Is the step to toplessness more difficult than total nudity?

[ellie]

Ladies,

You aren't contributing much to this forum, so I thought I would put up a topic to see what you all think. I'm writing from a European (British) perspective, so the US one might be slightly different, although I'd love to hear what American ladies think.

Is the step to going topless more difficult than going totally nude?

I have a theory.

When dressed for the beach, ladies will be in a bikini, gentlemen in swim trunks.

A bare bottom is a bare bottom, and none of us would be overly anxious about exposing our own, however briefly, when changing on the beach. All of the 'rude bits' or 'sexual bits' are at the front.

The first step to beach nudity, for women, is often the bikini bra. You see it so often...girls and young women lie face down, undo the clasp, slip their arms out of the straps, hold the cups in position every time they move, lie down again, then perhaps move without holding the cups in place so that, for a nanosecond, a nipple is exposed. After an hour she might sit up, knees clamped under her chin so that the side of her breasts are exposed. Finally, when she 'gets it', that no one is paying much attention, she'll straighten her legs out and expose, maybe for a few seconds or a minute, her breasts fully for the first time. This goes on, with longer periods of exposed bosom, until she has got over her anxiety. Ecentually, she'll be standing up, walking around and swimming topless.

The anxiety comes from 'size'. How does she compare with other ladies? Bigger? Smaller? Saggy? Pert? Too big? 'AA' cup?

But now she's over it. There are bigger, smaller, saggier, perter ladies on the beach and no one's terribly bothered.

She's over it.

She's not desperately bothered by anyone seeing her naked bottom and, well, what's left to expose? A triangle of pubic hair? A brazilian? Shaved?

Often, the step to total nudity is filled with less anxiety than that first step to toplessness.

For men, it's different. Bare chests are normal. For them, the anxieties, on a nude beach, are all to come when the shorts come off. Bigger? Smaller? Circumcised? Intact? How do they compare with other men?

At this point, the woman's anxieties (in my opinion) are all over. The removal of bikini briefs is often less fraught with anxiety than the step to go 'topless'.

What do you ladies think?

Was the first step, to 'toplessness', more difficult than the removal of bikini briefs? Or are you still at the first stage? If so, what's making you reluctant to remove your briefs?

I'd love to hear your opinions (and gentlemens' opinions, too) on the two stages to nudity.

[Pete Knight]

Wow, what a great thread, beats the "Do you wear underwear' threads, anyway here are the votes of the Norwegian jury (European humour, sorry America.).

From my point of view I had no problem with the transition as I entered social nudism late in life after being frustrated by a prudish wife who wasn't impressed with my nudist tendencies, I realised I was a nudist of sorts but didn't get into the social scene until the divorce kicked off.

My first social nude experience was at a naturist swim in Chester, I went in and was shown around by a guy called Jon Richmond, well known in UK naturist circles, and I never looked back, now I too am well known in UK naturist circles and get around to as many events as possible, I even get paid to go to naturist events, how lucky is that!

I believe its different for you ladies, you feel more looked at and more vulnerable, this is why I think I got on so well with my g/f, she feels more at ease with me because I see her and not her boobs, hey boobs are ten a penny in naturism.

Pete Knight

[NudonyII]

I was going to wait until one of the ladies responded...but then I changed my mind!:p

Culture has a lot to do with it. My first example: my high school sweetheart back in France. We had both grown up in a culture of topfreedom. And she had embraced it. From the first day she dropped her top (in mid-teens), she never had any reluctance to go topfree at the lake or beach. Getting her to lose that last, tiny piece of clothing, though, proved to be an exercise in futility. She simply would not part from her bottoms. I called it the "fig leaf complex." That sentiment was pervasive among other female friends as well.

It's a bit different in a culture where no form of nudity is common. When one has to work nudity from the top down, then all the "hard work" is in losing the top. Once this has been accomplished, it takes much less work and anxiety to finish the job and lose that last "fig leaf". I think it's all about where the anxiety is focused. Which leads me to my second example. A friend of mine who was concerned with her breast size; yet didn't think twice about going bottomfree. Because all her anxieties were focused on her breasts.

[DenitaLC]

Honestly, I think it's the bottoms that are the hardest for most women to loose. Lots of women will topless sunbath but NEVER DARE drop their drawers for the total tan.
JMHO

[Boreas]

It has been much harder for me to be topfree than to be totally nude. I think the reason is that on occasions where I can be nude in a social setting, everyone else is also nude. The first social nude event was awkward (in my own head) but I got over it quickly because it was such a safe and comfortable environment.

I have been working on becoming totally brafree. I am very comfortable now under certain tops, and very uncomfortable under others. I feel exposed in some tops. I used to feel that way anytime I was brafree, even if it was not likely noticable. Now, who cares. They're my breasts....well under many tops anyway.

This winter we were in the Dominican Republic at a resort where many European women were topfree. I was going to join them, really I was. :o Sadly I didn't. It was because it was still a minority of women who were topfree, and I did not care to be a spectacle. Not that I am anything special to look at :), just that I did not want to go there.

One thing I have realized is that the discomfort is likely mostly in my own mind. When I am confidently brafree, I don't think anyone particularly notices or cares. I suspect the same would hold true of topfree. I know that if I get to the DR again, I will go topfree. I might even do some pretanning in a booth beforehand to get psyched up. (I am REALLY white!)

I plan to try topfreedom in my backyard this summer. It is visible to a couple of neighbours without being totally public. It is legal in this province, so I don't imagine it will be an issue. (Stu does not live next door:sneaky:) That will be one way to become comfortable. I am brafree at home almost all of the time, and I don't really care if someone stops by. It is my house. :D

[NudonyII]

Honestly, I think it's the bottoms that are the hardest for most women to loose. Lots of women will topless sunbath but NEVER DARE drop their drawers for the total tan.
JMHO

That's interesting. Take my wife, for example. The first time we went to a nude resort, and she was quite squeamish about it, she threw on a T-shirt and didn't have a care in the world about being bottomfree; but she required some effort and encouragement to finally remove the T-shirt and be completely nude. I've talked with other female nudists who have reported, and would concur with ellie, that the first bit of nudity, namely going topless, was the most difficult part of disrobing. I myself saw a semi-terrified newby, tightly clad in a sarong, nevertheless hike up her sarong to wade in the pool.

But I think Denita is probably right in general. If someone finds their comfort zone in the topfree experience, it may be more challenging for them to go all the way nude. The women I've met/known had zero experience with outdoor nudity and went straight into a nudist experience, without the sometimes preliminary stage of topfreedom. When someone is brought into a fully nude environment with no experience in social nudity at any level, then topfreedom becomes a mere prelude to complete nudity and becomes a much more anxious event. Which would explain why my wife had a much harder time removing her T-shirt than anything else.

But that's just my theory...:bonk:

[Boreas]

But that's just my theory...:bonk:

And a pretty good theory it is too. :)

[Mrs. Natura]

One thing I have realized is that the discomfort is likely mostly in my own mind.

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

This is so very true, and can be said about many different subjects/issues.
Sometimes we all have our moments, but that's just a part of our journey down the road of life. WE LIVE, WE LEARN, right!?! :rolleyes: lol :)

It's so FUNNY, as I am absolutely 'the opposite' of you regarding this subject! ha,ha,ha

[Fitz1980]

I've gotten several girls from work to go to Haulover Beach and often they are fine going topfree but wake to keep their bottoms on. When I lived with my old roommate Maria we were pretty casually nude in front of each other but she was often half covered and it didn't seem to matter which half was covered to her. I was usually completely nude at the apt while after getting out of bed and coming into the kitchen she would sometimes have shorts and no top and other times be wearing a shirt that didn't cover anything below the waist.

[ellie]

It was because it was still a minority of women who were topfree, and I did not care to be a spectacle.

Interesting, Boreas.

NudonyII makes reference to discomfort being all in the mind, which is very true.

Writing from a European persepctive, I've gone to beaches where being topless is essentially THE mode of dress, and one of my friends had never gone topless before, nor wanted to, being a rather shy, self-concious sort of lass. Some of us went topless, since a) we'd done it before and couldn't care less and b) it was acceptable. Our friend initially didn't, but after an hour or so expressed discomfort at being the only -and I mean the only- woman within sight who was sporting a bikini bra. She felt uncomfortable, as if she was the spectacle, and the bikini top was gone after a while, at which point she felt she "fitted in".

I often think the same applies to nudist beaches. Confirmed textiles WILL eventually strip off on the basis that they're feeling uncomfortable in a minority.

[Boreas]

ellie thanks for your post. Most of the women who were topfree at the resort where we visited were likely European. There may have been some brave Canadian and American women in the group. One of the European couples was letting their nine-ish year old daughter romp in the water nude. It was awesome to see. She was having a ball, and I was envious. Her mom was topfree.

Ironically, it is legal for women to be topfree in Canada, or at least it is not illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that it was okay for women to be topfree anywhere it is appropriate for men. I do not think many women know about this, or even exercise that right. Now, I have not been on a beach on the Great Lakes lately though.....that might be where you see it.

I am thinking I will sit in our backyard topfree this summer. There really is no reason to be uncomfortable......though that is easier said then done usually isn't it.

I notice you are fairly new in here. Welcome aboard.

[Boreas]

Absolutely NOT!!

Care to elaborate?

[NudeJanice]

Going topless in many parts of Europe, especially Germany, is no big deal and quite different from being completely nude. I was frequently topless at home before I took the plunge and went bottomless as well. So for me it feels much more nude to be bottomless than topless, which is why if it is chilly now I put on a top and stay nude from the waist down. I would not go bottomless in front of my parents whereas they have often seen me topless.

[ellie]

I notice you are fairly new in here. Welcome aboard.


Thanks, Boreas.

As you can guess, I'm in Europe. Scotland to be precise.

I find the discussion here very interesting, since it's largely from a North American perspective, and it's fascinating to see the subtle differences between a European and N.American view.

Those of us in Britain would probably be a bit more reserved than some other European countries, but I still think we in Britain seem more chilled out in our attitudes to nudity than people in N.America.

For instance, here and on other blogs/forums, I'll see people railing against 'Google Earth' in case they're spotted indulging in some nude sunbathing in their garden/back yard.

