Should people have the right to be naked in public?

[TreyS]

Stu has expressed the belief that individuals should not have the right to be naked in public and I thought the issue might be worth its' own thread.

[Stu2630]

While I see being dressed in public to be the default state for everyone, I'd like to qualify TreyS's statement slightly. I don't think there should be an inalienable right to be naked in public - nor should being naked in public automatically be deemed unlawful. There are places and occasions when it is perfectly proper and acceptable to be naked in public but I believe nakedness should be confined to such occasions. They are where nakedness is entirely expectable and is unlikely to cause offence, such as changing (locker) rooms, nudist/clothing optional locations and events and also in remote places so long as the naked people take reasonable steps to ensure they are unlikely to be seen or, if they are happened upon, they take steps to conceal their nakedness as swiftly as possible.

This is an interesting topic - especially for me - but I don't think it is particularly relevant for nudists because they generally confine their nudity to the kind of circumstances I have described.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

And people have the right to ignore nudity just like they have the right to ignore baggy droopy pants.

[TreyS]

I think I may not have been clear earlier. The intent of my question was to ask: Should people be able to be naked in public essentially anywhere they wish? Stu has expressed the view that people should not be allowed to be naked in public essentially anywhere they wish. It is that viewpoint I was referring to earlier when I mentioned Stu.

[nimrod]

Should we have the "rights" to be nude in public? Yes of course we should, there is no reason that we should not have that right. Where and when to practice it is a different matter.

[Bob S.]

Guaranteeing this "right" to all would not mean there would suddenly be naked people everywhere.

The question asked is should people have that right to be naked? I answered yes. But should they be naked everywhere? I would say not necessarily. Having the right would mean that people can have more options regarding where they can get naked. It would require a lot more give from textiles and those who like to go naked can generally agree that certain places will be clothing only.

A clothing optional society is not as demanding as a nudity or textile mandatory one.

Bob S.

[nacktman]

One has the right to be nude anywhere/anytime one wants.
The exercise of that right is a horse of a different color for a myriad of reasons - Social, Weather, Theology, Cultural, etc.
But the right remains.

[NudonyII]

I have perhaps a different angle on the subject matter. I grew up in Europe, in a time and place where there were few laws concerning nudity; except "attentat a la pudeur", which focused largely on acts of exhibitionism. Did that mean that there were nude people walking down the street? Of course not! It simply meant that you could go skinny dipping at the local lake, sunbathe nude on your own property, as long as you made some reasonable attempt at discretion. It wasn't so much about hiding as it was about respecting other people.

What I would propose is revising or amending current anti-nudity laws to apply to "predatorial" or overtly sexual nudity only; and exclude reasonable recreational or practical nudity. Legalizing nudity altogether would certainly advance nudism; but I think it would also open the door to less wholesome behavior.

[Stu2630]

NaturistMark

And people have the right to ignore nudity just like they have the right to ignore baggy droopy pants.

You could say the same about an exhibitionist flasher. A pornographer could make the same argument claiming that he is entitled to display graphic sexual images to help promote his business.

If a the proportion of people who find the sight of baggy pants to be actually offensive exceeds the proportion of people who actually want to wear these pants in public, then they should be banned. Similarly, as the proportion of people who find the sight of find the sight of public nudity is offensive almost certainly exceeds the number of people who want to practise public nudity, then it is only right that such conduct is deemed unacceptable and punishable in law.

BobS and Nimrod

This boils down to the old argument as to whether people have a "right not to be offended". You do not think there is such a right - I do think such a right exists in public places because everyone has to use them and everyone has to pay for their maintenance. There has to be a general consensus by the public (i.e. the users and owners of public places) as to what is permissible in these places and what is not so that as many people as possible are comfortable in them.

You may say that, if there were to be a general right to be naked anywhere, that doesn't mean that people would actually do it. But you could use the same argument to legalise, for example, throwing down litter or drunkenness. The fact that most people still wouldn't do it even if the law were to be rescinded doesn't mean that an irresponsible minority wouldn't exploit the gap in the law and that would be a bad thing. We have long used the law to regulate behaviour in public and to make the public domain benign and pleasant for all. There is nothing to be gained by legalising a behaviour which does cause offence to a significant number of people. I choose to live in a nudity-free environment and I want that environment to be protected: as much as many of you on here are nice people - I don't want to be around you when you are naked.

I can understand that nudists may harbour a distant hope that, at some time in the future, nudity will be no big deal anywhere or at any time. That's fair enough. But I think nudists make a mistake when they voice support for the extremist element within their ranks, the public nudity activists who want to impose the sight of nakedness on to a public that really doesn't want to have to see it, or their children to see it.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

If a the proportion of people who find the sight of baggy pants to be actually offensive exceeds the proportion of people who actually want to wear these pants in public, then they should be banned.
Wake up stu, obviously things DON'T work like this in real life, luckily! In fact if those rules applied to CFF you would have be banned lightyears ago...

That some people - even if it is a majority - finds something offensive doesn't mean that it creates physical, mental or environmental harm, and if not there is very little if anything reason to ban it.

A good example is a recent law past for hearing in the Netherlands that would allow for public gay sex in parks etc after 12pm (quite offensive behaviour if you ask me) simply because not allowing this has lead to an even worse sideeffect of other molesting gay people. Legalising the public sex, which may be an offensive act but doesn't actually cause any harm, allows the police to control the molesting which is also offensive but actually does involve harm.

Nudity by itself doesn't cause any mental or physical harm, therefore - even if a majority of the public or stu doesn't like it - it shall be a right to be nude/breastfree/etc in public. Several countries have started to realise this to a smaller or larger extend.


TreyS wrote once: "I used to post here under a different username"? I almost wonder if it was Stu2630... This thread almost reads as if someone has started a debate with himself.

[Stu2630]

Naturist4Ever

That some people - even if it is a majority - finds something offensive doesn't mean that it creates physical, mental or environmental harm, and if not there is very little if anything reason to ban it.

Environmental harm to me includes something which makes the environment less inviting, comfortable, pleasurable etc, and I believe nudity falls into that category.

A good example is a recent law past for hearing in the Netherlands that would allow for public gay sex in parks etc after 12pm (quite offensive behaviour if you ask me) simply because not allowing this has lead to an even worse side effect of other molesting gay people. Legalising the public sex, which may be an offensive act but doesn't actually cause any harm, allows the police to control the molesting which is also offensive but actually does involve harm.

I think that's appalling! I don't want to live in a society which allows this sort of behaviour. I would bet there are nudists who would be uncomfortable with that idea, too.

TreyS wrote once: "I used to post here under a different username"? I almost wonder if it was Stu2630... This thread almost reads as if someone has started a debate with himself.

I don't like what you are implying. :mad: When I come here, I ONLY come as Stu2630 and if I want to start a thread, I do so in my own name. TreyS is shown as being from Alabama whereas I am in the UK. I have no doubt that the mods here will be able to track our respective ISPs and I am happy for them to do that. They will be able to confirm that TreyS's is an American one and mine is a British one.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Naturist4Ever



Environmental harm to me includes something which makes the environment less inviting, comfortable, pleasurable etc, and I believe nudity falls into that category.



I think that's appalling! I don't want to live in a society which allows this sort of behaviour. I would bet there are nudists who would be uncomfortable with that idea, too.



I don't like what you are implying. :mad: When I come here, I ONLY come as Stu2630 and if I want to start a thread, I do so in my own name. TreyS is shown as being from Alabama whereas I am in the UK. I have no doubt that the mods here will be able to track our respective ISPs and I am happy for them to do that. They will be able to confirm that TreyS's is an American one and mine is a British one.

Stu

Stu,

You are safe as just about no American would know what a 'spotted dick' is. You do.

[TreyS]

For the record my old username was Aaron Adams. I created that username to allow for a certain amount of anonymity. Trey is my real name and I am from Alabama. Also, Stu and I disagree on the issue at hand in that I think society at large should be clothing optional and Stu does not.

[naturalmanwa]

I think the simple act of being nude is OK, but not sex or other acts that offend society in general, be they nudists of not. I should be able to sunbathe or swim in a park or wash my car in my front yard or ride my bike down the street nude if I choose.

[Stu2630]

I should be able to sunbathe or swim in a park or wash my car in my front yard or ride my bike down the street nude if I choose.

I should be able to live my life in a nudity-free environment if I choose.

There is a solution. You and those like-minded nudists live in nudity-permitted areas/communes etc where you can be nude anywhere, and allow the rest of us to live free from nudity. That way everyone is happy! :)

In fact....isn't that pretty much how things are right now? :confused:

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

Don't you think that nudity is absolutely disguisting? I mean all of those overweight, out of shape, flabby bodies.....don't they all just disguist you and hence why you insist upon having all of that hidden away behind clothing (at the very least when you are present)? Let's just cut to the chase and get to the real reasons why you find nudity so offensive.

[nudeM]

As a different take on this, I don't think we have the "right" to be naked in public, but I do believe we should be able to practice nudity in public without interference. I don't think we will ever see the day when we could walk down the streets naked, but public skinny dipping should be considered, especially the speedo swimwear don't hide that much anyway. You don't see a lot of speedos on the beaches, but they do exist, and the skimpy bikinis show off even less.

Simple home nudity is tolerated between neighbors, with consent, in the backyard. Most neighbors know of their nudist neighbors and already have an understanding whether it's permitted or not. But most jurisdictions will not cite a nudist if the nudist is confined within their boundries and behind "privacy" fences. They will however, cite a nudist if a complaint is launched by a passerby and is spotted from inside the house, with the windows wide open.

Hopefully one day, nudity will be more tolerated by the general public, but I don't think it will open the doors to being openly naked on our city streets.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Don't you think that nudity is absolutely disgusting?

Nudity is not disgusting any more than sex is disgusting. Like sex, nudity only becomes disgusting if done inappropriately - i.e. outside of well understood and defined situations.

I mean all of those overweight, out of shape, flabby bodies.....don't they all just disgust you and hence why you insist upon having all of that hidden away behind clothing (at the very least when you are present)?

Overweight, out of shape, flabby bodies? You think that's what makes nudity unacceptable to textiles? I don't think so. I see overweight, out of shape, flabby bodies in swimwear on every beach I go to. Doesn't worry me in the slightest. But nakedness - whether it's overweight, out of shape and flabby bodies or perfectly toned and stunningly beautiful ones - they're equally unacceptable to me. Swimwear doesn't cover the flab.

Let's just cut to the chase and get to the real reasons why you find nudity so offensive.

Cultural conditioning which causes me to regard certain parts of the human anatomy as being intimate and I wince at seeing them outside of certain contexts.

nudeM

but public skinny dipping should be considered, especially the speedo swimwear don't hide that much anyway.

In certain places, yes. By that I mean an increase in clothing-optional beaches so that there is a facility for those who want to skinnydip to be able to do so. But I avoid such beaches and I would find it just as unacceptable to be among naked people on a beach as I would in a town centre or shopping mall.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

The whirring continues

[Boreas]

I did not vote on the poll since it was a little too black and white for me. I think that simple nudity is not the issue in many jurisdictions. It is the behaviour that goes with the nudity that is the issue. I would like to see where nudity be commonly accepted in places where men currently can go topfree, or perhaps where bathing suits or casual summer attire is accepted. I'd love to feel comfortable sitting naked in my fishbowl backyard. I could possibly get the blessing of my immediate neighbours. I would be concerned about people who use the street behind me.

As for the right to not be offended, oh that such a right could be enforced! I personally would LOVE to see perfumes banned, or confined to specific perfume only places. I find perfumes highly offensive, and irritating. They can give me a headache, make me sneeze, wheeze or cough. I have had several occasions sullied by someone who thinks that we should be able to smell them. If a person MUST wear perfume, it needs to be only enough for their beloved to smell when snuggling.My physical symptoms are only annoying and uncomfortable. I am not in a position to have to stay home for fear of an asthma attack.

The right to not be offended while nice, is very difficult. What is offensive to me may not even bother you, and vice versa. I also know it is more of a British concept than an American concept. We here in Canada fall somewhere in between. My thinking is that we do have to put some tough skin on and tolerate certain offenses in public places, otherwise we could be potentially offended all the time.

[MoonShadow]

So right, Boreus!

There is no where people can go on this planet where some will not get or be offended by something/one. My thinking is that if you are offended by something or someone walk away from it, ignore it, and move on. If the offense is a personal confrontation, then deal with that confrontation and move on.

If we "enforced" no offensiveness rules, we would all have to live in cacoons and not be around anything or anyone.

Now, Boreus, for perfumes - I love a good perfume! I am glad I don't have any allergies to them. LOL

[Boreas]

Now, Boreus, for perfumes - I love a good perfume! I am glad I don't have any allergies to them. LOL

Oh Moonshadow, I am so disappointed in you! ;) I do hope you do not inflict yourself on others too much. :) I became more of a curmudgeon in this respect after having to commute on the Toronto transit system for a couple of years. There is nothing like being cooped up in a small space with a crowd of people and five of the most popular (and most irritating) scents. Of course heat intensifies smell you know. It was bad enough that people were invading my personal physical space, they were also invading my inner space through my nostrils. :(

[DJ Leo]

Yes, I really don't see why nudity is such an issue. We are all born into this world completely nude. God had intended for us to be without clothing. God has given us his only begotten son, so that we may return to the way that he has created us originally to be without sin. Nudity is not a sin. And there would be less sexual crimes in the world if we all could be completely naked and would be less different from each other. JMO:D

[Stu2630]

Perfumes? I love the smell of perfume. I have never before met any person who tells me they are offended, irritated or troubled by perfumes worn by others. There are, however, many people who are upset by nakedness.

One utilitarian test as to what should be illegal is the numerical comparison of those who want to pursue a course of behaviour versus those who want to engage in it. The proportion of people who want to wear perfume in public is vastly greater than the proportion of people who react adversely to it. So perfume is OK. Conversely, the proportion of people who want to be naked in public is far smaller than the proportion of people who would find that objectionable. So public nudity is not OK.

DJLeo

You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but not everyone shares them. I for one don't believe their is any such entity as God and so Jesus was just a person - if he existed at all. I also don't believe in the concept of sin. I do, however, believe that we are cultural creatures and certain things offend our sensibilities - usually when they are presented to us outside of certain contexts. These things include obscene language, sex and nakedness.

The fact that we were born nude is irrelevant to how we conduct ourselves as mature human beings. We were all born incontinent and emptied our bladders and bowels regardless of where we were at the time. But when we got a bit older we realised that there is a proper place for evacuating waste products - the toilet. Similarly, there are proper places for nudity, like the bathroom, the bedroom and, if you happen to be a nudist, a nudist beach.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

O I became more of a curmudgeon in this respect after having to commute on the Toronto transit system for a couple of years. There is nothing like being cooped up in a small space with a crowd of people and five of the most popular (and most irritating) scents. Of course heat intensifies smell you know.

Exactly, in the morning when the commutertrain door opens the smell (not perfume!, but simply stacked "personal odours" of too many people in a confined space) just hits your nostrils and it's bad. Now that IS offensive, but should we ban people using the commuter trains/force people into a smell-absorption suits simply because - as stew tries to convince us all year long - we have the right not to be offended by commuter smells?

>> I have never before met any person who tells me they are offended, irritated or troubled by perfumes worn by others.

Am I smelling a stew here?

~N4E

[MoonShadow]

LOL Boreus!

Actually, I don't ride commuter modes of transportation. I am fortunate that I wear perfume sparingly and am not usually in any small confined spaces with people - which is a good thing for those who don't like perfumes.

More whirring from Stu

[Stu2630]

Naturist4Ever

Am I smelling a stew here?

Are you the same Naturist4Ever who accused me of dishonesty, i.e. starting a conversation with myself by posting in the name of TreyS? The same Naturist4Ever who hasn't had the good manners to apologise for making an unfounded and totally wrong insinuation?

I don't know about smelling stew, but that stinks.

MoonShadow

If you think it's whirring - feel free to ignore it.

Stu

[EricNY]

I think I am going to make a quibbleing thread, that way we can take all the bickering and the like and have them in one thread, and not have them cluttering up every other one.

:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

Perfumes? I love the smell of perfume. I have never before met any person who tells me they are offended, irritated or troubled by perfumes worn by others. There are, however, many people who are upset by nakedness.

One utilitarian test as to what should be illegal is the numerical comparison of those who want to pursue a course of behaviour versus those who want to engage in it. The proportion of people who want to wear perfume in public is vastly greater than the proportion of people who react adversely to it. So perfume is OK. Conversely, the proportion of people who want to be naked in public is far smaller than the proportion of people who would find that objectionable. So public nudity is not OK.

So, the fact that you like the smell of perfume trumps any health concerns I may have regarding perfume? Have you never met anyone has allergies to perfume? In this country, there are more and more scent-free places. Hospitals are becoming more scent-free, thank goodness! My office building is scent-free. This change is because a minority in fact will be strongly affected by someone wearing perfume into the building. One woman in my building had to be taken to the hospital and put on a nebuliser because of someone else's perfume. That is more than an offense.

My view is that a minority wish that others would not wear any perfume. Your view is that a minority wishes to be naked in public. My view is that you can close or avert your eyes. If you are sitting next to me in a theatre wearing "Axe" or some other current favourite, I still have to breathe for two hours. At the end of those two hours, I will at least have a headache and will likely be wheezing. If I am sitting next to you naked for two hours, you can have averted your eyes with only your sensibilities hurt.

Sorry Stu, I can generally accept your arguments. In this case, you will need to do better.

[Boreas]

I think I am going to make a quibbleing thread, that way we can take all the bickering and the like and have them in one thread, and not have them cluttering up every other one.

:rolleyes:

Sounds like a great plan! After all Monty Python had an "Argument Room", perhaps such a room has a place in here! :laugh:

[zharth]

I should be able to sunbathe or swim in a park or wash my car in my front yard or ride my bike down the street nude if I choose.

I should be able to live my life in a nudity-free environment if I choose.

The difference between these two views is that the first is concerned with one person's freedom, and the second is concerned with controlling the behavior of others. Between the opposing 'rights' of being nude and being spared the sight of a nude body, in my humble opinion, I think being nude takes precedence, because that speaks to what one person desires for himself, as opposed to the 'right' to not be exposed to nudity, which forces one person's desire on everyone around him.

Nudity itself is only offensive because most people aren't used to it, and are instead used to the labels that society places on it. Think about the nudity you encounter in the popular media - chances are, it's either considered indecent or sexual, or else it's written off as a joke and not taken seriously. As soon as a nude person starts harrassing another person, that is when he is going outside the bounds of his rights and infringing on the rights of another person. But if he simply wants to be nude, for his own sake, I don't see why that's a problem.

When a person argues that most people would be offended by the sight of nude people, they're completely ignoring the feelings of those nude people. How do you think it feels to have to be forced to always wear clothing, when you know you'd be more comfortable, and be able to enjoy life better, if you could just be naked? How is forcing a nudist to wear clothes any more humane than forcing a non-nudist to see a naked body? The only reason it's considered a bigger deal is because that's what society is used to. But we need to challenge the preconceived notions of just how harmful the simple sight of a nude body is to another person.

There is a solution. You and those like-minded nudists live in nudity-permitted areas/communes etc where you can be nude anywhere, and allow the rest of us to live free from nudity. That way everyone is happy! :)

Segregation is not the optimum solution. How can a nudist be happy if he has to confine his nudism to specific locations at specific times? How is that any better than having closed-off areas for non-nudists to put on clothes, so long as the rest of society doesn't have to see their clothed bodies? The only difference is numbers. And I believe a lot more people would take advantage of casual nudity if there wasn't such a stigma on it.

I have no intention of making a personal judgement, Stu - I am merely making my argument. However, where you seem to be very majority-minded, I like to consider the minority. I simply don't think that the minority deserves to be treated worse just because they don't have the popular vote. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

[1Ace]

I would say at the beach, park, pools, hiking, etc... Yes.

[nimrod]

I have said it before and I will say it again segregation is a form of bigotry. It does not matter if it is race, religion, or ideals, if you say that it should only be practiced, or those people should only be, in certian areas, you are guilty of bigotry.

If it does not physically, emotionally, or mentally harm it should not be regulated by laws, and unless you are phoabic, offences do none of those. I really do not think offences or posible offences should be regulated by laws. If something offends me I will question myself as to why it is offensive to me and not try to control the person that caused the offence.

[Bob S.]

Regarding the perfume issue, as Boreas mentioned, some people are allergic to the smell or the odors affect their breathing. I remember in middle school, a girl I had a class with wore very strong perfume, which bothered me. She was told to not wear it so that I could breathe. This isn't about perfume, but in college, they were painting the auditorium of one of the buildings. The doors to the auditorium opened at the foyer and even though they had the front doors opened to the building, I was still severely affected. For about ten seconds, I could not breathe. Literally could not breathe as if my lings and diaphragm were paralyzed.

Nudity, however, has no physical health issues. Viewing it will not lead to any long-term or even short term psychological or physical issues except for the most extreme among us. Offense should not be enough of an argument to make something illegal. There must be some form of harm to enough others. Yes, I am aware Stu that one can make an argument for public sex with that, but I believe that sex is the limit whereas you feel that nudity is the limit.

Stu:"The fact that most people still wouldn't do it even if the law were to be rescinded doesn't mean that an irresponsible minority wouldn't exploit the gap in the law and that would be a bad thing."

Oh yes, such a bad thing for people to practice their rights. That makes them neither irresponsible nor would it make the behaviour a bad thing--except in your eyes.

If there were a general social agreement that certain places should be clothed, then that would just make those gap jumpers boors, just as those who would harass a nursing mother today.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

So, the fact that you like the smell of perfume trumps any health concerns I may have regarding perfume?

Whoa! Hang on. I didn't say that. People have allergies to all manner of things - dogs, cats, dust, pollen and so on. I have never heard of anyone who has an allergy to other people's perfume before, so that's a first for me. We can't possibly cater for every potential allergy, but there are medications that can help. I have never heard of anyone who suffers from an allergy claiming that dogs, cats, perfume-wearers etc should refrain from using public places.

Have you never met anyone has allergies to perfume? In this country, there are more and more scent-free places. Hospitals are becoming more scent-free, thank goodness! My office building is scent-free.

This is complete news to me: never heard of it before. Let's face it - most adults wear perfume of some sort. If it could be shown that the number of sufferers of this particular allergy is so significant that that the majority should be required to curtail their behaviour, then fair enough.

My view is that a minority wish that others would not wear any perfume. Your view is that a minority wishes to be naked in public. My view is that you can close or avert your eyes.

I don't agree with your logic. The number of people who want to wear perfume, after-shave, cologne or other perfumed products vastly outnumbers those who are adversely affected by it, so the default position has to be that perfumes are allowed in public. Having said that, as I said earlier, if it could be shown to affect a significant proportion of the population, then the majority may have to be asked to cease wearing these items when likely to be in confined public areas or close proximity to others. In other words, we would have to treat wearing perfume like smoking. The situation with nudity is very different. Only a minuscule minority of people want to get naked in public and regardless that they are among people who they know may object to it. Far more people are likely to object to it than want to do this, and complete nudity is easily avoided. So it is sensible and wholly justifiable to prohibit it in public.

I don't see this really as a nudist issue. How many nudists really want some sort of right to be nude in the sight of people who are upset by it? The only people who would want to do that are people who couldn't care about others' feelings and blatant exhibitionists. Nudists aren't affected by this in any way because they're not offended by the nakedness of others. The law exists to protect those of us who are offended, or who may be upset, and we want this law to continue.

zharth

Laws do restrict freedoms - they exist to protect some freedoms at the expense of others. Some people want the "freedom" to enjoy snorting cocaine or view child pornography, but we don't hesitate at restricting those freedoms. Some people, including one individual on here, want the freedom to indulge openly in sex in public.

I think being nude takes precedence, because that speaks to what one person desires for himself, as opposed to the 'right' to not be exposed to nudity, which forces one person's desire on everyone around him.

I also think we have a "right" to live in the kind of environment we want. I want to live in an environment where pornographic images are not openly displayed, where people don't shout obscenities or indulge openly in sex acts and where nudity is something which is not visible in public. I have no objection to you having the environment you like, but I don't want to share your environment. So let's have a choice of environments - a nude one for people of your particular preference and a non-nude one for people like me. As you are very much in a minority, your environment will be far smaller - like a nudist community.

Nudity itself is only offensive because most people aren't used to it, and are instead used to the labels that society places on it.

I know. But it's how I prefer to live. I don't want to become accustomed to the sight of nudity.

But if he simply wants to be nude, for his own sake, I don't see why that's a problem.

It's a problem because many of us find it offensive and don't want nudity in our environment.

How do you think it feels to have to be forced to always wear clothing, when you know you'd be more comfortable, and be able to enjoy life better, if you could just be naked? How is forcing a nudist to wear clothes any more humane than forcing a non-nudist to see a naked body?

