europeans.

[tiggy]

As Stu says Britain is becoming more european in its attitude by the
day,so I can't see why he objects so strongly to the idea of
clothing optional areas in parks etc as is common in some other
european countries.
Tiggy

[Bob S.]

Yo! Seriously, is it worth it to search out irrelevant topics such as the question regarding whether Britons consider themselves Europeans? In the grand scheme of things (on this topic), it really does not matter. They are Europeans. I believe Greenlanders are also European and they are much farther away from the mainland.

And when it comes to the segregated beaches, parks, etc. all we would ask is that they are as equally accessible and patrolled as the textile counterparts. Those two factors are the reason we do not have more beaches. We have to find ours in out-of-the-way locations, rely on word-of-mouth to make it popular while trying to keep those who just want to have sex away, and avoid the police who would frown on the nudity aspect of the participants.

Keep in mind, Sanslines, that Stu does want that for us as well. And keep in mind Stu, that until we have more open beaches, it is easier for the populace to marginalize us and retain their stereotypes of who we are.

Bob S.

[nimrod]

As for the topic, it reminds me of the chicken and the egg argument. Its is all shamed based, but it is all intertwined into the culture as to seem as though it is not. The culture breads the shame by saying nudity is taboo, and therefore should be hidden which causes shame in ones own body. And it may have all started with someone deeply religious being ashamed of "impure thoughts" and so all parts of the body must be covered, it did not stop the thoughts but there you go. Adventually it speard and became a part of the culture.

As for us nudist needing to educate people about nudity, I believe that it is a must because of all the misinformation that as been forced on the public about nudity and nudist. We need to undo all the harm that has been done. That includes all people that think of us as just eccentric to total sex freaks.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I wasn't really thinking so much about the influx of people from Eastern Europe, although that too plays a part. People in the UK are now aware of European things in their lives which week at one time regarded as entirely alien. For example, people here are quick to resort to the European Courts to resolve disputes and even to challenge domestic laws. They talk about adopting European ways, such as the continental drinking patterns. Even what we eat and drink has changed subtly over the past few years so that British-style beers have now given way to European lagers and we now think nothing of opening a bottle of wine to consume with a meal. European foodstuffs are taking over from more traditional British fare so people are making their own pasta dishes and routinely using ingredients from French and Italian cooking while many youngsters have no idea what toad-in-the-hole, cottage pie and spotted dick are. Trust me when I tell you I 'm not celebrating this loss of British identity. I am thankful we still have the pound, the mile and the pint of beer in a pub - but the reality is that, bit-by-bit. the UK is becoming more and more like our continental cousins as each day passes.

Tiggy

I can't see why he objects so strongly to the idea of clothing optional areas in parks etc as is common in some other european countries.

I don't. So long as they are segregated, screened off and signposted (like in some German cities) I have no objection to clothing optional areas. All I want is the ability to use the public domain without encountering nudity.

BobS

They are Europeans. I believe Greenlanders are also European and they are much farther away from the mainland.

I think Greenlanders generally consider themselves more North American than European as they are ethnically and linguistically closely related to the Canadian Inuit people. Icelanders, on the other hand, are pure Norse descendants and so are unquestionably European.

And keep in mind Stu, that until we have more open beaches, it is easier for the populace to marginalize us and retain their stereotypes of who we are.