Me? I couldn't care less. If I turn up in my garden, nude, on Google Earth, that's how it is.

My space. My choice.

If I'm photographed, I do not see it as a violation of my privacy rights (and that applies if I'm snapped on the beach at Vera, too. It's only a body...)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong taking a contrary view, just that it demonstrates the different attitudes that apply either side of the Atlantic, and I'm continually fascinated by those differences.

[NJNude1965]

many females at least in the U.S. are affraid of unwanted attention at all levels.

Yes as a guy I will look at a girl who I think is attractive and I admit that all the time, but I also look at the girl for the person she is and I think girls should be just as confortable out of their clothes as they are in them.

What I feel needs to change at least in the U.S. is the attitudes toward the nude body.

That is just my 2 cents.

[Eternity]

For me it was a much bigger deal to first go topless on the beach than it was to also go bottomless a few years later. Not a very European way of thinking :rolleyes:

[LanceAtCaliente]

Great comments, everybody. Love reading your viewpoints.

From years and years of observation concerning this matter, I'd have to say that for each woman, it's an individual thing. At Caliente and Paradise Lakes in Florida, USA, I've most often noted that when gals are wearing anything, they are wearing a bottom-half of a bathing suit and nothing else. My wife, however, is most hesitant about removing the top half of her bathing suit. I've also seen some gals going bottomless but having their tops covered. All I can conclude is that this is an individual matter for each gal, and that's fine.

Thinking makes it so: Think you can ... think you can't ... either way, you're right.

For us guys, obviously, our concern is the socially-inculcated "size issue" and also the "erection issue." When I started out in 1984 at Paradise Lakes, I had on this terrycloth bathrobe type deal that looked like a mid-length, terrycloth skirt, really. Well, it took me FOR-EV-ER to slooowwwllllyyy remove that damned thing!

The women there were actually grinning at me and my obvious discomfort and embarrassment. I knew that they were laughing with me and not at me. I ooched that thing off in stages and very slowly over many minutes ... and then plunged right into the pool ... pronto!

God, that was nearly 25 years ago. Now, I walk all over Caliente and Paradise Lakes totally unconcerned. Lucky genetics and regular exercise have blessed me with a good form. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying ... . Anyway, if anybody snaps a cellphone photo of me or a Google Earth satellite snaps a photo of me, oh, well.

See gals! It's tough for us guys too, just in a different way. Whatever you do, take the plunge and enjoy our lifestyle.

Peace.

[Nikron]

For me it was a much bigger deal to first go topless on the beach than it was to also go bottomless a few years later. Not a very European way of thinking :rolleyes:
How many years ago was that? 10-15 years ago, topless was the norm in Sweden and Denmark, but now the tops have come back. I wonder if it's the same in the rest of Europe, for example the Netherlands?

[David77]

I've also seen some gals going bottomless but having their tops covered.

If they are going bottomless and wearing an invisitable internal pad (tampon), be sure and cut off the tag that hangs out, because it looks funny to see a woman go around with the tag dangling.

[Eternity]

How many years ago was that? 10-15 years ago, topless was the norm in Sweden and Denmark, but now the tops have come back. I wonder if it's the same in the rest of Europe, for example the Netherlands?

I started to go topless on the beach in 1998, around that time going topless was a lot more popular here too. Not just on the beach but also in city parks, public outdoor pools, camping sites etc. Now it's less common but still accepted. I think it's less popular now because western european culture in general has become more conservative in the last decade.

[Pete Knight]

I started to go topless on the beach in 1998, around that time going topless was a lot more popular here too. Not just on the beach but also in city parks, public outdoor pools, camping sites etc. Now it's less common but still accepted. I think it's less popular now because western european culture in general has become more conservative in the last decade.
But at least you ladies now have a choice, a choice widely denied to our American cousins.

Apart from the beaches overlooked by a town promenade, you can see topless ladies on numerous UK beaches, and no one gets uptight about it.

Pete Knight

[Eternity]

But at least you ladies now have a choice

I think many women here don't have a real choice, they want to go topless on the beach but don't do it. For some reason it's now a bigger deal to be topless on the beach than it was a decade ago, making it harder for someone to try out going topless.

[Pete Knight]

I think many women here don't have a real choice, they want to go topless on the beach but don't do it. For some reason it's now a bigger deal to be topless on the beach than it was a decade ago, making it harder for someone to try out going topless.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the current generations being more fashion aware as a result of all those glossy magazines. Not having the problem (Being, as I am, a bloke.) I find it difficult to understand the reasons, so I can only speculate.

Pete Knight

[Nude in the North]

People can find so many reasons to keep their clothes on. Laws, Morals, Peer pressure, Modesty, Fear, ect...

It's no wonder that it's difficult for so many to break away from all that and do something for themselves.

My first trip to a nude beach I had many of the same reservations. Even though I was surrounded by Naked people, I had never been Naked around so many people. My whole life (35 years at the time) I was told that it was wrong to have others see me naked.
In the US it's even becomming taboo to wear too short shorts. Going in public with shorts that were standard uniform for the NBA 20-30 years ago , could subject you to strange looks and rude comments in many parts of the US these days. Just the other day a neighbor and schoolmate I have known for over 40 years made a comment about me being in my garden in a speedo. And it wasn't even a speedo I was wearing. Just fairly short shorts. Yet it was his perception that I was showing too much skin that caused him to attempt to embarrass me with his comments.

Knowing how I was raised, and the conservative culture I live in, I can relate to how difficult it can be to shed that final layer of security. It takes a bit of courage and determination to go against the grain, and release yourself from the bonds that have tied you down your entire life.

[Pete Knight]

People can find so many reasons to keep their clothes on. Laws, Morals, Peer pressure, Modesty, Fear, ect...

It's no wonder that it's difficult for so many to break away from all that and do something for themselves.


Yes I suppose I was lucky that my formative years were influenced by my fathers sporting prowess, I spent half my preschool childhood in changing rooms, then the school changing rooms and showers were communal.
I also used to skinny dip in the river, and a whole host of memories of naked play without feeling shame, or having shame projected upon me by adults.

The upshot of all this is that I took to social nudism quite easily.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Eternity

I think many women here don't have a real choice, they want to go topless on the beach but don't do it. For some reason it's now a bigger deal to be topless on the beach than it was a decade ago, making it harder for someone to try out going topless.

Thank you! :D I have been indicating this trend on here for some time now but I wasn't believed.

Stu

[Eternity]

Eternity



Thank you! :D I have been indicating this trend on here for some time now but I wasn't believed.

Stu
Isn't it very obvious? (even to people who don't pay attention to beach clothing) :confused:

[vanesa1017]

Isn't it very obvious? (even to people who don't pay attention to beach clothing) :confused:

I would say that it definitely is the case here in New York. Women who want to go topfree really only go topfree on the nude beaches because it is safer to go there than where it is legally accepted. Topfreedom just isnt as accepted yet on the regular textile beaches. A very sad statement.

Now there are certainly exceptions to this rule, but sadly not that many.

[MoonShadow]

Eternity



Thank you! :D I have been indicating this trend on here for some time now but I wasn't believed.

Stu

No, you haven't.

[walter05]

I asked a female customer that is a good friend about this issue. She said she is afraid of the digital cameras. She does not want a topless photo of her on the internet.

[Stu2630]

No, you haven't.

Moonshadow

Read this:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=12942&highlight=toplessness

Check out my posts 1, 4, 6 and 10.

Apology awaited.

:D

Stu

[MoonShadow]

LOL

You believe everything you read and from one or two newspaper sources from main-stream media??????? You've got to be kidding.

Just more of your anti-ness.

Just more whirring!

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

I said:


Thank you! :D I have been indicating this trend on here for some time now but I wasn't believed

You said:


Stu No, you haven't.

And I just proved that I had indicated this trend nine months ago!

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong.

You believe everything you read and from one or two newspaper sources from main-stream media??????? You've got to be kidding.

It's not just "one or two newspaper sources" is it? It's nudists on here who are saying it. Check out Eternity's posting #20 where she says "I think it's less popular now because western european culture in general has become more conservative in the last decade." And #22, where she says: "For some reason it's now a bigger deal to be topless on the beach than it was."

Stu

[MoonShadow]

. Check out Eternity's posting #20 where she says "I think it's less popular now because western european culture in general has become more conservative in the last decade." And #22, where she says: "For some reason it's now a bigger deal to be topless on the beach than it was."

Stu

It is NOT now a bigger deal to be topless than it WAS. I have been to numerous beaches around the world and toplessness is actually more prevalent today than it use to be. I speak from my own experiences on the many beaches I have visited and enjoyed over the many decades I have lived past and current.

Those newspaper accounts are inaccurate.

[Agde]

"Bigger deal" has two sides -- community acceptance and individual attitudes. I can confirm that in terms of acceptance/attitudes on French beaches, it is and was no big deal. Nothing has changed. We've been through a conservative decade in terms of official community acceptance in America, but in terms of individual attitudes, I think MoonShadow is right that topfreedom may be less of a big deal than it was. My reading of my current university students is that they have no problem with topfree and, given the slightest loosening of police beach brutishness, both genders would cheerfully embrace gender-neutral norms for minimum swimwear coverage. I doubt the UK is that much different. Perhaps its a good time to let a new generation lead.

[Nikron]

It is NOT now a bigger deal to be topless than it WAS. I have been to numerous beaches around the world and toplessness is actually more prevalent today than it use to be.
Unfortunately, it's not like that in Sweden or Denmark. 15 years ago, you hardly saw a bikini top on a textile beach, nowadays the vast majority wears them. Go back 25 years, and nudity was common on all Danish beaches. In effect, all Danish beaches were clothing optional in those days.

[Stu2630]

Nikron

Unfortunately, it's not like that in Sweden or Denmark. 15 years ago, you hardly saw a bikini top on a textile beach, nowadays the vast majority wears them. Go back 25 years, and nudity was common on all Danish beaches. In effect, all Danish beaches were clothing optional in those days

Thank you! :D A second nudist confirms what I have been saying. I was in Denmark FOUR times last year and saw very few topless women and NO nudity. This also applies to the UK, and to many parts of Germany and some other European beaches I have visited.