If you feel that strongly, go and live in a nudist community. If you can't do that, then you have to make compromises with the society you do live in - like enjoying home nudity, social nudity with friends, clubs etc and nude beaches.

Segregation is not the optimum solution. How can a nudist be happy if he has to confine his nudism to specific locations at specific times?

For the most part, nudism is a recreational activity or at least something done in your free time. The fact that you can't work naked is a matter for your employer. If you want to spend your recreation time shopping, visiting the beach or playing tennis, then you have a choice - use a nude facility or a textile one but while clothed. That's not unreasonable.

How is that any better than having closed-off areas for non-nudists to put on clothes, so long as the rest of society doesn't have to see their clothed bodies?

Because that's what we want. Our public environment reflects the standards and mores of the majority. And majorities matter in a democratic system.

And I believe a lot more people would take advantage of casual nudity if there wasn't such a stigma on it.

That's up to them. Most people have sufficient resources to work out how to get into a naturist lifestyle if they are so inclined. But most people aren't.

However, where you seem to be very majority-minded, I like to consider the minority. I simply don't think that the minority deserves to be treated worse just because they don't have the popular vote. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

Minorities should be catered for, but they can not be allowed to dictate what kind of environment the rest of us live in.

Nimrod

I have said it before and I will say it again segregation is a form of bigotry. It does not matter if it is race, religion, or ideals, if you say that it should only be practiced, or those people should only be, in certian areas, you are guilty of bigotry.

Segregation of activity is perfectly reasonable and fair. We allocate places for rock concerts in places where they are unlikely to assault the ears of elderly residents. We don't allow Formula 1 racing cars to drive on our main highways but make them use racetracks instead. Segregation on the basis of inherent and immutable characteristics such as race certainly is bigotry, but segregating a particular behaviour is not.

If it does not physically, emotionally, or mentally harm it should not be regulated by laws..

How is hard-core porn "physically, emotionally, or mentally" harmful? Yet do we allow graphic sexual images to be displayed on billboards? How is obscene language harmful? Yet shout obscenities inside a shopping mall or a primary school and you'll be arrested. The law is there to regulate public places so that they are as benign, comfortable and even pleasant as possible for as many people as possible.

BobS

Oh yes, such a bad thing for people to practice their rights. That makes them neither irresponsible nor would it make the behaviour a bad thing--except in your eyes

Some people have said that making it a right to be nude in public would not mean that people would automatically exercise that right if, in doing so, they breached the generally accepted standards of considerate behaviour. Now you are suggesting they should indeed exercise such rights and they would not be irresponsible for doing so. I agree with you that some nudists are inconsiderate and would indeed do just that - if only to make a point or to forcibly "desensitize" the predominantly textile public. This is precisely why public nudity is, and must remain, generally illegal.

If there were a general social agreement that certain places should be clothed, then that would just make those gap jumpers boors,

Some people are boors anyway. As I said, they would do it to make a point or because they think they have some mission in life to educate the public that nudity is file - like Steve Gough. If such people can't behave properly and considerately in public, the law should protect the rest of us from them.

Stu

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by naturalmanwa http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=186637#post186637)
I should be able to sunbathe or swim in a park or wash my car in my front yard or ride my bike down the street nude if I choose.


Originally Posted by Stu2630 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=186638#post186638)
I should be able to live my life in a nudity-free environment if I choose.


The difference between these two views is that the first is concerned with one person's freedom, and the second is concerned with controlling the behavior of others. Between the opposing 'rights' of being nude and being spared the sight of a nude body, in my humble opinion, I think being nude takes precedence, because that speaks to what one person desires for himself, as opposed to the 'right' to not be exposed to nudity, which forces one person's desire on everyone around him.


By gingo, Verily, methinks thou hast it sussed! :applause:

[jedinudist]

[/I]

Originally Posted by naturalmanwa
I should be able to sunbathe or swim in a park or wash my car in my front yard or ride my bike down the street nude if I choose.

Originally Posted by Stu2630
I should be able to live my life in a nudity-free environment if I choose.

Originally Posted by zharth View Post
The difference between these two views is that the first is concerned with one person's freedom, and the second is concerned with controlling the behavior of others. Between the opposing 'rights' of being nude and being spared the sight of a nude body, in my humble opinion, I think being nude takes precedence, because that speaks to what one person desires for himself, as opposed to the 'right' to not be exposed to nudity, which forces one person's desire on everyone around him.

[/I]





By gingo, Verily, methinks thou hast it sussed! :applause:

I agree. The old saying "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies here.

Your right not to be "offended" ends when you start dictating what I can and can not do! ESPECIALLY when what I wish to do is what the human race has done for thousands of years... wear clothes only when it was necessary for warmth or protection! How would people feel if it was the other way around???

What if society was intelligent? What if Nudism was the norm and people wearing clothes when they are not needed was seen as freakish and offensive behavior? How would those people feel about the rest of us imposing mandatory nudity upon them under threat of being arrested, etc.???

[Boreas]

Stu, I disagree with you. That does not matter. My main point is that a society cannot protect people from being offended. It can take some measures within reason, after that, it is about developing a thicker skin in some instances.

As for the perfume, it is not merely a convenience or preference. It is a health issue too. I am highly offended by your assertion that most people want to wear perfume and should be allowed to do so. It seems like a "too bad so sad that you can't breathe" attitude. I'll get over it though of course. :)

[Stu2630]

Jedi

Your right not to be "offended" ends when you start dictating what I can and can not do! ESPECIALLY when what I wish to do is what the human race has done for thousands of years... wear clothes only when it was necessary for warmth or protection!

We create and maintain public spaces for the maximum comfort of everyone. People are not robots. They have feelings, sensibilities and values, some of which are culturally manifested. The same thing applies to nudity as applies to sex and evacuation of waste from the body - these may be entirely natural activities, essentially harmless, but we are acculturated to regard them as things which occur ONLY in either private circumstances or closely defined public ones. If you are having sex, or defecating, or being naked, I don't want to share my environment with you: I want you out of my presence and sight while that is happening and I am willing to take reasonable steps to avoid you. Aside from their private places such as homes and clubs, nudists have have public places allocated for their use. They should use them and enjoy them and not assault the sensibilities of the rest of us by taking their nudity into the wider public arena.

How would people feel if it was the other way around???....How would those people feel about the rest of us imposing mandatory nudity upon them under threat of being arrested, etc.???

If nudists were a majority, we would have to conform to their sensibilities just as if I moved to Iran, I would have to respect Islamic laws and traditions. I would not go to a nudist beach because I don't want to be around nudity and so I expect nudists to reciprocate by remaining on nudist beaches, or being clothed when on textile ones. If I ever did go to a nudist community, I would conform to and respect the requirements of that community.

I choose not to live among naked people or to allow my family to be exposed to nakedness.

Boreas

My main point is that a society cannot protect people from being offended.

If you think about it, society can, and already does, take measures to prevent the most common behaviours which are likely to cause offence. That's why you can't display pornographic images or urinate in the street or shout obscenities and so on - these things can be expected to cause offence among a significant proportion of the population. Nakedness is the same.

You may say that some people are offended by anything, for example, a picture of a pig on a tee-shirt. But the number of people who actually find such an image offensive is so small as to make it unlikely that the wearer will encounter anyone who is upset by it. But people who are offended or made uncomfortable by public nudity comprise a significant proportion of the public - I would say it is a majority - so being naked in a public place IS likely to cause offence and so it is right that it is generally illegal.

I am highly offended by your assertion that most people want to wear perfume and should be allowed to do so. It seems like a "too bad so sad that you can't breathe" attitude.

I didn't exactly say that. I said that the default position should be that, because the overwhelming majority of people like to wear perfume, they should be able to do so - BUT - if it could be shown to be a substantial health issue, or even irritation, for a significant proportion of the population, then there may be a case for restricting it in some public places (like hospitals). I have never heard of this particular allergy before and I am open-minded about it.

Stu

[nimrod]

Bigot - noun; An illiberal or intolerant adherent of a religious creed or of any party or opinion.

Bigotry - noun; Obstinate and intolerant attachment to a cause or creed.

The argument of racing is a little off because it is considers dangerous and can cause physical harm, that is why the sactioned races are done in a controlled area, not because racing might offend someone.

Rock concerts, even though they might offend more people than racing, can also be considered physically harmful. Loud music is known to cause ear damage, and it can keep people awake, which can also cause proplems physically do to lack of sleep. They are not seperated just because a few people do not like music, or are offended by a specific type of music.

As for obscene language, I can cuss up a blue streak anywhere and not be arrested for it. I might be asked to stop or leave but not arrested, at least not for the words I said.

The argument for porn causing mental or emotional harm is not decided yet, at least I have not heard one way or another. Physical harm might happen to the practicipants but not the viewer, if that is indeed all they are doing. I know that viewing it can distort the truth, and one might view sex in a way that is not entirely healthy, but those views can be changed, and might not be considered trully harmful. (Miss)Information does not harm but it can lead to harm, maybe it can be viewed as that. At least for me the jury is still out.

Once again we are talking about the rights to be nude, not when and where it may be apporpriate. I do not have a problem with people wanting to self segergate for what ever reason, but when it is forced upon someone that is when it is wrong.

[Stu2630]

Bigot - noun; An illiberal or intolerant adherent of a religious creed or of any party or opinion.

Bigotry - noun; Obstinate and intolerant attachment to a cause or creed.I am neither illiberal or intolerant of any opinion, belief or creed. I believe in regulating behaviour in public so that the comfort of people who use public spaces is optimised.

The argument of racing is a little off because it is considers dangerous and can cause physical harm, that is why the sactioned races are done in a controlled area, not because racing might offend someone.The point I was making is that people are being segregated because of how they want to behave at the particular time, rather than because of some inherent and immutable characteristic.

Rock concerts, even though they might offend more people than racing, can also be considered physically harmful. Loud music is known to cause ear damage, and it can keep people awake, which can also cause proplems physically do to lack of sleep. They are not seperated just because a few people do not like music, or are offended by a specific type of music.I don't buy that. I can't speak for other countries but over here they wouldn't have to believe that a rock concert would cause people nearby actual hearing loss or physical harm through lack of sleep to refuse to permit it to take place. The authorities would consider the disturbance, upset or nuisance caused. It's not just a matter of not liking the particular kind of music - it's the fact that people would be annoyed, upset and irritated by it.

As for obscene language, I can cuss up a blue streak anywhere and not be arrested for it. I might be asked to stop or leave but not arrested, at least not for the words I said.And if, in spite of being asked to stop swearing, or to leave, you remained and continued to swear? You would eventually be arrested. I have no problem if this same principle is applied to nudity. Warn first - then arrest.

The argument for porn causing mental or emotional harm is not decided yet, at least I have not heard one way or another. Physical harm might happen to the practicipants but not the viewer, if that is indeed all they are doing. I know that viewing it can distort the truth, and one might view sex in a way that is not entirely healthy, but those views can be changed, and might not be considered trully harmful. (Miss)Information does not harm but it can lead to harm, maybe it can be viewed as that. At least for me the jury is still out.Public display of porn isn't banned because of any risk of physical or mental harm, or even because it "distorts the truth". Let's be straight and honest and admit that the reason it is banned is because people, or at least some people, find it offensive.

Once again we are talking about the rights to be nude, not when and where it may be apporpriate. I do not have a problem with people wanting to self segergate for what ever reason, but when it is forced upon someone that is when it is wrong.If you choose to engage in a behaviour that many people find objectionable, then you are segregating yourself. In spite of that, I am not talking about confining nudists to a few desolate, hard-to-reach places with no facilities, Nimrod. I am advocating providing nudists with a good choice of nudist and clothing optional public places - beaches, parks and other amenities, with decent facilities. That way, both nudists like you and prudes like me can, to use your expression, "self-segregate": you use the places designated for nudists and I use the nudity-free places. There is nothing wrong with that. In that way, nudists are no more treated as second-class citizens than we prudes. Of course, most public places would remain textile simply because textiles vastly outnumber nudists, but that doesn't mean nudists don't have a right to a decent share of public spaces and in prime locations. Nudists will always be free to use any and all textile places - so long as they conform to the same behaviour that textiles adopt, namely to keep their private parts behind cloth.

Stu

[jedinudist]

so being naked in a public place IS likely to cause offence and so it is right that it is generally illegal.

Stu

Oddly enough, in places where it isn't "generally illegal" there is very, very little problem with it. Hmmmmm... Hey, I know - - maybe because they have a tradition of not ramming their own beliefs down other people's throats! Maybe they don't accept the "we must cater to the most closed minded people" mentality like we seem to do here.

Or maybe they're just not as fascist as the people here who want to run and scream when ever their ever-burgeoning comfort zone is breached.

say what you want, but you really seem to come across as nothing more than a typical troll - someone who jumps onto message boards just to pick at the people that message board was created for. Too small minded to see truth, too closed minded to realize that perhaps they are not only NOT the majority (Too many polls show quite a few people don't see anything wrong with nudity when it presents in a non sexual setting), but that they aren't going to fool and convert anyone.

So here you go - perfect opportunity coming... wait, wait - I won't be reading or responding to your reply (which judging from your posts, I am quite sure will be long and just as full of fascist baloney as the rest).

Have fun - get a life.

BTW - be careful believing in regulating behavior in public so that the comfort of people who use public spaces is optimized. History shows that's going to backfire on you some day. Then who will you cry to when some bigot starts screaming about YOUR behavior and YOUR choices. And no bull please about how you would conform for the good of everyone else. There's a difference between modifying your own behavior and being a sheep. People live and create. Sheep just put out allot of crap.

[MoonShadow]

Regulating behavior?!?!?!?!

Alert ---- Alert --- we have a super control freak on board!

[Naturist4Ever]

>> We create and maintain public spaces for the maximum comfort of everyone.

Wrong, the purpose of public spaces is NOT for the maximum comfort of everyone. That's not possible by definition.

>> This is complete news to me: never heard of it before.

There are clear many things that you haven't heard of before stew.

[riptidenj]

I voted "No". I am very much a "Time and Place" person. No right is absolute because it always collides with someone else's rights. I firmly believe in the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms but I accept that you do not have the right to engage in target practice where it might endanger others, you have the right (?) to get drunk but if you try to drive under the
influence you should be severly punished, or even if you just get drunk in public. Hint:do your drinking at home. Likewise
if you want to look at pornography you can do so in the privacy of your own home. At the edges of Gunnison Beach in NJ there are signs that clearly state that after this point you
WILL (emphasis mine) encounter nude sunbathers, the boundaries of the nude beach are also clearly marked, so no one who takes offense can claim they just "stumbled" upon it.
I have always thought the quickest way to make enemies and alienate people (to paraphrase Dale Carnegie) is to engage in obnoxious, in your face, no consideration for
others behavior.

[zharth]

say what you want, but you really seem to come across as nothing more than a typical troll - someone who jumps onto message boards just to pick at the people that message board was created for.

I myself am curious as to why someone full of arguments against the spread of nudism would join a message board titled "ClothesFree", other than to create turmoil, but to be fair and honest, I think Stu deserves better than to be designated a "typical troll". Though his views may run contrary to many here, he at least seems to be presenting them in a calm and ordered fashion. Besides, raising the questions he does, I think it can only be a good exercise, because there are other people out there that have these views, and if we want more acceptance for the nude lifestyle, we should be prepared to argue those views, and this gives us practice in trying to develop more effective strategies.

I don't see this really as a nudist issue.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but is it possible that the reason you don't see this as a nudist issue is because you define nudism as an activity, the likes of which is performed at nudist resorts? I can only speak for myself, but I don't consider nudism an activity, I consider it a lifestyle. Getting naked isn't just part of the fun of vacationing at a resort. To me, getting naked is a part of enjoying life itself. No matter what I'm doing, be it work or play, unless there's a specific reason to be wearing clothes (e.g., warmth, protection), chances are I'd be more comfortable without them. So for me, being naked in public isn't a matter of displacing my nudist "activities" from their designated environment, it's a matter of simply wanting to be nude during my everyday life - which happens to include entering the public arena.

I also think we have a "right" to live in the kind of environment we want. I want to live in an environment where pornographic images are not openly displayed, where people don't shout obscenities or indulge openly in sex acts and where nudity is something which is not visible in public. I have no objection to you having the environment you like, but I don't want to share your environment. So let's have a choice of environments - a nude one for people of your particular preference and a non-nude one for people like me. As you are very much in a minority, your environment will be far smaller - like a nudist community.

Okay, there's obviously some validity to your argument. I want to live in an environment where I can take off my clothes if I feel like it, regardless of who might see me. If we ignore the question of human rights, then having separate environments as you suggest should be reasonable. But here's my problem. Granted, I don't profess to have searched everywhere, but I don't see a whole lot of options for finding a town where I can live and be nude as much as I want. I'm not talking about a weekend resort, a summer vacation home, or a retirement complex. I'm talking about a place that's just like any other place, where I can work and play and live, nude. I'm not exactly in a position where I can just move to Florida, or live on the coast of France. So what choice do I have?

It's true that my view is almost certainly a minority, but just because it's not popular, does that mean I have to live in an environment that I don't agree with? Just because there aren't enough environments of the kind I'd like? Not everybody can live in the environment they want to. It's just not practical. I guess that's where the feelings of the majority come into play, dictating the quality of the environment, for the maximum benefit of the most people. But I still don't think that's entirely fair. Maybe I don't agree with democracy. I just don't think it's fair that I should have to suffer a life where one of the most important principles to me (considering that for me nudity can take on an almost spiritual importance at times), has to be hidden away, that I have to refrain from engaging in it, and not only that, I have to suffer the effects of the majority opinion which makes me feel like something I believe in is shameful and that I'm not normal for believing in it. That sort of popular opinion does hurt me emotionally.

It's not easy coming up with a solution, because I sympathize with your argument for not wanting to be exposed to naked people. There are things that I wouldn't want to be exposed to, even if somebody told me that it was harmless, and that I would get used to it. But, I am open to the possibility that maybe my getting used to it will be less traumatic, in the long run, than forcing the other person to suppress his instincts. I'm not saying we should be allowed to do anything we want anywhere we go, but the bottom line is that it's never going to be perfect, and there are always gonna be people with something to complain about. The important thing to consider is how much and what kind of damage is being done, not whether damage is being done, because damage will always be done to someone, somewhere.

And so we come back to the question of the majority. Even though the people who want to practice nudism may remain a minority, we have to ask ourselves which course of action will do the least damage, in the long run: trying to get the majority used to the concept of nudity; or continuing to push the nudists under the rug, keeping them behind closed doors? Sure, if we pressure the majority, there will probably be more people "harmed", but will the harm be comparable to the amount of harm you do to the minority by consistently denying their impulses?

In the case of open public sex, maybe it's true that the harm done to the people forced to witness it is greater overall than the harm done to the practitioners by outlawing them from such behavior. I'm open to an argument on that case. But in the case of simple public nudity, the question remains, how does the alarm of seeing a nude body compare to the suppression of that person's nudity?

I'm sure we'd all be able to convince ourselves that we could make the argument in our own favor, but the bottom line is, as long as I perceive that society is trying to make me ashamed of doing something that I personally and strongly feel is not only decent, but an important part of who I am, then I'm gonna feel strongly that I need to in some way cause society to recognize who I am and that I'm not the immoral deviant I fear being labeled.

Thus, I am forced, against my will, to become a freedom fighter.

[Sanslines]

Stu,

We MUST advance the cause of nudism. Our society has a very unhealthy attitude towards the nude human body that DOES affect people in a variety of very harmful ways. For example, take the case of a teacher who has had her nude photo posted on the internet. Her photo show nothing more then a simple, harmless, nude pose. Yet, with the present unhealthy paranoid attudes about nudity, she would lose her job and be banned from teaching. There are countless other examples about how people were harmed in their lives by a bigoted and confused society. This society still clings to the notion that nudity is immoral and has passed laws to make nudity illegal. Yet, all sorts of sex and pornographic material flourishes. It just makes no sense and it will certainly be up to nudists to educate (yes EDUCATE) society into somehow understanding that simple and harmless nudity is no threat to anyone.

I am sorry that your background prohibits you from tolerating nudity (except in some very rare circumstances) but the greater good of society demands that nudists replace ignorance and confusion with real understanding that mere, simple nudism harms no one!

[Bob S.]

Stu:"I don't agree with your logic. The number of people who want to wear perfume, after-shave, cologne or other perfumed products vastly outnumbers those who are adversely affected by it, so the default position has to be that perfumes are allowed in public."

Stu, the point that Boreas was making was that scents can be physically harmful to one's health and that getting away from a scent is much harder than getting away from something you can see. Scents are a type of air pollution. Even if you hold your nose, breathing it in can be harmful. You can't just turn your head either. You can't ignore a scent that is bothersome to you. However, a something viewable is easy to avoid. All you have to do is turn your head, close your eyes, or in some way avert your eyes. No one is allergic to a visual stimulus.

Stu:"Some people have said that making it a right to be nude in public would not mean that people would automatically exercise that right if, in doing so, they breached the generally accepted standards of considerate behaviour. Now you are suggesting they should indeed exercise such rights and they would not be irresponsible for doing so."

Correct, I am saying that practicing one's rights is not irresponsible. At the same time, I am saying that agreements should be made and that those who violate those agreements and arrangements are just being rude.

Stu""And if, in spite of being asked to stop swearing, or to leave, you remained and continued to swear? You would eventually be arrested."

Actually, the police can't (or shouldn't) arrest someone just for cursing. Now if they are being belligerent with the officer as well as cursing at him, that is another story. Cursing in public is a protected form of speech, if rude in some circumstances.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Jedi

Maybe they don't accept the "we must cater to the most closed minded people" mentality like we seem to do herePeople who are offended by nudity are not 'closed-minded': they may simply feel that their sensibilities are being assaulted, or they may have strong views on what they believe it is appropriate for their children to see.

Or maybe they're just not as fascist as the people here who want to run and scream when ever their ever-burgeoning comfort zone is breached.Your use of exaggerated language like "fascist" and "run and scream" does not strengthen your case. We are almost as entitled to be comfortable in the public places we have to use and pay for as we are to be comfortable in our own homes.

Too many polls show quite a few people don't see anything wrong with nudity when it presents in a non sexual settingWhat polls? The only polls I have seen show that people believe there should be places set aside for nudists. Nobody is disputing that. This issue is about a general right to be naked in public and I don't believe most people actually want that.

>> We create and maintain public spaces for the maximum comfort of everyone.Wrong, the purpose of public spaces is NOT for the maximum comfort of everyone. That's not possible by definition.It's not a definition - it's simply an inevitable aim of the government when creating and maintaining public spaces. And it's perfectly possible: it's part of the reason why the state provides public roads, footpaths, lighting, seats, toilets, bins and so on, and has police and warden patrols to regulate public behaviour. It's also why certain behaviours are prohibited like spitting, urinating, using obscene language, displaying offensive images and nudity.

riptidenj

Thank you for your excellent contribution! :D I especially agree with this part:

I have always thought the quickest way to make enemies and alienate people (to paraphrase Dale Carnegie) is to engage in obnoxious, in your face, no consideration for others behavior.When I say these exact same things, some people here call me a troll or a fascist, and yet here you are, a regular nudist expressing a moderate and reasonable opinion and it exactly coincides with what I think.

Now let's see if they attack you like they attack me.

Oh, wait! The next thing you know some bright spark will insinuate that you are really me in another guise.

zharth

I can only speak for myself, but I don't consider nudism an activity, I consider it a lifestyle. Getting naked isn't just part of the fun of vacationing at a resort. I realise that nudists come in many guises. For some, their nudism means little more than not having to wear a swimsuit when on the beach, but for others - like yourself - it is a more encompassing lifestyle. But all our lifestyles have to make compromises with the prevailing values of the world we live in and societies sometimes have to draw a line in the sand with regard to what behaviour it finds acceptable and what behaviour is not. Modern western-European (in which I include the majority North American cultures) doesn't prohibit nudity - it simply regulates when and where it may occur so that the overwhelming majority textile lifestyle is not unduly disturbed.

To me, getting naked is a part of enjoying life itselfOf course it is. But you wouldn't want to spoil the enjoyment of life of others in pursuit of your own fulfillment, would you? And especially when those "others" comprise such a huge proportion of the population and for them "enjoying life" means living in a largely nudity-free environment.

You can be nude in private places such as your own home, the homes of other nudists, and nudist clubs and resorts. There are also nudist and clothing optional beaches you can enjoy around the world (perhaps not as many as there ought to be). So you do have the opportunity to be naked quite a lot if that state is so necessary for you to enjoy life. If you are unwilling to make any compromises with the wider world, and you want to be naked any time you like, then you would have to consider relocating to a nudist community.

