Orlando FL's nipplegate

[Bob S.]

I first heard this last night on "The Tonight Show" which should tell you how utterly ridiculous this is. There is a billboard where some nipples have been airbrushed from the picture. The twist, the ad is for WWE Wrestlemania and the missing nipples are from the superstar male wrestlers.

The article can be found at the Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orl-maxwell2808mar28,0,6392637.column?page=1) complete with the picture.

Bob S.

[Borntobenude]

Psychologist J.C. Flügel wrote something that seems to have been borne out over the years.

Our traditional morality, derived from Semitic and early Christian sources, assigns to modesty a high value; in quite recent times, however, we have become somewhat sceptical as to its real worth. […] [W]e should distinguish between two rather different things that are often included under the single term ‘modesty’: (1) control of conduct, in the sense of refraining from certain forms of ‘immodesty’, i.e. sexually exciting or socially presumptuous behaviour—behaviours in which our exhibitionistic tendencies, if uncontrolled, might lead us to indulge; (2) an emotion of shame or embarrassment, which tends to prevent us from showing or mentioning certain parts of the body, and which may persist even when real circumstances demand mention or exposure, e.g. at a medical examination.

Now it is clear that the reality principle demands some degree of modesty in the first sense; on the other hand, it seems doubtful whether modesty in the second sense is ever of much value itself, since its tendency is inevitably hostile to a true evaluation of certain ‘real’ factors. In so far as reference to, or exposure of, certain parts of the body is considered ‘rude’ or ‘immodest’ (apart from the purpose of the reference or exposure) and gives rise to corresponding emotions, there cannot but occur an inclination to conceal and distort the true functions and importance of these parts of the body—in fact a tendency to refuse the full recognition of their real existence. [...] We cannot look upon it as a good in itself and we shall regard as desirable its reduction to the smallest possible dimensions.

He talked about body shame and how it leads to a tendency to not even recognize their existence, and this is an example of a widespread attempt it seems to completely deny the existence of parts of our bodies, to the extent of the eradication of any sign whatsoever that would suggest that those parts even exist. Nipples must be hidden, their very existence airbrushed out of any pictures lest it be admitted that nipples do exist. I found what he said rather interesting in lieu of this and other past incidences. Looks like he was dead on.

[naturistoftheyear]

Men's nipples provocative in Florida?
It gets me wondering what men in Florida wear when they're swimming.

[Boreas]

Holy cow.......that is absolutely crazy! Borntobenude, you are right on.

I have been of the belief that the US has been suffering from a collective case of PTSD since 2001. That would be one explanation for some of the craziness we have been seeing down there. (it always creeps north in case you think I am pointing fingers) Dissociation or psychologically cutting off parts of one's self is one symptom. This certainly fits my theory of collective PTSD! :eek:

[nakedjohn]

This is crazy!!

[Sanslines]

No doubt that Stu will be delighted to hear the 'good' news. C'mon Stu, I see you lurking below. Share your insight as to why you think men's nipples should not be shown. What else about a man or woman should also be airbrushed out? Why not airbrush the whole man out and just show a foot, or would that be showing too much and thereby risking modesty and morality?

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Yes, I'm lurking. ;)

To be honest, and at the risk of being boring, I don't really have a view on this. I'm cool with the idea of them airbrushing out the men's nipples if they think the guys concerned look better or more macho that way. They retouch photographs of people, usually women, as a matter of routine so it's OK in my book. Advertising photos are there to make a statement and to sell a product: I couldn't care less what they airbrush out.

Having said that, I don't object to men's nipples being shown either.

Stu

[nimrod]

Oh come on now people, this is just crazy. It really does bring the question of what is next, and how far this form of insanity will go. Boreas you maybe close with the PTSD, but it I think that it is more an over reaction to "Nipplegate". What offends one must offend all, so let us go completely overboard and try not to offend anyone at anytime, no matter how silly it maybe.

[Stu2630]

nimrod - I'm not so sure it's about "offence" so much as trying to make the guys look as slick and macho as possible.

Look, I'm a self-confessed prude, but a pic showing men's nipples doesn't offend me in the slightest!

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

So a man's nipples are ok but a woman's nipples are not ok. Is this because the Bible says that man is in control of woman and must protect a woman's virtue. Woman has no say in this matter because the Bible says so. It is up to man to decide what is permissible for woman.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Is this because the Bible says that man is in control of woman and must protect a woman's virtue.

That's a weird thing to ask an atheist. I don't know what the Bible says because I've never read any of it and probably never will.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

Then perhaps we can convince you to go and read the specific Biblical Holy Scriptures - you know - the ones that say "go forth........be naked.........and be happy......"

I know that you believe that man must protect woman's virtues and morality, and therefore man must never allow woman to reveal her nipples.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Then perhaps we can convince you to go and read the specific Biblical Holy Scriptures - you know - the ones that say "go forth........be naked.........and be happy......"

Why would I, a devout atheist, want to read scriptures?

I know that you believe that man must protect woman's virtues and morality, and therefore man must never allow woman to reveal her nipples.

I think a woman should protect her own virtue and morality - and her modesty, too, not to mention protecting the feelings of others who may be offended by the sight of her bare breasts.