Moonshadow has disputed that I had previously claimed that toplessness on European beaches was becoming less common. I proved that I had said that. Now she is disputing the accuracy of newspaper articles even though it's not just my perception, but also that of two nudists here. That's called 'being in denial'.

Moonshadow - this isn't about nudism or my attitudes towards it: it's about the decline in toplessness and nudity on textile beaches. I want textile beaches to keep expected dress codes and for nudists to enjoy nudist or clothing optional beaches. I can't understand why you think that's me being "anti" nudism.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Sorry, Stu, I have been around the world's beaches many times so I speak from experience regardless what you want to hear.

Yes, you are anti-nudity. All your posts are nothing but that.

[Boreas]

Sorry, Stu, I have been around the world's beaches many times so I speak from experience regardless what you want to hear.

Yes, you are anti-nudity. All your posts are nothing but that.

Of course, your "anecdotal evidence" is suspect because you have evidence against Stu's views. All "anecdotal evidence" supporting Stu's views is fine. :sneaky:

[Pete Knight]

The part I find annoying is Stu's crowing at having scored a point against naturism, and using it to demoralise and discourage nudists. This is NOT what CFF is meant to be about, it is meant to be about promoting nudism, NOT demoting it.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

I have been around the world's beaches many times so I speak from experience regardless what you want to hear.

World's beaches? We are talking about textile beaches, so are you saying that you travel the world to frequent these rather than going to nudist beaches?

Like you, I have been in many countries in recent years and my experience is contrary to yours. My experience accords with that of a journalist at the Danish newspaper, Politiken, and also the travel writer at the British quality broadsheet paper, the Daily Telegraph, and of the nudist here called Eternity and of the nudist here called Nikron.

Yes, you are anti-nudity.

I am anti nudity in textile places. Just as nudists want to protect nudist places, I want to protect textile places. What's wrong with that?

Pete says:

The part I find annoying is Stu's crowing at having scored a point against naturism,

I haven't scored a point against naturism. Toplessness on textile beaches is an issue for textiles - it has nothing to do with naturism.

Stu

[Running Bear]

The part I find annoying is Stu's crowing at having scored a point against naturism, and using it to demoralise and discourage nudists. This is NOT what CFF is meant to be about, it is meant to be about promoting nudism, NOT demoting it.
Pete Knight
Yet, you also seem to crow when you score a point against Stu? Cannot have your cake and eat it :-)
I feel sad that you feel your naturism is so shallow that you find Stu's comments demoralising. I am very proud and confident enough to treat Stu's ideas with the contempt they deserve when they are wrong. However they are not always wrong and have made me reconsider my own opinions on many occasions. Stu makes me think but I do have a photo of him on my dartboard.

I personally have noted in my experience more topless ladies and naked children on beaches which refutes Stu's ideas. There are too many variables for a trend. I have also noted more people changing in the open without the beach-towel shuffle.

[Pete Knight]

Yet, you also seem to crow when you score a point against Stu? Cannot have your cake and eat it :-)
I feel sad that you feel your naturism is so shallow that you find Stu's comments demoralising.
I come here to exchange ideas with like minded people, this is our sanctuary from the hostile world of anti-ness. If it were constructive criticism, or helpful in any way I would welcome him.

Yes it does demoralise me, but my naturism isn't so shallow as you suggest, I look to naturism to overcome my problems in life, it gives me the uplift I need, then I come here to find anti nudist propaganda being bandied about.

I could enter into a debate about the apparent decline in toplessness, but not with Stu, who will only see, or should I say, portray a decline in body awareness through some meaningless observation, without taking into account other factors.

I'll be taking a break from CFF for a while, and I may even stop posting altogether, this is not a naturist friendly site any more.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete says:

I look to naturism to overcome my problems in life, it gives me the uplift I need, then I come here to find anti nudist propaganda being bandied about.There is nothing ant-nudist about saying that fewer women are going topless on textile beaches.

I could enter into a debate about the apparent decline in toplessness, but not with Stu, who will only see, or should I say, portray a decline in body awareness through some meaningless observation, without taking into account other factors.I added to this debate when a nudist echoed something I have been saying for some. Funny how it's not "meaningless observation" when they say it.

And is it really "meaningless observation" when the travel editor of a highly regarded British newspaper writes a lengthy article on this perceived trend? (for those who don't know, the Daily Telegraph is something like the British equivalent of the Washington Post).

Remember that, when discussing toplessness on beaches, we are talking ONLY about textile beaches (i.e. beaches which YOU don't go to but I do!). Nudists seem to have double standards. I wouldn't gloat or think it some kind of victory if nudist beaches were becoming over-run by textiles and that was discouraging nudism. Yet nudists seem to have no such qualms about gloating when they see our textile principles being flouted by inconsiderate people exposing themselves and making people feel uncomfortable at our textile beaches. Nudists want respect for their chosen lifestyle, yet they are constantly trying to ferment changes in textile places which they know will upset some textiles. That's a bit like a Christian going into a mosque and trying to convert Muslims while banning Muslims from entering churches. It's not mutual respect - it's saying "we're right and you are wrong so you must do things our way". Double standards!

Why can't both groups be allowed to run their beaches how they see fit?

Stu

[Sanslines]

Pete says:
And is it really "meaningless observation" when the travel editor of a highly regarded British newspaper writes a lengthy article on this perceived trend? (for those who don't know, the Daily Telegraph is something like the British equivalent of the Washington Post).
Stu

Let's not resort to 'association by implication' methods to prove a point.

1) The Telegraph may or may not be highly regarded. Some highly regard it and others do not. Some regard the Times as a much more prestigious paper. Heck, some don't get beyond reading the 'Sun'.

2) The travel editor may or may not be highly regarded. Just because someone writes to or for an alleged 'highly regarded' newspaper does not make that person automatically highly regarded. Such associations by implication may or may not be valid.

3) The Washington Post clearly does not always have highly regarded contributors or editors. The strength of the Washington Post clearly does not come from it's 'travel section'. The strength comes from domestic and international political news. The same may be said of the Telegraph.

[MoonShadow]

And on the whirring continues!

[MoonShadow]

Pete Knight, you stay right here in the forum! You belong here --- much more so than Stu. So, don't you go away ----- or we will have to come hunt you down ;) and drag your naked butt back in.

[Agde]

Why can't both groups be allowed to run their beaches how they see fit?
The segregatist assumption of Stu's post is of course the usual rubbish. Beaches are for all of us to enjoy. Moreover, the wide variety in beachwear makes a binary textile-nudist argument pretty pointless. In previous times, "inconsiderate people" flouted prevailing "textile principles" by wearing bikinis. Now gender-neutral beachwear rules will make certain older "people feel uncomfortable" -- c'est la vie! Even if everyone were wearing exactly the same board shorts, Stu will forever think that the women were "exposing themselves" whilst guys were not. It's merely old fashioned thinking. Stu's kind of "textile" and his kind of "nudist" are just extremes adversaries of a disappearing era. They are not "our textile beaches" -- they are simply "our beaches."

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I agree with you that it's all relative. The Telegraph, along with The Times and The Guardian, are what we refer to as a "quality broadsheets", as distinct from the "populist tabloids". My point was that it's not a sensationalist paper - it has a high reputation in British journalism (unlike The Sun, which has a very low reputation!).

And the writer interviewed French beach users:

For some it is simply a change in fashion, for others it marks a new conservatism sweeping France....


"It is seen as a bit vulgar now," said Sabina Hourdin, 38, from Paris, holidaying in St Tropez. "It is like mini-skirts. You don't show your legs any more, you cover them up more. In the 70s and 80s less was considered more when it came to clothes but now that has changed. It has gone out of fashion."...

Geraldine Doree, a 34-year-old publishing executive from Paris who was enjoying the beach at St Tropez, said: "In the past the whole place would have been filled with topless women, but people are a lot more sensible nowadays.
Agde

Beaches are for all of us to enjoy.Exactly! Just as footpaths through woods are for us all to enjoy. Some like scrambling through woods on motorcycles - others prefer the silence broken only by the breeze and birdsong. So we have woods where both activities can be enjoyed - separately!

Now gender-neutral beachwear rules will make certain older "people feel uncomfortable" -- c'est la vie!Gender neutral beachwear? That's a new one on me. There was certainly nothing 'gender neutral' about what the people I saw wearing on the European and British beaches last year.

They are not "our textile beaches" -- they are simply "our beachesTry walking naked through any popular family beach in the UK, or many other countries, and explaining to the police officer that they are now "our beaches". You may live in a part of the world, indeed in a part of France, where this is the case, but if you think this is acceptable in most beaches in most countries, I fear you are deluding yourself. I can only assume you don't go to textile beaches, or certainly not ones away from your particular locale. Even (East) German nudists are complaining that their western counterparts are not tolerant their nudity and that they are now having to cover up or go to designated beaches.

It is my experience, and nudists' own research confirms this, that most people believe nudists should have their own beaches set aside for nudism. They don't want to share their beaches with naked adults. Nudists should recognise that, respect it, and enjoy their own segregate beaches and allow us textiles to enjoy ours.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Pete Knight, you stay right here in the forum! You belong here --- much more so than Stu. So, don't you go away ----- or we will have to come hunt you down ;) and drag your naked butt back in.


Too late! Pete got so disguisted that he put his clothes back on and went back into the textile world. Catch him at a textile beach near you!

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I agree with you that it's all relative. The Telegraph, along with The Times and The Guardian, are what we refer to as a "quality broadsheets", as distinct from the "populist tabloids". My point was that it's not a sensationalist paper - it has a high reputation in British journalism (unlike The Sun, which has a very low reputation!).

I don't disagree but I have seen a group of blokes que up at the till to buy the Sun for no other reason then to view the topfree page free girls!! The Sun may have a low reputation, but it is certainly popular and we have the page three girls to thank for that.

[Sanslines]

It is my experience, and nudists' own research confirms this, that most people believe nudists should have their own beaches set aside for nudism. They don't want to share their beaches with naked adults. Nudists should recognise that, respect it, and enjoy their own segregate beaches and allow us textiles to enjoy ours.