But here's my problem. Granted, I don't profess to have searched everywhere, but I don't see a whole lot of options for finding a town where I can live and be nude as much as I want. I'm not talking about a weekend resort, a summer vacation home, or a retirement complex. I'm talking about a place that's just like any other place, where I can work and play and live, nude. I'm not exactly in a position where I can just move to Florida, or live on the coast of France. So what choice do I have?I can appreciate your problem. There is little that can be done about your desire to work nude because the vast majority of employers aren't going to employ you on that basis. When you are at work you are in their time and on their premises and they call the shots. You can't go shopping in the nude or visit your local town, shopping mall, library etc nude either. That aside, so long as you take steps to protect others from seeing you, you can be nude pretty much all the rest of the time. You can be nude at home, in your garden, at friends' homes, at nude beaches, nude swims, nude parties and so on, according to where you live and how big a circle of nudist friends you have. I'm sure that, with a little thought, you could arrange your life so that you spend more of your waking hours nude than clothed and surely that's an acceptable compromise to make?

I just don't think it's fair that I should have to suffer a life where one of the most important principles to me (considering that for me nudity can take on an almost spiritual importance at times), has to be hidden away, that I have to refrain from engaging in it,It's because you enjoy the benefits which come with living in a society like ours and you have to conform to some extent to reap the rewards. We all have to compromise to some extent and, because your particular affinity with being naked is so unusual, you have to compromise more than most.

and not only that, I have to suffer the effects of the majority opinion which makes me feel like something I believe in is shameful and that I'm not normal for believing in it. That sort of popular opinion does hurt me emotionally.I don't think most people do think nudism is shameful. I certainly don't.

I'm not saying we should be allowed to do anything we want anywhere we go, but the bottom line is that it's never going to be perfect, and there are always gonna be people with something to complain about. The important thing to consider is how much and what kind of damage is being done, not whether damage is being done, because damage will always be done to someone, somewhere.And who is to judge that? The purpose of law and regulation is to minimise such damage. A general acceptance of nakedness in society would damage it severely in my view so much that I wouldn't want to live in such a society and I would try to find a way to leave it behind - including all the turmoil that is involved in such a move. If I couldn't move, I'd have to make compromises myself and accept things as they are. That's the position you are in now.

Even though the people who want to practice nudism may remain a minority, we have to ask ourselves which course of action will do the least damage, in the long run: trying to get the majority used to the concept of nudity; or continuing to push the nudists under the rug, keeping them behind closed doors?The issue I have here is that you see the segregation of nudism in negative terms whereas I don't. It's not a case of pushing nudists "under the rug" so much as recognising that it is a rather specialized lifestyle which, while entirely respectable and legitimate, some people are not comfortable being around it for various reasons. That's how it should be presented and it is that which will enable it to flourish. Trying to manipulate the wider society to change its perception and acceptance of something as universal and culturally shaped as the naked human body is morally wrong: it is doomed to fail and the attempt will serve only to alienate many textiles from you. Albeit on a different scale, forcing the sight of nakedness onto people who find it repugnant in order to gain acceptance of nudism is ethically akin to Al Qaida planting bombs in order to encourage people to adopt Islam as their religion.

But in the case of simple public nudity, the question remains, how does the alarm of seeing a nude body compare to the suppression of that person's nudity?The truth is that the harm in both cases is emotional harm and it is impossible to measure it in any individual. The only way left open to us to measure the harm is numerically - a head count. That means counting the number of people who want to get naked in public so much that denying them it causes them angst with the number of people who find it seriously shocking and offensive. The majority is unquestionably the latter - and by a mile.

Thus, I am forced, against my will, to become a freedom fighter.Your fight is misguided. Fight for more and better opportunities to enjoy your nudism - more beaches, clubs and so on . Fight for areas in parks set aside for nudists, sessions in swimming pools and so on. That's a winnable fight and a legitimate one. Trying to engineer the rest of us to perceive nakedness by your own light is neither legitimate, nor achievable.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

We MUST advance the cause of nudism.

I MUST advance the cause of increasing my personal wealth, but that's because it benefits me. Your desire to advance the cause of nudism is every bit as selfish. Nudism should be seen as anything from a recreational pastime to a lifestyle - it is not a 'cause'.

take the case of a teacher who has had her nude photo posted on the internet. Her photo show nothing more then a simple, harmless, nude pose. Yet, with the present unhealthy paranoid attudes about nudity, she would lose her job and be banned from teaching.

I don't interpret your example as you do. If a teacher posed nude for, say, an art class, and she was covertly photographed and that picture placed on the Internet without her permission, she would not lose her job. Even if were unwillingly photographed using a nudist beach, that wouldn't affect her career (not here in the UK any way). The only time it could cause her problems is if the photo taken was sexual in some way.

There are countless other examples about how people were harmed in their lives by a bigoted and confused society.

I think our attitude to nudity is perfectly healthy. It may be that in some parts of the US, the religious right has infiltrated government to such an extent that any kind of nakedness is labeled as immoral, but that's not where I'm coming from and it's not a view shared by most of western society.

This society still clings to the notion that nudity is immoral and has passed laws to make nudity illegal.

The society I live in doesn't regard nudity as immoral per se, merely that it has a potential to cause offence. Consequently, it makes nudity illegal only in public and if it is outside of certain contexts.

Yet, all sorts of sex and pornographic material flourishes.

So long as it is viewed in private - and that's the key!

It just makes no sense and it will certainly be up to nudists to educate (yes EDUCATE) society into somehow understanding that simple and harmless nudity is no threat to anyone.

We don't need that education, thanks, because we know nudity is physically harmless, but most of us don't want to encounter nudity in public places.

BobS

Stu, the point that Boreas was making was that scents can be physically harmful to one's health and that getting away from a scent is much harder than getting away from something you can see...

If that can be demonstrated, then I have no problem with scents being restricted. But wearing scents is something the vast majority of people do, and enjoy doing, so we must not restrict it without a sound reason.

However, a something viewable is easy to avoid. All you have to do is turn your head, close your eyes, or in some way avert your eyes. No one is allergic to a visual stimulus.

By the time you have seen it, it's too late - the offence has been caused. I once caught a glimpse of a person who had been decapitated in a road accident and that image stayed with me for many years. A 'smell' is forgotten as soon as it is no longer detectable.

Correct, I am saying that practicing one's rights is not irresponsible.

I am still within my rights to give any woman who is breastfeeding a stern piece of my mind, Bob. So you agree that in practising this 'right', I am acting responsibly?

By making it a legal right to be naked in public, you are effectively telling people that society does not disapprove of that behaviour sufficiently to impose a sanction against it. It would send a message that this sort of behaviour is acceptable when it is not.

At the same time, I am saying that agreements should be made and that those who violate those agreements and arrangements are just being rude.

We have plenty of people in our society who not only take no heed of such societal "agreements and arrangements", but actually delight in performing their breach: we have people who are rude for its own sake and will exploit any opportunity to do so with impunity. I want the law to continue to have the option of punishing such people.

Actually, the police can't (or shouldn't) arrest someone just for cursing.

So someone could stand in the middle of a park where children are playing and shout obscenities? And so long as they were polite to the cop who turns up, he must be allowed to continue in the name of free speech? That's not the case here and I'm glad it's not. I wouldn't want to live in a society where people can behave like that and can't be touched for it!

Same with nudity.

Stu

[Nekkidhead001]

yes definetly, if every other group has the right to do whatever they do in public, then nudists should to. just like everything else there will be people who would abuse this privilege. we have to know where to draw the line on what is appropriate and what is not.

[Kari P]

Funny, Stu, you left this text unquoted:

No matter what I'm doing, be it work or play, unless there's a specific reason to be wearing clothes (e.g., warmth, protection), chances are I'd be more comfortable without them. So for me, being naked in public isn't a matter of displacing my nudist "activities" from their designated environment, it's a matter of simply wanting to be nude during my everyday life - which happens to include entering the public arena.

[Stu2630]

nekkidhead001

yes definetly, if every other group has the right to do whatever they do in public, then nudists should to.

What "other groups" do you have in mind? And what do they do in public which could cause such upset?

just like everything else there will be people who would abuse this privilege. we have to know where to draw the line on what is appropriate and what is not.

It's simple - you draw the line at taking your pants/swimwear off when in public view - it's that which is 'not appropriate'.

Kari

Thanks. I'll correct that. :laugh:

Stu

[nimrod]

Wanting to "regulate behaviour" is being intolerant. I you feel that a certain behaviour needs to be regulated you are so intolerant of that behaviour as to force your beliefs on the person who wishes to participate in it. You want nudist to follow the rules that you can agree with and no more, and that is being intolerant.

I do not think of racing as a behaviour, it is an activity. The behaviour is being competitive, racing is just one way of participating in the behaviour.

I was trying to say that concert veneus are usually away from residental areas, or have restrictions put apon them for those reasons more than because people are offended. It can be considered noise polution and has the potential to do harm.

I was being straight and honest about the porn issue, there are some that use the excuse that porn is emotionally harmful to those who see it, especially if the person who sees it is a minor. It is the "what about the children" excuse. I did not deny that it is banned from public viewing because it is offensive to some, just the reasoning behind the ban is that it could be harmful.

Cursing, Bob S is right, so I will say no more.

We have no other choice but to self segregate and that is the problem. We have no choice in the decision, we do not have the "right" to be free and choose for ourselves. I believe that you do advocate for better places for nudist, but as long as it fits into your intolerant views as to where and when it is appropriate. I see the words but in my head I hear, "Those coloreds have the rights to their own fountains, and only the back of the bus.", or, "They can practice their religion, as long as I do not have to see or hear them." Intolerance comes in many shapes.

Would you feel put out by society if the standard of dress was that you could only wear a blue suit with a white shirt and red tie while in public, and if you do not you will be arrested for indecent exposure, and have to registar as a sex offender? Would you see it as intolerant of your views of wanting to wear a different color tie?

[baregreg]

Stu2630
If that can be demonstrated, then I have no problem with scents being restricted. But wearing scents is something the vast majority of people do, and enjoy doing, so we must not restrict it without a sound reason.

Just one site I found (many more)
http://www.life.ca/nl/87/perfume.html

I don't think they should be banned or restricted however. Too much of that going on now days.
By the way I don't wear any scents. Just keep the body clean. :)

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

Wanting to "regulate behaviour" is being intolerant. I you feel that a certain behaviour needs to be regulated you are so intolerant of that behaviour as to force your beliefs on the person who wishes to participate in it.

Every society on the planet regulates public behaviour to some extent. Most societies limit, restrict or even prohibit pornographic images being displayed, the open advertisement of prostitution and so on.

You want nudist to follow the rules that you can agree with and no more, and that is being intolerant.

I want there to be a clear distinction between nudist places and textile places. There are behaviours in both types of place which are restricted and people in those areas must conform. I won't come to a nudist beach, stand around while fully clothed and start gawking at the nudists there or taking photos of them. And I don't want nudists coming to the places I use and getting naked. That's not being intolerant. It's showing respect and expecting respect in return.

I do not think of racing as a behaviour, it is an activity. The behaviour is being competitive, racing is just one way of participating in the behaviour

An activity is simply an active and conscious behaviour.

I was trying to say that concert veneus are usually away from residental areas, or have restrictions put apon them for those reasons more than because people are offended. It can be considered noise polution and has the potential to do harm.

Rock concerts are kept away from residential areas because not everyone in the homes concerned wants to have to put up with the sights, sounds and behaviours associated with rock concerts. That's the overarching reason and not because of some infinitesimally small risk that noise pollution will result in some physical illness or injury.

I was being straight and honest about the porn issue...I did not deny that it is banned from public viewing because it is offensive to some, just the reasoning behind the ban is that it could be harmful.

I'm very happy that the reason for it being banned is that it is offensive. There is not one shred of evidence that children, or adults, have suffered physical harm as a direct result of seeing a pornographic image alone.

Cursing, Bob S is right, so I will say no more.

Over here, using obscene language in public in circumstances likely to cause offence to people is a criminal offence and can attract arrest and prosecution. That's how people here like it. Nudity is in the same category of behaviour in my book.

We have no other choice but to self segregate and that is the problem. We have no choice in the decision, we do not have the "right" to be free and choose for ourselves.

That's how it should be. If it were otherwise, then you, a minority, would be stealing the choice from us, the majority, to enjoy a nudity-free public environment.

I believe that you do advocate for better places for nudist, but as long as it fits into your intolerant views as to where and when it is appropriate.

Yes I do advocate better places for nudists, but the second part of your statement in plainly wrong. I have no strong views as to where nudist places should be sited. So the 'when and where' nudity is appropriate is negotiable - so long these times and locations are out of sight of main public areas and can easily be avoided.

I see the words but in my head I hear, "Those coloreds have the rights to their own fountains, and only the back of the bus.", or, "They can practice their religion, as long as I do not have to see or hear them." Intolerance comes in many shapes.

Get over that because it is not a fair comparison. Nudists are not an ethnic or religious minority: they do not possess inherent and immutable characteristics which make them forever a minority. When you are clothed, you are no different to anyone else - you can visit my home, walk down my street or make use of any public facility available to me. When you are naked, please stay on your own property or a place allocated for that purpose and keep beyond my line of sight.

Nudists are people with a preference for a particular recreational pastime or lifestyle - they are free to use the same places as anyone else so long as they conform to the same rules as everyone else. Not only that, but they actually have places set aside for them so they have opportunities to behave as they wish. They have NO right to forcibly alter the whole public environment or people's perceptions of something as basic as the human body just to suit their own preferences.

Would you feel put out by society if the standard of dress was that you could only wear a blue suit with a white shirt and red tie while in public, and if you do not you will be arrested for indecent exposure, and have to registar as a sex offender? Would you see it as intolerant of your views of wanting to wear a different color tie?

If people actually found it offensive for me to be appear in public dressed other than in the garb you advocate, and everyone else had to conform to that dress code, then I would have to accept that or move to a community where I could have more sartorial choices. This already happens in some societies like women in some Islamic countries. The requirements placed upon nudists are far less onerous or prescriptive than the example you gave, though. You can wear pretty much what you like - so long as a very small area of your body surface is out of sight.

baregreg

I'm not disputing that some people have an allergy to perfume. I merely said I hadn't heard of it myself. Obviously, if it is a serious problem, then the authorities would be within their rights to consider certain restrictions.

Stu

[Boreas]

Stu2630


Just one site I found (many more)
http://www.life.ca/nl/87/perfume.html

I don't think they should be banned or restricted however. Too much of that going on now days.
By the way I don't wear any scents. Just keep the body clean. :)

Thanks Greg. Actually I agree with you. I do believe that a scent-free policy is best in healthcare settings. There are people (patients in particular) who are vulnerable and scents may make their health worse. In other settings I don't necessarily see a need to ban scents or make them illegal. I do believe that letting people know about the harmful chemicals in perfumes is one way to increase knowledge about this issue. Hopefully considerate people would reduce or eliminate their use of perfumes on their own.

Here is some more information:
http://www.jan.wvu.edu/media/fragrance.html
http://www.alerg.com/multiplechemicalsensitivity/
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/fragrance-irritation-allergies.html

If you type in "fragrance sensitivity" in a search engine, you will get many sites.

Again my point in bringing up the scent issue is that when you wear a scent that irritates my system, I have to leave the area or be uncomfortable. I cannot merely "ignore" it. It might look like I am ignoring it, but believe me I am uncomfortable and annoyed.....and offended. If I were to be naked in your presense, ie on a beach, you have the choice to avert your eyes and ignore me. Even if we were sitting next to each other in a theatre (I am not likely to be naked there for the record) we could chat even without you having to look at me.

Sometimes concessions are made for minorities.

[WNYjoe24]

Stu,
I need to ask you to clarify that further. I just don't get it. I read a post of yours a few days ago, and I thought WOW! I actually agree with Stu. But I honestly can not understand this. Help us here. because that really is the root of this discussion.
What is so offensice about seeing "private" parts any more than seeing fat parts, or bald parts, or wounds, or anything else?
What is the theshold to where we have to say "this is just WRONG" or "this is just DIFFERENT" ?

Joe

[Bob S.]

Stu:"By the time you have seen it, it's too late - the offence has been caused. I once caught a glimpse of a person who had been decapitated in a road accident and that image stayed with me for many years. A 'smell' is forgotten as soon as it is no longer detectable."

By the time you have smelled something, it's too late. In college, I walked into a classroom building where they were painting the auditorium, located at the front of the building. They had the doors open, of course, to aerate the area, but even at that, when I walked in, I suddenly stopped breathing, literally, like my lungs or diaphragm was paralyzed. Not panicking, I decided to keep walking away from the smell and about ten seconds later, I could breathe again.

Odors can be dangerous or fatal to some people. A visual stimulus is never fatal or dangerous. Yes, some can affect others more than others such as viewing death, severe disfigurements, or similar extreme sights, but the vast majority of sights that cause offense are minor.

Stu:"I am still within my rights to give any woman who is breastfeeding a stern piece of my mind, Bob. So you agree that in practising this 'right', I am acting responsibly?"

As long as you have not broken any law regarding harassing a mother who is breastfeeding, then yes, you are acting responsibly in practicing your right. Many people will disagree with your tactics and call you rude, but that is your freedom of speech. I am talking about legal rights and I will defend most people's rights to speak their opinions even if I disagree with them. The exception is those who are trying to cause riotous or violent behaviour and those who are unduly harassing others.

And giving legal sanction to a behaviour does not necessarily say that the whole of society will agree with it. Many times in US history has the Supreme Court decided that certain behaviours, while unpopular, is allowed legally.

Stu:"So someone could stand in the middle of a park where children are playing and shout obscenities?"

Probably about 10-20 years ago (I don't recall exactly when), there was a man who was charged with obscenities when he cursed after toppling in his canoe within earshot of a woman and her young daughter. He was initially found guilty, but on appeal (I don't recall how far it got), he was acquitted on First Amendment grounds.

I have a feeling that if someone were to shout obscenities in a park around children, he would have some problems with the parents, who would probably confront him (possibly aggressively), as well as the park staff, who would probably escort him off the property. If both of those did not work, he could be charged with trespassing.

Bob

[TreyS]

This thread has proven to be quite interesting thus far. The main discussion seems to be between Stu and everyone else who has posted.

Here is what I take to be Stu's position on the topic at hand:
1. Stu has stated that he has no opposition to nudists practicing their lifestyle in designated areas.
2. Further Stu has indicated his support for increasing the number of those areas, presumably significantly, beyond what they are at present.
3. Stu does not believe that individuals should be allowed to be naked in clothed society.

Here are what I take to be Stu's general views on matters of social policy:
1. He seems to be generally resistant to altering the norms of society.
2. In determining what should not be permitted by society he seems more often than not to express the idea that what offends the majority of people is sufficient guide for not permitting something.
3. Harm to others seems to be a secondary reason for prohibiting or restricting something.
4. He seems largely resistant to the idea that minority groups might have rights which the majority should respect whether they want to or not.


Given the above, here are three questions that seem relevant to the topic at hand:
1. At what point, if ever, does the fact that something is offensive become reason enough to ban or restrict that something?
2. When, if ever, should possible harm to others play a role in deciding whether or not to ban or restrict something?
3. When, if ever, do minority groups have rights that the minority should respect whether they want to or not?

I think that Stu should be commended for supporting increasing the number of places where nudists may practice their lifestyle. If I have misrepresented Stu's views I welcome correction.

[nacktman]

This thread has proven to be quite interesting thus far ...


Given the above, here are three questions that seem relevant to the topic at hand:
1. At what point, if ever, does the fact that something is offensive become reason enough to ban or restrict that something?
2. When, if ever, should possible harm to others play a role in deciding whether or not to ban or restrict something?
3. When, if ever, do minority groups have rights that the minority should respect whether they want to or not?

Trey, I believe you meant to say Majority instead of minority in the highlighted portion above didn't you?

In answer to the above three questions in reverse order:

3. (If majority was the true term) Always.

2. 'Possible Harm' should always be considered and the 'weight' one gives its consideration should be in proportion to the actual harm.
Over reaction to imaginary scenarios has ever proven to a disaster.

1. This question really cannot be answered, because what is and isn't offensive and to what degree is subtly to vastly different to different cultures and different eras.
I would suggest finding and reading the piece TNS published in their Quarterly around twenty years ago entitled Oobat for a really good take on this question ... it will make you think.

[nudenwv]

i chose yes. although i agree with the majority only if our attitudes about nudity in the united states changed.

[Stu2630]

WNYjoe24

What is so offensive about seeing "private" parts any more than seeing fat parts, or bald parts, or wounds, or anything else?

Joe - it's a feeling thing rather than a rational thing. And when it comes to nakedness, that feeling is pretty much the same for textiles as people might react if encountering, for example, an orgy, or someone loudly using obscenities. It makes you wince and can be quite distressing. That feeling is intensified if you have your children with you because you don't want them to see naked adults. The 'private parts' are involved in things we do which are intimate, whether it's having sex or evacuating waste liquids or solids from our bodies and, if you think about it, nearly all the bad swearwords in the English language are concerned with those very same functions.

BobS

You raise a perfectly valid point about people using fragrances. It's not something I have given very much thought to in the past - perhaps because I love and always wear perfumes - but maybe I should think more carefully about when and where I wear them in future.

As long as you have not broken any law regarding harassing a mother who is breastfeeding, then yes, you are acting responsibly in practicing your right.

You have berated me in the past for doing that, Bob. And do you know that I probably wouldn't do it now after you persuaded me that it was morally wrong even if lawful to do it. Now you are telling me I was acting responsibly and exercising my right. :confused:

I note what you say but still think we all have a responsibility to each other and that includes behaving in a way that others find acceptable so far as possible - especially when using a public place.

Probably about 10-20 years ago (I don't recall exactly when), there was a man who was charged with obscenities when he cursed after toppling in his canoe within earshot of a woman and her young daughter. He was initially found guilty, but on appeal (I don't recall how far it got), he was acquitted on First Amendment grounds.

We've all cursed in the heat of the moment. But I wonder what would have happened if he had continued cursing, even in defiance of a police request to stop, and justified that cursing on First Amendment grounds. Under British law, he would have been prosecuted and convicted because his behaviour was such that it was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others in the vicinity.

I have a feeling that if someone were to shout obscenities in a park around children, he would have some problems with the parents, who would probably confront him (possibly aggressively), as well as the park staff, who would probably escort him off the property. If both of those did not work, he could be charged with trespassing.

OK - means to an end - but the same end is achieved. No doubt the same process could be applied to a person naked in a park. A statutory RIGHT to curse, or be naked in a park, would protect the individual concerned from being so evicted or prosecuted and that would be at the expense of the other users, parents etc.

TreyS

You have summed up my views quite well. I'll try to answer your three questions:

1. At what point, if ever, does the fact that something is offensive become reason enough to ban or restrict that something?

I would say that three conditions must be satisfied, firstly that the behaviour is actually offensive, i.e. (a) it gives rise to people being angered, alarmed or upset by that behaviour, and (b) it goes beyond merely taste, fashion or aesthetic considerations and strikes at the very values of the people it offends and is contrary to the prevailing cultural norms, and (c) the number of people who actually want to practise that behaviour is smaller than the number of people likely to be upset by it.

2. When, if ever, should possible harm to others play a role in deciding whether or not to ban or restrict something?

When the harm is so significant as to cause, or to risk causing, physical, mental, emotional or financial harm to people, or, if in or visible from a public place, is sufficiently offensive as defined in 1. above. Harm can certainly result from adversely affecting someone's use of, or enjoyment or comfort in, a public place (that is an established principle and recognised in English law).

3. When, if ever, do minority groups have rights that the minority should respect whether they want to or not?

When the minority group comprises of people who belong to that group because of their inherent characteristics, such as their race, colour, sex, or sexuality. It does not include people who merely harbour a preference to behave in a particular way.

Stu

[nimrod]

I don't want nudists coming to the places I use and getting naked.
Stu

Am I missing something here? What is there about this statement that is not showing intolerance?

And what I said about race and religion is valid. I understand were your point of view is coming from when race is involved. I hope that I can expain myself here, I know what I want to say just expressing it is difficult for me. The same intolerance shown for a minority involving race is shown by you towards nudist. The same segregation is applied. The circumstances may be different but the intolerance is the same.

It could be argued that nudity, like any race, is something that you are born into. The choice is whether or not to wear clothing. It is possible today to alter your natural appearance enough to disquise your race, look at Mr. Jackson. So it is with nudity, you alter your natural appearance with clothing.

Religion is a choice plain and simple. Yet relgious minorities are protected by certain rights. If you feel that nudity is a choice, there is no reason for the nudist minority not to be protected by simuliar rights.