But this is off topic - our topic here is men's nipples. I'm with you on this: I don't have an issue with men's nipples, so I'm afraid this isn't something we can really argue about.

Stu

[nacktman]

北京鴨子
Peking Duck
<o></o>

[nimrod]

nimrod - I'm not so sure it's about "offence" so much as trying to make the guys look as slick and macho as possible.
Stu

I re-read the story, and I did not see anything saying they were trying to make them look slick and more macho. I believe that the mayor said that he thought, mistakenly, that there was an orderance against showing male nipples, but at least he thought that it was going overboard.

The point is here in the U.S. there is still a backlash over the Superbowl "Nipplegate", and the reactions seem extreme in nature. On TV and radio there was more restrictions placed on what could and could not be said or shown.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"But this is off topic - our topic here is men's nipples."

Actually, it is about nipples period. If women were not forced, by law, to cover their breasts, this would never have occurred. There was a mistaken misread of the law when that billboard was erected. There was, as the story mentions. another unaltered advertisement on the side of a city bus.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Bob

Actually, it is about nipples period.

You started this thread and said: "There is a billboard where some nipples have been airbrushed from the picture. The twist, the ad is for WWE Wrestlemania and the missing nipples are from the superstar male wrestlers." So I took it that you were focusing on a rather strange idea that men's nipples were unacceptable. It's not often we agree on what exposure is acceptable in public, but at least agree on this.

Women's nipples are a different case entirely, as the law recognises. If the billboard had shown bare-breasted women then there would have been uproar - and quite right too, IMO. Female breasts, and especially the working parts of them, have a cultural significance of their own in our society and they are not equated with men's chests. So different rules apply.

Stu

[nacktman]

Women's nipples are a different case entirely, as the law recognises. If the billboard had shown bare-breasted women then there would have been uproar - and quite right too, IMO. Female breasts, and especially the working parts of them, have a cultural significance of their own in our society and they are not equated with men's chests. So different rules apply.

UH, nope, wrong again.:doh:

And seriously, a course in Human Physiology and Anatomy would be of great assistance.:listen2:

[Stu2630]

Whatever can I say in response to such a profound, scholarly and comprehensively argued postulation as "UH, nope, wrong again?"

And seriously, a course in Human Physiology and Anatomy would be of great assistance

Oh, I don't think you need that! You just lack a basic understanding of modern western cultural values and associations, that's all. Maybe you should get out more - and among those of us who wear clothes.

Stu

[nacktman]

"Some will never learn."

~ Seneca the Elder

[MoonShadow]

Women's nipples are a different case entirely, as the law recognises. If the billboard had shown bare-breasted women then there would have been uproar - and quite right too, IMO. Female breasts, and especially the working parts of them, have a cultural significance of their own in our society and they are not equated with men's chests. So different rules apply.

Stu


The laws are wrong. Here is an example of laws that need to be challenged and changed. "Culturally", how they are perceived by the closed-minded, puritannical sorts, is wrong also. Another aspect of our "society" which needs and is being challenged and changed.

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

The laws are wrong.

IMO the laws are right and your view is wrong. In some places, the laws agree with your point of view - in most they agree with mine.

"Culturally", how they are perceived by the closed-minded, puritannical sorts, is wrong also.

I am neither closed-minded, nor puritanical.

I have an opinion and I am prepared to justify holding it and I am willing to defend it. That doesn't make me closed-minded any more than your particular stance makes you open-minded. I am prepared to listen to other
points of view and review my opinion - I'm not convinced you are.

As for being puritanical - puritanical - that accusation is easily disposed of when you consider what the term means which, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, is having or displaying a very strict or censorious moral attitude towards self-indulgence or sex. This is not an issue which is pertinent to self-indulgence or sex - it is about what is decent, decorous and appropriate to be displayed in public. And I happen to believe that naked female breasts aren't.

Stu

[nacktman]

Doublespeak, double standards Moonshadow.
Doublespeak and double standards.
Tis all.
Supposedly bolstered by canards, flights of fancy, and opinion.

"Science is the father of knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance."

~ Hippocrates

None of which addresses the topic rather it addresses the topic diverter.

The entire 'affair' would be oh, so laughable, if not for the serious paranoid delusional reactions of some to the nipples and who air brushed the billboard in the first place.

[Sanslines]

MoonShadow



IMO the laws are right and your view is wrong. In some places, the laws agree with your point of view - in most they agree with mine.



I am neither closed-minded, nor puritanical.

I have an opinion and I am prepared to justify holding it and I am willing to defend it. That doesn't make me closed-minded any more than your particular stance makes you open-minded. I am prepared to listen to other
points of view and review my opinion - I'm not convinced you are.

As for being puritanical - puritanical - that accusation is easily disposed of when you consider what the term means which, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, is having or displaying a very strict or censorious moral attitude towards self-indulgence or sex. This is not an issue which is pertinent to self-indulgence or sex - it is about what is decent, decorous and appropriate to be displayed in public. And I happen to believe that naked female breasts aren't.