I am 100% in favour of there being more nudist beaches - far more - and in prime positions too rather than miles from anywhere and devoid of amenities. I would have no objection, for example, if they allocated 20% of beach space as "clothing optional", so long as the other 80% were strictly enforced as textile. Sanslines is not prepared to concede any type of segregation and that is unreasonable and unfeasible.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I wasn't really thinking so much about the influx of people from Eastern Europe, although that too plays a part. People in the UK are now aware of European things in their lives which week at one time regarded as entirely alien. For example, people here are quick to resort to the European Courts to resolve disputes and even to challenge domestic laws. They talk about adopting European ways, such as the continental drinking patterns. Even what we eat and drink has changed subtly over the past few years so that British-style beers have now given way to European lagers and we now think nothing of opening a bottle of wine to consume with a meal. European foodstuffs are taking over from more traditional British fare so people are making their own pasta dishes and routinely using ingredients from French and Italian cooking while many youngsters have no idea what toad-in-the-hole, cottage pie and spotted dick are. Trust me when I tell you I 'm not celebrating this loss of British identity. I am thankful we still have the pound, the mile and the pint of beer in a pub - but the reality is that, bit-by-bit. the UK is becoming more and more like our continental cousins as each day passes.

Tiggy



I don't. So long as they are segregated, screened off and signposted (like in some German cities) I have no objection to clothing optional areas. All I want is the ability to use the public domain without encountering nudity.

BobS



I think Greenlanders generally consider themselves more North American than European as they are ethnically and linguistically closely related to the Canadian Inuit people. Icelanders, on the other hand, are pure Norse descendants and so are unquestionably European.



I am 100% in favour of there being more nudist beaches - far more - and in prime positions too rather than miles from anywhere and devoid of amenities. I would have no objection, for example, if they allocated 20% of beach space as "clothing optional", so long as the other 80% were strictly enforced as textile. Sanslines is not prepared to concede any type of segregation and that is unreasonable and unfeasible.

Stu

Stu,

You can't be serious about the younger generation now knowing how to brew a proper cup of tea (I am sure you know about the unwritten rule as to not drink out of paper cups or resort to drinking "McDonald's" kinds of teas), go to the 'chippy' for traditional fish and chips, not even know what a cottage pie or spotted dick is, or (heaven forbid) what a traditional Christmas pudding is. England has a very long history with many traditions and yet it really is sad (based upon what you are saying) how rapidly the native born are giving up their heritage. The past ten years has seen such a huge influx of foreigners that it is well know how England was basically giving away their own country. To give up their traditions (based upon what you are saying) is just plain sad.

As for me not willing to conceed anything, yes you are correct. I will not concede one thing until the textile community comes to the bargaining table in a fair, honest, and open manner. So far, the textile community wants the nudist community to do ALL of the giving while the textile community does ALL of the taking. This is patently unfair!

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You can't be serious about the younger generation now knowing how to brew a proper cup of tea

I don't think I mentioned brewing cups of tea, did I? Mind you, you'd find it much easier in most British cities to get a latté than a cuppa! But yes, it is sad to see the demise of so many British traditions in favour of the characterless European stuff.

As for me not willing to conceed anything, yes you are correct. I will not concede one thing until the textile community comes to the bargaining table in a fair, honest, and open manner....

That's what I'm doing. The bottom line for nudists (no pun intended) is that they want opportunities to get naked among other. like-minded nudists. Fair enough. The bottom line for many textiles is that they want to be able to continue to avoid encountering naked people. So that sets the parameters for bargaining. By not being willing to entertain any kind of segregation, you are effectively demanding that all places are clothing optional. That's not going to be acceptable either to the authorities or the textile community at any time in the foreseeable future, so you have to lower your ambitions and accept that, just as nudists have a right to enjoy their nude environments, textiles have a right to enjoy nudity-free environments.

So far, the textile community wants the nudist community to do ALL of the giving while the textile community does ALL of the taking. This is patently unfair!

I would be prepared to allocate a fair proportion of public space for nudist use so you can't argue that's not giving nudists anything. In return, I would expect nudists to recognise and respect the sensibilities of confirmed textiles (like me) by avoiding practising nudism in the remaining textile places. There can be some give-and-take with regard to remote places with a bit of mutual goodwill, but a default minimum 'dress code' for public places has to remain.

Although you have said many times that I am anti-nudist, if what I advocate were to be accepted by the authorities, that would be a massive advance on what nudists have now and would increase your opportunities for doing what you love exponentially.