I have said before there is no question nudity should be protect by certian rights, the real question is where and when to practice those rights.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

I don't want nudists coming to the places I use and getting naked.Am I missing something here? What is there about this statement that is not showing intolerance?...The same intolerance shown for a minority involving race is shown by you towards nudist. The same segregation is applied. The circumstances may be different but the intolerance is the same.My intolerance isn't against the people. Nudists are welcome to use the same places I use. What I object to is that I make a conscious choice to go to places where a certain kind of behaviour does not occur, namely nudity. So I don't accept anyone getting naked there, whether they are card-carrying nudists, or ad hoc skinnydippers, streakers, flashers or whatever. It is the presence of nudity, not nudists, that I do not accept. This is vastly different to, for example, refusing to accept people who happen to be black, which is an inherent and immutable condition and does not generally involve choice.

It could be argued that nudity, like any race, is something that you are born into. The choice is whether or not to wear clothing. It is possible today to alter your natural appearance enough to disquise your race, look at Mr. Jackson. So it is with nudity, you alter your natural appearance with clothing.It is your conscious decision - your choice - whether to wear clothes or not and, if you choose not to, where to go when you are in that condition. I make a conscious choice not to be around you when you are naked and will even allow you to have places where you can do that - which I will happily avoid. Your failure to allow me to avoid nakedness shows your intolerance to me.

Religion is a choice plain and simple. Yet relgious minorities are protected by certain rights. If you feel that nudity is a choice, there is no reason for the nudist minority not to be protected by simuliar rights.It's not as simple as that. While I am an atheist, I recognise that a person's religion is something which defines them to a far greater degree than merely being a nudist because it underpins every aspect of their lives. People are often willing to die for their religion: I have yet to meet a nudist who would happily die for nudism. But even then, while some additional latitude should be granted to behaviour motivated by religious belief, that still doesn't mean people can do as they like because they hold such beliefs. For example, I would not allow a Muslim in my society to behead a fellow Muslim because he had offended against Sharia law, or a Muslim to ritually kill an animal in the street because that's what their religion requires. I would not allow a Jain or a Pagan to be nude in public even though nudity is a part of their religious practice.

I have said before there is no question nudity should be protect by certian rights, the real question is where and when to practice those rights.That's an easy one to answer. Nudity should of course be permissible in private places not readily visible from public places. It should be permissible in those places where it is generally accepted, such as locker rooms, doctors' surgeries and hospitals. It should be facilitated by way of nudist beaches, campsites, parks, swimming sessions and so on. And discreet nudity should not generally be prohibited in remote places, so long as the nude people concerned take all reasonable steps to ensure no-one else is likely to be upset or offended (e.g. by keeping a towel or pair of shorts at hand in case on inadvertent encounters with textiles).

Textiles should never stigmatize, mock or discriminate against nudists for what they do: they should show respect and consideration. Nudists are citizens and taxpayers and should be allocated a fair share of accessible and decent public lands, access to public facilities and opportunities for events. In return, nudists must respect the rights of textiles to live their lives free of seeing nakedness if they wish and never foist the sight of nakedness on those who have not consented to see it, whether expressly or by implication. This is a fair compromise founded on mutual respect and consideration: it would enhance the opportunities for nudists immensely while protecting the sensibilities of people like myself.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"You have berated me in the past for doing that, Bob. And do you know that I probably wouldn't do it now after you persuaded me that it was morally wrong even if lawful to do it. Now you are telling me I was acting responsibly and exercising my right."

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. No one can be "irresponsible" when they are merely practicing a right they have. However, in practicing those rights, they should expect others to practice their right to speak up or oppose that practice of their right. As long as both parties are acting with the law, there is no problem. However, some behaviours are more socially acceptable than others. And I believe that your berating of a nursing mother is unacceptable, so I disagree with how you practice your right to free speech.

And it is in this manner that I believe nudity could be handled. You bring up the sacrifice of animals in another post. If you change that to killing of animals for food (I don't believe sacrifice is legal in all places), it is allowed anywhere, although the places where it is socially accepted and that people keep it to, is generally agreed to. Treating the naked and the clothed the same legally, whereas socially agreements can be reached, is how it should be.

Trey: 1. At what point, if ever, does the fact that something is offensive become reason enough to ban or restrict that something?

Offense must be paired with some form of harm, either physical, mental or psychological by a large number of people with the mental and psychological harm defined as long-lasting. Offense in itself cannot be defined as harm.

2. When, if ever, should possible harm to others play a role in deciding whether or not to ban or restrict something?

It should play an important role. But the possible harm must be obvious and defined. See answer 1 for more.

3. When, if ever, do minority groups have rights that the minority should respect whether they want to or not?

Minorities' rights should be seriously considered in all cases. The onus should fall upon the majority to show just cause to deny the minority of a right. Simple offense is not a just cause.

Bob S.

[TreyS]

I'm glad I did a good job of summarizing Stu's beliefs in my last post. There seem to be two main points of disagreement in the discussion thus far.

1. Stu, and apparently English law, seems to give more consideration to whether or not someone would be offended by something than is true of the rest of us who have posted and, in general, more consideration to offensiveness than would be true of American law.

2. Basic to the American legal system is the idea that minority rights should be respected. It is my understanding that in most cases this respect for minority rights extends to behavior as well.

Assuming that these are the main points of disagreement, is there any way to come to some agreement on these two points?

[Stu2630]

BobS

You say:

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. No one can be "irresponsible" when they are merely practicing a right they have.

And then you say:

And I believe that your berating of a nursing mother is unacceptable, so I disagree with how you practice your right to free speech.

So my behaviour wasn't "irresponsible" in berating a nursing mother because I was legally entitled to do it, yet my behaviour was "unacceptable". I'm really struggling to make sense of that. I'm either entitled to do it or I'm not.

And it is in this manner that I believe nudity could be handled....

I'm not sure what the problem is. Responsible nudists have no wish to get naked in circumstances where they are likely to cause offence, so we have laws which only affect the irresponsible. And they work and few people have any wish to change them. By removing these laws you are, in effect, sending out a message that the law will, henceforth. tolerate behaviour which we all agree is irresponsible and which we know is likely to offend people. That would be insane.

Offense must be paired with some form of harm, either physical, mental or psychological by a large number of people with the mental and psychological harm defined as long-lasting. Offense in itself cannot be defined as harm.

I don't agree. I haven't physically harmed the nursing mother by berating her: I may have upset her but she wasn't injured. By your definition I could have hone a whole lot further and called her a string of obscene names and told her that I hoped she, and her disgusting baby, would be run over by a truck on the way home. Words hurt people. Behaviour that doesn't cause physical harm hurts people. They can spoil a person's day, make them afraid to go into town or to the park or the beach for fear of what they will see or hear. People using public places should, so far as possible and reasonable, be able to go to these places without their feelings being hurt or their sensibilities injured by complete strangers.

TreyS

...more consideration to offensiveness than would be true of American law.

I'm not sure that's the case. You only have to look at the ordnances passed by the council at Brattleboro to see that people's sensibilities are taken account of. The way the laws are manifest in our two countries seems very different, but the effect is roughly the same: get naked in public and expect legal consequences.

Basic to the American legal system is the idea that minority rights should be respected. It is my understanding that in most cases this respect for minority rights extends to behavior as well.

I think you'll find that American jurisprudence in this respect is pretty much the same as in the UK, and in virtually every country on the planet. What kind of behaviour is acceptable in public is more narrowly defined, more closely controlled, and more reflective of prevailing values in the society than what behaviour is acceptable in private. When such matters come to court, sometimes the naked people win and sometimes they lose, but I am not aware of any case anywhere whereby a nudist won on the grounds on the basis of "minority rights".

Assuming that these are the main points of disagreement, is there any way to come to some agreement on these two points?

I think nudists need to ask themselves a very searching question - why? Why does it matter if there are laws restricting public nudity if these are only likely to affect nakedness which other people are likely to object to? Do you really want to be naked in the presence of people who may be disgusted or upset at the sight of you? Of course you wouldn't! So what's left? Well, I know what's left - it's the distant and ultimately forlorn dream many nudists harbour that the world will sooner or later wake up and realise that nudity is natural and wonderful and should be enjoyed by all, and the sooner that happens to better...so let's push the envelope a bit and get the textiles more accustomed to seeing nakedness and eventually they'll accept it. This is social engineering - psychological manipulation: it is unethical and wrong and doomed to failure because it will meet resistance.

What can succeed is for nudists to gain more and better facilities, and to promote their way of life and extend a welcoming hand to newcomers. If they do that, their opportunities to enjoy nudism will gradually increase and with that the number of people practising nudism will also increase. You are never going to be allowed to walk the streets naked or get on a train or go to the local store in that state in most countries, but imagine how much better things would be if, say, 25% of all beaches were clothing optional, and most parks had a clothing optional section, and every swimming pool had one or two nude days per week.

This is the goal nudists should be aiming for, and they should be distancing themselves from the irresponsible extremists who only succeed in becoming laughing stocks or antagonising people.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

What you continue to fail to do is to seek out new knowledge, information, and opinions, and then perform some personal reflection to challenge your own ideas and beliefs. This is how you will continue to grow and mature. Instead, you are stubbornly clinging to all of your views and refuse to honestly consider other possibilities. Possibilities lead to compromise.

Nudity aside, the sad part about human nature (with some) is the refusal to examine all of our beliefs and change those beliefs. If enough of us didn't change and grow, we would still be in the dark ages.

No one is forcing nudity upon you. You, however, are forcing clothing upon people.

[Boreas]

1. Stu, and apparently English law, seems to give more consideration to whether or not someone would be offended by something than is true of the rest of us who have posted and, in general, more consideration to offensiveness than would be true of American law.

2. Basic to the American legal system is the idea that minority rights should be respected. It is my understanding that in most cases this respect for minority rights extends to behavior as well.

I think you have pointed out a very important cultural and legal difference. Canada is in between the two I think.

Frankly, I think the idea that majority rules, while understandable, is VERY dangerous. It has caused many oppressive policies over the years. Sometimes minority rights must be upheld and protected.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

What you continue to fail to do is to seek out new knowledge, information, and opinions, and then perform some personal reflection to challenge your own ideas and beliefs.But I do reflect upon, and often modify, my beliefs. In some respects, I have modified some of my beliefs as a direct result of coming here.

But this topic isn't really an issue about 'beliefs', it's about emotions, values and feelings. I know what nudity is. I know that, as a phenomenon, it is harmless. But it is something I don't have in my life or my environment and I don't want it. I hate being both naked and seeing nakedness and minimise these experiences so far as I possibly can. That's not because of some errant 'belief': it's an affective rather than a cognitive response. As such, it's not something that can be rationalised away. It's part of who and what I am and I would want you to accept me this way just as I accept you as you are, i.e. a nudist. So I can meet nudists on grounds acceptable to both of us - i.e. on the Internet or else when nudists are wearing clothes (which almost all do at least some of the time) and show the mutual respect and understanding which TreyS alluded to.

No one is forcing nudity upon you. You, however, are forcing clothing upon people.

You are wanting to force the SIGHT of nudity onto me and others like me - to put something in our environment which we find unacceptable.

Stu

[Boreas]

it's an affective rather than a cognitive response. As such, it's not something that can be rationalised away

Actually, it can be rationalised away. Check out Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for details. Dr. David Burns is one good author to investigate. CBT suggests that out thoughts have an impact on our feelings. Changing our thoughts therefore change our feelings. I am sure that you have already experienced such changes in other areas of your life.

[Home Nudist]

Stu:
You are wanting to force the SIGHT of nudity onto me and others like me - to put something in our environment which we find unacceptable.

Stu, it's been said ad nauseam :wall: by people brighter than I am and more experienced in the life style: All the laws are in your favor. No one is "forcing" you to see anything you don't want to, and no one is going to. So, other than debating and having a conversation, what in God's Name are you talking about?

If the mere fact that a nudist has thoughts of, wishes to, wants to, desires to, wander about as God made him offends you, then you have some big problems. You won't even allow that. You want to be yourself, yet you won't extend the same courtesy to others. You can't --at least not yet -- legislate what people think, want, or desire.

I understand your aversion to the naked body. I really do. But, the more you write and ruminate about it, the more confused and disturbed you sound to me. As I said, you don't have to be around naked bodies, so it's all a moot point. Yet, you keep talking about it. Maybe you should figure out why.......

[wingshot]

I am all for it!

[nimrod]

I hate being both naked and seeing nakedness and minimise these experiences so far as I possibly can.

Stu

And you still say you are not intolerant. It is like trying to convice an alcoholic in denial of his/her alcoholism. Most will rationalize the reasons why they drink, and argue that they do not have the problem everyone else has a problem with them drinking. The first step in recovery is admiting you have a problem. If the above statement is not proof enough of your intolerance, then there is nothing left to say and I just hope that you can figure it out for yourself.

[MoonShadow]

Whirrrrrrr.........whirrrrrrrr........whirrrrrrrrr

[nacktman]

Whirrrrrrr.........whirrrrrrrr........whirrrrrrrrr

Tried to resist, I truly did!
But this is too much!

MoonShadow, you have it pegged!
Whirrrrrr, indeed!:eek::rolleyes:

[KNude]

Let's take this from a different place. I am offended by the use of bathing attire at a swimming pool or beach. I feel it is a waste fo resources for no good reason. Likewise being clothed on a hot day and requiring air conditioning is an offensive waste to me. I am offended and you should change to accomendate my view point. If you want to be clothed for these actvities please hide yourself from my view. I have a right not to be offended by your waste of resources so stay away from all beaches an pools that I may use.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"So my behaviour wasn't "irresponsible" in berating a nursing mother because I was legally entitled to do it, yet my behaviour was "unacceptable". I'm really struggling to make sense of that. I'm either entitled to do it or I'm not."

The difference I am trying to give is between what is legally acceptable and what us socially acceptable. I will defend people when they are practicing their rights, in your case, speaking your opinion (so long as what you are doing is legal). It does not matter whether I agree with them or not. That right is more important than anything.

At the same time, I am going to oppose what you are saying on those same rights. I guess you should just take away the term of "responsible" and replace it with "legally acceptable." I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

Stu:"People using public places should, so far as possible and reasonable, be able to go to these places without their feelings being hurt or their sensibilities injured by complete strangers."

And here is where I wonder about you, Stu. You are berating a woman and defending yourself while she should be able to nurse her baby in peace without anyone berating her. According to your reasoning, you violated her rights in the public place since she will now fear hearing someone else berate her when she nurses in public. So next time you see a woman who violates the Stu time limit for breast exposure, remember that you are going to severely affect her feelings and possibly hurt her. As you said, "Words hurt people."

Stu, many things can cause temporary hurt. But many of those are also legal. Since govts are going to allow places for people to go naked, and allow it in homes, it must not cause much harm.

Stu:"I think nudists need to ask themselves a very searching question - why? Why does it matter if there are laws restricting public nudity if these are only likely to affect nakedness which other people are likely to object to?"

Because of the overreaction of govts and laws, especially here in the US. You agree with us that simple nudity should not be a sexual crime, yet that is what it is in many places. Understand this is where the US members are coming from. Also, other than the nudist parks, which are few and far between in many places in the country, there are very few official or even unofficial beaches, and those that are around are always in danger of closing due to a change in administration, behaviour on or near the beaches, or even building growth.

There is also the basic philosophical question of why? Why are there laws that regulate nudity? What is the point of them? What is the big deal with the naked body?

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

Check out Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for details.Thanks, I'm familiar with CBT and I know it is useful. My mother found it beneficial as a way of controlling severe pain. CBT is designed to help people with problems, though, and I don't consider that i have any problems because I function perfectly well and I'm happy as I am.

Home Nudist

All the laws are in your favor. No one is "forcing" you to see anything you don't want to, and no one is going to. So, other than debating and having a conversation, what in God's Name are you talking about?The title of this thread on this "legal issues" section - which I did not introduce - is "should people have the right to be naked in public?" As there is no such legal right, the author appears to be inviting people to comment upon whether the law, which as you say is on my side, should be changed so that there IS a right.

If the mere fact that a nudist has thoughts of, wishes to, wants to, desires to, wander about as God made him offends you, then you have some big problems. You won't even allow that.What nudists wish, want or desire to do is up to them. And I am all in favour of them having opportunities to be naked. I just don't want to be around them when they are in that state, and I don't want my kids to see them in that state, either. So that means I stay in textile places and leave nudists to enjoy their nudist places and everybody is happy.

As I said, you don't have to be around naked bodies, so it's all a moot point. Yet, you keep talking about it. Maybe you should figure out why.......I was actually invited to contribute to this thread - check out the first posting. I freely admit that I enjoy discussing the issues concerning nudism - from an academic/intellectual perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

Nimrod

It is like trying to convice an alcoholic in denial of his/her alcoholism. Most will rationalize the reasons why they drink, and argue that they do not have the problem everyone else has a problem with them drinking. The first step in recovery is admiting you have a problem.An alcoholic has a problem. His life has become chaotic: ruled by the need to drink at all times. He can not function in normal society. He would be a danger to himself and others by his behaviour and drunkenness, especially if he drives. Any family life or close relationships are damaged or even destroyed, his career is threatened, he will possibly lose all self-respect, won't wash or care for his health and he is on a road to ruin and, ultimately, death.

My life is organised and reasonably contented. I have a good marriage, successful children, a decent and well-paid career. I am reasonably affluent and have a wide range of interests, some physical, some practical and others intellectual. I happen to have a dislike of nudity but, as I virtually never encounter it, it's not a problem. I do occasionally see naked men in the locker rooms at my gym and I even talk to them. I don't like their nakedness, but I don't find the experience traumatic.

To compare me with an alcoholic is, frankly, asinine.

KNude

I seriously doubt you are genuinely offended by the sight of swimwear, and you are merely just saying that to make a point. If you are genuinely offended by it, then you are a phenomenally unusual person: there are probably only a handful of people with your particular sensibility on the entire planet. Bearing in mind that 95% of the population actually prefer to wear swimwear, then you are an extreme anomaly and your options are either to live full-time in a naturist commune of some kind, or else seek some kind of therapy, because your daily life must be tortuous.

I, on the other hand, don't see nudity and I don't have to so it's not a problem for me.

BobS

So, in the name of free speech, I am at liberty to berate the nursing mother who is trying to maintain a sense of calm and who is, in any case, probably far less erudite than I am and so unable to defend herself from my tirade of criticism. And when she is reduced to floods of tears and leaves and is evermore fearful of breastfeeding again in public because she may again encounter a nasty Stu, then that's OK.

I'm not being difficult here, Bob, I'm just not sure the issues are as straightforward as you paint them. What we say and do in public doesn't always amount to what we intend. I intend to enjoy free speech and to relate to the mother how I feel about her behaviour, but the effect upon her is that, hence forth, she will no longer breastfeed in public. A person may decide to hike naked on a footpath on a warm day and assume that nobody will really mind because, in the past, they have been met with a hearty "hello" and a smile. The effect, however, on some of the people who have seen them may have been well-concealed shock, embarrassment, fear and consternation.

I think what is "legally acceptable" has to contain an element of the effects of the behaviour as well as the intention of the actor.

Stu, many things can cause temporary hurt. But many of those are also legal. Since govts are going to allow places for people to go naked, and allow it in homes, it must not cause much harm.Many things don't cause 'much harm', but the fact that they cause 'some harm' is usually sufficient to prohibit them in public. A person urinating against a telephone box doesn't do 'much harm', nor does a person displaying a graphic pornographic image on the side of their car. But these kinds of behaviour are unnecessary and they do contribute to a slightly less pleasant environment for at least some people, so they're not generally acceptable and legal sanctions are available to deal with offenders.

You agree with us that simple nudity should not be a sexual crime, yet that is what it is in many places.That's true. I think it should be regarded as a minor public order violation and never a sexual crime.

Also, other than the nudist parks, which are few and far between in many places in the country, there are very few official or even unofficial beaches, and those that are around are always in danger of closing due to a change in administration, behaviour on or near the beaches, or even building growth.I agree with you about this 100%. You have a sound argument here and I am absolutely on your side. This is the ground upon which you should be fighting and accept that the default status of public places elsewhere is textile.

There is also the basic philosophical question of why? Why are there laws that regulate nudity? What is the point of them? What is the big deal with the naked body?I think this gets to the very heart of the issue. To YOU, there is no big deal with the naked body because you have de-sensitized yourself towards seeing it. To a producer of porn films, there is no big deal about seeing people having sex. To a butcher, there is no big deal about witnessing cute little lambs being slaughtered and so on. And all sensibilities are basically irrational and exist because of cultural conditioning. But that doesn't matter. People are human beings, not computers and we react affectively as well as cognitively. The big deal with the naked body is that it causes adverse emotional responses in people who are not used to seeing it, and sometimes these are quite severe and upsetting. If people actively want to de-sensitize themselves - fine - it's not difficult to find nudist organisations, beaches and so on. But many of us are content being as we are. We don't want a specialist interest group messing with our sensibilities for their own purposes. We like our environment free of the sight of people urinating, having sex and slaughtering animals. And free of nakedness, too.

Stu

[Boreas]

Thanks, I'm familiar with CBT and I know it is useful. My mother found it beneficial as a way of controlling severe pain. CBT is designed to help people with problems, though, and I don't consider that i have any problems because I function perfectly well and I'm happy as I am.

I never said you had a problem or not. I was responding to this statement that you made: That's not because of some errant 'belief': it's an affective rather than a cognitive response. As such, it's not something that can be rationalised away.

and so I suggested CBT.

It is indeed something that can be rationalised away, if you want to make the change. Feelings are something people can learn to manage.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

Thanks - I do appreciate what you said. If I ever find that my aversion becomes problematic for me, then I'll heed your advice and consider CBT. Later this year, we are emigrating to a Scandinavian country with a greater tolerance of nudity than I'm used to here in the UK. So you never know! :confused:

As an aside, I will be working in a college as part of a team consisting mainly of women. I was told that they usually meet up in the gym or swimming pool an hour before the start of the working day and get a workout or swim beforehand. This is followed by a sauna, which they tend to combine with the daily team meeting, followed by showering off, getting dressed and getting to class. This sounds very civilised to me because I have always kept myself in shape and I love a sauna, but I seriously expect everyone will be in costumes if it's mixed. In the event that they don't wear costumes, which I suspect is very unlikely, I will obviously have a problem. Even if I was prepared to participate in that, which I most certainly am not, I don't think my wife would be too keen on the idea. Interesting times ahead! :disappointed:

Stu

[Boreas]

Oh Stu, I think the universe is conspiring to turn you into a nudist. ;)

[Naturist4Ever]

>> We don't want a specialist interest group messing with our sensibilities for their own purposes

>> I hate being both naked and seeing nakedness and minimise these experiences so far as I possibly can

So let me try to get this straight: what exactly are you doing here then?

>> Later this year, we are emigrating to a Scandinavian country with a greater tolerance of nudity than I'm used to here in the UK. So you never know!

Are you riding the fence or what? What happened to your vacation to Almeria, or is just another fantasy?

>> If you are genuinely offended by it [the sight of swimwear], then you are a phenomenally unusual person:

Men, what do you have to learn! Yet another thing that "you did not know about"... I am also genuinly offended by swimwear (but will happily tolerate it as this is a free world/country, not one ruled by majority votes but the right to express yourself in public even if there is always someone out there that's offended). Maybe the way I am offended by the sight of swimwear is the same as the way you are offended by nudity/nudists. That's just fine.

[TreyS]

Based on Stu's last post, it seems that Stu may have a reason to alter his feelings about nudity. I would like to propose an analogy that may be relevant to the topic of this thread.

Most of us when we were children were asked by our parents to eat foods which we did not want to eat because those foods were good for us. It could be argued that not being offended by the sight of nudity has its own benefits. What level of benefit would be sufficient to justify legalizing public nudity outside of designated nudist areas?

[Stu2630]

Naturis4Ever

So let me try to get this straight: what exactly are you doing here then? Enjoying an intellectual discussion with nudists.

Are you riding the fence or what?No. I'm recognising the reality of moving to a different culture.

What happened to your vacation to Almeria, or is just another fantasy?The Almeria idea - in fact the whole idea of taking any holiday this year - has had to be discounted I'm afraid owing to an unexpected financial situation. You probably hadn't noticed, but the value of the UK pound has fallen quite dramatically against the Euro in recent weeks and, with my imminent emigration, we decided we would be better off hanging on to as much cash as possible for the time being and I won't run out when we move to DK and want to buy a house. So in that respect you are correct: any holiday for the Stu family this year looks like being a fantasy. :(

I am also genuinly offended by swimwear (but will happily tolerate it as this is a free world/country, not one ruled by majority votes but the right to express yourself in public even if there is always someone out there that's offended).I don't buy that. You are just saying you are "offended" by the sight of swimwear to strengthen your argument. Sure, you may be irritated by the compulsion of textiles to want to cover their genitals etc, because you think it's unnecessary or false, but offended? No. If anyone is genuinely so offended by the sight of swimwear that they find it intolerable, they would avoid seeing people in swimwear even on films and on TV. Like it or not, you live in a textile world, not a nudist one, and if you can't tolerate the sight of swimwear, then move to a nudist-only environment. If the world goes 95% nudist, then I'd have to move to a textile-only environment wouldn't I? But that's the opposite of reality as you well know.