Stu

Stu,

You are very closed minded and intolerant when it comes to a woman's breasts. You want to dictate to women when and where they can exposes their breasts. All of this is based upon your own personal adversion to the sight of a woman's breasts. Instead of acknowledging that women are not dictating to you as to when and where you can be shirtless or nude and that you are unfairly dictating to women as to when and where they can be topless, you come up with straw man arguments to protect you own sensibilities.

You are not being honest when you claim that you are willing to listen to other people's opinions and RESERVE JUDGEMENT. Your mind is totally made up concerning a woman's breasts and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say to ever change your mind. You will remain intolerant of the sight of a woman's breasts until the day that you die. All of your arguments against women stem from your efforts to control women. How would you feel if women demanded that you be nude all of the time? You certainly would never agree to that and yet you are clearly demanding that women not be topfree whenever there is the possibility that you might inadvertently chance upon an uncovered woman's breast.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, nacktman, that is exactly what it is!

As Stu whirrs away more, I noticed he freely used "dictionary" meanings which he so oftens disputes others of using. Guess it depends on whether it is his opinion or another's, right Stu?

Yes, Stu, you are closed-minded and puritannical among other descriptions many can used. Your history on this forum supports both adjectives.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You are very closed minded and intolerant... You want to dictate to women when and where they can exposes their breasts.

I'm not trying to dictate anything to anyone. I am one person and I have a point of view which I am expressing. In that capacity, I think society has a right to determine, by general consensus, what is and is not acceptable behaviour in public and I approve of society saying that the sight of bare female breasts is not appropriate in public.

Instead of acknowledging that women are not dictating to you as to when and where you can be shirtless or nude..

It's not a case of "dictating". Society says that certain words should not be displayed or shouted in public. Same with certain kinds of imagery. And also certain parts of the body are not to be displayed, either in real life or pictorially. I support that.

You are not being honest when you claim that you are willing to listen to other people's opinions and RESERVE JUDGEMENT.

I didn't say I reserve judgment: those are your words. I said that, while I have my own opinion, I listen to others' views and, if I am persuaded there is merit in them, I may review my own views. That's quite different.

Your mind is totally made up concerning a woman's breasts and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say to ever change your mind.

My mind is made up when it comes to the view that it is wrong to display women's breasts in public. The only thing that would change my view would be if there were to be a demand by the majority of women for the right to expose their breasts. Then I would have to concede that they should have their way - but there is no such demand.

All of your arguments against women stem from your efforts to control women.

That's utter tripe. Women have at least as much objection to the sight of other women being bare-breasted, or the display of bare breasts on billboards as men do. My view is in line with what most women seem to want whereas you are out of step with what women want.

How would you feel if women demanded that you be nude all of the time?

That's a ridiculous parallel. Virtually all women spend a great deal of time every day wearing garments which cover their breasts. And that even includes nudist women. The vast majority of women don't let men other than their partners or medics see their breasts. I, on the other hand, am naked for about 90 seconds every day - always alone - and I'm never naked in the presence of others.

You certainly would never agree to that and yet you are clearly demanding that women not be topfree whenever there is the possibility that you might inadvertently chance upon an uncovered woman's breast.

There are opportunities for women to air their breasts if they have some desire to do that. But that doesn't include in the street or in the park or swimming pools I visit.

We have discussed this subject many times but this thread is really about a billboard showing men's nipples. I have no objections to the picture either showing the men's nipples, or airbrushing them out. If there had been a billboard displayed which showed women's bare breasts, there would have been a lot of public disquiet about that - from both men and women. So I'm very much in-tune with that whereas your approach is very much the voice in the wilderness.

Women not only don't want to have the right to bare their breasts - they don't want other women to have that right either.

Stu

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

As Stu whirrs away more, I noticed he freely used "dictionary" meanings which he so oftens disputes others of using. Guess it depends on whether it is his opinion or another's, right Stu?

I couldn't see how you thought I was puritanical: I though that maybe it had a wider usage than I was familiar with. The dictionary told me that it was to do with a moral indignation of self-indulgence or sex. OK, I accept that dictionary definitions give only a lexical meaning relating to recorded or current meaning rather than a semantic meaning. So, if you feel that the definition I gave you is incomplete - why don't you supply a definition yourself which shows that Stu's position is puritanical? Before you do that, think about this:

1. I am an atheist. My position is that bare female breasts should not be exposed or depicted in public because people are offended by it - and I am one of those people. I do not have a moral angle on this issue other than in thinking that we should try to avoid behaviour which unnecessarily upsets or offends others.

2. Puritanism is a religiously-inspired moralist movement. It disapproves of personal gratification and instead advocates basic living, self-denial and devotion to the spiritual life.

Now, in view of that, HOW THE HECK CAN YOU CALL ME 'PURITANICAL'? I can only assume that you don't really understand what the word means. I won't hold my breath for an answer because you can't supply one. :rolleyes:

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



I'm not trying to dictate anything to anyone. I am one person and I have a point of view which I am expressing. In that capacity, I think society has a right to determine, by general consensus, what is and is not acceptable behaviour in public and I approve of society saying that the sight of bare female breasts is not appropriate in public.

Stu, you certainly are dictating as to when and where women can be topfree. You even clearly state below that you do not wish to see women topfree anywhere that you may encounter them. What you are engaging in now is commonly referred to as 'double talk'.