Stu

I want to generously share my nudist beaches with textiles. You mean to tell me that textiles do not want to recriprocate and share but instead prefer to promote intolerance and segregation. How utterly ungrateful and intolerant!! No wonder we have problems with textiles.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I have seen a group of blokes que up at the till to buy the Sun for no other reason then to view the topfree page free girls!! The Sun may have a low reputation, but it is certainly popular and we have the page three girls to thank for that.Yes they do. And of course these blokes could be really concerned to appreciate the aesthetics of the natural human state, and wouldn't care about the sex, age, or attractiveness of the subject. Either that or they're dirty old gits who get off by leering at the boobs of 18-year-old girls. Which do you think it is?

I want to generously share my nudist beaches with textiles.My cat used to bring dead birds and mice into the house to "generously share" the feast he had caught and delivered. We politely declined.

You mean to tell me that textiles do not want to recriprocate and share but instead prefer to promote intolerance and segregation. How utterly ungrateful and intolerant!! No wonder we have problems with textiles.You have problems with textiles? You had better tell Agde, because he has convinced himself that "textile" and "nudist" are just "extremes adversaries of a disappearing era" and that there is no distinction between our respective beaches. Your "problems with textiles" shows us that we don't want to use your beaches, and we don't want you using ours (unless you do as we do and cover your genitals etc).

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

Ellie wrote

>> Ladies, You aren't contributing much to this forum,

And so what happens in return: Stu manages to spew out an astonishing 7 posts already with surely more to come at rapid pace. No wonder ladies are not contributing much to thi forum, go figure...

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

Yes they do. And of course these blokes could be really concerned to appreciate the aesthetics of the natural human state, and wouldn't care about the sex, age, or attractiveness of the subject. Either that or they're dirty old gits who get off by leering at the boobs of 18-year-old girls. Which do you think it is?

I think that the point is that this is a clear example of where toplessness saved the "Sun" from going under and is certainly popular enough to sell a newspaper. This is in direct contrast to what you said about how toplessness is 'dying out'.

My cat used to bring dead birds and mice into the house to "generously share" the feast he had caught and delivered. We politely declined.

An example of 'antiness' if ever there was one. So you are now comparing nudism to a cat bringing home a dead bird or mouse. Wow - I am stunned.

You have problems with textiles? You had better tell Agde, because he has convinced himself that "textile" and "nudist" are just "extremes adversaries of a disappearing era" and that there is no distinction between our respective beaches. Your "problems with textiles" shows us that we don't want to use your beaches, and we don't want you using ours (unless you do as we do and cover your genitals etc).
Stu

Yup....same ol story. It's all about the textiles and what they want regardless of what nudists want. The rights of nudists just don't matter to textiles. Plain and simple intolerance and total lakc of regard for others who believe differently from them. Nothing ever changes. Antiness at it's finast!

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

This is in direct contrast to what you said about how toplessness is 'dying out'I was talking about toplessness on beaches becoming far less common, not topless glamour photography. I fail to see what women deciding to keep their tops on when using a beach has to do with the fact that a downmarket newspaper uses semi-pornographic images to encourage bricklayers to buy a copy on their way to work so they have something sexual to drool over while having their cheese sandwich.

So you are now comparing nudism to a cat bringing home a dead bird or mouse.No I'm not. I was using an analogy to show how 'sharing' is not always desirable appreciated. But of course you already knew that and you were being obtuse. ;)

It's all about the textiles and what they want regardless of what nudists want.It rather depends upon exactly what nudists want. Some seem content to enjoy decent, accessible beaches with good facilities allocated for their use. Others seem to think they have some kind of inalienable right to expose themselves to everyone else, nudist or otherwise. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the first group, while the second group should be told to think again because their desires are unacceptable.

The rights of nudists just don't matter to textiles.The rights of considerate nudists certainly do matter to me, but the inconsiderate ones don't care about my rights to be able to enjoy a public environment free from nudity.

Anyway, we seem to be straying a long way from the topic at hand. My point was that there is a trend away from female toplessness on beaches and, globally, it is now far less common than it was. Last August, I had a couple of weeks in north Jutland and visited several, very busy beaches there mainly used by German holiday-makers. Round about three out of four women had tops on and about one-in-four were topless. That is a reversal of what you would have seen twenty years ago. If you visit any main British beach, e.g. at Brighton, Scarborough, Bournemouth or Blackpool, you will probably not see a single topless woman! I think this trend is wonderful and I hope it continues. Yet some nudists here are in denial about it, while would say it is a bad thing even though it doesn't affect them.

Why is that? Why do nudists concern themselves with what's happening in the textile world? It's because nudists harbour a deep ambition that one day the world will wake up and realise that inhibitions about the naked body are unnecessary and unwholesome, in other words, what we now call 'nudism' will be the norm. Inherent in that ambition is a belief that textilism is inferior and less intelligent than nudism - and that attitude is not only hugely patronising and disrespectful, it is what underpins every brand of religious fundamentalism.

Stu

[Agde]

...we don't want to use your beaches, and we don't want you using ours...

Just as exercise, try changing "beaches" to "golf courses" in the above quote. I'm sure this is not the last we've heard about the joys, nay "obvious" need, of segregation. My point about "extreme adversaries of a disappearing era" is that, whatever your views on the horrors of uncovered genitals, there is little remaining public sympathy for sexist rules -- "beachwear rules" like everything else must be "gender-neutral" to be fair and valid. All you have left is the "genitals" issue (applying to both genders), not the "genitals, etc" issue, to support your case for segregating your "extremes" of "textiles" and "nudists".

[Agde]

...Inherent in [nudists'] ambition is a belief that textilism is inferior and less intelligent than nudism - and that attitude is not only hugely patronising and disrespectful, it is what underpins every brand of religious fundamentalism.

Another Through-the-Looking-Glass argument. Naturists don't care what other people wear, you do. So who is the fundamentalist? So why is "textilism" superior and more intelligent? So who is being "patronising"?

[Stu2630]

Agde

Just as exercise, try changing "beaches" to "golf courses" in the above quote.

Certainly. We don't want to use your nudist golf courses, and we don't want you using textile golf courses (unless you do as we do and cover your genitals etc). Seems a reasonable enough statement.

there is little remaining public sympathy for sexist rules -- "beachwear rules" like everything else must be "gender-neutral" to be fair and valid.

When you talk of 'rules', as in 'laws', then you may have a point. Authorities are so fearful of doing anything that might be perceived as even slightly "sexist" that they go to ridiculous levels to avoid it. To avoid female toplessness, some authorities, proprietors etc are now insisting on both sexes wearing tops, which mitigates even further away from the nudist ideal.

But I wasn't talking about 'rules' - I was talking about 'trends' and commenting that many people, including some nudists on here, have noticed a definite trend away from female toplessness on beaches.

All you have left is the "genitals" issue (applying to both genders), not the "genitals, etc" issue, to support your case for segregating your "extremes" of "textiles" and "nudists".

The simple fact is that you can walk along mile after mile of textile beach in most European countries and you won't see a naked adult, or even a naked child older than about 4-years. So genitals matter, as does the uncovered anal area. Segregation is still very much the norm, and long may it continue.

Stu

[Agde]

...To avoid female toplessness, some authorities, proprietors etc are now insisting on both sexes wearing tops...
...But I wasn't talking about 'rules' - I was talking about 'trends' ...
...you can walk along mile after mile of textile beach in most European countries and you won't see a naked adult, or even a naked child older than about 4-years...

So good -- then you agree that coverage rules should apply to women and men equally and that choice ("trends") is a different matter.

But now -- genital exposure is ok unless someone is over a certain age. Hmm, so its not exposure, but age discrimination...

[walter05]

I don't disagree but I have seen a group of blokes que up at the till to buy the Sun for no other reason then to view the topfree page free girls!! The Sun may have a low reputation, but it is certainly popular and we have the page three girls to thank for that.


If the idea is to promote that nudity does not equal sex, this example does not support the argument.

The young men buying the sun are as interested in the articles as the buyers of Hustler and Playboy.

[Stu2630]

Agde

So good -- then you agree that coverage rules should apply to women and men equally and that choice ("trends") is a different matter.

Nope. I didn't say that at all. I said that my post on this issue was concerning trends, not rules. That statement does not imply that I approve of the rules - it merely means that I wasn't referring to the rules on that occasion.

But now -- genital exposure is ok unless someone is over a certain age. Hmm, so its not exposure, but age discrimination..

I don't think that small children should be allowed to wander about on a textile beach in the buff. But I find adult nudity to be far more unacceptable than infant nudity as, I suspect, do most other non-nudists.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I was talking about toplessness on beaches becoming far less common, not topless glamour photography. I fail to see what women deciding to keep their tops on when using a beach has to do with the fact that a downmarket newspaper uses semi-pornographic images to encourage bricklayers to buy a copy on their way to work so they have something sexual to drool over while having their cheese sandwich.

So it is acceptable to sell newspapers that feature topless page three girls but it is not acceptable to allow women to be topfree on a beach? Are you trying to say that because there are sexual connotations to the page three girls, then that is acceptable but in situations that are clearly non sexual (such as a woman laying on a beach topfree) then this sholud be prohobited?

No I'm not. I was using an analogy to show how 'sharing' is not always desirable appreciated. But of course you already knew that and you were being obtuse. ;)

Lousy analogy because it tries to relate sharing of nudism to a cat sharing a dead mouse or bird. What an inappropriate analogy if ever I heard one.

It rather depends upon exactly what nudists want. Some seem content to enjoy decent, accessible beaches with good facilities allocated for their use. Others seem to think they have some kind of inalienable right to expose themselves to everyone else, nudist or otherwise. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the first group, while the second group should be told to think again because their desires are unacceptable.

Same old story for the 10,000 time now (and counting).

The rights of considerate nudists certainly do matter to me, but the inconsiderate ones don't care about my rights to be able to enjoy a public environment free from nudity.

Sure, what Stu believes is considerate and that is all that there is to that. Anyone who has a different idea of considerate is just plain wrong in Stu's eyes.

Anyway, we seem to be straying a long way from the topic at hand. My point was that there is a trend away from female toplessness on beaches and, globally, it is now far less common than it was. Last August, I had a couple of weeks in north Jutland and visited several, very busy beaches there mainly used by German holiday-makers. Round about three out of four women had tops on and about one-in-four were topless. That is a reversal of what you would have seen twenty years ago. If you visit any main British beach, e.g. at Brighton, Scarborough, Bournemouth or Blackpool, you will probably not see a single topless woman! I think this trend is wonderful and I hope it continues. Yet some nudists here are in denial about it, while would say it is a bad thing even though it doesn't affect them.