But as I said, that's not really necessary because you are not really repulsed by the sight of it at all.

TreyS

I don't foresee any necessity for a major change in my feelings towards nudity from my move - but until I am living there full-time, I can't be entirely sure. So I'll have to keep something of an open mind and I certainly won't allow any anxieties regarding nudity put me off from making this move. I see the benefits of my move massively outweighing any drawbacks, and I really don't think it likely that I, or my family, will find a massive difference in that particular regard.

It could be argued that not being offended by the sight of nudity has its own benefits.It may surprise you to learn that I actually agree with you in that respect - there are benefits that I can think of. But I see the benefits as relatively minor and I prefer my sensibilities to remain as they are in spite of them.

What level of benefit would be sufficient to justify legalizing public nudity outside of designated nudist areas?That's an entirely different question and doesn't relate to the question preceding it at all IMO. I fail to see any benefits to anyone of legalizing public nudity outside of designated nudist areas except for exhibitionists or perhaps a few very selfish and inconsiderate nudists.

Stu

[nimrod]

To say that my comparison is asinine is just insulting, and not justified. For someone who is usually civil I am quite surprised by the comment. The denial that you have about being intolerant is the same as the alcoholics denial of being an alcoholic, the comparison is accurate.

What you described is a streotype, there are some alcoholics and addicts that are very functional in society and their personal lives, but that does not make them any less addicted. Just because someone is not having any personal problems, so far, because of an addiction does not mean that they are any less addicted. You have even admited in a recent post that your intolerance to nudity just might affect your job, maybe the comparison is more accurate then I at first intended.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

To say that my comparison is asinine is just insulting

Whoa! I wasn't saying you were asinine any more than I believe you were saying I was like an alcoholic, which would also be insulting. So, just for the record, I don't think you are asinine but rather as intelligent and articulate. But that particular comparison just doesn't hold up and I'm sure, if you think about it, you could find a more appropriate analogy.

Just because someone is not having any personal problems, so far, because of an addiction does not mean that they are any less addicted.

Before I address that specific question, how you can compare a negative reaction to something I almost never encounter with an addiction beats me. The two things are vastly different. An addiction in itself can be entirely harmless. I know someone who is addicted to chilli and has to eat capsicum in at least one meal every day. She even carries a small bottle of hot chilli sauce in her handbag and has done this for many years! But chilli does not have any harmful properties and so her 'addiction' is not problematic for her. An addiction becomes harmful if and when it interferes with the normal activities of life. I lead a perfectly normal life in all respects and my aversion to nudity is no more detrimental to my life than if an Eskimo had a phobia of alligators. I don't encounter nudity in situations which cause me difficulty so it simply isn't a problem.

You have even admitted in a recent post that your intolerance to nudity just might affect your job, maybe the comparison is more accurate then I at first intended.

Just might are the key words there - but it's highly unlikely and, if the worst came to pass, I would find a way to deal with it. For a start, I think it more likely than not that the sauna will be taken in swimwear. Secondly, there is no way an employer could require me, a lecturer, to take a sauna with other lecturers prior to teaching: this practice is simply something which is done at the moment because everyone involved is happy to do it that way. For all they know, I may suffer with some medical problem which makes having a sauna inadvisable. But we're still in the area of conjecture as to what might happen and the likelihood of this causing me any serious difficulties is minimal.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu"To compare me with an alcoholic is, frankly, asinine."

Stu, read what nimrod said again. He was not comparing your nudity aversion to alcoholism; he was comparing your denial to that of an alcoholic who does not think he has a problem. You are consistently stating that you have no problems in terms of nudity. However, from knowing your past that you have given us here, you have had serious issues with nudity. From nearly passing out at the sight of a naked (or topless) woman many years ago to washing in shorts up to a few years ago, the fact that you never changed your children's diapers, seen your wife naked (except for a rare instance, I believe), demanding the doctors leave your shorts on during an operation when it could have been problematic, etc. You do have serious issues with nudity even if you say otherwise. You have altered your life for your aversion to nudity.

Yet for all of that, you keep stating that you have no problems since the majority do not want to see nudity in public. You have acknowledged in the past that you are a bit more extreme than others in textile society, but you still do not think your extremes are a problem for you. The only difference between you and others who deny their problems is the fact that society agrees with the result of what you think and, therefore, causes what you think are no problems. The fact is that you are completely affected by your aversion, but chalk it up to you just living how you like.

Stu:"So, in the name of free speech, I am at liberty to berate the nursing mother who is trying to maintain a sense of calm and who is, in any case, probably far less erudite than I am and so unable to defend herself from my tirade of criticism. And when she is reduced to floods of tears and leaves and is evermore fearful of breastfeeding again in public because she may again encounter a nasty Stu, then that's OK."

As long as it violates no laws, yes. However, I as well as most others would find that behaviour reprehensible. And even you stated: I note what you say but still think we all have a responsibility to each other and that includes behaving in a way that others find acceptable so far as possible - especially when using a public place. You have also stated that people have the right not to be offended. So by doing what you describe above, you would be in violation of your own sense of how you think public law should be. What would make your berating justifiable? What other actions could you take that would be less objectionable and offensive?

Stu:"Many things don't cause 'much harm', but the fact that they cause 'some harm' is usually sufficient to prohibit them in public."

Therein lies the crux of the argument. How much "harm" is too much? The only harm in seeing a naked person depends on how much the other person dislikes nudity. Urinating in public is a sanitary issue. Pornography is seen as an exploitive issue.

Stu:"The big deal with the naked body is that it causes adverse emotional responses in people who are not used to seeing it, and sometimes these are quite severe and upsetting."

We have previously stated that the civil rights issues had the same arguments and I understand your arguments with the immutable characteristics. But people need to really look at where their emotional responses come from. The more severe and upsetting, the more of a possibility that the reactions are psychological.

Religion is somewhat similar to nudism. Some people are born into a nudist family, others take it up as they are growing up. But once you truly are a nudist, it is hard to stop being one. It can become part of your philosophy of life. Yet, anti-Semitism and other anti-religious feelings that come from growing up in that house or come from discovering it later are frowned upon severely in most societies while anti-nudism is looked upon proudly. Why is that? What makes nudism so horrendous to society?

Bob S.

[Kari P]

About being offended by swimwear, I give here an example which is about kids' swimwear.

Yesterday I read a newspaper appendix about people's dwellings. There was a picture where two young girls (maybe 3 and 6 years) were bathing in a tub in their own home. My immediate reaction when I saw the picture was: Why are they wearing swimwear? I really was kind of offended by it, now I explain why.

It's not so that I would think that the girls should necessarily be naked in the tub and I (and other readers) should see them that way. In the picture as it was you couldn't see any details of their anatomy, just tell if they had swimwear on or not, and they had. My point is just thinking about if the situation was depicted as it would naturally be or if the picture was posed, and what kind of teaching the children had received from (more probably) from their mother.

I don't believe at all that the children would normally have swimwear on when using the tub. The picture was not from a family album, instead it was shot by the newspaper's photographer. This fact is probably an essential part of the explanation. I believe that the mother had thought that her kids should not be naked in front of the photographer, who is a stranger, therefore she had had them to put swimwear on. This way she had given a teaching which can have a long-lasting effect in the children's life. And I don't think that the teaching was positive. This is my reason to be offended.

[Home Nudist]

[snip]

So that means I stay in textile places and leave nudists to enjoy their nudist places and everybody is happy.

[snip]

I, on the other hand, don't see nudity and I don't have to so it's not a problem for me.

[snip]


Stu,

If by your OWN ADMISSION, you stay in textile places, and you DON'T (have to) see nudity, so "it's not a problem for you," then, what are these long, arduous, tirades all about?

It's a non-issue. You have nothing to complain about.

.....and everybody is happy.

I wonder........

[Stu2630]

BobS

There may have been some validity in Nimrod's comparison between an alcoholic and me a decade ago - before I started coming here - but even that is very tenuous. I have seen topless women on beaches many times in recent years. I go to a gym and chat to naked men in the locker rooms. I have been present when my niece has changed both her daughter and (recently) her son's nappies (diapers). And, at your instigation, I even visited a nudist beach briefly in August 2006! Surely you will agree that the more extreme aspects of my dislike of nudity are now in the past. I still don't like nudity: I am offended and affronted by the sight of in inappropriate circumstances and I prefer to live without it in my life so far as possible - but to liken me to an alcoholic is way over the top. I don't have any problems these days so long as people conform to the usual expectations with regard to what we textiles regard as "decency". And that means that nudity in public places, which is what this thread is about, is generally unacceptable.

You have also stated that people have the right not to be offended. So by doing what you describe above, you would be in violation of your own sense of how you think public law should be.

Precisely! You see, this is another example where I reflected on what you said and modified my approach (and yet I get called "stubborn" on here!!) If I thought a woman was breastfeeding in a way that was grossly inconsiderate - verging on exhibitionist - I would make my views known as gently and politely as possible that she was bothering me. That's a reasonable act of communication. The mere fact that she was breastfeeding now wouldn't automatically put me into my verbal attack mode even though, legally speaking, I would be entitled to berate her if I wished. That's me being considerate and not simply exercising my legal rights to their fullest theoretical extent. Steve Gough and one or two other 'activists' are less considerate than I am. They will push the envelope as far as they can and even beyond regardless as to how others may feel about their behaviour. But Steve Gough isn't a considerate nudist - he isn't a nudist at all. What nudists need is more and better opportunities to practise responsible nudism - not some new theoretical right which would only benefit extremists or the small minority of inconsiderate nudists.

Therein lies the crux of the argument. How much "harm" is too much?

When, in spite of being entirely avoidable, it is done in the knowledge that it is likely to upset or annoy at least some people.

The only harm in seeing a naked person depends on how much the other person dislikes nudity.

If the 'dislike' goes beyond merely being aesthetically displeasing and into the realms of arousing feelings of distress, then the harm becomes tangible and must be taken account of.

Urinating in public is a sanitary issue.

In the vast majority of cases it is not. Urine is sterile and can even be safely drunk. Our breath is far more likely that our urine to infect others, yet we don't make people walk around in masks. Unlike with excrement, our distaste for the sight and smell of urine is predominantly cultural.

Pornography is seen as an exploitive issue.

I would probably agreed with that statement several years ago, but things have changed. many people go into the porn industry not because they are vulnerable, but as a considered career choice. And many who do work in it will tell you they love their work! I am lead to understand that some people actually make their own pornography as amateurs and distribute it among like-minded people. If it could she shown that the people depicted in a pornographic image were not exploited, would you say that image was OK to be exhibited in a public street? Exploitation can be an issue, but our main objection to the public exposure of porn is more protect the viewer than the people depicted.

My point is that many things are regulated and even prohibited because of culturally derived sensibilities rather than demonstrable physical harm and that public sex, urinating, porn and nakedness are among them. You have divested yourself of sensitivity to the latter, but many of us haven't made that jump and have no wish to do so.

Yet, anti-Semitism and other anti-religious feelings that come from growing up in that house or come from discovering it later are frowned upon severely in most societies while anti-nudism is looked upon proudly. Why is that? What makes nudism so horrendous to society?

There is nothing 'horrendous' about nudism - I don't think most people could care less if there are nudist beaches, clubs and so on. Nudity is different. Like sex, nudity, is something everyone has a relationship - their own nudity and that of others. Their cultural upbringing tells them that there are places and times when these things are appropriate, and when they occur outside of these circumstances, people actually become offended and upset. The only difference between a nudist and textile is that, for nudists, there are far more occasions where they find nudity appropriate than a textile would. And that about sums it up.

Kari

I'm not sure what you experienced was so much offence, as a strong disagreement with the way you believed those girls were being raised. I feel the same way when I see 6-year-old girls entering beauty pageants, wearing sexy clothes and make-up. It makes me go "yuk!" But I'm not personally offended.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist

If by your OWN ADMISSION, you stay in textile places, and you DON'T (have to) see nudity, so "it's not a problem for you," then, what are these long, arduous, tirades all about?

It's a non-issue. You have nothing to complain about.

I agree. But look at the title of this thread. That advocates a change which, if put into effect, would give me something to worry about.

Stu

[KirkOntario]

"If put into effect"...how likely is that Stu? Pretty unlikely.

[Home Nudist]

I agree. But look at the title of this thread. That advocates a change which, if put into effect, would give me something to worry about.
Stu

But, you know THAT change isn't going to occur, so all of your rhetoric is purely academic. So, don't worry.

I think you just like to hear yourself pontificate and just like to stir the pot.

(Not name calling or an accusation. Just an opinion.)

[Stu2630]

Kirk

"If put into effect"...how likely is that Stu? Pretty unlikely.

I agree. But that's the subject of the thread.

HomeNudist

But, you know THAT change isn't going to occur, so all of your rhetoric is purely academic. So, don't worry...I think you just like to hear yourself pontificate and just like to stir the pot.

I know it's academic. That's the whole point. I have never made a secret of why I come here - I find it an interesting topic and enjoy the intellectual discussion and debate. It seems some others here are happy to exchange views with me and so why do you have to demean it by writing it off as merely pontificating or stirring the pot?

Stu

[Home Nudist]

It seems some others here are happy to exchange views with me and so why do you have to demean it by writing it off as merely pontificating or stirring the pot?
Stu

I'm sorry that you feel "demeaned" that I have an opinion of you.

To answer your question, "why": Because, no one is forcing you to see nudity, and you say the SAME THINGS over and over in just about every thread. Your point -- if you have one -- goes nowhere. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If, for example, I didn't approve of the use of alcohol, didn't like to be around people who it use, and I didn't like their behavior under the influence, I'd simply avoid those people and situations -- the same as you do with nudity. That should be the end of it. Problem solved.

But, for some reason, that isn't enough for you. You just go on and on. It's almost pathological.

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist

I'm sorry that you feel "demeaned" that I have an opinion of you.I didn't say that. I said that you were demeaning my intellectual quest by suggesting it was no more than pontificating or stirring the pot.

To answer your question, "why": Because, no one is forcing you to see nudity, and you say the SAME THINGS over and over in just about every thread. Your point -- if you have one -- goes nowhere. It just doesn't make any sense to me.This thread, started by TreyS and which he did admit that he had me in mind when he started it, asks the entirely hypothetical question: "Should people have the right to be naked in public". All my responses have been to say that this would be a bad idea and to defend my reasoning.

If, for example, I didn't approve of the use of alcohol, didn't like to be around people who it use, and I didn't like their behavior under the influence, I'd simply avoid those people and situations -- the same as you do with nudity. That should be the end of it. Problem solved.But that's not an intellectual debate - this is. It's a subject which interests me and I enjoy the exchanges. If you don't - leave the discussion to those of us who do. And that should be the end of it. Problem solved. :D

Stu

[Home Nudist]

>>>>> :wall: <<<<<

[baregreg]

>>>>> :wall: <<<<<
I know the feeling. :funny:

[Bob S.]

Stu:" There may have been some validity in Nimrod's comparison between an alcoholic and me a decade ago"

I admit that you have changed a lot since you first came here. And back then, you did have a huge amount of denial. But I, and apparently nimrod, still think you have some denial issues regarding just how much your dislike of nudity is affecting your life. You don't alter your life as much as you once did, but you still do things to get away from incidental family nudity that other textiles would not think twice about. And remember, it is the denial that was being discussed, not the problem.

Stu:"The mere fact that she was breastfeeding now wouldn't automatically put me into my verbal attack mode even though, legally speaking, I would be entitled to berate her if I wished."

In some US states and parts of Canada (if not the whole country), that kind of behaviour would be illegal. More and more, the rights of a mother to nurse her baby in peace anywhere she wants to in public is being affirmed.

Stu:"When, in spite of being entirely avoidable, it is done in the knowledge that it is likely to upset or annoy at least some people."

That does not define harm of the viewer, but intent of the individual.

Stu:"If the 'dislike' goes beyond merely being aesthetically displeasing and into the realms of arousing feelings of distress, then the harm becomes tangible and must be taken account of."

If the feelings go into distress, the person must question why they feel distress. Distress is an extreme feeling to experience when seeing nudity. As I have hypothesized before, most of a person's reaction to public nudity is due to the fact that it is illegal. They are seeing a crime and are reacting. Have them accidentally walk onto a nudist beach and their feelings will immediately morph away from that distress and to embarrassment. If that person who is naked is mentally handicapped and they will get a feeling of sympathy for the individual.

Stu:"There is nothing 'horrendous' about nudism"

I meant to type 'nudity' rather than 'nudism.' I do that a lot, but usually catch myself.

Stu:" My point is that many things are regulated and even prohibited because of culturally derived sensibilities:"

And the point of this topic is to question the laws that come out of those sensibilities. In "Fahrenheit 451" Big Brother made laws that prohibited things based on the sensibilities as well. Just because there are culturally derived sensibilities does not mean they should automatically controlled by laws.

Bob S.

[MoonShadow]

[QUOTE=Home Nudist;187786]
I think you just like to hear yourself pontificate and just like to stir the pot.

(/QUOTE]

You are spot on, Home Nudist!

[nacktman]

Originally Posted by Home Nudist http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=187823#post187823)
>>>>> :wall: <<<<<
I know the feeling. :funny:

:rofl: So true, so true - know the feeling indeed.
And it has not been the first time the intellectual level of that poster has been in question either.;)

[Stu2630]

BobS

But I, and apparently nimrod, still think you have some denial issues regarding just how much your dislike of nudity is affecting your life.

In practical terms, it doesn't affect my life. It is something I dislike and generally avoid, but that's about as far as it goes. We don't have 'incidental family nudity' because there is no reason to. Denial means denying a problem - but I don't have a problem as such because I live a normal and well-functioning lifestyle.

In some US states and parts of Canada (if not the whole country), that kind of behaviour would be illegal. More and more, the rights of a mother to nurse her baby in peace anywhere she wants to in public is being affirmed.

It is illegal in Scotland to prevent a woman from breastfeeding in public, but no law can over-ride the basic right of freedom of speech, and European Human Rights judges have many times upheld the right of a person to state his or her views quite forcefully. I would have thought your Constitution would also protect that right. This is all a bit academic now, Bob, because as I said, I have softened my attitudes on this.

Stu:"When, in spite of being entirely avoidable, it is done in the knowledge that it is likely to upset or annoy at least some people."

That does not define harm of the viewer, but intent of the individual.

I'm not sure what you mean, Bob. If you behave in a way which you know is likely to upset or annoy at least some people, yet you persist in that behaviour, that will suffice as "intent" and you will probably fall foul of the law. The harm is the unnecessary upset or annoyance you have caused.

If the feelings go into distress, the person must question why they feel distress. Distress is an extreme feeling to experience when seeing nudity.

Distress is at the top end of the scale of adverse feelings. At the bottom end would come things like discomfort or irritation. The reasons for feeling this way can be traced back to cultural conditioning, but that fact doesn't make them any less real or valid.

As I have hypothesized before, most of a person's reaction to public nudity is due to the fact that it is illegal. They are seeing a crime and are reacting.

I don't believe the 'belief of illegality' plays as big a part as you think. I see people speeding in their cars, driving using a mobile telephone, parking where they shouldn't and so on, but I have never known the sight of that give rise to complaint of being offended or distressed.

Have them accidentally walk onto a nudist beach and their feelings will immediately morph away from that distress and to embarrassment. If that person who is naked is mentally handicapped and they will get a feeling of sympathy for the individual.

You are right - and this is because people can cope better with nakedness which is either in an accepted context (like in a gym locker room or if they stray onto a nudist beach) or is inadvertent/accidental. People can cope with seeing nudity, graphic sex, seeing horrendous violence and hearing obscene language on TV or in the cinema, but that doesn't mean they will be comfortable encountering these same phenomena in their local park.

In "Fahrenheit 451" Big Brother made laws that prohibited things based on the sensibilities as well. Just because there are culturally derived sensibilities does not mean they should automatically controlled by laws.

I have never seen the film, Bob, so I can't comment. But I think every society has the duty to establish what the main sensibilities of the public are, what behaviour offends those sensibilities and whether that offence can be avoided without resorting to oppression. A far greater latitude must always be granted for the private domain where freedom to do as one likes on one's own property must be the guiding principle. But in public places, the comfort of the many must take precedence and the law musty be the final arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. In most western societies, public nakedness is not acceptable and the law is right to reflect that.

Stu

[Skinview]

It is illegal in Scotland to prevent a woman from breastfeeding in public, but no law can over-ride the basic right of freedom of speech, and European Human Rights judges have many times upheld the right of a person to state his or her views quite forcefully. I would have thought your Constitution would also protect that right.It does, but it does not protect harassment. You can stand on a soap box and shout your disgust to the world, but if you go up to a nursing mother and complain, you are going to disrupt what they are doing, and you can get carted off to jail. You might also get belted by the father if he is near, and and the cop might look the other way.

[baregreg]

I know I'm new here. But in all honesty this is really getting old.

Stu I think your probalbly a nice guy. You must have a lot of free time to spend replying to these posts.

I just don't get it. I for one come here to talk to people that have a common interest. Where as, you having nothing in common with this lifestyle.

I think the best thing for all of us is to quit replying to your posts. I'm just as guilty.

So... Take your kids for a walk or something. Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. Your time could be better spent elsewhere.

[Stu2630]

Skinview

In European countries they make a clear distinction between communicating your view and harassment and for the latter to be proved there has to be a sustained "course of conduct". A single act of communication can never amount to harassment unless it is threatening or abusive. I may be wrong, but I suspect your laws of harassment actually say the same thing.

baregreg

Thanks. I am a nice guy. Well, I think I am. ;)

I participate on many websites, blogs, discussion boards and so on in debate: it's what I enjoy doing. Usually, I am a member and/or supporter if the aims of the group concerned, so my posts are less controversial than they are on here.

Remember that I didn't start this thread and the person who did - a nudist - actually says that he started it with me in mind. So of course I'm going to participate and engage people in debate.

Remember, too, that this particular topic (i.e. public nudity) is probably the only one where I disagree with the views of the majority of nudist posters on here. I have discussed issues on other threads where I am sure my views would not be markedly different from yours.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

this particular topic[/U] (i.e. public nudity) is probably the only one where I disagree with the views of the majority of nudist posters on here. I have discussed issues on other threads where I am sure my views would not be markedly different from yours.

Stu


Say what?


Had to re-read that one!! And again, say what?

[Stu2630]

Had to re-read that one!! And again, say what?

If you didn't get it first time, let me spell it out for you again, MoonShadow. The only real area of disagreement I have with nudists on here relates to nakedness (or semi-nakedness) being visible in or from public places. The only addition to that might be that I think there should be remedies for owners of property who are subjected to open and flagrant nakedness from inconsiderate neighbours. Aside from that, I'm struggling to understand why you regard me as hostile to nudism.

Just look at the areas where I support nudists:


I think there should be far more nudist beaches, better and more accessible beaches and ones with good facilities.
I think nudists should be allocated sections of larger public parks.
I think nudists should have their own sessions in public pools etc.
I think nudists should not be punished or hounded if they take reasonable steps to prevent themselves from being seen when using remote places for hiking, skinnydipping etc
I think nudists should not be discriminated against for jobs, education, public office, adopting children etc
I think nudism is misunderstood by many people and nudists get a raw deal
I think nudists are citizens and taxpayers and should be listened to by government
I think most nudists are decent and considerate people
I think nudists should be free to raise their kids as nudists
I think nudist places should be properly policed (e.g. protected from gawkers, photographers, etc)If all textiles were like me, nudists would get a far better deal in society than they get now, yet I am vilified on here. Is that fair? I don't think so. But I've long since abandoned any hope of being treated fairly by you.

Stu

[spiceant]

I feel the question in itself is an oxymoron or paradoxial in a sense. There is no such thing as human rights, they are an invention or (re)discovery of civilization. There are no rights. Reality doesnt considder rights. The lion does not considder the rights of a deer and neither does the herbivore think of the plant "to violate or not to violate the plant's rights, thats the question.". They simply do what they feel is best, what bubbles up from intuition/instinct or if your a bible-ish believing entity, whatever god/holyspirit bubbles up in them.