It's not a case of "dictating". Society says that certain words should not be displayed or shouted in public. Same with certain kinds of imagery. And also certain parts of the body are not to be displayed, either in real life or pictorially. I support that.

Nudists and topfree advocates are part of society too. You conveniently left off the part about how these members of society don't share the same opinions as other members of society.



I didn't say I reserve judgment: those are your words. I said that, while I have my own opinion, I listen to others' views and, if I am persuaded there is merit in them, I may review my own views. That's quite different.

More double talk. You know very well that there is no argument that can be given that will ever change your mind concerning topfreedom. Why won't you just save us all some time and admit this.



My mind is made up when it comes to the view that it is wrong to display women's breasts in public. The only thing that would change my view would be if there were to be a demand by the majority of women for the right to expose their breasts. Then I would have to concede that they should have their way - but there is no such demand.

Yet, you refuse to understand that majority should not always rule. If the majority says that torture is proper, would you then support torture? Right and wrong do not always require majority approval. Some of the most admired advances in society have come from small, grass roots movements.



That's utter tripe. Women have at least as much objection to the sight of other women being bare-breasted, or the display of bare breasts on billboards as men do. My view is in line with what most women seem to want whereas you are out of step with what women want.

You are in agreement with a small minority of prudish women. Most women don't care if other women want to bare their breasts.



That's a ridiculous parallel. Virtually all women spend a great deal of time every day wearing garments which cover their breasts. And that even includes nudist women. The vast majority of women don't let men other than their partners or medics see their breasts. I, on the other hand, am naked for about 90 seconds every day - always alone - and I'm never naked in the presence of others.

Nothing ridiculous about you demanding that women always remain covered up in your presense and yet women place no such demand upon you. It just goes to show how you wish to control women and of course would refuse if women tried to control you. Plain and simple.



There are opportunities for women to air their breasts if they have some desire to do that. But that doesn't include in the street or in the park or swimming pools I visit.

Of course, we have progressed from your attempts above to claim that your demands are society's demands and now we are finally back to the truth that you only care about your demands and will only use society's demands when they agree with your own.

We have discussed this subject many times but this thread is really about a billboard showing men's nipples. I have no objections to the picture either showing the men's nipples, or airbrushing them out. If there had been a billboard displayed which showed women's bare breasts, there would have been a lot of public disquiet about that - from both men and women. So I'm very much in-tune with that whereas your approach is very much the voice in the wilderness.

Male chauvinists of course have no objection to other males showing their breast but they can not extend the same equality to women. They want to control women and their actions.

Women not only don't want to have the right to bare their breasts - they don't want other women to have that right either.

Balony, some do, some don't and the vast majority don't care one way or another.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

you certainly are dictating as to when and where women can be topfree.

I don't have that power.

You even clearly state below that you do not wish to see women topfree anywhere that you may encounter them.

That's not "dictating", it's stating a wish. I don't want to see pornographic images displayed in TV adverts but that doesn't mean I am "dictating" to advertisers what they may and may not show.

Nudists and topfree advocates are part of society too. You conveniently left off the part about how these members of society don't share the same opinions as other members of society.

True. And they are entitled to an opinion and a voice. But they are two, tiny minorities - fringe elements in our society. Fortunately, laws are generally framed to suit more mainstream feelings and values.

You know very well that there is no argument that can be given that will ever change your mind concerning topfreedom. Why won't you just save us all some time and admit this.

There are two discrete issues here (and don't just accuse me of "double-talk" - try to see the point I am making). 1. My personal feelings - I don't like the sight of bare breasts. That won't change. 2. My views about what the law should say - I think toplessness should be illegal. That will only change if such a change is demanded by the majority of women. :)

Yet, you refuse to understand that majority should not always rule.

I think that, as a general rule, they should.

If the majority says that torture is proper, would you then support torture?

That's an extreme example and very different from the kind of issue we are talking about here. Besides, very few people would agree that torture is proper if their countrymen, friends or family members could find themselves subject to it. As a rule-of-thumb, what the majority find unacceptable in public should be prohibited.

Right and wrong do not always require majority approval.

Unfortunately, there is no infallible template by which we can determine what is right and what is wrong. So we trust the majority to come up with the right answer.

You are in agreement with a small minority of prudish women. Most women don't care if other women want to bare their breasts.

I don't agree. That may be the case in some communities which have a very liberal population, but I don't believe most communities in most developed countries would be OK with other women going around topless.

Nothing ridiculous about you demanding that women always remain covered up in your presense and yet women place no such demand upon you.

I don't have female breasts, so I don't have anything to cover up. It's not about me "controlling" anybody. If I feel that a person is behaving inappropriately and their behaviour is offending me, I am entitled to say so and to keep my own environment as benign and comfortable for myself as i can.

we have progressed from your attempts above to claim that your demands are society's demands and now we are finally back to the truth that you only care about your demands and will only use society's demands when they agree with your own.

That's a pretty normal thing to do. If I were a black single mother I would probably be keen on issues which affected the black community, issues which affected women and issues which affected single mothers. That doesn't mean that I only cared about my demands, merely that I was using my voice to advance the interests of people like me - and naturally I personally would benefit if I was successful. You are interested in furthering rights and benefits for nudists - even where they conflict with the rights of people like me not to have to see you - but I don't castigate you for that.