Stu

[Balloon_Artist]

Stu, would you consider a clothing-optional stripe between these areas as a DMZ as it were?

There are textiles that would entertain the idea of crossing the 'line in the sand'. there would have to be a place where they may disrobe without feeling as if the nudists were judging them by the clothes they have on. And at the same time there are nudists that have textile friends. There should be a place where both camps can meet-up for a while.

It's not like we are from different planets.

[Agde]

Stu, would you consider a clothing-optional stripe between these areas as a DMZ as it were?
I once asked Stu about an acceptable minimum separation between him and a nude person, and I think he suggested something like 200 meters. So any DMZ in an area without natural barriers implies an enormous location.

In a segregation scenario, what is really needed is agreement that as long as you are on your side of the line, all is well. Period. Using "viewability of one group by the other" as the standard simply takes the matter of segregated public spaces from the realm of the feasible into the realm of the unreal.

Remember, naturists are not demanding a DMZ in public spaces since naturists don't have any problem viewing textiles. So the real question is not how big the clothing-optional area would be, but rather how big the textile area must be in order for Stu to be far enough away from any nude person.

My solution would be to put up a privacy wall around the pure textile areas since they are the ones that care. There are even companies that sell portable privacy screens -- perhaps we could offer them gratis to concerned textiles. :)

[Balloon_Artist]

Eeeeeeneresting. LOL That *would* be a good way of doing it. :D

[tiggy]

Or just provide the textiles with paper bags they could put
over their heads and then they couldn't see anything that
may upset them?
Tiggy

[Stu2630]

There are already plenty of examples of successful separation of nudist from non-nudist beaches. It can be by means of entirely separate stretches of beach, coves and inlets, areas divided off by natural phenomena such as rocky outcrops, cliffs, trees and dunes, or by man-made barriers such as hedges, fences and walls. Or it could simply be distance - if there is sufficient space on a particular beach. If a beach is, say, 3-miles long, then nudists could occupy one end of it, textiles who were unconcerned about nudity could use the section closer to the nudists and everyone else could use the rest. Furthermore, I have no objection to there being additional beaches and other spaces designated as 'clothes-optional', to be used by anyone.

I don't see segregation as presenting any significant practical problems.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



I don't think I mentioned brewing cups of tea, did I? Mind you, you'd find it much easier in most British cities to get a latté than a cuppa! But yes, it is sad to see the demise of so many British traditions in favour of the characterless European stuff.



That's what I'm doing. The bottom line for nudists (no pun intended) is that they want opportunities to get naked among other. like-minded nudists. Fair enough. The bottom line for many textiles is that they want to be able to continue to avoid encountering naked people. So that sets the parameters for bargaining. By not being willing to entertain any kind of segregation, you are effectively demanding that all places are clothing optional. That's not going to be acceptable either to the authorities or the textile community at any time in the foreseeable future, so you have to lower your ambitions and accept that, just as nudists have a right to enjoy their nude environments, textiles have a right to enjoy nudity-free environments.



I would be prepared to allocate a fair proportion of public space for nudist use so you can't argue that's not giving nudists anything. In return, I would expect nudists to recognise and respect the sensibilities of confirmed textiles (like me) by avoiding practising nudism in the remaining textile places. There can be some give-and-take with regard to remote places with a bit of mutual goodwill, but a default minimum 'dress code' for public places has to remain.

Although you have said many times that I am anti-nudist, if what I advocate were to be accepted by the authorities, that would be a massive advance on what nudists have now and would increase your opportunities for doing what you love exponentially.