The question should not be wether there should be the right to be nude in public but rather wether it is the right thing to do to be nude in public (to be reconsiddered on every occasion where the possibility presents itself). Human rights are a divise darkening and confusing rethoric to divide us all up (divide and conquer). Human rights are a confusing idea because it creates unneceserry divisions by creating synonyms for the truth and then pretending the synonyms are different.
To "honor human rights" is to simply do the right thing, to be smart and wise. Saying something should be a right because it is the right thing to do is paradoxial because both parts of the sentence mean the same. We have the "right" to freedom from slavery/murder/theft because that allows us to express our creative potential which is good for everyone (and likewise it is evil to inhibit these). Honoring freedom/life/property is the right thing to do. The two are one and the same, common sense. Saying human rights are good is like saying god said it thus it must be true. God is synonymous with truth. Saying "god said it thus it is true" is like saying "it truly happened thus it is true" its one and the same. No saints have ever spoken of so called human rights, but only simply about the right thing to do/think.

Then the question becomes wether its the good thing to be nude when we want to be and these are my thoughts on that subject:
If you have reason to believe a possible action may result in conflict you first take the default action to prevent the conflict (such as covering body parts). Ofcourse (i suppose) many people here will still be confronted and stirred by their desire to be free to be nude more liberally... ie in their frontyards or on the streets. One way to achieve this is to discuss with the people who have the potential to get into conflict with you. Make all concerned aware of your understanding and intent about nudism and discuss only limited up to the point where your "fist gets to their tip of their nose". Write newsletters, start a group to educate people, do some research, invite them to CO beaches/clubs etc... If you cause conflict you are in dishonour and because of this by definition have not resolved with your brother will "burn in hell" (have problems), no sympathy and thus no succes. A foremost cause of conflict is laziness and so none causing conflict will have sympathy. The game of "rights" or freedom is a game sympathy. Its like jesus spoke in matthew 5:25
Agree with your adversary, while you are with him; so that he does not deliver you to a judge and you get penalized.
If you do things in a shady manner darkly (meaning that your not being talkative about it) your gonna be treated like everybody that is acting in a shady manner... and knowing record of those shady people, thats not gonna be a good thing.
Blessed are the peacemakers (that resolve confrontations by peacefull means, instead of conflict.)

(And i suggest this discussion does good only for those considdering dilligently, which i observe stu to be doing. I considder him mostly to totally justified in his arguments.)

[Stu2630]

Spiceant

An interesting and thought-provoking contribution. It's certainly a fascinating and radical idea that there is no such thing as human rights, and worthy of contemplation. Although I'm an atheist, I'm intrigued by your idea about "doing the right thing" and wonder how people like me, with no "scripture" to navigate by, can know what is right and what is not. I suppose it comes down to a combination of reasoning and human empathy.

I certainly do share your view about avoiding conflict (if I have understood you correctly) and this is what I have been advocating for some time. From a moral standpoint, we all should consider the feelings of others who could be affected by their behaviour, and modify our behaviour to minimise offence. Nudists are no exception to that. From a pragmatic standpoint, by refraining from nudity which antagonises non-nudists, nudists are demonstrating that they are decent and considerate people and therefore deserve respect and consideration themselves.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Denial means denying a problem - but I don't have a problem as such because I live a normal and well-functioning lifestyle."

Just because you can live a normal functioning life does not mean you are problem free. It just means that you have rearranged your life, in a functional way, around your avoidance of nudity. You got lucky to meet a woman who was so accommodating to meet your aversion needs. There are not that many around.

Stu:"If you behave in a way which you know is likely to upset or annoy at least some people, yet you persist in that behaviour, that will suffice as "intent" and you will probably fall foul of the law. The harm is the unnecessary upset or annoyance you have caused."

Now you are completing your thought. Before you just gave the intent of one person. But realize that virtually everything will likely cause at least some people to be upset or annoyed. Again, though, those feelings of annoyance or upset are a very low level of harm.

Stu:"I don't believe the 'belief of illegality' plays as big a part as you think. I see people speeding in their cars, driving using a mobile telephone, parking where they shouldn't and so on, but I have never known the sight of that give rise to complaint of being offended or distressed."

You, as well as the rest of us, are used to seeing speeders, distracted drivers, and illegal parkers. And while the latter two will probably bring out more emotion than the former, the reason they do not elicit as much emotion as public nudity is because we are so used to seeing it that we almost come to expect it (or are doing it ourselves at one time or another).

Stu:"I think every society has the duty to establish what the main sensibilities of the public are, what behaviour offends those sensibilities and whether that offence can be avoided without resorting to oppression."

Adding to that, the sensibilities must also be weighed in terms of how much harm the "offending action" causes. Is the harm just superficial or does it go deeper. If it goes deeper, how many people feel that and why? Is the practice allowed in private areas as well? Is there any harm there?

Bob S.

[spiceant]

Bob s.Now you are completing your thought. Before you just gave the intent of one person. But realize that virtually everything will likely cause at least some people to be upset or annoyed. Again, though, those feelings of annoyance or upset are a very low level of harm.

I think you call that very low level insignificant

Bob s. You, as well as the rest of us, are used to seeing speeders, distracted drivers, and illegal parkers. And while the latter two will probably bring out more emotion than the former, the reason they do not elicit as much emotion as public nudity is because we are so used to seeing it that we almost come to expect it.

That we are used to questionable things in one place does not justify questionable things to start occurring elsewhere. Going nude in public does as i noticed in other people when i went on a shirtless oneday freehugs parade half a year or so ago. Some people were scared by that alone and felt insecure and this does not compare to a vehicle standing standing still somewhere.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Surely a problem is only a problem if it gets in the way of you enjoying your life. It's hardly an onerous task to keep my life nudity-free. Nudity is not generally allowed in public, so I don't encounter it there, and nudity in my home is just something we have never done. It's just not an issue. But you are right about my wife being understanding. We are just six weeks from celebrating our 30th anniversary :D - something we are both proud of when we think of how many of our friends who have been divorced etc.

But realize that virtually everything will likely cause at least some people to be upset or annoyed.

This is true, but most forms of behaviour which can be expected to cause serious annoyance or offence are also illegal. Obscene language, rowdiness, displaying obscene images and so on are all physically harmless yet can give rise to negative emotions, so there are laws to protect us from them.

Again, though, those feelings of annoyance or upset are a very low level of harm

But it's avoidable harm and caused only because a tiny minority wish to behave in a way which is inconsiderate of the feelings of others. Bob, I think I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't ever be naked in public if you knew that some people present would be likely to get upset by it. So I find it strange that responsible and considerate nudists like you are supporting a right which can only benefit the irresponsible and inconsiderate.

You, as well as the rest of us, are used to seeing speeders, distracted drivers, and illegal parkers. And while the latter two will probably bring out more emotion than the former, the reason they do not elicit as much emotion as public nudity is because we are so used to seeing it that we almost come to expect it (or are doing it ourselves at one time or another).

It's not just that these offences are more commonplace - it's that most of us, at some time or other, have committed them ourselves. Even if we strongly disapprove of their behaviour, we can empathise with them to the extent that committing these offences may be illegal, but it is to a limited extent socially acceptable. Nudity in public is not a part of our culture and it invokes quite different emotions than seeing someone illegally parked. We may have sympathy with the driver who gets a ticket, but few would have any sympathy with the nude guy in the street when he gets arrested.

Adding to that, the sensibilities must also be weighed in terms of how much harm the "offending action" causes. Is the harm just superficial or does it go deeper. If it goes deeper, how many people feel that and why? Is the practice allowed in private areas as well? Is there any harm there?

Good questions! I think the harm is subjective - it depends on the individual viewing it at the time. Some people will be fine with it, some will be slightly perturbed, some will be disgusted or afraid and some will be angry. I don't believe that seeing nakedness causes long-term or severe distress as a general rule, so it is right that it is treated as a minor infringement of public order law. If you make something legal which was once illegal - if you assert that behaviour as a right, as proposed by this thread, you are sending a message to the public that the behaviour is entirely acceptable. Some people will then exercise that right because they have no consideration for others. And some will exercise it just for the heck of it - and because it causes negative reactions.

spiceant

You are right that very low level distress, annoyance etc is insignificant. It is doubtful that it would give rise to complaints in the first place because most people will tolerate it. The problem arises when it goes beyond very low level distress and into the realm of significant distress.

Some people were scared by that alone and felt insecure and this does not compare to a vehicle standing standing still somewhere.

That's a very good point.

Stu

[spiceant]

I want to add that based on my own experience with irrational fear it appears that what bubbles up in a few "radical" elements of prude populations is a trauma that they are reminded of when they are confronted with nudity which because it resurfaces right there at that point starts to upset them and because they dont want to deal with it react with rejection toward that which is causing it to resurface. Thus part of getting consent to do be nude more liberally is to help them get over their trauma's. Something which we are not trained to do and which most do not know how to do, because still have traumas of our own (and if we didnt have trauma's, we'd be enlightened; as in bhudda enlightened). Getting over emotional issues such as these can be done in a variety of ways but all of those involve consent of the involved. If there is no consent it makes it worse, thats why every spiritual teacher has said you should be peaceable with everyone so you do not stunt their growth. I am saying that going out and confronting people with their fears/traumas without their consent is very inconsiderate/rude/destructive/evil/dark and so also going out nude (where you are not expected to) is also inconsiderate/rude/etc.

Being nude makes you a much more open and expressive and by our nature we are reflective and thus because we are reflective we confront people with themselves, which most hate to do and will condemn you for if you force them to.

[nimrod]

But it's avoidable harm and caused only because a tiny minority wish to behave in a way which is inconsiderate of the feelings of others. Bob, I think I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't ever be naked in public if you knew that some people present would be likely to get upset by it. So I find it strange that responsible and considerate nudists like you are supporting a right which can only benefit the irresponsible and inconsiderate.

If you make something legal which was once illegal - if you assert that behaviour as a right, as proposed by this thread, you are sending a message to the public that the behaviour is entirely acceptable. Some people will then exercise that right because they have no consideration for others. And some will exercise it just for the heck of it - and because it causes negative reaction.
Stu

There are inconsiderate people every where, and there are many that will exploit the laws to their full benefit no matter what the laws are, this is nothing new and it will not change because a law was changed. If people had the right to be nude everywhere, there are some people who will take advatage, but how it benefits all, not just nudist, is that people will not be arrested just for the simple act of being nude. People will stop being arrested for indecent exposure after finding a secluded spot outside at night to pee because they could not make it to a toilet, and then they would not have to file as a sex offender and be branded for life, and would be able to find or keep a decent job and live in any neighborhood without the complications of having your name on a list that says you are a sex offender, which most people equate to being a child molester. It does not just benefit people that would exploit the law.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"most forms of behaviour which can be expected to cause serious annoyance or offence are also illegal. Obscene language, rowdiness, displaying obscene images and so on are all physically harmless yet can give rise to negative emotions, so there are laws to protect us from them."

Obscene language, while it may be illicit in England, is generally legal here. Rowdiness is hardly physically harmless. It can quickly and suddenly get out of hand. But are most people seriously annoyed or offended by nudity to justify its illegality? You would say not in some places.

And keep in mind that many forms of behaviour that are offensive are also legal. I find it offensive (yes, offensive) to see someone eating or chewing their gum with their mouth open. Every form of behaviour that can cause offense or serious annoyance that is also legal is merely considered rude. I find exposing hatred onto others to be deeply offensive, but I also will give them their freedom of speech as long as they do not fall foul of the law such as espousing violence as well.

I am willing to live with something that I am deeply offended by, in fact, I am willing to assure the offenders have their rights, all because I believe their rights do outrank my offense.

Stu:"I think I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't ever be naked in public if you knew that some people present would be likely to get upset by it. So I find it strange that responsible and considerate nudists like you are supporting a right which can only benefit the irresponsible and inconsiderate."

I would go naked in public if I had sufficient reason for doing so and it was legal. I would definitely try to minimize the view of those who were upset by it, but if that wasn't possible, it would depend on what I was doing.

This right would not benefit only the irresponsible and inconsiderate. It would actually deny the irresponsible and inconsiderate textiles their uncompromising views. This supposed right would guarantee people would not be arrested for lewdness merely for being naked.

Stu:"Nudity in public is not a part of our culture and it invokes quite different emotions than seeing someone illegally parked. We may have sympathy with the driver who gets a ticket, but few would have any sympathy with the nude guy in the street when he gets arrested."

It is because, as you and I said, speeding is commonplace and most experienced drivers are guilty of doing it at some point in their lives. If nudity were more commonplace, it would be viewed as the similarly. Look at streakers at sporting events. A good number of fans, more than you would say approve of it in the general public, cheer. It has become so commonplace that people just come to expect it.

By the way, I do not feel sympathy for someone who gets a ticket for speeding or illegal parking.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

there are many that will exploit the laws to their full benefit no matter what the laws are, this is nothing new and it will not change because a law was changed

The point is that where there are laws, at least such people could be removed from the public place, and even punished, if they weren't deterred.

but how it benefits all, not just nudist, is that people will not be arrested just for the simple act of being nude.

That doesn't "benefit all" - the vast majority of people have no desire ever to be nude in public. The only people who want that right are exhibitionists, extremist activists trying to make a point and a relatively few inconsiderate nudists.

People will stop being arrested for indecent exposure after finding a secluded spot outside at night to pee because they could not make it to a toilet, and then they would not have to file as a sex offender and be branded for life, and would be able to find or keep a decent job and live in any neighborhood without the complications of having your name on a list that says you are a sex offender, which most people equate to being a child molester.

I'm not in favour of such disproportionate, perhaps even draconian, punishments for simple nudity any more than you are. But that doesn't mean I think there should be a RIGHT to be nude in public either. Non-sexual nudity should be treated not as a sexual offence, with all the connotations and consequences that would carry, but as a minor infringement of the public order law - something akin to disorderly conduct. In most cases, offenders could be given a warning or, at worst, a moderate fine. The only times they ought to be arrested is if they either refuse to cover up, or they persistently get naked in public in spite of warnings.

BobS

Obscene language, while it may be illicit in England, is generally legal here. Rowdiness is hardly physically harmless.

Obscene language in public becomes illegal if the police can show that it was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. I would be amazed if most US districts don't have something similar. If the obscene language was used quietly between two individuals, then it is simple communication and would not cause the speaker to fall foul of the law. But if it were said in a loud voice, then it would go beyond communication and into the realms of "disorderly conduct". The harm that such behaviour causes is environmental: it makes that public place less benign - less user friendly especially if you are a child, a woman, an elderly person or a nervous person.

I find it offensive (yes, offensive) to see someone eating or chewing their gum with their mouth open.

So you would find it so profoundly offensive that you would avoid taking a child to a place where they may see someone doing this? You think films showing people chewing gum with their mouths open should be rated as adult only? I don't think so, Bob. The offence you are describing isn't what I would call "offence", rather unpleasant and uncouth behaviour - if it is offence at all, it is of an entirely different order of offence.

I find exposing hatred onto others to be deeply offensive, but I also will give them their freedom of speech as long as they do not fall foul of the law such as espousing violence as well.

Our legal philosophy has long recognised that there is a point at which a communication (expression) actually becomes a behaviour. Our law gives maximum rights with regard to the former but imposes greater limits on the latter, so it is an issue when the former crosses the line. I can write a book saying how much I hate Jews or homosexuals etc, but if I advocate violence towards them, or tell demonstrable lies about them so people will hate them, or if I march through a Jewish quarter of a town or an area known to have a large gay community with banners supporting Hitler's measures towards these people, this ceases to be mere communication and becomes a behaviour. I come on here because this is a channel of communication, but I would never go to a nudist beach where people are trying to have a good time waving a banner telling the people there that they are all sinners and are going to burn. Similarly, you are free to walk through my town wearing a tee-shirt or carrying a banner telling everyone how great nudism is, but you can't walk through our town naked. The former is a communication whereas the latter is a behaviour.

I am willing to live with something that I am deeply offended by

I am not willing to live with something that, while entirely avoidable, is likely to cause offence to people using public places, and i expect the law to uphold my right not to have to tolerate that.

I would definitely try to minimize the view of those who were upset by it, but if that wasn't possible, it would depend on what I was doing

The simplest way for a nude person to minimize upset would be to don a pair of shorts.

This right would not benefit only the irresponsible and inconsiderate. It would actually deny the irresponsible and inconsiderate textiles their uncompromising views.

It's not a case of "uncompromising views", Bob. Compromise requires negotiation and unwarranted public nakedness is uncompromising, in-your-face, like-it-or-not rudeness. The 'compromise' textiles offer you is your own public spaces to give you the opportunity to enjoy your nudism.

This supposed right would guarantee people would not be arrested for lewdness merely for being naked.

I have never advocated that people who are nude in public should be 'arrested for lewdness', but, as I said to Nimrod, that is very different to guaranteeing them a right to be naked in public. There are other legal remedies for dealing with potentially offensive nudity.

If nudity were more commonplace, it would be viewed as the similarly.

I don't believe people want it to be commonplace in their environment. And they shouldn't have it foist upon them in the name of an ideology of a tiny minority.

Look at streakers at sporting events. A good number of fans, more than you would say approve of it in the general public, cheer. It has become so commonplace that people just come to expect it.

Streakers at sporting events are exhibitionists. They are nothing to do with nudism. Their momentary nakedness is done to cause outrage, not to make nudity more commonplace. Those who cheer are usually the unthinking, boorish big-mouths who would cheer at anything revolting while those who are genuinely offended or annoyed stay quiet and never get heard. Streakers do not normalise nudity - they reinforce the public perception that it is rude and unacceptable. As for it becoming commonplace, many people now regard such people as buffoons and bores and the frequency of it has been diminishing for some years.

By the way, I do not feel sympathy for someone who gets a ticket for speeding or illegal parking.

Never? People get speeding tickets etc here because they are unfamiliar with the road, or the signage is poor or misleading, or because they are distracted by a child vomiting in the back of their car. Sure, if somebody wilfully and flagrantly disregards the law, nobody feels sorry for them, but these offences are more often committed inadvertently. But nobody is ever nude in public inadvertently!

Stu

[nimrod]

That doesn't "benefit all" - the vast majority of people have no desire ever to be nude in public. The only people who want that right are exhibitionists, extremist activists trying to make a point and a relatively few inconsiderate nudists.

Now Stu, you know that this is just not true. You have said that most nudist are considerate, yet most nudist here want the right to be nude anywhere. Are you trying to say that the nudist on this forum are not really nudist but exhibitionists, extremist activists, and inconsiderate. If I were not a nudist I would still be able to see the benifit of having the right to be nude in public. I can think of many examples that would be a benifit to people that do not consider themselves nudist.

The offence you are describing isn't what I would call "offence", rather unpleasant and uncouth behaviour - if it is offence at all, it is of an entirely different order of offence.

This makes a good point, what one considers to be an offence, does not make it offending to all, what we here have been trying to tell you for some time. There are many people that do not consider nudity as offensive, but rather unpleasant and uncouth behaviour. It is unfortunate that the ones that find it offensive are the same ones that want to pass laws that ban nudity all together and why it can be considered here in the U.S. as a sex crime.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

Now Stu, you know that this is just not true. You have said that most nudist are considerate, yet most nudist here want the right to be nude anywhere.

There is a difference between nudists wanting the 'right' to be nude in public, and actually exercising such a right by being nude in public places where they know it will cause offence. I don't believe most nudists would actually want to do that. So the 'right' is somewhat academic if you are a responsible and considerate nudist, yet it is something you will exploit to the full if you are an exhibitionist etc. Consequently, we should not give such a 'right' to people like that at the expense of other, decent people.

If I were not a nudist I would still be able to see the benifit of having the right to be nude in public. I can think of many examples that would be a benifit to people that do not consider themselves nudist.

Really? I can't. I can see "benefits" to exhibitionists, streakers, activists and a few inconsiderate nudists, but not to anyone else.

There are many people that do not consider nudity as offensive, but rather unpleasant and uncouth behaviour.

Many people find it genuinely offensive, too - so offensive they would be horrified if their children encountered such a thing.

It is unfortunate that the ones that find it offensive are the same ones that want to pass laws that ban nudity all together

Am I not living proof that not everyone who is opposed to public nudity wants to ban nudity altogether. Any legislator who approves a segregated nudist beach must also fall into that category - and that's most legislators!

and why it can be considered here in the U.S. as a sex crime.

Remember that I said it shouldn't be a sex crime.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

The whirring never stops

[spiceant]

If you want the right, why not ask for it in community centers, at community meetings and other places where applicable and afterwards the police (after achieving community consent) so they wont bother you? It is quite amazing when you can get people to talk in a peacefull manner. In here you may not convince (someone like) stu by yourself but with the help of some yet sleeping but potential nudist friends who knows what happens? It should be tried, atleast.

if we keep this subject limited to the internet nothing else happens forever. So we ought to try atleast something else?

[Stu2630]

spiceant

I wouldn't take much convincing.

All I would want to know is firstly is there sufficient demand for nudist sessions, areas etc. And secondly, are non-nudists protected from seeing nudity they may not be comfortable with (e.g. screens, signs etc). If the answer to both is YES, then I would be supportive.

You see, in spite of what some here would have you believe, I am not anti-nudist at all. So long as I can live my life free from encountering nakedness, I am happy to make accommodations for nudism.

Stu

[TreyS]

We could all speculate, but I wonder what percentage of the nonnudist population actually is as willing as Stu is to be accommodating to nudists?

[nacktman]

We could all speculate, but I wonder what percentage of the nonnudist population actually is as willing as Stu is to be accommodating to nudists?

There is no need to speculate.
There have been surveys done (by ROPER and GALLUP and RUETERS) and over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around.

[nimrod]

There is a difference between nudists wanting the 'right' to be nude in public, and actually exercising such a right by being nude in public places where they know it will cause offence. I don't believe most nudists would actually want to do that. So the 'right' is somewhat academic if you are a responsible and considerate nudist, yet it is something you will exploit to the full if you are an exhibitionist etc. Consequently, we should not give such a 'right' to people like that at the expense of other, decent people.

As I have said before, we should have the right, where and when to practice that right is what is in question, you say basically the same thing here except that you are opposed to giving nudist the choice, or freedom, or "right". Maybe we need to add a how it is practiced also. If it was mainly for shock value and sexual gratification, then it would be exhibitionistic,(Is that a word?) and problematic.

Really? I can't. I can see "benefits" to exhibitionists, streakers, activists and a few inconsiderate nudists, but not to anyone else.

That is because of your intolerance. I gave one example of someone urinating. It happens often, someone needing to go but not having time, or unable to find a bathroom, out on a county road in the middle of nowhere. The person can be arrested, or fined for nudity not only the urinating, and sometimes only for the nudity. How does this situation not benefit a non-nudist?

Nudity alone is not offencive, or offending, it is the person viewing it that makes a choice to be offended by it. Can it be used in an offending way? Yes. My middle finger is not offencive, or offending until I use it in an offending or aggresive way, it is the same with nudity.

[Stu2630]

here have been surveys done (by ROPER and GALLUP and RUETERS) and over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around.

Absolute nonsense! :laugh: Prove it!

Nimrod

As I have said before, we should have the right, where and when to practice that right is what is in question, you say basically the same thing here except that you are opposed to giving nudist the choice, or freedom, or "right".

I don't believe you should have such a right, legally, because it is unnecessary and does offend people. We are just going to have to agree to differ about that.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Really? I can't. I can see "benefits" to exhibitionists, streakers, activists and a few inconsiderate nudists, but not to anyone else. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That is because of your intolerance.

No it's not. It's because you are struggling to enumerate these supposed 'benefits'.

I gave one example of someone urinating. It happens often, someone needing to go but not having time, or unable to find a bathroom, out on a county road in the middle of nowhere.... How does this situation not benefit a non-nudist?

Urinating has nothing to do with nudity. A person can urinate in a corner without undressing and without anyone catching sight of any intimate part of his body. You can make laws about when and where urinating is permissible without making any reference to nudity. If somebody is caught short in a quiet spot and needs to pass water, they invariably do it. Usually it's where it's not likely to upset anyone. If they do it openly, or if they do it in a place where it is likely to be offensive (like in a shop doorway or a telephone kiosk), then they are punished for urinating, not for nudity.

Nudity alone is not offensive, or offending, it is the person viewing it that makes a choice to be offended by it.

It's not that we make a conscious "choice" about what offends us - it's simply that we are acculturated to find certain things offensive and we have no desire to re-programme our sensibilities. This applies to anything that offends, not just nudity. If you live in a society, you respect the culture of that society and you show consideration for the comfort and sensibilities of other members of it.

Can it be used in an offending way? Yes. My middle finger is not offencive, or offending until I use it in an offending or aggresive way, it is the same with nudity.

So far as I am concerned, you are using nudity in an offensive way if you get naked in circumstances where it is not expectable within our societal norms.