Personally if I go to a nudist beach I expect nudists to be the majority at those beaches. I don't really care what occurs at textile beaches.

Why is that? Why do nudists concern themselves with what's happening in the textile world? It's because nudists harbour a deep ambition that one day the world will wake up and realise that inhibitions about the naked body are unnecessary and unwholesome, in other words, what we now call 'nudism' will be the norm. Inherent in that ambition is a belief that textilism is inferior and less intelligent than nudism - and that attitude is not only hugely patronising and disrespectful, it is what underpins every brand of religious fundamentalism.
Stu

Nope, the problem is that textiles want to dictate their philosophy to nudists and demand that nudists keep textiled when around them. Personally I don't care if a textile wears clothes or not. I am not going to dictate what they will or will not wear. However, I expect them to reciprocate and not dictate to me what I can wear or not wear. In the majority of cases, textiles do exactly that. It is so obvious that nudists are the tolerant ones who are not dictating to textiles what to wear or not to wear but the textiles are being highly intolerant by forcing their textiles ways upon nudists. SO yes, the textiles are forcing their 'religious fundamentalism' brand of clothing mandatory lifestyles on nudists.

Society really has a great deal to answer for when they continue to believe that there is something ultimately immoral or evil or sexual about the nude human body. Society has a great deal of growing up to do.

[Sanslines]

If the idea is to promote that nudity does not equal sex, this example does not support the argument.

The young men buying the sun are as interested in the articles as the buyers of Hustler and Playboy.

Walter,

No I was not trying to promote the idea that topfreedom does not equal sex. I was proving to Stu that there still is a demand for topfreedom. The photos in the "Sun" are not explicitely pornographic unless the mere sight of a woman's breasts are automatically considered pornographic. If that is the case, than the sight of a nude art model holding a pose can also be considered pornograhic along with any and every sight of topfreedom or nudity.

There certainly are images and photos that are very sexually oriented and are deliberately used in a pornographic way to stimulate sexual thoughts. There are also images, such as classic naturist images, that are not intended to be pornographic and yet some will consider them to be pornographic just because they reveal some element of topfreedom or nudity.

[Sanslines]

I don't think that small children should be allowed to wander about on a textile beach in the buff. But I find adult nudity to be far more unacceptable than infant nudity as, I suspect, do most other non-nudists.
Stu

I assume that you are saying this because you fear for the safety of the children and would prefer that they have some form of protective adult supervision to keep the children safe from sick child predators?

[Sanslines]

For those not familiar with Page Three Girls:

Page Three (or Page 3) is a feature found in the British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) tabloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid) newspaper The Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper)), consisting of a topless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless) or even nude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude) photograph of a female glamour model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_model) published on the newspaper's third page. Women who model regularly for the feature are known as Page Three girls. Similar features are found in other British tabloids, and in other newspapers around the world, although "Page Three" and "Page 3" are registered trademarks of News International Ltd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International), the parent company of The Sun.
History of Page Three

When he relaunched the flagging Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper)) newspaper as a tabloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid) in 1969, Rupert Murdoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch) tried to boost circulation by publishing photographs of scantily clad female models on its third page. The first tabloid edition appeared on November 17, 1969, featuring The Sun's first Page Three girl, Ulla Lindstrom, who was also the Penthouse Pet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penthouse_Pet) of the Month for November 1969. Although Lindstrom had posed nude in Penthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penthouse_(magazine)), she appeared in a clothed glamour pose in The Sun, wearing a suggestively unbuttoned shirt. Although Page Three photographs over the following year were often provocative, they did not feature nudity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity).
On November 17, 1970, editor Larry Lamb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Lamb) celebrated the tabloid's first anniversary by publishing a photograph of German model Stephanie Rahn in her "birthday suit." Photographed by Beverley Goodway, who would work as The Sun's main Page Three photographer until he retired in 2003, the 20-year-old was profiled from the side, sitting nude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude) in a field with one of her breasts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast) fully visible. Over the next several years, The Sun featured Page Three girls in more overtly topless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topless) poses. While these photographs caused much controversy, they are credited with the increase in sales that established The Sun as one of the most popular newspapers in the United Kingdom by the mid-1970s. In an effort to boost their own circulation figures, the competing Daily Mirror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mirror) and Daily Star tabloids instituted their own Page Three–like features under different names.
The Sun's Page Three photography has generally featured models in orthodox glamour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_photography) poses, although the tabloid would sometimes connect the feature to a topical sporting event: A model might pose in a short white skirt with a tennis racquet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racquet) during the Wimbledon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Championships,_Wimbledon) tennis championships, or appear holding a football during the World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup). From the 1970s until the mid-1990s, captions to Page Three photographs were often filled with titillating puns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun) and sexually suggestive double entendre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) about the models' lives or interests. These captions, widely considered sexist, were replaced in the late 1990s with a simple listing of the models' first names, ages, and hometowns. The Sun also greatly reduced its use of sports-related costumes and props at this time, and also instituted a policy of only featuring models with natural breasts. Models with augmented breasts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant), such as Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_(Katie_Price)) and Melinda Messenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Messenger), were thereafter "banned" from The Sun.
In 1999, The Sun launched its online Page Three website Page3.com (http://www.page3.com/). The site features the tabloid's daily Page Three girl in up to four poses, including the photograph published in the printed edition. It also hosts an online archive of previous Page Three photographs, a "Page 3 Gold" section featuring models from earlier eras, and various other features.
Since 2002, The Sun has run an annual contest called "Page 3 Idol," in which any British woman over the age of 18 can submit pictures to be considered for a Page Three modeling contract. The entrants' photographs are published on the Page Three website, and the outcome is decided by public vote. In 2004, 18-year-old Keeley Hazell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Hazell) won the contest and went on to become one of the United Kingdom's top glamour models. The 2008 winner, 19-year-old university student Jenny Grant, tragically committed suicide in the early hours of September 13, 2008.
In 2003, Julian Jones made a documentary about Page Three girls, The Curse of Page 3, which examined the negative aspects of some Page Three models' lives, including addiction to drugs and involvement in abusive relationships.

Page Three controversies

Page Three has often been controversial, particularly with conservatives and women's groups. Some feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist) critics consider it to be sexist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism), demeaning, and exploitative, while others regard it as softcore pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcore_pornography) that is inappropriate for publication in a national newspaper. In 1986, Clare Short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Short), MP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament) for Birmingham Ladywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Ladywood_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), led an unsuccessful House of Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom) campaign to have topless models banned from all newspapers. After her proposed bill failed, Short accused the House's predominantly male MPs of not taking the issue seriously, remarking "If you mention breasts, fifty Tory MPs all giggle and fall over." Short renewed her campaign against Page Three almost two decades later, in 2004, but found herself on the receiving end of a vicious ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack by The Sun, which superimposed her face on a Page Three model's body and accused her of being "fat and jealous."
While editors of The Sun have always vigorously defended Page Three from external criticism, they have themselves periodically considered eliminating the feature from the newspaper. During her tenure as the newspaper's deputy editor, Rebekah Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Wade) had argued (on economic, rather than feminist, grounds) that printing topless photographs on Page Three harmed the newspaper's circulation by offending women readers. When she became the tabloid's first female editor on January 13, 2003, she was widely expected either to terminate Page Three or to modify it so that the models would no longer appear topless. However, she decided to retain the feature unchanged. Wade later wrote an editorial defending the feature against its critics, calling Page Three models "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear in The Sun out of choice and because they enjoy the job."
The Sun and other British tabloids have also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models. Samantha Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Fox), Maria Whittaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Whittaker), Debee Ashby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debee_Ashby), and many others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun at the age of 16, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a teenage girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie) in 1994, among others. Although such photographs were legally permissible in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978), critics noted the irony of Murdoch's Sun and News of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World) newspapers calling for stricter laws on the sexual abuse of minors, including the public identification of released pedophiles, while publishing topless photographs of girls whom many other jurisdictions would legally classify as underage minors. Controversy over these young models was effectively resolved when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003) extended legal prohibitions on indecent photography to any minor under the age of 18.

Similar features internationally


European newspapers


Austria

Especially in the Austrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria) newspaper Kronen Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronen_Zeitung), the counterpart is mostly found on the upper part of page six or seven (sometimes even on page ten), but the feature has no specific name. In the new daily free newspaper Heute there often also appears a Page-Three-Girl.

Croatia

There is a similar concept on the last page of Croatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) daily newspaper 24 sata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_sata_(Croatia)).

Denmark

In 1976 the Danish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) newspaper Ekstra Bladet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekstra_Bladet) introduced topless models on page nine, referred to as Side 9 Pigen (the Page 9 Girl). The models are occasionally fully nude.

Finland

In Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland), the daily Iltalehti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iltalehti) features models known as "Iltatytöt" ("Evening Girls").[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three_girl#cite_note-8) "Tähtityttö" ("Star Girl") is also published in the weekly 7 päivää (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_p%C3%A4iv%C3%A4%C3%A4).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three_girl#cite_note-9)

Germany

In some German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) newspapers, such as Bild-Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild-Zeitung), the equivalent is found on the lower part of page one (below the fold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_fold)), and is thus called Seite-eins-Mädchen (Page One girl).

Italy

The two main Italian weekly newsmagazines, l'Espresso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Espresso) and Panorama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panorama) sometimes run female nude models on their cover. However this tendency, strong in the Nineties, is now declining.

Romania

In Romania, the daily Libertatea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatea) features topless models at page 5, calling them 'Fata de la pagina 5'. When Averea was rebranded as tabloid Click, the owner hired many people from Libertatea; this new concurrent got a very similar look to the original, including the topless girls, who are featured on page 3,but in better photographic conditions than the Romanian original, Libertatea.

Elsewhere


Canada

Canadian tabloid newspapers in the Sun Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Media) chain such as the Toronto Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Sun), Winnipeg Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Sun), Ottawa Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Sun), Calgary Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_Sun), and Edmonton Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Sun) feature a daily "Sunshine Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Girl)", usually on page three (in fact, the Calgary, Ottawa and Edmonton Suns have permanently moved the Sunshine Girl to the sports section; while the Sunshine Girl is a daily feature, the Sunshine Boy feature only appears sporadically). The half-page, full-colour photo is of a woman in tight, revealing clothing, lingerie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingerie), or a swimsuit. In 2000, the Toronto Sun moved the photo off page three and into the last pages of the issue, or into the sports section.