Male chauvinists of course have no objection to other males showing their breast but they can not extend the same equality to women. They want to control women and their actions.

That's just a lot of feminist hogwash. Men don't have "breasts" in the sense that women do. A breast in that sense is 'either one of the protuberant glands (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?glands), situated on the front (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?front) of the chest (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?chest) or thorax (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?thorax) in the female (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?female) of man (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?man) and of some other mammalia (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?mammalia), in which milk (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?milk) is secreted for the nourishment (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?nourishment) of the young (http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?young)'

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines
......... You are interested in furthering rights and benefits for nudists - even where they conflict with the rights of people like me not to have to see you - but I don't castigate you for that...........

No, you just push for laws which make anything that you don't agree with illegal and have those who break your laws arrested, fined, and jailed. There is no clearer definition of intolerance that this!

Stu,

It's the same old message over and over again from you........day after day and year after year. Nothing will ever change.

[MoonShadow]

Now, in view of that, HOW THE HECK CAN YOU CALL ME 'PURITANICAL'? I can only assume that you don't really understand what the word means. I won't hold my breath for an answer because you can't supply one. :rolleyes:

Stu


Then why do you UPHOLD rigidly many laws that are "regliously based" and based on puritannical norms? Then you tell me you are not puritannical? You are clearly jesting!

[Bob S.]

Stu:"You started this thread and said: "There is a billboard where some nipples have been airbrushed from the picture. The twist, the ad is for WWE Wrestlemania and the missing nipples are from the superstar male wrestlers." So I took it that you were focusing on a rather strange idea that men's nipples were unacceptable. It's not often we agree on what exposure is acceptable in public, but at least agree on this."

As I stated before, the problem occurred when the city people misread the law and felt that the indecency law applied to all nipples, both men's and women's. I was focusing on the insane and mistaken idea that men's nipples were unacceptable, but I also told you that the issue deals with a misread that the law that covers women's breasts also covers men's as well. So yes, it is an issue about both women's and men's nipples since they both got lumped into the same category.

Stu:"I am neither closed-minded, nor puritanical."

Your stance on nudity is puritanical. Just because you are not religious does not mean that you can't be puritanical. Your views regarding nudity can be seen as puritanical since you wish not to be seen by anyone including your wife and children and that you are naked only for a very short amount of time every day (save for showers unless you are extremely quick or have regressed), and actively, with a near anxiety, avoid all nudity, including that of your wife and children.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

No, you just push for laws which make anything that you don't agree with illegal and have those who break your laws arrested, fined, and jailed.

Er...Yeah. We all do that. It's called DEMOCRACY. If you think some kind of behaviour is antisocial or harmful to your own lifestyle, you use your voice as a citizen and elector to encourage those who legislate to protect your interests. People in your country who like shooting vote for (and lobby for) candidates who will uphold their rights to have firearms, while someone who has lost a family member through criminal firearm use may prefer their political opponents. Nudists are as keen as anyone to press politicians to legislate in their favour, but you blame me for using the same democratic process!

MoonShadow

<!-- / message --><!-- controls --> Then why do you UPHOLD rigidly many laws that are "regliously based" and based on puritannical norms? Then you tell me you are not puritannical?

The laws which prohibit all kinds of nudity arise from the same sources that most of our laws came from and yes, they were originally inspired by religious doctrine and dogma. When these laws first came into existence, there was no clear separation between church and state or church and culture. But those days are long gone and some of those laws have been repealed (e.g. laws such as heresy) but others have been retained (e.g. bestiality). Religion certainly played a part in conditioning us, but most people nowadays are free to accept or reject the religious basis of that conditioning. Nudists like you have chosen to abandon the taboo surrounding nudity, but many other people have not - both religious and non-religious people. Similarly, some religious people are nudists.

Puritanism is concerned with a disapproval of gratification while encouraging an austere lifestyle of self-denial and spirituality. Nothing I have ever said can possibly make you believe that I subscribe to such thinking.

BobS

If the case in point came about through a misreading of the law, then that issue is easily remedied. They have decided that depiction of men's nipples on billboards is acceptable while women's nipples are not and I'm fine with that.

Your stance on nudity is puritanical. Just because you are not religious does not mean that you can't be puritanical. Your views regarding nudity can be seen as puritanical since you wish not to be seen by anyone including your wife and children and that you are naked only for a very short amount of time every day (save for showers unless you are extremely quick or have regressed), and actively, with a near anxiety, avoid all nudity, including that of your wife and children.

It can't possibly be puritanical, Bob, and that is obvious when you remember what puritanism is all about. Puritanism is based upon the premise that pleasure and self-gratification are wicked. I don't believe that and you know I don't believe that. The reason I don't like nakedness - both being naked and being around nudity - hasn't got anything to do with a belief that the naked body is a source of sin or that sex is basically wicked and base. A true puritan believes what nudists do is sinful - I don't.