Stu

[spiceant]

I believe in conformity with (or a return to) nature/god which includes fulltime nudism for everyone to be manifested harmoniously eventually. I believe in allowing the nude manifestation of the human bodies to be like that everywhere where whichever soul wants just like any other garment is acceptable and normal (almost) everywhere.

All I would want to know is firstly is there sufficient demand for nudist sessions This (clarity) will be one of the primary fronts to explore. Just to see how what people really think, ie to for the first time in their lives confront people with what they'r not yet aware of. (As im sure your exposure to the nudism subject has atleast revealed a few things to you which "the majority" is yet not even aware of?) A foremost objective certainly for something like a 'right' to be nude, is mass awareness. Unless, we just want to talk and not achieve anything else?

[Stu2630]

spiceant

A foremost objective certainly for something like a 'right' to be nude, is mass awareness. Unless, we just want to talk and not achieve anything else?

A mass awareness of what? Everyone already has a relationship with their own naked body (even me), and most people have regular situations in their lives when they are with other people who are naked (their partners, children, people in changing rooms, locker rooms etc). So people are aware of nakedness and what it means to be naked. For the vast majority, nakedness is something which exists within certain clearly defined contexts and rarely outside of them.

Nudism should not be regarded as a cause in its own right: rather it is something which is simply enjoyed by those who want to practise it. If nudists do have causes, they should be to maximise their opportunities to enjoy nudism (i.e. more venues/facilities); to maximise the pleasure they gain from it (i.e. better venues/facilities) and to eradicate discrimination against nudists which arises from myth and disinformation in the minds of some of the public.

It is neither a valid nor a viable cause for nudists to have the objective of converting the wider society in which we all live into some sort of nudist utopia. Nudists must always be mindful that nudism is a specialist interest, will always remain so, and the nakedness they enjoy is not usually compatible with the comfort of the non-nudist majority.

Stu

[nacktman]

The most recent poll of 2006


Poll (http://www.naturisteducation.org/NEF-Roper_Poll_2006.pdf)


The results of earlier polls

Poll (http://www.naturisteducation.org/Projects/NEF-Roper_Poll_2006/nef-roper_poll_2006.html)

[TreyS]

Given the poll results shared by nacktman, how would one determine whether or not public nudity would represent an offense to the basic values of most people?

[Stu2630]

TreyS

Nacktman said:

over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around.So let's look at what these polls actually ask:

Question 1: Do you believe that people who enjoy nude sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from local officials so long as they do so at a beach accepted for that purpose?

Result: 74% Yes

"....so long as they do so at a beach accepted for that purpose?"
In other words - at a naturist beach. Now that's a million miles from saying that over 80% (74% is not over 80%), but, more importantly, that 74% are certainly not saying they have"been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around". They are simply not objecting to the existence of naturist beaches. Nor am I.

Question 2: Local and state governments now set aside public land for special types of recreation such as snowmobiling, surfboarding and hunting. Do you think special and secluded areas should be set aside by the government for people who enjoy nude sunbathing.

Result: 54% Yes

"set aside" "special types of recreation" "special and secluded areas"

Again, this is a question asking people whether there should be naturist beaches, set apart from textile beaches. Again, that's a million miles from saying that over 80% (54% is not over 80%), and again that 54% are certainly not saying they don't "care one way or the other if there were nude people around". This question implies clear segregation of nudism from the textile population.

Question 3: "Have you, personally, ever gone 'skinnydipping' or nude sunbathing in a mixed group of men and women at a beach, at a pool, or elsewhere?"

Result: 25% Yes

The vast majority, nearly three-quarters, haven't done this. As for the 25% who have, the question does not ask how long ago they did this, how old they were at the time, whether the respondents believe that this sort of behaviour is generally acceptable on beaches, or whether the presence of naked people on beaches they visit with their families would bother them. Virtually everyone who drives a car has committed a driving offence at some time or other - that does not mean that drivers generally approve of, or are not bothered by, people who commit driving offences.

As you can see, I have totally destroyed Nacktman's claim that his results of the poll show that "over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around". He has made a ridiculous and unsustainable claim.

If this poll shows anything, it shows that a fairly narrow majority of people are cool with the idea that nudists are allocated some nudist beaches of their own in secluded areas. Personally, I would be a bit more generous to nudists than that

Stu

[spiceant]

spiceant

A mass awareness of what? Everyone already has a relationship with their own naked body (even me), and most people have regular situations in their lives when they are with other people who are naked (their partners, children, people in changing rooms, locker rooms etc). So people are aware of nakedness and what it means to be naked. For the vast majority, nakedness is something which exists within certain clearly defined contexts and rarely outside of them.

What i mean is a deeper awareness, because the majority have given the subject only very little superficial thought and that which they have is usually still group thought which by itself is dogma a reiteration of mindless status quo because it has simply been inherited / assumed mindlessly over the 2000 years of traumatization by the the war on the soul by the popes (which we are the result of). Before christianity nudity was simply just that simply another type of fashion untill christianity spread the shame doctrine across by way of tyranny, bloodshed, torture, ignorance and trauma. Its that war that is still at the root of much of our civilization. Prudism is irrational is and was generated by christian/islamic deception and dogma and perpetuated for the sake of a false sense of civilization and righteous order.

Nudism should not be regarded as a cause in its own right: rather it is something which is simply enjoyed by those who want to practise it. If nudists do have causes, they should be to maximise their opportunities to enjoy nudism (i.e. more venues/facilities); to maximise the pleasure they gain from it (i.e. better venues/facilities) and to eradicate discrimination against nudists which arises from myth and disinformation in the minds of some of the public.¨


This way of nude recreation is rather limited and at places the distance to travel to such venues is great and for some people the available facilities cost too much.


It is neither a valid nor a viable cause for nudists to have the objective of converting the wider society in which we all live into some sort of nudist utopia. Nudists must always be mindful that nudism is a specialist interest, will always remain so, and the nakedness they enjoy is not usually compatible with the comfort of the non-nudist majority.

Stu

Prudism has not always been and will not always be. It came to be and it will come to pass. You insinuate that big changes are impossible. I do intend to create among others a "nudist utopia" and so i intend to make that compatible with everyone all the way from individuals to the global community.

edit1:
also i want to add that covering your body up is unnatural and unhealthy. It limits your exposure to sun and fresh air and causes sweat on the skin to rot (which is why you wash your clothes) and come back into your body. It causes inactivity, because it becomes unneceserry to excercise moderatly because the clothes by themselves keep you warm even while totally inactive. Jogging for example also is best done in the nude as the clothes absorb all the sweat which cannot be justified, because in the nude it would all vaporize and the air would keep you fresh. There is no good reason for clothes unless it is really really cold. Forcing others to wear clothes is in this sense criminal.

[Stu2630]

Before christianity nudity was simply just that simply another type of fashion untill christianity spread the shame doctrine across by way of tyranny, bloodshed, torture, ignorance and trauma. Its that war that is still at the root of much of our civilization. Prudism is irrational is and was generated by christian/islamic deception and dogma and perpetuated for the sake of a false sense of civilization and righteous order.

Many of the world's cultures and religions have taboos about nudity, not just Christianity and many of these taboos long pre-date Christianity. I am an atheist, so religion plays no part in the dislike I have for nakedness outside of certain contexts. I do not regard nudity as sinful because I do not believe that sin exists. While I regard nakedness in public as offensive and uncivilised, I recognise that others feel differently about it and want to practise it, and so I am willing to see some public lands allocated for the use of the minority of people who feel that way. Prudism may be irrational - but our sensibilities aren't founded upon rationality. We are creatures of our culture and we have emotions, values and sensitivities which do not always accord with cold logic.

This way of nude recreation is rather limited and at places the distance to travel to such venues is great and for some people the available facilities cost too much.

It doesn't have to be that way. If there was sufficient will on the part of the authorities, nudists could be allocated more places and venues which were more easily accessible from centres of population.

Prudism has not always been and will not always be. It came to be and it will come to pass. You insinuate that big changes are impossible.

Oh, I think prudism will always exist within the human psyche. The form of it will change, morph and evolve into something different to what we have today, but it will always be there. We are children of our time and must work and co-exist with others within the behavioural frameworks determined by our cultural norms. Of course we can question these norms, but if we defy them to the extent that we offend others, then we are putting our own ideology ahead of the comfort of others and that is wrong.

also i want to add that covering your body up is unnatural and unhealthy. It limits your exposure to sun and fresh air and causes sweat on the skin to rot (which is why you wash your clothes) and come back into your body.

Human beings weren't designed to live in most of the environments we inhabit today and we can't function in these places without clothing being worn much of the time. Many things are strictly unnatural for us to do as animals - speaking, turning on the heating, cooking food, using a computer! We have long abandoned any notion of being simply a species of animal living as nature intended in the forests and plains of central Africa.

Forcing others to wear clothes is in this sense criminal.

Our physical selves are part of who we are - but so is our culture. I want to live in a nudity-free environment, but I am prepared to allow places to be set aside for those who feel as you do - places where you will not be forced to wear clothes. All I ask is that I am able to avoid the sight of you when you are naked.

Stu

[nacktman]

Given the poll results shared by nacktman, how would one determine whether or not public nudity would represent an offense to the basic values of most people?

Just read all the poll results and you will see that the facts and figures I posted are accurate.

Do not be like some who only parse out what they think will bolster their faulty position.

[Stu2630]

Just read all the poll results and you will see that the facts and figures I posted are accurate.

I have read ALL the poll results Nacktman has cited and there is not one shred of evidence that over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around. If you read the evidence, it clearly shows the contrary! The only question I missed was this one:

Question 4: Do you believe people should be able to be nude in their backyard without interference, even if they may be visible to others?

And the results showed that a very decisive 74% of people answered NO.

This proves that Nacktman's assertion that "over 80% of the population either has been nude socially, or didn't care one way or the other if there were nude people around" is ludicrous and unsustainable. Either he's joking around, is in serious denial, or is incapable of interpreting his own statistics.

Stu

[nacktman]

Harris Poll: Nudity Results

Question: Have you ever been nude in a social or group setting?
USA Men USA Women European Men European Women

Yes 37% 26% 64% 60%

No 63% 74% 34% 40%


Question: Have you ever been to a nude beach?


Yes 42% 34% 79% 76%

No 58% 66% 21% 24%


Question: Would you be concerned if others were nude around you?

Yes 15% 27% 6% 11%
No 85% 73% 94% 89%



Actually I was being generous to the prudes.

The results of this independent poll are strikingly similar to the poll on this thread.

So, obviously you haven't read all the poll results and you obviously have no clue how to interpret them.

[Stu2630]

Harris Poll: Nudity Results....Please supply a link to prove these figures because they're not on the link you provided before.

So let's see 'em!

:D

Stu

[spiceant]

Many of the world's cultures and religions have taboos about nudity Do you know the name of one of those cultures or religions? I will apreciate it. I am not aware of any.

Human beings weren't designed to live in most of the environments we inhabit today...Most of the enviroments we live in have been obliterated as civilization expanded... ie in america there were many forests but the colonialists hunted carnivores for sport which resulted in overpopulation of herbivores which devestated forests. The same happened in europe with farmers protecting their cattle (which didnt belong there to begin with) from carnivores. More lately as the second chemical world war is continued against our soil it is being killed by monoculture, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. That in turn causes the plants to be weak and malnourished making them weak to pests and tasteless (requiring more pesticides in a vicious circle) as their nutritional value has dropped dramatically since the conception of industrial warfare on agriculture (WW2). Which makes for a strong economy that flourishes on sick malnourished depandent people.

Forests cool down hot climates and make cold areas warmer, which is a benefit we have lost now that we have deforested huge areas for the sake of flat agricultural lands. Additionally acid rain further weakens forests, road networks weaken the interface between parts of nature and modern lighting disrupts animals life and thus nature as a whole. Which all in turn allows for more destructive enviromental events such as storms/hurricanes and floods which are normally inhibited by nature/forests.

and we can't function in these places without clothing being worn much of the time. Many things are strictly unnatural for us to do as animals - speaking, turning on the heating, cooking food, using a computer! We have long abandoned any notion of being simply a species of animal living as nature intended in the forests and plains of central Africa. In many places we can indeed not function at all (which iv said is partially because of civilization) and simply in others this does not at all apply where it is always or mostly warm enough. Why do you assume cooking your food is some sort of good thing? Cooking your food kills it, makes it hard to digest as you must now use your own enzymes as there arent any left in the food itself. It destroys nutrients and generetes addictive poisons which gets worse the hotter and longer you cook it (which is in extreme cases examplified when it gets burned outright) which is simply proven by a massive immume response to any cooked food being ingested (which tires most people). Foods that need to be cooked are simply not made to be ingested to begin with. The premise of cooking food isn't scientific, it is a dogma perpetuated by the popes' their war. We definatly have not evolved or been created to eat cooked food. We dont evolve that fast.

have long abandoned any notion of being simply a species of animal living as nature intended in the forests and plains of central Africa. You seem to think that going beyond nature is some measure of progress? Why?! There is hardly any good about civilization as we know it. We as a civilization have "evolved/progressed" to the point we need (as the only 'smart' animal) to wipe our buts clean, where we eat food while sick even though it cant be digested, where we kill eachother and have become capable of desolating the entire planet. Where we are inventing new ways to harm eachother every day. Where we invent crops to kill themselves (terminator seeds).Where working from 9 to 5 and appointing official criminals to do their job justifies them not caring about anything else. Where we are destroying natures diversity and destroying the potential of herbal medicines by isolating their (best) healing substances and synthesizing patentable (economical) chemical harmfull copies that all have side effects (are poison). "progressed" to have an economy that proliferates on dependancy (disease/malnutrition/war/conflict/lawsuits/etc). "progressed" to be more distant/apathic to our neighbours then ever before in known history. We are still "evolving" into more sedentary, dumber and sicker species then ever before. Call that anything but progress and don't call it to justify opression in any form.

Of course we can question these norms, but if we defy them to the extent that we offend others, then we are putting our own ideology ahead of the comfort of others and that is wrong. I think i adressed this before? I want to make universal nudism (to be nude when an individual wants) compatible with everyone all the way from individuals to the global community, harmoniously.

I differentiate between confrontations and conflict. Confrontations can seem like conflict when they stir up some emotion but it is wether it is expressed harmoniously or chaotically which does or not allow it to be called a conflict. (confrontation being good and conflict being bad)

[Stu2630]

spiceant

According to the Romans writer Aelian, some of the Gaelic tribes people had what he called "superstitions" about nakedness. In the Jewish religion, under the laws of Tznius (modesty), both men and women cannot reveal the body parts considered to have sexual connotation (including upper arms, collarbones, legs, and — for married women and all men — hair, which is covered completely or partially). In all cultures, nudity itself isn't the issue - it's a question of when and where it is permissible - the context.

We have long since pulled away from our natural origins and that's why we bear such little resemblance in terms of our behaviour and our thought processes to our nearest anthropological relatives such as chimpanzees and orang-utans. I'm not convinced that it does us any good to think in those terms any more, including when it comes to our health. The human race could not survive in its present numbers if we returned to the days of foraging and hunting as practised by our distant ancestors. And we certainly couldn't survive naked in most parts of the planet.

I want to make universal nudism (to be nude when an individual wants) compatible with everyone all the way from individuals to the global community, harmoniously.

I know you do - I'm sure many nudists would like the same thing. But I don't want to live in the world you outline; the future you offer isn't a future I want. People can behave pretty much as they like in private places, but when they enter the public domain, they must behave in a way which pretty much everyone else finds acceptable. And we don't find nudity acceptable.

I differentiate between confrontations and conflict. Confrontations can seem like conflict when they stir up some emotion but it is wether it is expressed harmoniously or chaotically which does or not allow it to be called a conflict. (confrontation being good and conflict being bad)

I don't go into public places to be "confronted" by behaviour I find unacceptable, or to confront others. I want to be comfortable in such places - to enjoy them. I am prepared to restrain my behaviour when in public places in order to protect the feelings of others who are sharing these spaces with me. If you enter a public place and behave in a way you know that many people will find unacceptable, you are invoking conflict and the law should protect people from you.

Stu

[TreyS]

In my previous post I wasn't trying to address whether people might dislike public nudity. I was attempting to raise the issue of what the poll results nacktman provided indicate about whether or not public nudity would offend the basic values of most people.

[Stu2630]

TreyS

The only poll results nacktman has actually linked to tell us that most people are OK with nudists having their own segregated beaches "in secluded areas", and that about three-quarters of people have never been skinnydipping or nude sunbathing in mixed company are the same proportion are opposed to back-yard nudity. These results seem to show that most people are at least as "prudish" as I am, and possibly more so!

When challenged on this, he has then presented us with some statistics which he claims are from a Harris poll, but I'm still waiting for him to provide a link so that we can see these for ourselves.

Opinion polls are never entirely reliable at the best of times because their methods are unscientific. That is especially true when they are commissioned to do polls by interested parties (like nudists). They tend to design the questions which are most likely to get answers their clients want to see while avoiding asking questions which could undermine their clients' interests. Nevertheless, the poll (http://www.naturisteducation.org/NEF-Roper_Poll_2006.pdf) which nacktman did kindly provide a link for is extremely helpful to my argument - and utterly destroys his! :)

Stu

[BrianRI]

I think people should be allowed to be nude in public.

Men are allowed to be topless in public and have nipples. Why not women?

I think that everyone has seen the oposite sex nede at some point (either changing a diaper or being sexually active) We all have the same stuff. if someone sees someone of the same sex nude in the locker room, it should be the same as seeing someone of the oposite sex.

[Boreas]

I think people should be allowed to be nude in public.

Men are allowed to be topless in public and have nipples. Why not women?

I think that everyone has seen the oposite sex nede at some point (either changing a diaper or being sexually active) We all have the same stuff. if someone sees someone of the same sex nude in the locker room, it should be the same as seeing someone of the oposite sex.

I agree. Perhaps nudity could be in any casual spot where men can currently be topless. I think places like summer folk festivals, beaches and backyards to start. I live in the cold snowy Canadian near north, so we do have some limits on our outdoor nude time here!

[Stu2630]

I think that everyone has seen the opposite sex nude at some point

Brian - your logic is faulty. For a start, many children of textiles haven't seen adult nudity and we don't want them to.

Besides, we've all heard people using obscene language at some point, but that doesn't mean we want to see posters displaying obscene words or hear them being spoken on public address systems in shopping centres. We've all seen pornographic images but that doesn't mean it is acceptable for them to be displayed on advertising billboards.

Stu

[spiceant]

Why do you not want to see or have your children see nude people?

[Stu2630]

spiceant

Why do you not want to see or have your children see nude people?The sight of nakedness outside of certain clearly defined contexts arouses in me very unpleasant negative feelings including a profound discomfort. My wife now feels the same as I do about this: we prefer to live a nudity-free lifestyle in a nudity-free environment.

I don't want my children to see nakedness partly because I want them to think of nakedness, their own and others', as something very intimate and appropriate only in the most private of circumstances. The second reason is that I don't want my children to question why males and females are anatomically different because that will raise questions about sex which I don't want to have to answer until they, and I, feel the time is right. I'm sure you won't agree with this aspect of our approach to raising our children, but they are our children and it's a matter for us to decide.

Stu

[Boreas]

Stu, I believe your kids are already of an age where you would have spoken to them about sex. If not, I would recommend the book Speaking of Sex by Meg Hickling. It is excellent. She advocates teaching kids about sex in an age approriate manner, all through their lives. This may just start with teaching them the proper names of body parts, or with giving them short bits of information. She is a nurse who has retired. She is an award winning sex educator here in British Columbia. She states (and I agree) that when kids know the proper labels and have the proper information, they are less likely to be victims of sexual predators.

Extreme secrecy regarding nudity can create the perfect situation for a child to be sexually abused.

[spiceant]

The way you raise your children is your concern altough and naturally i don't raise children like you do for a number of reasons and won't say/suggest anything to children of which i think it may cause significant conflict with their parents. I considder sex/gender education to be beneficial to even young children as it takes away secrecy/taboo and thus any unnaturally groteque curiousity for the unkown which may result in all those things you don't want children to end up in. As also this kind of thing if done harmoniously leads to a more open relations for and by parents.

I think you misunderstood (or did not adress) me. Our physical selves are part of who we are - but so is our culture. I want to live in a nudity-free environment, but I am prepared to allow places to be set aside for those who feel as you do - places where you will not be forced to wear clothes. All I ask is that I am able to avoid the sight of you when you are naked. My intent is not as i think you think to get a right to be nude but the consent of (people like) you. I don't yet so i want to get a deeper understanding to the point we have a mutual consensus / meeting of minds / etc. As i don't think cultural values are something that are constants and should go any more unquestioned then dogma. (The people themselves ofcourse should be respected). Its not a license to kill/offend but to understand completely, to come to some sort of agreement / meeting of mind / consensus / unification. I call it the 'child's game of why why why'?

[Stu2630]

Boreas

Thanks for the tips about child sex education. I had already heard of the book you recommend and that it is a particularly well-written book. We have three children, two of whom are grown up. Our eldest qualifies as a doctor next week (yes, next week! :)) and her partner is a psychiatrist, so I think she knows far more about this than I do. Our middle child is a trainee engineer and keen amateur sportsman who has lived with his girlfriend for the past three years, so he too will be well acquainted with the facts of life. Our youngest is just 12-years- old and I believe she has covered this topic at school. Funnily enough, my wife and I were talking about what appears to be her lack of knowledge on this issue just a few days ago: we had expected her to be more informed than she appears to be and so I suggested to my wife that she establishes just how much she knows and, if she is still ignorant, we buy her a book like the one you suggest. So we'll keep your suggestion in mind.

I note you say that "extreme secrecy regarding nudity can create the perfect situation for a child to be sexually abused". While I wouldn't disagree with that, extreme secrecy of any sort in a child is unhealthy. In our house, our children have always known that there are "private times" when they (and we adults) need to be alone for going to the toilet, bathing and getting dressed/undressed. Breaching other people's private times was akin to rudeness, so it wasn't acceptable. We set an example by respecting their privacy and we expected them to respect ours, but that was as far as it went. I certainly don't regard it as a form of "extreme secrecy" because it was a subject which was freely discussed - especially if any member of the household had transgressed the rule.

spiceant

I note what you say, but please don't overlook the fact that our way of raising our children has proved extremely successful so far, with our eldest two at least. They are well-balanced adults in long-term relationships and they have voiced not only approval and gratitude for the way they were raised, but they have volunteered an intention to bring up their own children in the same way that they were. They think that nudity is something which should be kept for the strictly private and intimate domain of the bathroom and bedroom within the home. And lastly, we have always enjoyed the most harmonious relationships with them that you could imagine. You see, there are many ways of bringing up a child successfully and everyone of us has to decide for ourselves which one we think is best for our own children.

My intent is not as i think you think to get a right to be nude but the consent of (people like) you. I don't yet so i want to get a deeper understanding to the point we have a mutual consensus / meeting of minds / etc.

Now if you think about it, there is something of a contradiction here. You want to get consent from people like me to be nude, but that would require a fundamental change to take place in our perceptions for that to be acceptable. And then you say you want to gain a deeper understanding: I can only presume you want that understanding in order to change us. Have you thought that perhaps we don't want to be changed? Have you thought that perhaps our perceptions of nakedness are, while different to yours, are just as valid? Of course we can co-exist in society, but the logical way for that to happen is by segregation of nudism from textilism. This alternative will, if carried out properly, respect both points of view and doesn't invalidate, or try to impose change on, the other.

As i don't think cultural values are something that are constants and should go any more unquestioned then dogma.

I totally agree. But remember that cultural values evolve over time, often a very long time, and no minority has the right to engineer the direction of that evolution merely to satisfy their own ambitions or desires. You mention the importance of "understanding" the mindset of the textile mindset - that may be a topic of academic interest, but understanding alone won't change it - and nor should it. Trying to use that understanding to effect changes is precisely the kind of "engineering" I'm talking about and that is disrespectful to textiles because it implies that your mindset is the right one and theirs is the wrong one. It is also deeply unethical, and i know you wouldn't want to do that.

Stu

[spiceant]

This alternative will, if carried out properly, respect both points of view and doesn't invalidate, or try to impose change on, the other. I disagree it respects both points of view as some people despise being limited to just segregated areas. At this point you support the textile view because it is supported by the majority?

Have you thought that perhaps we don't want to be changed?
If you don't want to be changed that leaves me to my last known resort. To cause the need to want to be changed and the only harmonious/ethical way i know of doing this is by example which leaves me at the risk of being a hypocrite if i type much more.
(And i want to add that i won't follow your example because i perceive you (and most nudists here) as supporting modern society, which i condemn. Going any further is at the risk of going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay offtopic.)