Chile

The popular Chilean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) newspaper "La Cuarta" features every Friday a section named "La Bomba 4", in which a voluptuous girl appears topless.

India

The Indian newspaper "Mid-Day" features pictures of models (mostly in bikinis), known as Mid-Day Mates.

Mexico

The Mexican newspaper "Ovaciones" features a topless model on Page 3. Other newspapers as "La Prensa", "El Metro", "El Universal Grafico" also include photographs of female glamour models, sometimes topless.

New Zealand

Tabloid newspaper New Zealand Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Truth) regularly features topless or occasionally nude women on page three of their weekly publication.

South Africa

The Afrikaans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans_language) edition of the tabloid Die Son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Son) features page-three girls, although not in the English-language edition.

United States

The American supermarket tabloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket_tabloid) Weekly World News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News) regularly featured a bikini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini)-clad "Page 5" girl. Yes! Weekly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes!_Weekly), a local on-line and print publication in Greensboro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro,_North_Carolina), North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina), features Page 3 talent sometimes featuring men as well as women. FOCUS weekly entertainment paper in Hickory, NC, began featuring a Page 3 girl decades ago. Founder John Tucker did this as an homage to the British tabloid THE SUN, as well as in appreciation for women of all types, sizes and ages.
ademarks of News International Ltd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International), the parent company of The Sun.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

So it is acceptable to sell newspapers that feature topless page three girls

Is it? I haven't said that I consider that acceptable. In any case, in order to access The Sun, you have to go to the trouble and expense of buying a copy. I don't read The Sun, I read The Telegraph or The Financial Times, so I don't see topless girls.

but it is not acceptable to allow women to be topfree on a beach?

Personally, I find it a bit obnoxious for a woman to be topless on a beach. But that wasn't the point I was making. I was simply saying that the trend has been firmly away from female toplessness on beaches for several years now.

Are you trying to say that because there are sexual connotations to the top three girls, then that is acceptable but in situations that are clearly non sexual (such as a woman laying on a beahc topfree) then this sholud be prohobited?

No, I haven't said any such thing.

Lousy analogy because it tries to relate sharing of nudism to a cat sharing a dead mouse or bird. What an inappropriate analogy if ever I heard one.

I think it works perfectly well. It illustrates my point that sometimes some other entity may want to share something with you which you find distasteful.

Sure, what Stu believes is considerate and that is all that there is to that.

Considerate is avoiding behaving in a way that could cause danger, harm or discomfort to others. I think that would be pretty much universally accepted as a fair assessment of what constitutes 'considerate'.

I don't really care what occurs at textile beaches.

Hurra!!!! :cheering:

Now if only we can persuade other nudists on here to butt out with regard to what rules and norms we textiles have for our beaches, then that would be real progress!

the problem is that textiles want to dictate their philosophy to nudists and demand that nudists keep textiled when around them.

Textiles can only demand that nudists stay dressed when they are in non-nudist areas. That seems fair enough. If I went to a nudist park I would expect to be required to follow the nudist dress code so nudists in textile places should follow the textile dress code.

However, I expect them to reciprocate and not dictate to me what I can wear or not wear. In the majority of cases, textiles do exactly that.

Not in nudist areas they don't.

Society really has a great deal to answer for when they continue to believe that there is something ultimately immoral or evil or sexual about the nude human body. Society has a great deal of growing up to do.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. And you are entitled to practise your beliefs in places designated for that purpose. I prefer to live in a nudity-free environment, so it's best if we each keep to our own bits of turf and that way we won't bother each other.

I assume that you are saying this because you fear for the safety of the children and would prefer that they have some form of protective adult supervision to keep the children safe from sick child predators?

No, it's because I find seeing nudity to be an unpleasant experience which I can tolerate if I have to, but prefer not to have around me.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Now if only we can persuade other nudists on here to butt out with regard to what rules and norms we textiles have for our beaches, then that would be real progress!




Hmmm, if only we could persuade you to "butt out" of this forum. This is not a textile forum. Go pester your textiles.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Is it? I haven't said that I consider that acceptable. In any case, in order to access The Sun, you have to go to the trouble and expense of buying a copy. I don't read The Sun, I read The Telegraph or The Financial Times, so I don't see topless girls.

There is much more trouble and expense to go to one of the' topfreedom allowed' beaches then there ever would be to pick up a copy of the Sun.

No, it's because I find seeing nudity to be an unpleasant experience which I can tolerate if I have to, but prefer not to have around me.
Stu

Don't you see that you are inflicting your own biases on innocent children? Have you ever seen children playing on the beach building sandcastles, etc? They don't have a care in the world and have not been influenced by adults to believe that the nude human body is immoral - yet!
That's the trajedy of what you would do to children. You would rob them of their innocence by inflicting your dislikes and phobias upon them. How aweful!

[Sanslines]

Hmmm, if only we could persuade you to "butt out" of this forum. This is not a textile forum. Go pester your textiles.

Pete has already dressed and left the forum. What more can Stu want???

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

There is much more trouble and expense to go to one of the few topfreedom allowed beaches then there ever would be to pick up a copy of the Sun.

You have missed the point. I was saying that if a person goes to the trouble of buying a copy of The Sun, he knows exactly what to expect, i.e. raunchy stories and a topless girl on page 3. It's just one step down from buying a copy of Playboy which, in turn, is just one step down from buying a hardcore porn video. A person chooses The Sun knowing the nature of the content, just as they do with Playboy or the porn video. They could just as easily buy The Telegraph and they would know they will not see any topless girls.

But most people use beaches and the ones which allow toplessness are not so defined: it's difficult to choose a non-topless beach unless you go to a country where it is expressly prohibited. Even on beaches where it is allowed, you may never see a topless woman, but if you buy The Sun, you know with reasonable certainly you will see one, and you know the picture is designed to be sexually provocative.

Don't you see that you are inflicting your own biases on innocent children?

Yup. I do it all the time. I expect "innocent children" to be acculturated with modern, western manners. If you give a small child something, you teach them to say "thank you!", or something else which represents that exclamation. It's no big deal to slip a pair of swimming trunks onto an infant boy and tell him that these are what boys wear on the beach. Children can understand that concept from a very young age - parents don't send their infants to nursery/kindergarden naked.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Yup. I do it all the time. I expect "innocent children" to be acculturated with modern, western manners. If you give a small child something, you teach them to say "thank you!", or something else which represents that exclamation. It's no big deal to slip a pair of swimming trunks onto an infant boy and tell him that these are what boys wear on the beach. Children can understand that concept from a very young age - parents don't send their infants to nursery/kindergarden naked.

Stu

You expect??? What about what others expect or don't they matter in your book???
It's just as no big of a deal to leave the infant boy alone to enjoy his innocence and to stop attempting to 'educate' the infant boy into believing that there is something immoral or bad about not wearing swim trunks. Remember how against 'education' you are??

[Agde]

I expect "innocent children" to be acculturated with modern, western manners.

"You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!"

-Rodgers & Hammerstein, South Pacific

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

You expect??? What about what others expect or don't they matter in your book???

We all have our own views. While I think parents who allow young children to wander around naked are ignorant and inconsiderate, I don't try to convert that perception into taking action against them. We taught our children that it was dirty and rude to be naked in front of others but I know that view is no longer fashionable.

Remember how against 'education' you are??

I am in favour of the compulsory education of children and the consensual education of adults. I do not agree with minority groups thinki8ng they have some God-given right to inflict their own brand of "educatioon" on the rest of the adult population.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



We all have our own views. While I think parents who allow young children to wander around naked are ignorant and inconsiderate, I don't try to convert that perception into taking action against them. We taught our children that it was dirty and rude to be naked in front of others but I know that view is no longer fashionable.



I am in favour of the compulsory education of children and the consensual education of adults. I do not agree with minority groups thinki8ng they have some God-given right to inflict their own brand of "educatioon" on the rest of the adult population.

Stu

Perfect, so we can agree that we can include nudism and naturism as part of a health class for children which is mandatory. Naturists can reach out and get the factual information about nudism and naturism out there so that society no longer forms ignorance based objections and we do this in a way that you certainly can not object to for you clearly support mandatory based education for children.

[MoonShadow]

Jeez! Stu is whirring in a frantic.

HIS expectations - DRESS that naked child! Heaven help if anyone sees an INNOCENT child naked. Shudder! The world is collapsing.

Parents who let their children run naked are "ignorant and inconsiderate" no matter that he is being "ignorant and inconsiderate" in demanding that the INNOCENT child's parents see nothing wrong with their INNOCENT child's nakedness.

What is the world coming to ---- tsk ----- tsk ---- tsk.

WHIRRRRR ------WHIRRRRRRRR "We taught our children that it was dirty and rude to be naked in front of others but I know that view is no longer fashionable." WHIRRRR ---- WHIRRR --- same old messages for the upteenth thousand anti-ness time.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Perfect, so we can agree that we can include nudism and naturism as part of a health class for children which is mandatory.

No, I didn't say that. The education of children should be in line with what their respective parents want. I wouldn't approve of children being taught that nudism and naturism is healthy any more than I would approve of them being taught that it is morally wrong. This is a controversial matter about which there are many conflicting points of view. I certainly agree that older children could certainly be educated about the fact that some people are naturists, but that's factual information about the world around them. What you are implying is indoctrination.

Stu

[Boreas]

Boy, this topic has REALLY veered off course, hasn't it. :eek: .... and I have seen THIS discussion many times before. :D

[walter05]

Walter,

No I was not trying to promote the idea that topfreedom does not equal sex. I was proving to Stu that there still is a demand for topfreedom. The photos in the "Sun" are not explicitely pornographic unless the mere sight of a woman's breasts are automatically considered pornographic. If that is the case, than the sight of a nude art model holding a pose can also be considered pornograhic along with any and every sight of topfreedom or nudity.


Guys buying the magazine are attempting to see naked breasts. Their purpose is not for admiring women.