The only moral dimension to nudity is that it can impact negatively on the comfort and emotions of others. Unnecessarily physically, mentally or emotionally hurting others, even transiently, is something we should avoid doing - and it is something we have a duty to avoid doing in public.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Er...Yeah. We all do that. It's called DEMOCRACY. If you think some kind of behaviour is antisocial or harmful to your own lifestyle, you use your voice as a citizen and elector to encourage those who legislate to protect your interests. People in your country who like shooting vote for (and lobby for) candidates who will uphold their rights to have firearms, while someone who has lost a family member through criminal firearm use may prefer their political opponents. Nudists are as keen as anyone to press politicians to legislate in their favour, but you blame me for using the same democratic process!

No we don't all do THAT. You call it Democracy because you absolutely refuse to admit to yourself that you are intolerant of nudity. You clearly will work to create laws which protect your phobias and then use those same laws to arrest, fines, and jail those who infringe upon your anxieties. You obviously do not really care about others. You have demonstrated a very rigid form of INTOLERANCE. Call your intolerance whatever you wish (Democracy........) and try to associate yourself with some other group of intolerants but the bottom line is that you still are completely puritanical and intolerant and will never change your stance regardless of your solicitation of 'debate'. There honestly is nothing to debate as you have made up your mind and all of the discussions in the world will never change that. You are rigid and inflexible and will never accept anything beyond what you presently believe.

Yes, you have summed it up nicely for a change above. Nudists are keen to press politicians for more favorable pro nudity laws. You (as you have clearly stated) are keen to use the process to press politicians for the exact opposite - more anti nudity regulation. You want more laws and will use those laws against nudists to prosecute them for any infractions against your phobias. You have very clearly demonstrated that you are ANTI NUDIST based upon your use and abuse of laws against nudists and your intolerance for nudists. Instead of practicing tolerance, understanding, and compassion for others who are different from you, you press to create a legal system that you can then use against those who are different from you. How very sad!

In the final analysis, it is all about Stu and his phobias. Society must do everything that it can to accomodate Stu and his phobias. The rights or concerns of anyone else clearly do not matter (to Stu).

[Running Bear]

The only moral dimension to nudity is that it can impact negatively on the comfort and emotions of others. Unnecessarily physically, mentally or emotionally hurting others, even transiently, is something we should avoid doing - and it is something we have a duty to avoid doing in public.
Stu
Do we have a duty to avoid offending anybody or do we attempt not to offend anybody as an aspect of courtesy generated out of respect? Surely nobody has a right not to be offended?
Society creates laws to facilitate the smooth running of said society. Nowadays I would exclude religion as a reason for creating laws in the majority of cases. Laws tend to repress the extremes of acceptable behaviour and stifle free expression but I am not adverse to this. Remember laws are under constant change as societies standards are also under constant change. Challenging a law does not show disrespect to authority but begins the process of creating improved laws.
I am so glad that the death sentence is not used in the UK for simple acts of nudity without intent, as it is in other countries, and that I am free to exercise my craft with only the occasional peccadillo from a well known cartoon rabbit :-)

[nacktman]

What is funny is that those who are ever screaming they are not intolerant are in fact the most intolerant ... this includes you Stu (as well as the wing-nuts sounding the noise machine.):rolleyes::laugh:

Oh, and dealing with Stu ... I have found the perfect illustration of what 'his logic' is like:

http://www.links.org/pics/spin-02-07.004-idealbiarc-0160-ben.gif

And the more he posts about this the more laughable it becomes despite the serious implications of the original paranoia surrounding the whole air-brushing in the first place. Which is what he wants anyway.

Oh and NO ONE has a DUTY NOT to offend - especially you Stu. You really need to get a life ... take a class, plant a flower, do cartwheels down the street, something.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You call it Democracy because you absolutely refuse to admit to yourself that you are intolerant of nudity.What??? I freely admit that I do not wish to tolerate nudity.

You clearly will work to create laws which protect your phobias and then use those same laws to arrest, fines, and jail those who infringe upon your anxieties.I will work to create and protect laws which ensure that the public spaces i use are as pleasant as possible for me and others like me, just as you work to create laws which are favorable to nudists.

Yes, you have summed it up nicely for a change above. Nudists are keen to press politicians for more favorable pro nudity laws.So why are you critical of me for pressing politicians for more favorable laws for prudes? You are applying a double standard.

You (as you have clearly stated) are keen to use the process to press politicians for the exact opposite - more anti nudity regulationThat is a simplistic misrepresentation of what I want. I want to see nudism better facilitated than it is now - but not at the expense of people like me being able to avoid encountering nakedness.

You have very clearly demonstrated that you are ANTI NUDIST based upon your use and abuse of laws against nudists and your intolerance for nudists. Instead of practicing tolerance, understanding, and compassion for others who are different from you, you press to create a legal system that you can then use against those who are different from you. How very sad!More misrepresentation. If I had my way, nudists would be infinitely better off than they are now. You would have, as of statutory right, a fair proportion of beaches to use, areas of parks set aside for you and allocation of public services such as swimming pools, saunas etc. But you call that "anti-nudist"! Ridiculous. All I want in return is clear demarcation between where nudity is permitted and where it is not; for that to be respected and, if it is not, then it should be enforced.