Stu

Stu,

Segregating nudists from textiles might sound wonderful to you but it only sounds wonderful in theory only. In many areas, there just are insufficient numbers of nudists to keep a designated nude beach populated. If such a beach were to be designated nude, it would either remain empty for most of the year or would shortly be overrun by textiles. Practical solutions must be based upon the specifics of each and every area. In many areas, clothing optional beaches will work as there are many textiles who might never get nude themselves, but will have no objection to being on a nude beach. Since I do not believe that you have had much, if any, experience on a nude beach I will inform you of a few very important things. Nude beaches are generally very safe and quiet beaches where the regulars tend to keep the peace on the beach. Many textile beaches are the exact opposite and I have know textiles who prefer to sit either near the line of demarcation between textile - nudist beaches, or within the nude beach in order to realize the peace of the nude beach. I am certain that you will always have your textile only beaches but you still seem to refuse to accept that many beaches can be designated clothing optional and people themselves can figure out for themselves if they wish to be nude or not. Those who are so offended by nudity should either go to one of the specific textile only beaches or just stay home. As it stands now, all public beaches that I know of will accomodate textiles (even the nudist beaches do not demand that textiles disrobe) and yet there are no beaches that can legally demand that patrons be nude (unless the beach is on private property).

[Bob S.]

Sanslines:"I am certain that you will always have your textile only beaches but you still seem to refuse to accept that many beaches can be designated clothing optional and people themselves can figure out for themselves if they wish to be nude or not."

Sanslines, all public nude beaches are basically clothing optional beaches. The authorities will not demand that people go naked on these beaches unlike the rules demanding clothing on textile beaches. In practice, nude and clothing optional designations are the same in terms of beaches.

Stu:"I think Greenlanders generally consider themselves more North American than European as they are ethnically and linguistically closely related to the Canadian Inuit people. Icelanders, on the other hand, are pure Norse descendants and so are unquestionably European."

I knew I was going to get that wrong. Those darn Vikings--still confusing people (OK, me) all these hundreds of years later.

Agde:"My solution would be to put up a privacy wall around the pure textile areas since they are the ones that care. There are even companies that sell portable privacy screens -- perhaps we could offer them gratis to concerned textiles."

Agde, walls will not fly in most places. As for natural boundaries such as rocks, trees, etc. the issue once again comes down to accessibility. Usually those beaches beyond the boundaries are unconnected to any roads or easily accessible paths. The easiest thing to do is to simply allocate a certain portion of the beach as nude with signs telling which parts are which.

Bob S.

[Agde]

Agde, walls will not fly in most places. As for natural boundaries such as rocks, trees, etc. the issue once again comes down to accessibility... The easiest thing to do is to simply allocate a certain portion of the beach as nude with signs telling which parts are which.
Of course I understand, Bob. My point was simply that we are really talking about dress codes and Stu always poses the problem upside-down -- the "natural boundaries such as rocks, trees, etc" are only issues for those who care about avoidance, not for those who accept whatever other people choose. Logically, signs would make more sense if they indicated stricter dress codes areas, eg. "swimming costumes required" (like in restaurants, eg. "jackets required") rather than the other way around. It is a simple matter of friendly tolerance as the norm, with signs and designated spaces for specified intolerance.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines:"I am certain that you will always have your textile only beaches but you still seem to refuse to accept that many beaches can be designated clothing optional and people themselves can figure out for themselves if they wish to be nude or not."

Sanslines, all public nude beaches are basically clothing optional beaches. The authorities will not demand that people go naked on these beaches unlike the rules demanding clothing on textile beaches. In practice, nude and clothing optional designations are the same in terms of beaches.

Bob, This is very true and and I am glad that you specified PUBLIC beaches. I want to be very careful to distinguish between public and private beaches. Public beaches are as you state but private beaches can require partial or total nudity as a condition for using the beach.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I am certain that you will always have your textile only beaches but you still seem to refuse to accept that many beaches can be designated clothing optional and people themselves can figure out for themselves if they wish to be nude or not.

No, I do accept that. I completely accept that and I'm in favour of there being even more of these kind of beaches and I have advocated that myself. If you look back in this thread, you will see that I suggested that around 20% of beaches could be designated as clothing-optional. Bearing in mind that only between 2% and 5% of people consider themselves to be nudists, that would give them a very generous allocation of beaches.