The popularity of the publication, depending on young men wanting ot look at nake women's breasts shows that sex sells not that there is a demand for top freedom.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

Boy, this topic has REALLY veered off course, hasn't it.

Yes, it has rather.

To get back on topic, it might be helpful to examine the premise upon which the question is based, i.e. is the step to toplessness more difficult than total nudity.

Are we talking about women who are new to nudism but trying out toplessness first? Or are we talking more generally. If we are talking about the former, then I can't answer that as I am neither entirely female nor a nudist. If we are talking more generally, then that raises the question as to whether, and why we should want to, take the "step" in the first place. I don't believe most non-nudists do want to go down that particular road.

The fact that fewer women are going topless than was the case a couple of decades ago indicates that women are generally wanting to cover up more, not less.

Stu

[Eternity]

From reading the opening post I have to assume that it's about women who first start to go topless and later on in life decide to try total nudity.
At the moment it's definitely less common for women to go topless on beaches in europe, I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that.
From personal experience I know that it's now a bigger deal to be topless than it used to be. It's less common so it attracts more attention than it used to do.

[Oldman]

From reading the opening post I have to assume that it's about women who first start to go topless and later on in life decide to try total nudity.
At the moment it's definitely less common for women to go topless on beaches in europe, I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that.
From personal experience I know that it's now a bigger deal to be topless than it used to be. It's less common so it attracts more attention than it used to do.

We have top-freedom in Ontario, Canada and outside the nude beaches (both official and unofficia) you see very little signs that women are adopting it. The city parks and textile beaches might have one in one hundred...if that. And you won't find any women walking down a street topless even though it is permitted under law. There was a big flurry of toplessness immediately after the law against it was struck down, but within a year it dropped to current levels. But my view may be unpopular as it doesn't support unquestioned the fundamentalist nudist view that only things that demonstrate a growth in nudist activity should be spoken. I await the Fatwah being issued.

[Redtan]

At the moment it's definitely less common for women to go topless on beaches in europe, I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that.

I was recently in Cuba and noticed that women always wore their bikini tops except, of course, on the defined c/o beach. How did we come to this sad pass?

[Stu2630]

Eternity

At the moment it's definitely less common for women to go topless on beaches in europe, I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that.

You can say that because you are a nudist. When I say that, I'm told I'm wrong and accused of being "anti". A fact is a fact and being in denial about it does not alter the truth of it.

Oldman

But my view may be unpopular as it doesn't support unquestioned the fundamentalist nudist view that only things that demonstrate a growth in nudist activity should be spoken. I await the Fatwah being issued.

They might go easy on you, being a nudist, for your "inconvenient truth", but I'll never receive such leniency here when I say things the "fundamentalists" prefer not to hear.

Redtan

I was recently in Cuba and noticed that women always wore their bikini tops except, of course, on the defined c/o beach. How did we come to this sad pass?

Why is it "sad"? You can dress as you like on you "c/o beach", so why do you care what the women wear on textile beaches?

Stu

[MoonShadow]

This is my last posting.

My experiences is that IT IS NOT ANY less difficult for women to be topless now than a decade ago or more. I have not found this to be true at all. I have found that women find it easier to expose their breasts today than say 10-15-20 years ago. More women today are very comfortable in thongs which was not that prevalent even 15 years ago. Women are more comforgable with less bra tops. So IT IS EASIER to show more skin and many women do. Some even go the topless route.

Those of you who want to say I am wrong cannot do so as this is my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Both nudist beaches, clothing option beaches, and regular beaches have more topless or nearly topless women today than even 10 years ago.

Yes, Stu, you are wrong and yes, you are anti-nudity.

[Oldman]

This is my last posting.

My experiences is that IT IS NOT ANY less difficult for women to be topless now than a decade ago or more. I have not found this to be true at all. I have found that women find it easier to expose their breasts today than say 10-15-20 years ago. More women today are very comfortable in thongs which was not that prevalent even 15 years ago. Women are more comforgable with less bra tops. So IT IS EASIER to show more skin and many women do. Some even go the topless route.

Those of you who want to say I am wrong cannot do so as this is my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Both nudist beaches, clothing option beaches, and regular beaches have more topless or nearly topless women today than even 10 years ago.

Yes, Stu, you are wrong and yes, you are anti-nudity.

And the same can be said for you, others including myself have noted the opposite. Yet you claim that we are wrong. I'm going on personal observation based on getting out from behind the computer and actually visiting parks and beaches. In a province where top-freedom is legal, there has been little increase in the amount of people exercising that freedom. In fact, among the younger set, there is a real reluctance to go topless. Many of the younger set will wear revealing tops but to remove them completely is beyond where they will go.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



No, I didn't say that. The education of children should be in line with what their respective parents want. I wouldn't approve of children being taught that nudism and naturism is healthy any more than I would approve of them being taught that it is morally wrong. This is a controversial matter about which there are many conflicting points of view. I certainly agree that older children could certainly be educated about the fact that some people are naturists, but that's factual information about the world around them. What you are implying is indoctrination.

Stu

THAT will never happen. Who decides what forms the basis of a child's education? As we all know, not all parents will agree with the present education system hence why we not only have home schooling, but also religious based education such as Christian schools or Catholic schools.

What I am implying is NOT indoctrination but a comprehensive and meaningful health education program that covers a very wide variety of topics including meaningful sex education, diet and exercise education, and what it means to have body self respect. Nudism can most certainly be used as an example of a non sexual based lifestyle of individuals who reject mainstream marketing of sex and the body for monetary gain.

[Sanslines]

You can say that because you are a nudist. When I say that, I'm told I'm wrong and accused of being "anti". A fact is a fact and being in denial about it does not alter the truth of it.
Stu

You are not exactly a fountain of pure and objective information concerning nudism and nudity. You have a strong stake in proving that nudism and nudity is dying it for it reinforces your notions about promoting more nudity and nudims controls.

You are expressing your opinions. There is a huge difference between fact and opinion. Your opinions deliberately reinforce your conclusions about nudity and hence you are not purely objective. You clearly have a strong stake in proving that nudism and nudity is dying out. Why on earth do you believe that your 'fact's are more valid then Moonshadow's 'facts'? She has first hand experience on numerous beaches - textile and nudist. Do you?

[Sanslines]

And the same can be said for you, others including myself have noted the opposite. Yet you claim that we are wrong. I'm going on personal observation based on getting out from behind the computer and actually visiting parks and beaches. In a province where top-freedom is legal, there has been little increase in the amount of people exercising that freedom. In fact, among the younger set, there is a real reluctance to go topless. Many of the younger set will wear revealing tops but to remove them completely is beyond where they will go.

I come to Southern Ontario often in the Summer and can share my personal observations. The reason that you will not see hoards of women walking the streets topfree is generally becasue of fear of harassment and abuse. Women do not want to hear the rude and crude comments that many immature men and scornful women may hurl at them. In my observations and conversations with naturist women, there NEVER have been hoards of women walking the streets and there most probably never will be. This does not mean that 'topfreedom is dying out in Southern Ontario' for it was never booming in the first place. The exact same thing can be said in New York State where topfreedom is also legal. You will not find hoards of topfree women roaming the streets of the various villages, towns, and cities. What you will find are women who go to more secluded beaches where they may sunbathe topfree without the fear of being ticketed by the police.

Most men do not understand that women always fear for their safety.

[Oldman]

I come to Southern Ontario often in the Summer and can share my personal observations. The reason that you will not see hoards of women walking the streets topfree is generally becasue of fear of harassment and abuse. Women do not want to hear the rude and crude comments that many immature men and scornful women may hurl at them. In my observations and conversations with naturist women, there NEVER have been hoards of women walking the streets and there most probably never will be. This does not mean that 'topfreedom is dying out in Southern Ontario' for it was never booming in the first place. The exact same thing can be said in New York State where topfreedom is also legal. You will not find hoards of topfree women roaming the streets of the various villages, towns, and cities. What you will find are women who go to more secluded beaches where they may sunbathe topfree without the fear of being ticketed by the police.

Most men do not understand that women always fear for their safety.


For one, no one has said that there were "hoards" Secondly, I never said "booming".
Having disposed of the strawmen, I will say that the numbers were higher immediately after the Gwendolyn Jacobs case, and have subsided.

The police do not ticket in Ontario for toplessness, unlike New York State.
Another strawman disposed of.

Please return with a cogent argument.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Who decides what forms the basis of a child's education?

The parents - providing they are sufficiently interested.

As we all know, not all parents will agree with the present education system hence why we not only have home schooling, but also religious based education such as Christian schools or Catholic schools.

My daughter goes to a private school, for which I pay quite high fees (about as much per year as a qualified electrician earns before tax). So I have a say in what they teach her and how they teach it.

What I am implying is NOT indoctrination but a comprehensive and meaningful health education program that covers a very wide variety of topics including meaningful sex education, diet and exercise education, and what it means to have body self respect. Nudism can most certainly be used as an example of a non sexual based lifestyle of individuals who reject mainstream marketing of sex and the body for monetary gain.

I don't really want my daughter's school to get into the realm of 'meaningful sex education' beyond the biology of it when she reaches puberty. Actually, that should be past tense as she is now 13.

Re teaching about nudism - I doubt that many parents would want their younger offspring to be taught anything about nudism other than it is a lifestyle choice enjoyed by a small minority of people and so long as the teaching doesn't go beyond that, I wouldn't object to it.

You have a strong stake in proving that nudism and nudity is dying it for it reinforces your notions about promoting more nudity and nudims controls.

You have got me all wrong. While I think organised nudism is fading, I don't celebrate the fact. The vast majority of nudism is considerate and in places set aside for it and is therefore not objectionable to me in any way. I want to see nudity controls in public places which are not set aside for nudism - that's all.

I do celebrate the fact that, on textile beaches, female toplessness has sharply declined (as indicated now by several nudists here, two newspaper articles and my own observation).

Why on earth do you believe that your 'fact's are more valid then Moonshadow's 'facts'? She has first hand experience on numerous beaches - textile and nudist. Do you?

I have no idea what happens on nudist beaches other than I expect virtually all women on them go topless. But that's not the real issue, is it? We are expressly talking about textile beaches which, I expect, I visit more than most nudists do as they obviously prefer nudist or c/o beaches. It is silly for nudists to try to deny that female toplessness has not only failed to increase, but has actually declined substantially, since a couple of decades ago. And several nudists here from different countries, as well as newspaper articles, have confirmed my perceptions.