At this point in our respective societys i agree that at least for now nudism should be kept in set apart areas and that supply (of naturist facilities) be met by demand. If that is all i considder further debate pointless at this time.

peace :)

[Stu2630]

At this point in our respective societies i agree that at least for now nudism should be kept in set apart areas and that supply (of naturist facilities) be met by demand.

I entirely agree; for now and for a very long time to come. :D

Stu

[spiceant]

I entirely agree; for now and for a very long time to come May i suggest we change this idea to "for now and untill i change my opinion changes" or atleast no definitive time period?

[Stu2630]

spiceant

I entirely agree; for now and for a very long time to come.

May i suggest we change this idea to "for now and untill i change my opinion changes"

If you like. But it's the same thing, really.

Stu

[spiceant]

I do like that.
Its not the same to someone who hopes. Someone you know perhaps.

Time to dream -_-..zZ

[SpiderThug]

Perversion is the symptom of modern society. It is basically a lifestyle illness.

[nacktman]

Destroyed who's position?!

Not only do the polls support the fact most of the world's population either has been nude in a social setting or doesn't give a twit if others are nude or not ... they quash any lingering notions otherwise.

The TNS polls were US polls for the specific question of recognized beaches and areas for nude recreation which a clear and growing majority of US citizens support.

The Harris Poll was an international poll asking the specific question as to 'nudity of others would be of a concern to you' and better than 80% of the world's population polled said no, the nudity of others would not concern them.

Of the 190 odd countries recognized in the world less than 10% have laws actually banning public nudity the rest have none whatsoever or try to use laws pertaining to lewd behavior to hamper the right to be nude.

Even the US which is by far the Prudest nation on Earth has no law against nudity in public - local jurisdictions try the lewdness angle only to be shot down by the courts at each and every turn.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Obscene language in public becomes illegal if the police can show that it was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. I would be amazed if most US districts don't have something similar."

Simple obscene language cannot be illegal. Harassment is another issue altogether but the offense would be the harassment, not the language. Simply saying the obscenity aloud so random others can hear it is legal.

Stu:"The offence you are describing isn't what I would call "offence", rather unpleasant and uncouth behaviour"

That is because it is legal behaviour. I still find it an offense to my senses and can ruin my meal or time in the public. It is not about an offense being adult-only or not. It is about something being offensive to you and the effect it has on your enjoyment of a place.

Stu:"The simplest way for a nude person to minimize upset would be to don a pair of shorts."

The simplest way for a textile to minimize their reaction would be to ignore the nudity. Both have simple solutions, Stu.

Stu:"Human beings weren't designed to live in most of the environments we inhabit today and we can't function in these places without clothing being worn much of the time. Many things are strictly unnatural for us to do as animals - speaking, turning on the heating, cooking food, using a computer!"

So we can exist naked in the environments where nudity is functionally available? Human beings are a very adaptable species. Clothing was originally worn to show power and eventually, to ward the elements. Physiologically, humans really haven't changed in the past 5,000 years. What has changed only recently is the extreme reactions to nudity in societies that are wealthy and can afford modesty.

As for what is unnatural for animals, speaking is completely natural. All animal species have their own language. We may have more complex languages, but it does not mean they have none. We can go inside our homes and change the environment, but animals have learned how to do similar things such as burrowing underground for ac, sitting in the sun for heat, etc. I am not sure about this, but I believe that if someone was raised on raw meat, they would have a lot more bacteria in their mouth and digestive system to combat any bad bacteria from the food. Of course, the sooner you eat food after it is dead, the less bacteria you will ingest. But otherwise, no, no other animal has tamed fire. But that doesn't put us out of the animal species altogether.

Stu:"The second reason is that I don't want my children to question why males and females are anatomically different because that will raise questions about sex which I don't want to have to answer until they, and I, feel the time is right."

Stu, that is one of the most basic questions of life. It defines who one is and how they are different than others. This should be basic sex education for three-year-old children. A twelve-year-old who doesn't know the basic facts of life is way far behind their peers. As Boreas mentioned, and as I have advocated here in these forums many times before, "the talk" should not be a one time thing, but a continuing conversation. When questions are asked, the parent should answer them in an honest, age-appropriate way. The time for talking is right when a child asks a question.

Your daughter probably knows more than you realize and the sad thing is that she didn't learn the basics of life from her parents. She had to learn it elsewhere.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Not only do the polls support the fact most of the world's population either has been nude in a social setting or doesn't give a twit if others are nude or not ... they quash any lingering notions otherwise.Most of the world's population live in poverty. I don't want to copy the lifestyles and values of people from remote parts of China, or the Amazon basin, or the inhabitants of the Atlas mountains in North Africa. I'm a modern, sophisticated European with long-established traditions and values of my own. The fact that it's OK to swim nude in some village in Malaysia does not mean it's OK to swim nude in my local park.

The TNS polls were US polls for the specific question of recognized beaches and areas for nude recreation which a clear and growing majority of US citizens support.Recognized beaches is not, and never has been, an issue. So why did you cite that poll?

The Harris Poll was an international poll asking the specific question as to 'nudity of others would be of a concern to you' and better than 80% of the world's population polled said no, the nudity of others would not concern them.I don't accept the veracity of the statistics you supplied. I asked you to supply a link to the Harris polling organization to prove that they were as you said, and also giving details as to how they were collated. You have not done so and therefore the figures you provided are valueless.

Of the 190 odd countries recognized in the world less than 10% have laws actually banning public nudity the rest have none whatsoever or try to use laws pertaining to lewd behavior to hamper the right to be nude. That's because nudism has been very much a minority interest in the past and strictly confined to specific places. Start getting nude in more popular public places and you'll see new laws being written in no time: this even happened in Brattleboro, in spite of it being an immensely liberal place. Many kinds of antisocial behaviour are prohibited by way of more general laws rather than laws which expressly ban the specific behaviour. It's how such laws work because it is difficult to enumerate every conceivable one of the many and varied ways in which an antisocial minority can make public places less pleasant. Nudity is just one of these.

Even the US which is by far the Prudest nation on Earth has no law against nudity in public - local jurisdictions try the lewdness angle only to be shot down by the courts at each and every turn.From the incidents I have read on here, rather than being "shot down", most US authorities are successful when they prosecute offensive public nudity! And rightly so. Nudists have their places and if they choose to expose their nakedness in ordinary public places, it is right that they are punished.

BobS

Simple obscene language cannot be illegal. Harassment is another issue altogether but the offense would be the harassment, not the language. Simply saying the obscenity aloud so random others can hear it is legal.Not here in the UK. If you choose to use obscene language here, you had better make sure you are only heard by the intended hearer who does not object to it. Otherwise, you are at risk of prosecution. People should be able to use public places without having to hear filthy language.

I still find it an offense to my senses and can ruin my meal or time in the public. It is not about an offense being adult-only or not. It is about something being offensive to you and the effect it has on your enjoyment of a place.We are just going to have to agree to differ about this, Bob. I can guarantee you that most people I know would say that somebody standing around stark naked is vastly more offensive than someone chewing with their mouth open, picking their nose or breaking wind.

The simplest way for a textile to minimize their reaction would be to ignore the nudity. Both have simple solutions, Stu.They do, Bob, but far more people object to nudity in public than want to practise it, so it antisocial behaviour and should remain illegal. And people with small children shouldn't feel they have to cover their children's eyes because of such rudeness and irresponsibility.

So we can exist naked in the environments where nudity is functionally available?The point I was making is that we are no longer entirely natural people - we have to wear clothes to survive in most inhabited parts of the world and it is that reality which has brought about the social and cultural norm of remaining dressed and keeping nakedness for private situations.

As for what is unnatural for animals, speaking is completely natural. All animal species have their own language. We may have more complex languages, but it does not mean they have none.Animals don't have a language, Bob. They have ways to communicate - sometimes ways which include fairly complex signification systems, but they don't contain morphology or syntax or semantics. Animals can never grasp context, implicature or metaphor, so they can never use language to conceptualize. In that way we are absolutely unique.

But otherwise, no, no other animal has tamed fire. But that doesn't put us out of the animal species altogether.I think we are now so far removed from animals that should come to terms with the fact that we no longer live according to the demands of nature. Aside from language, we have technology so advanced that we can defeat the laws of gravity, create new species, imagine our own mortality, understand the intricacies of nature, including our own physiology, and manipulate them. We shouldn't be taking any lessons from the animal kingdom when deciding how to behave and what sort of behaviour is acceptable.

Stu, that is one of the most basic questions of life. It defines who one is and how they are different than others. This should be basic sex education for three-year-old children.

When my children asked what was the difference between boys and girls, we told them that girls grew up to be like mum and boys grew up to be like dad. They could understand that and it never caused any problems.

A twelve-year-old who doesn't know the basic facts of life is way far behind their peers.

I know - we are conscious of that and that's why my wife intends to find out just what our daughter knows. If she is ignorant, then we'll address that.

As Boreas mentioned, and as I have advocated here in these forums many times before, "the talk" should not be a one time thing, but a continuing conversation. When questions are asked, the parent should answer them in an honest, age-appropriate way. The time for talking is right when a child asks a question.

I don't disagree with that - we just gave answers which were extremely simplified when questions were asked, and as soon as they were satisfied, we would end the conversation. It seemed to work OK.

Your daughter probably knows more than you realize and the sad thing is that she didn't learn the basics of life from her parents. She had to learn it elsewhere.

She is supposed to have learned much of what she needs to know at school by now and we are a bit concerned that she has missed out. If that is the case, then we will address it - in our way - and that way means without getting naked in her presence or allowing her to see naked adults.

Stu

[nacktman]

To quote MoonShadow: Whir.

And the whirring continues.
Like a dog who has bitten it's tail and is too stupid to realize it as he spins in circles chasing his own arse.:rolleyes:

[Stu2630]

And the whirring continues.And STILL nacktman gives no link to those amazing Harris statistics!

Hmm. :cool: Now why do you think that could be?

Stu

[nacktman]

...why do you think that could be?

Well, it could be a long standing policy of not doing the work for people to lazy to do it for themselves or it could just be that you have been singled out for no response.

Now which do you think it is?

Careful, the answer might bruise your ego.

[Stu2630]

Well, it could be a long standing policy of not doing the work for people to lazy to do it for themselves or it could just be that you have been singled out for no response.

That's odd, because I did have a look for these stats. I Googled it and used other search engines but...nothing! I even went on a special portal I have through my university which gives access to all published Harris polls and I couldn't even find it on there! Funny, don't you think?

Now which do you think it is?

OK, as you ask, I'll go for Option 3 - i.e. either that the Harris Poll in question is a fiction, or else you have distorted the results beyond recognition to prove your point and hoped nobody would notice. ;)

I may be wrong and they are entirely legitimate. But, you made a pretty far-fetched claim about the acceptance of nudity and you say you are now basing that claim on statistics. So it's up to you to show us where they are.

Stu

[nimrod]

I think we are now so far removed from animals that should come to terms with the fact that we no longer live according to the demands of nature.

If this is true stop eating and see if that demand of nature is one that you no longer have to live with. Or stop breathing, or try to breath under water, stop your heart from beating, stop sleeping. Are you that far from nature that you do not have to live with those demands? I did not know that you were such an elitist that you can not regonize that humans are still animals no matter how "advanced" we have become. Tools only make living in the world easier physically, it does not make us less of an animal.

[nimrod]

Urinating has nothing to do with nudity. A person can urinate in a corner without undressing and without anyone catching sight of any intimate part of his body. You can make laws about when and where urinating is permissible without making any reference to nudity. If somebody is caught short in a quiet spot and needs to pass water, they invariably do it. Usually it's where it's not likely to upset anyone. If they do it openly, or if they do it in a place where it is likely to be offensive (like in a shop doorway or a telephone kiosk), then they are punished for urinating, not for nudity.

You have ignored that I have said that people have been arrested for nudity when all they were doing was urinating. There may have been a thread here that described one case of that, and I know of a local coach who was arrested for indecent exposure for peeing in some bushes outside of a camp ground. Was this ignored so that you would not have to admit that there is a benifit to non-nudist? And this is just one example were it would benifit non-nudist, I thought it would be enough to show that having the right to be nude anywhere would benifit more then exhibitionists, activists, and inconsiderate nudists. Or was it ignored so that you can continue to live in denial about your intolerance?

[Dario Western]

I think Stu is the CFF equivalent of JonZeee from rec.nude.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"The fact that it's OK to swim nude in some village in Malaysia does not mean it's OK to swim nude in my local park."

I believe the point nacktman was trying to get across to you is that you say that you are speaking for textile society as a whole while he is showing you that most of the people would not mind.

Stu:"I can guarantee you that most people I know would say that somebody standing around stark naked is vastly more offensive than someone chewing with their mouth open, picking their nose or breaking wind."

But Stu, don't I have the right to enjoy my time in public without being offended? You said I did.

Stu:"The point I was making is that we are no longer entirely natural people - we have to wear clothes to survive in most inhabited parts of the world and it is that reality which has brought about the social and cultural norm of remaining dressed and keeping nakedness for private situations."

We have acclimated to living in climates that are hostile to our own naked bodies. The difference is that we did this without the benefit of evolution but rather our own technology--and yes, clothes are a kind of technology in its basic sense. But I would disagree with you regarding climate being the reason for clothing. It was, IMO, power and decorative properties that made clothing so special. But it is not clothing that brought about modesty but religion. And it is that sense of accepted modesty that keeps clothes as a major figure in societies, not climate.

Stu:" Aside from language, we have technology so advanced that we can defeat the laws of gravity, create new species... "

We cannot defeat the laws of gravity any more than birds can. In fact, it is the same principle as the flight of birds. Defeating the laws of gravity means inventing something that counters the effects of gravity completely making something weightless on Earth. Creating new species is done in the same way it is done in the nature: either by sexual processes or mutating (altering) genes.

Just like all mammals, we dream. Mothers nurse their young, are born through the same way, etc. No, we should not be looking at animals to see how to act, but realize that we are living on borrowed technological time. Mother Nature will play spoiler eventually with a large asteroid hitting the Earth. It is very easy for humans to have to revert back to the basics.

Stu:"If that is the case, then we will address it - in our way - and that way means without getting naked in her presence or allowing her to see naked adults."

I never said it was necessary to show her nudity--although nudists definitely do not have to worry about that. I was merely trying to mention that telling a child that the difference between a boy and a girl is when they grow up, they become either a daddy or a mommy is inadequate. That is not the difference--heck, some girls and boys do not grow up to be parents at all. You should have explained the anatomy, or at least the terms, so she would understand a little better.

This is becoming one of my pet peeves. Parents who fail in teaching the basics of gender knowledge to their children. Knowing about your body is the most important knowledge you can learn early on. The parent is the most important teacher a child has. Leaving it to the schools is maddening. End rant.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

If this is true stop eating and see if that demand of nature is one that you no longer have to live with...

I'm not denying we are physiologically still mammals; I'm saying that we are far removed from animals in terms of our society, culture, lifestyle, thinking and communication.

You have ignored that I have said that people have been arrested for nudity when all they were doing was urinating.

I didn't ignore it - I responded to it earlier. I don't understand the connection between nudity and urinating and you certainly wouldn't be arrested in the UK for "nudity" if you were discreetly urinating. Over here, urinating in public is a byelaw offence in its own right in most towns and cities. It would only ever be 'indecent exposure' if it were done with the intention of offending etc. So legalising nudity here would make no difference to urinating one way or the other and consequently wouldn't be a benefit. Of course, we mustn't overlook the circumstances of the urinating. There is a world of difference between urinating behind a tree in some woods if you think no-one can see you while out for a walk, and openly urinating in the street, or doing so in a telephone kiosk or shop doorway. The former, if done discreetly, is generally acceptable and people will make allowances; the other examples are antisocial and loutish behaviour.

Or was it ignored so that you can continue to live in denial about your intolerance?

As I said, I didn't ignore it. You obviously missed my response earlier so I have explained the "urinating"issue again.

BobS

I believe the point nacktman was trying to get across to you is that you say that you are speaking for textile society as a whole while he is showing you that most of the people would not mind.

He isn't showing me anything, Bob. He made an outrageous claim that more than 80% of people have either been nude in mixed company or aren't bothered having naked people around them. When challenged, he tried using statistics which are frankly unbelievable and that he can't evidence in spite of being asked repeatedly to do so. There is a whiff of dishonesty about that.

But Stu, don't I have the right to enjoy my time in public without being offended? You said I did.

Of course you do - but no society can cater for every human behaviour which people are offended by. There is a tiny number of Muslims who do not believe pigs should be depicted in public places at all because they think they are offensive but, while most Muslims have a distaste for pigs, they are not actually offended by pictures of pigs displayed in public. Those particular Muslims who are so offended are very few in number and the vast majority of people would not want to see porcine imagery prohibited. Many of us find certain uncouth habits to be aesthetically distasteful - habits like chewing with your mouth open - but hardly anyone actually finds it so "offensive" that they would actively avoid going to places where they may encounter it.

But I would disagree with you regarding climate being the reason for clothing. It was, IMO, power and decorative properties that made clothing so special.

We are not too far apart about that Bob. I am sure that clothing originally came into being as protection from the elements, but you are of course right to say that its purpose was massively enhanced by the role it can play in demonstrating status or group membership or simply as a form of decoration. Religion may have given rise to much of the modesty we have in our modern society, but that doesn't make it wrong. You know I'm not a believer, but we owe much of our moral sense to the religion that was dutifully practised by our forefathers even if we have long since abandoned the supernatural notions they held.

Mother Nature will play spoiler eventually with a large asteroid hitting the Earth. It is very easy for humans to have to revert back to the basics.

When that happens, who knows what level of depravity mankind will sink to? Stealing? Murder? Cannibalism? Let's enjoy and protect our civilization and culture while we can because no-one knows what manner of emergency will eventually threaten human civilization.

This is becoming one of my pet peeves. Parents who fail in teaching the basics of gender knowledge to their children. Knowing about your body is the most important knowledge you can learn early on. The parent is the most important teacher a child has. Leaving it to the schools is maddening. End rant.

Your rant is unnecessary. We have successfully raised our eldest two children to adulthood and they have both emerged as sensible, mature and intelligent people - and both in long-term, stable relationships. They have also both endorsed our child-rearing strategies, including the fact that they were not formally taught the anatomical differences between the sexes or issues concerning human procreation. They did learn these things in school as part of biology lessons when they were aged 12-years, starting with the reproduction of frogs, then leopards and finally human beings. I do have a concern that our youngest may not yet have benefited from this and, if I discover that she has somehow missed out, you can rest assured that my wife will cover it all - frogs, leopards and people.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Nimrod
Your rant is unnecessary. We have successfully raised our eldest two children to adulthood and they have both emerged as sensible, mature and intelligent people - and both in long-term, stable relationships. They have also both endorsed our child-rearing strategies, including the fact that they were not formally taught the anatomical differences between the sexes or issues concerning human procreation. They did learn these things in school as part of biology lessons when they were aged 12-years, starting with the reproduction of frogs, then leopards and finally human beings. I do have a concern that our youngest may not yet have benefited from this and, if I discover that she has somehow missed out, you can rest assured that my wife will cover it all - frogs, leopards and people.

Stu

You've got to be kidding?

Age 12 to learn the facts of life is too late and to not be informed by you, the parents?

And the younger one may not learn from school, so it is up to your wife? Where do you fit in, Stu? You're the father; a parent.

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

Age 12 to learn the facts of life is too late and to not be informed by you, the parents?Of course we make sure she gets drip-fed bits of information before that age - as she begins to ask questions. But I think age 12 is about right to learn the full details.

And the younger one may not learn from school, so it is up to your wife? Where do you fit in, Stu? You're the father; a parent.We have an arrangement whereby if our kids want to know anything about human reproductive congress or the behavioural activities which some people indulge in before that kind of intimacy, they are given that information in an appropriate manner by the same-sex parent. So I supplied information to my son if he needed it - which I don't think he ever did - and my wife takes on that role with our daughters.

Stu

[GrayWolf]

Without debating what is a 'right', an interesting question itself - my answer is - yes. People should have the right to be nude in public. Nudity of itself is not / should not be a crime. Inappropriate behavior while dressed, or nude, is what laws should address. And in fact, that is what laws do address. I am aware of no laws (anywhere) that state "you SHALL be dressed". Lots of laws regulating HOW we are to dress though.

Legislating dress codes seems to make as much sense as saying that I've got to shave my beard or let my hair grow to a specified length. I have the right to choose how I groom myself. Why shouldn't I have the right to choose how I dress myself?

It's silly, but many people, some of which frequent this site, do think that government's role is to regulate how we dress. For example, local regulations I've read about on how low teenagers can wear their pants. (A strange fad indeed but it doesn't hurt me in any way.)

I don't really care how anyone dresses, or doesn't, but I reserve the right to think them a bit 'unusual' if it is outside my own personal norm. We all do. I don't have to dress the same way, or pierce the same body parts or shave the same way as they do - their 'right' to do look the way they do does not conflict with any of my 'rights' or cause me any harm.

I, for one, am not harmed by the way people look. But I could be harmed by the way they behave. Without debating what government's role in our lives should be, behaviour that is harmful to others is among the (too) many things that we expect government to regulate. They don't do a very good job of regulating behavior do they?

Is simply seeing a nude person really harmful to anyone?

How many people have been hospitalized after seeing a nude person acting 'normally'? How many people have bled to death? How many children have been scared for life after seeing their parents bodies? Are their bodies all that much different than mine?

"Government" regulation of our individual lives seems to be on track to make all our individual choices, which harm no one, a crime if even one person says that they are offended in any way. Not harmed, just offended. "I don't like seeing that kid's butt crack, let's pass a law". And so we do.

So, yes, we should be able to dress the way we want. But that's not going to happen as long as how we dress is a concern of some that rises above poverty, education, health care, war, economy, etc etc. "I'm not harmed by nudity but let's go pass some laws so I'll feel better." And so we do.

We don't get to enjoy all the 'rights' we should. How we dress is just one of them.

Rave on.

[Stu2630]

Graywolf

Inappropriate behavior while dressed, or nude, is what laws should address. And in fact, that is what laws do address. I am aware of no laws (anywhere) that state "you SHALL be dressed".

Laws in this country do not expressly prohibit nakedness, but rather the circumstances of it and the likelihood that it will give rise to negative emotions in others who may be present at the time. I think this provides a reasonable balance so that people are accountable for the effect their behaviour has or is likely to have on others, whether that behaviour consists of using obscene language in a loud voice, displaying pornographic imagery or inconsiderate/inappropriate exposure of the genitals etc.

How many people have been hospitalized after seeing a nude person acting 'normally'?

Being hospitalized is not the benchmark we generally apply when determining what is and is not an acceptable way to behave in public. Nobody has been hospitalized by being spat at, racially abused or having urine thrown over them, but we don't say such behaviour is acceptable - or legal. Offensive behaviour in public is avoidable and need not be accepted, so let's keep our public places benign and pleasant for all.

Stu

[Boreas]

Offensive behaviour in public is avoidable and need not be accepted, so let's keep our public places benign and pleasant for all.

Offensive behaviour in public is NOT avoidable. See my previous posts about perfume. What offends me, does not offend you. In fact, you enjoy scents, while I find them obnoxious in many cases. I am not offended by seeing someone nude in an onconventional place, while that would throw you into a tizzy.

Being offended is sometimes a fact of life. We need to grow tough skins sometimes, or in my case, sometimes I will take an antihistamine. We have to deal with it.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

As I told you before, if it could be shown that perfume seriously irritated a significant proportion of the population as opposed to a tiny, aberrant minority, then I wouldn't oppose restrictions on wearing it in public, just as we restrict smoking in some public places. As you have told me that perfume affects you adversely, and causes you distress, I promise never to wear perfume in your presence, and I would extend that consideration to anyone else bothered by it.

While I agree that we can all be offended, I think those who manage public places have a duty to make those places as benign and pleasant as possible to be in for as many people as possible because we all have to use such places.

Stu

[EricNY]

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one, and call it a day....


What thinks thou?

[GrayWolf]

I agree. It's a 'right' that will never be acknowledged anyway.

[Stu2630]

ercNY

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one, and call it a day....

What thinks thou?

Methinks thou art correct.

It's been a fascinating topic and in some areas we have found some common ground. But with regard to the key question, we're just going to have to agree to differ.

Enjoyed the discussion! :D

Stu

[EricNY]

ah b ah be ahbb......Thats all folks!

[Boreas]

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one, and call it a day....


What thinks thou?

I totally agree.

[EricNY]

Ok then over 90% of the people on this forum that voted said yes we should have the right to be nude in public.

That said I think we would agree that all people would have to change in order for this to take place. I do not believe that we would ever happen. People's perceptions of nudity is too far gone. I think the best we could hope for is acceptance and less "shock value"


Topic has run its cause and served its purpose and is now read only and closed to further comment