Those who are so offended by nudity should either go to one of the specific textile only beaches or just stay home.

I'm happy to go to textile-only beaches. I do that already.

As it stands now, all public beaches that I know of will accommodate textiles (even the nudist beaches do not demand that textiles disrobe) and yet there are no beaches that can legally demand that patrons be nude (unless the beach is on private property).

I don't have a problem with a small number of public beaches being nude-compulsory. I can well understand that some nudists may feel uncomfortable sharing a beach with people who have no intention of being naked.

Agde

Logically, signs would make more sense if they indicated stricter dress codes areas, eg. "swimming costumes required" (like in restaurants, eg. "jackets required") rather than the other way around.

No, that wouldn't be the right thing to do. Nudists are still a very tiny minority: clothing is the default appearance in public places while nudity is very much the exception. Also, people are rarely offended by the sight of clothed people whereas nudity does cause offence where unexpected.

Unless and until that situation changes (and I hope it doesn't) then nudist and clothing optional beaches should be the ones bearing the signage.


Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines
No, I do accept that. I completely accept that and I'm in favour of there being even more of these kind of beaches and I have advocated that myself. If you look back in this thread, you will see that I suggested that around 20% of beaches could be designated as clothing-optional. Bearing in mind that only between 2% and 5% of people consider themselves to be nudists, that would give them a very generous allocation of beaches.

What do you have to say about one of your theoretical nude beaches that see no nude use for most of the year and yet if that nude beach were designated textile then it would see much more use. Your ideas about designating beaches either nude or textile are impractical in most areas. There simple are not enough nudists to be able to support nude use throughout the year on certain beaches. Your own statistics bear that out. The only reasonable solution is to designate certain beaches as clothing optional so that nude use would be legally permissable on such beaches. As it stands now, there is no PUBLIC beach that demands nude use. Yet, all public beaches accomodate textile use. This is certainly not fair or any form of a 'compromise'.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

The only reasonable solution is to designate certain beaches as clothing optional so that nude use would be legally permissable on such beaches.

I agree. That is the answer.

As it stands now, there is no PUBLIC beach that demands nude use. Yet, all public beaches accomodate textile use. This is certainly not fair or any form of a 'compromise'.

I agree with that, too - you are 100% right. It's not fair and it should be rectified. There should be far more beaches which permit nude use - properly signposted of course.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Of course

Whirrrrrr.........whirrrrrr

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



I agree. That is the answer.



I agree with that, too - you are 100% right. It's not fair and it should be rectified. There should be far more beaches which permit nude use - properly signposted of course.

Stu

Stu,

I really do not think that anyone would object to signposting a clothing optional or nude beach warning others of nudity given how so many react so strongly against nudity and yet don't seem to care about the real serious problems such as violent crime, lack of health insurance, etc. Perhaps while we are at it we should place sign posts warning people of the possibility of violent crime once they enter certain city's limits. Nah, we can't do that for it would be an admission that we have certain problems. Better to beat up on the harmless nudists and avoid dealing with the real societal problems.

[Sanslines]

Of course

Whirrrrrr.........whirrrrrr

Whirrrrrrr.......whirrrr.....to you to Moonshadow..............lol......lol.....lol

Let's chant it all together now......whirrr......whirrr...........!

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

Why "Whirrrrrrr.......whirrrr....." when I have just agreed with everything Sanslines has said?

I have long since given up expecting fairness from you.

Stu

[boatsteve]

Whirrrrrrr.......whirrrr.....to you to Moonshadow..............lol......lol.....lol

Let's chant it all together now......whirrr......whirrr...........!

Whirrrrrrr.......whirrrr.....whirrr......whirrr... ...whirrr......whirrr......whirrr......whirrr..... .whirrr......whirrr.....

[Bob S.]

Agde:"Logically, signs would make more sense if they indicated stricter dress codes areas, eg. "swimming costumes required" (like in restaurants, eg. "jackets required") rather than the other way around. It is a simple matter of friendly tolerance as the norm, with signs and designated spaces for specified intolerance."