Do we have a duty to avoid offending anybody or do we attempt not to offend anybody as an aspect of courtesy generated out of respect? Surely nobody has a right not to be offended?Of course we have such a duty when it comes to public places. Public places are places we have to use - and we have to pay for. They should be as benign and as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. That's why we don't tolerate using obscene language in them in a loud voice, drunkenness, openly urinating, displaying pornography and a host of other behaviours.

Nowadays I would exclude religion as a reason for creating laws in the majority of cases.So would I.

Remember laws are under constant change as societies standards are also under constant change. Challenging a law does not show disrespect to authority but begins the process of creating improved laws.You can challenge a law in two ways. On the one hand, you can press for it to be changed by lobbying politicians, obtaining public and media support and so on. The other way is to defy it - openly - and challenge the authorities to prosecute you in the hope that, in doing so, the law will be shown up as being unfair or unworkable and the powers that be will have to revise it. With regard to this second method, the sting in the tail is that you may have to face legal consequences (as Steve Gough is doing). I don't believe that society has changed to the extent that laissez-faire public nudity is generally acceptable, so the law is where it should be on this.

I am so glad that the death sentence is not used in the UK for simple acts of nudity without intent, as it is in other countries, and that I am free to exercise my craft with only the occasional peccadillo from a well known cartoon rabbit :-)I am, too. Inappropriate nudity should be dealt with as a minor public order offence and dealt with either by a formal warning or a moderate fine - unless the offender is persistent.

Nacktman

And the more he posts about this the more laughable it becomes despite the serious implications of the original paranoia surrounding the whole air-brushing in the first place.Have you found a link yet to that dubious survey you quoted? You remember - the one which claimed that 80% of people don't mind being around naked people?

You call me "laughable" yet how are we supposed to take you seriously when you invent a bunch of statistics to bolster your case?

Oh and NO ONE has a DUTY NOT to offend - I disagree - as I explained to Running Bear.

You really need to get a life ...I have a life, thanks. I am in good health, reasonably wealthy, happily married (to the same lady for 30-years), three children (one just qualified as a doctor and one almost qualified as an electrical engineer). I have a wide circle of friends - sometimes a bit too wide as I have to spread myself about a bit too thinly. And what's more, I'm about to emigrate and take up residence in a beautiful house overlooking a bay. OK, my life doesn't include getting naked with others, but I'm not into that - as most people aren't in spite of what your "survey" suggests.

BTW - love the skirt! :)

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Sanslines

but I'm not into that - as most people aren't in spite of what your "survey" suggests.

Stu

and you come to this forum daily? If you are not into nudism, makes no sense whatsoever that you are here all the time except to continue whirring anti-ness.

Think cartwheels is, indeed, what you need to do.

[Sanslines]

Stu,

The point that I am continuing to make is that you need to try to be more tolerant of others around you. For example, if you see a naked person (which quite honestly will always be a very rare event as you will never see roaming hoards of nudists in Tescos or in the streets) you have two choices. You can look away and ignore this minor annoyance to you or you can phone the police and file a complaint. If those individuals are not using their nakedness in a direct and obvious way to specifically abuse or annoy you (the mere presence of harmless nudity that is not specifically directly at you for the sole purpose of intentionally abusing or annoying you is NOT worthy of complaint), then you need to look away. That's all there really is to it. Tolerance and compromise are the solutions to the problems. Adament intolerance will get you no where.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

For example, if you see a naked person (which quite honestly will always be a very rare event as you will never see roaming hoards of nudists in Tescos or in the streets) you have two choices.The reason that seeing a naked person is likely to be a very rare event is because nudists know that they may run into trouble with the law if they get naked where they shouldn't. If I ignore it, I'm signaling that I don't object to it - but I absolutely do object to it - especially if I have my 12-year-old daughter with me who has never seen a naked adult! If everyone took that attitude, you nudists would cease to be limited to nudist beaches and I wouldn't ever be able to go somewhere in the reasonable certainty that I won't encounter you. Sorry - that's unreasonable.

Tolerance and compromise are the solutions to the problems. Adamant intolerance will get you no where.The tolerance and compromise textiles should show is to provide places and opportunities to practise nudism, not to ignore free-range inappropriate nudity.

Stu

[Running Bear]

Stu-I walk naked in the hills with the total intent not to offend anybody and covering up when 'caught out' by a textile. The encounter would be accidental and I would make every effort to rectify the situation by covering up. What I cannot do is remove the encounter. I will not apologise but often explain that we are a naturist walking group if asked. Many people nowadays are aware what a naturist is and are understanding. A smile and greeting is my usual behaviour and it is rare to be upset by a smile and exchange of pleasantries. If you had your way would you attempt to remove my peccadillos and prevent me from fathering any children?
PS: A peccadillo is a legal term for a minor offence and I have satirically used it to refer to two small items that some find offensive in a male naturist.
I find some of Stu's opinions offensive so where is his duty to not offend me? He is welcome to offend me as much as I offend him, neither of us has a duty not to do so.

[Stu2630]

Running Bear

I walk naked in the hills with the total intent not to offend anybody and covering up when 'caught out' by a textile. The encounter would be accidental and I would make every effort to rectify the situation by covering up. What I cannot do is remove the encounter. I will not apologise

I would have no quarrel with you if you made every effort to cover up upon meeting textiles - nor would I expect some sort of apology.

If you had your way would you attempt to remove my peccadillos and prevent me from fathering any children?

Certainly not! I would say "Thank you" for covering up, smile benevolently and walk briskly on. You see, I'm not anywhere near as intolerant as some here try to paint me.

I find some of Stu's opinions offensive so where is his duty to not offend me? He is welcome to offend me as much as I offend him, neither of us has a duty not to do so.

You are conflating two very different things. Nearly everyone can be offended by someone else's behaviour and that fact is recognised by our legislators. It is also why there are laws to protect people when using public places - widely-framed laws like section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. But to hold and express a point of view, belief or opinion is universally recognised as a fundamental and inalienable human right and is protected in all civilised countries. You can shout from the rooftops how wonderful it is to be a naturist and that everyone should try it - you can wear a tee-shirt extolling nudism - that is protected expression and denying you that right is oppression and, ultimately, fascism. But this right doesn't extend to something which goes beyond merely communicating a belief and is thus a behaviour in its own right. So writing graffiti, swearing, smashing shop windows, rioting or openly getting naked in public do not enjoy such protection.

Stu

[nacktman]

Cartwheels, yes, cartwheels.
:thinking:

[nimrod]

Sanslines
What??? I freely admit that I do not wish to tolerate nudity.
Stu

Wow this is news to me, I have said that you were intolerant and you have denied it, even debated the fact that you were in denial about your intolerance.

[Stu2630]

nimrod

I have said that you were intolerant and you have denied it, even debated the fact that you were in denial about your intolerance.What planet have you been on? Mind you, it shouldn't surprise me. Many people here don't actually read what I say and you obviously haven't read it - or else you haven't understood it.

I have said again and again and again that I want to be able to live my life free of seeing nudity. And I have repeated ad nauseum that I find inappropriate nakedness to be offensive and unacceptable. I have never said that I am happy to tolerate encountering nakedness in public outside of areas where it is to be expected, like locker rooms etc. I'm not happy to tolerate that and I find it gross and it evokes feelings of serious discomfort. If you think I have said the contrary - show me.

What I am happy to tolerate - in fact, what I would be happy to support - is for there to be far more facilities for nudists (properly segregated, of course).

Stu

[nimrod]

That is right you have said it in the past, I was trying to explain to you that your intolerance was not restricted to just nudity but nudist as well, which you are still in denial about. Try not to insult me by saying that I have been on another planet it is just rude, not quite name calling but close enough. A polite insult is just as insulting.

[nacktman]

Nimrod, look at it this way ...

Here is a graphic of Stu's logic:

http://www.links.org/pics/spin-02-07.004-idealbiarc-0160-ben.gif

Never-ending intertwining circular self absorbed gobble-di-gook if there ever was.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

That is right you have said it in the past, I was trying to explain to you that your intolerance was not restricted to just nudity but nudist as well, which you are still in denial about.

I have no intolerance towards nudists. I have said repeatedly that I support the rights of nudists to have more and better facilities. My objection isn't to the people who practise nudism, nor to the fact that people practise nudism at nudist places. My objection is to open public nakedness outside of areas where it can be reasonably expected (like nudist beaches, locker rooms etc). I find that equally objectionable whether the people who are naked are nudists, protesters, streakers, flashers or whatever.

BTW - I didn't mean to attack you, but sometimes I feel that my views here are constantly misunderstood and misrepresented even though I am continually expounding and clarifying them, and that gets really frustrating :mad:. No offence was intended.

Stu

[nimrod]

If you want to segregate people that is being intolerant of those people. I believe that criminals should have certain rights, but I still do not have tolerance for them.

Back to topic, there is a disorder in the American culture of nudity in any form being bad. Now not everyone shares those thoughts, but it seems that the ones who do are heard more often. Probably because if it does not bother someone they will not say anything, but often if only one complains, the people in charge over-reacts and things just become worse. I was happy to read on another thread that there are some out there that are starting to say enough is enough, things are getting crazy.

[Stu2630]

If you want to segregate people that is being intolerant of those people.

It's not being intolrant of them - it's facilitating the desires both of nudists and prudes. You are the one being intolerant - of people who are offended by the sight of nudity and wish to live separate from it.

I believe that criminals should have certain rights, but I still do not have tolerance for them.

We may tolerate criminals as people, but we don't accept their criminality. That's just the same as I accept nudists, but I don't want to be the victim of their nakedness. Besides, we segregate criminals from the rest of society when we put hem in prison!

Back to topic, there is a disorder in the American culture of nudity in any form being bad.

I don't know of anyone who thinks all nudity is bad any more than sex is bad. It's just that there are times and places where these things are acceptable and when they are not. The only differences between a nudist and a non-nudist are that nudists actually enjoy nudity for its own sake, and that nudists like to extend the available times and places where it is deemed appropriate.

In some ways, society is becoming less prudish, but in others it is becoming more so. The net effect is that overall very little is changing and that suits me.

Stu

[nacktman]

http://www.links.org/pics/spin-02-07.004-idealbiarc-0160-ben.gif