How about a two-sided sign at the boundary of the beaches? The side facing the textile beach stating that beyond that point is a nude beach and the side facing the nude beach stating that clothes are needed beyond that point.

Sanslines:"I want to be very careful to distinguish between public and private beaches. Public beaches are as you state but private beaches can require partial or total nudity as a condition for using the beach."

Actually, a private beach is a novel thing for me. In Virginia, all beaches are considered public as per the treaty signed hundreds of years ago with George III.

Bob S.

[TreyS]

Shame or Culture?

The question assumes a false distinction. Neither shame nor lack of shame is an inherent characteristic of individuals. Culture, among other things, shapes what we do or do not choose to feel shame about.

[Willynillyuk]

I am surprised that nobody has gone into any depth as to why non-nudists are so sensitive about exposing their bodies. This is going to be provocative, but then the real issues are!

I believe the main reason betrays humanity at its lowest level. Vanity!

This is also the main reason there are fewer females in nudism than men. People spout about the threat from predatory males but this is overstated.

Simply the vast majority of women are treated as sex-objects and, sadly, they encourage and welcome it. A key relaxation for most females is reading the glamour press and they spend hours in the bathroom and in front of the mirror. What for, themselves? I think not! This is all rare amongst males, though they more than play a part in this pseudo-mating ritual.

The culture these days is sadly reinvented by the media at every money-making opportunity. Our media creates ideals as to what we should look like and we fall for it hook, line and sinker. It is getting worse as more women fill the glamour press editorial positions.

The upshot is that the vast majority of females repress themselves because they believe they do not meet the ideals expected. They will not remove their clothes because, in crude terms, they are concerned they do not look attractive (for that read "sexy", "sexual") enough. This is the shame factor.

Then to top it all off, the vast majority of males, in the ludicrous misapprehension that they are in some way superior, defend their female partners like gangsters' molls.

Further, the past decade or so has seen a rise in similar male vanity, with gym regimes designed to improve visual definition over strength and fitness! This is all about cockerel feathers and making an impression on the opposite sex.

So I am afraid the term "dirty" does apply in most minds. They do NOT see their bodies specifically as private but as sex machines to be hidden away in contrition. In summary, nudists are not generally preoccupied with the sexual attraction element of their bodies whilst the dumbed-down non-nudists, particular the females, replete with doctrinarian media, are largely obsessed with it.

Why is such a base, unaesthetic attitude to life worthy of the respect of nudists?

Sorry for being so blunt but what is the point in colouring the landscape grey?

[Borntobenude]

I am surprised that nobody has gone into any depth as to why non-nudists are so sensitive about exposing their bodies. This is going to be provocative, but then the real issues are!

I believe the main reason betrays humanity at its lowest level. Vanity!

...

The culture these days is sadly reinvented by the media at every money-making opportunity. Our media creates ideals as to what we should look like and we fall for it hook, line and sinker. It is getting worse as more women fill the glamour press editorial positions.

The upshot is that the vast majority of females repress themselves because they believe they do not meet the ideals expected. They will not remove their clothes because, in crude terms, they are concerned they do not look attractive (for that read "sexy", "sexual") enough. This is the shame factor.

Yes. Sociologists have written about this.

“Shame is felt when one is inferior, or is conscious of being, or of being liable to be, unfavorably regarded. … One of the greatest reasons for covering the body is the conviction that it would not be admired if seen.”

"[F]or most modern Americans is … the fear that their body or body part(s) will be judged as inadequate or inferior. Thus, they have another motive to cover their body or certain parts of it. Modesty seems to be 'most often found in people, of either sex, who are embarrassed by what they think is their own imperfect body compared to our culture’s endless images of ideal nudity or semi-nudity' (Fraser 1981, p. 250). These images of the ideal are the basis for the assessment of one’s body in relation to others."