I come to Southern Ontario often in the Summer and can share my personal observations. The reason that you will not see hoards of women walking the streets topfree is generally becasue of fear of harassment and abuse.

While I'm pleased that even you are accepting that female toplessness hasn't caught on even where it has been made technically legal, I don't think you are qualified to assert reasons why women are choosing to keep their tops on. Have you asked them? You see, I believe most women prefer to wear tops, partly for comfort and appearance, and partly because they feel embarrassed to be seen without them, not so much because of verbal abuse and harassment, but rather they feel uncomfortable at the thought of men seeing their bare breasts. I think it's great that they are covering up whereas you, as a nudist who uses nudist beaches, should be indifferent to it.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

My daughter goes to a private school, for which I pay quite high fees (about as much per year as a qualified electrician earns before tax). So I have a say in what they teach her and how they teach it.

Actually, the government has a say in setting up stadards and those in education have a say in what is taught. As a parent, you may offer your suggestions and ideas, but you can not 'buy' a say in what is taught. You obviously chose this school because of the curriculum. If you don't like it, then you certainly have the freedom to send your daughter elsewhere.

I don't really want my daughter's school to get into the realm of 'meaningful sex education' beyond the biology of it when she reaches puberty. Actually, that should be past tense as she is now 13.

Why is that you don't want your children to be fully educated in the ways that will prepare them for life. In the not so old days, children were taught proper nutrition and how to select from the different food groups, the harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and drug usage, and to a limited extent about how to develop respect for themselves and their bodies. Proper and meaningful sex education is an absolute necessity otherwise. However, the prudish among us would rather condemn young women to bearing children that they are not prepared to raise then giving them the necessary information to make intelligent and informed choices.

Re teaching about nudism - I doubt that many parents would want their younger offspring to be taught anything about nudism other than it is a lifestyle choice enjoyed by a small minority of people and so long as the teaching doesn't go beyond that, I wouldn't object to it.

I talked about this very subject today with some university students. We spoke about their hometowns and how people in those hometowns can be so closed minded and judgemental. The reason that so many people do not want to talk about nudism is because they have been told to believe that nudism is some kind of perverted activity. Some of these teachings come directly from their churches. Instead of keeping an open mind and actively seeking out new ideas and information, people will go to their graves with the same thoughts and beliefs that they had as young children. This is very sad. as I had mentioned to one of the female students, so many people will lie on their deathbeds and think back over their past lives. They may (or may not) then come to the realization that they allowed a whole bunch of nonsense to prevent them from doing certain things in life. How sad is that - to go to your death knowning in the very end that you allowed others to influence you to do or not do certain things that you otherwise would have done.

I do celebrate the fact that, on textile beaches, female toplessness has sharply declined (as indicated now by several nudists here, two newspaper articles and my own observation).

My understanding of most textile beaches is that topfreedom has not sharply declined at all because it was never allowed in the first place. Law enforcement prevented female toplessness from ever happening. It has only beee relatively recently that topfree laws have been passed in very specific areas of the USA. As a result, topfreedom was decriminalized and after the novelty of topfreedom wore off, it is not taken for granted.



I have no idea what happens on nudist beaches other than I expect virtually all women on them go topless. But that's not the real issue, is it? We are expressly talking about textile beaches which, I expect, I visit more than most nudists do as they obviously prefer nudist or c/o beaches. It is silly for nudists to try to deny that female toplessness has not only failed to increase, but has actually declined substantially, since a couple of decades ago. And several nudists here from different countries, as well as newspaper articles, have confirmed my perceptions.

I am denying that topfreedom has declined from past years on TEXTILE beaches for the vast majority of textile beaches never allowed topfreedom in the first place. How can something decline when it never was allowed or existed in the first place.


While I'm pleased that even you are accepting that female toplessness hasn't caught on even where it has been made technically legal, I don't think you are qualified to assert reasons why women are choosing to keep their tops on. Have you asked them? You see, I believe most women prefer to wear tops, partly for comfort and appearance, and partly because they feel embarrassed to be seen without them, not so much because of verbal abuse and harassment, but rather they feel uncomfortable at the thought of men seeing their bare breasts. I think it's great that they are covering up whereas you, as a nudist who uses nudist beaches, should be indifferent to it.
Stu

Yes I have asked them and they stated that women are ALWAYS concerned about safety issues. This is something that MOST men will never understand. Keeping a top on is a matter of safety. However, another interesting phenomenon is that as time has gone on, women have worn less and less to the point that they really are virtually naked. Women do wear thongs and mini bikinis. In certain areas of the USA a few years back, the police were so concerned about the safety of young women who wore thongs, that they banned thongs on the beach.

My opinions and observations are just that - mine alone. They may or may not agree with others observations and opinions and I am aware that you do not have the direct experiences with nudist beaches to form valid personal observation conclusions. You must rely upon other's experiences on those beaches to support your conclusions. Thus, it appears to most readers that you have formed your conclusions and are only searching for information to substantiate those conclusions rather then gather unbiased information first and then form your conclusions as a result of that information.

[Boreas]

I come to Southern Ontario often in the Summer and can share my personal observations. The reason that you will not see hoards of women walking the streets topfree is generally becasue of fear of harassment and abuse. Women do not want to hear the rude and crude comments that many immature men and scornful women may hurl at them. In my observations and conversations with naturist women, there NEVER have been hoards of women walking the streets and there most probably never will be. This does not mean that 'topfreedom is dying out in Southern Ontario' for it was never booming in the first place. The exact same thing can be said in New York State where topfreedom is also legal. You will not find hoards of topfree women roaming the streets of the various villages, towns, and cities. What you will find are women who go to more secluded beaches where they may sunbathe topfree without the fear of being ticketed by the police.

Most men do not understand that women always fear for their safety.

I think saying that woman always fear for their safety is a bit of a stretch on the truth. Fearing for one's safety is a factor for sure. Your sentence makes it sound like we are in constant peril, which we are not. That being said, as a woman who is comfortable being nude in a social situation, I am not comfortable being topfree or nude in an "unconventional" spot. There have been many times where I would have liked to have removed my top in a park on a hot summer day. This is especially true during events like folk festivals or Canada Day celebrations. I don't because I would be an "oddity" and I do tend to like to conform I suppose.

I remember Gwen Jacobs and her friends won the right to be topfree. It certainly stimulated discussion on this issue. Now it seems that no one knows that it is legal to be topfree all across Canada. I bring that fact up on occasion when the discussion veers near that issue. It is interesting to see people's reactions. When you ask why a woman would be uncomfortable, no one can give a really good answer. It tends to come down to the idea that they hadn't thought about it before. Perhaps if we could get a group out, it might become more okay. As you know, there is often a difference between "okay" and legal.

It seems that fewer men are topfree these days. I suspect it has more to do with sun and skin cancer awareness than any kind of modesty.

[Oldman]

I think saying that woman always fear for their safety is a bit of a stretch on the truth. Fearing for one's safety is a factor for sure. Your sentence makes it sound like we are in constant peril, which we are not. That being said, as a woman who is comfortable being nude in a social situation, I am not comfortable being topfree or nude in an "unconventional" spot. There have been many times where I would have liked to have removed my top in a park on a hot summer day. This is especially true during events like folk festivals or Canada Day celebrations. I don't because I would be an "oddity" and I do tend to like to conform I suppose.

I remember Gwen Jacobs and her friends won the right to be topfree. It certainly stimulated discussion on this issue. Now it seems that no one knows that it is legal to be topfree all across Canada. I bring that fact up on occasion when the discussion veers near that issue. It is interesting to see people's reactions. When you ask why a woman would be uncomfortable, no one can give a really good answer. It tends to come down to the idea that they hadn't thought about it before. Perhaps if we could get a group out, it might become more okay. As you know, there is often a difference between "okay" and legal.

It seems that fewer men are topfree these days. I suspect it has more to do with sun and skin cancer awareness than any kind of modesty.

The desire to conform seems to be the operative condition. I know from talking to the kids that hang out at our house(ranging in age from 16 to late 20s that they would never consider walking down to the local park topless or just taking their tops off when they got there. It certainly isn't fear of men, but they all state that they wouldn't feel comfortable being topless where everyone else is dressed. I have also noticed that men tend to keep their shirts on more often, and I suspect that you are correct in assuming that it has to do with the worries of sun and skin cancer. The Cancer societies have done an excellent job of creating a climate of fear amongst people, particularly the young who have been exposed to their message since birth.

[Sanslines]

I think saying that woman always fear for their safety is a bit of a stretch on the truth.

Are not women conditioned to be constantly aware of their surroundings and is this awareness not driven by fear? Perhaps a better way to phrase this is that women may not always fear for their safety on a conscious level, but fear is always a factor on the subconscious level, no matter how minor.

We are in the infancy of understanding how the human mind works and how the human mind is conditioned. We have so much yet to learn. The early studies have indicated that fear has a much greater motivational effect upon individuals then most might be aware of.

[Boreas]

Are not women conditioned to be constantly aware of their surroundings and is this awareness not driven by fear? Perhaps a better way to phrase this is that women may not always fear for their safety on a conscious level, but fear is always a factor on the subconscious level, no matter how minor.

We are in the infancy of understanding how the human mind works and how the human mind is conditioned. We have so much yet to learn. The early studies have indicated that fear has a much greater motivational effect upon individuals then most might be aware of.

I agree. I guess the way you worded it before sounded like women were far more fearful than they are. We are taught to be "good girls" and all that stuff. There is a certain amount of hyper-vigilence for sure. There is some sort of wierd unwritten and written code among women to conform etc. I guess, it is much more complex than the word "fear" can reflect.

I do believe that when we can overcome that, we will be far further ahead. Given that men are programmed to be more predatory (I do NOT mean that in a bad way) and some men take that preditory nature to extremes, and are aggressive, I am not sure how realistic it is to hope that we can all overcome whatever innate programing there might be. Having said that, I do believe we can overcome "instinct" since we also have the ability for critical thinking, and higher order cognitive skills. Not to forget social learning etc.

Isn't human nature a wonderful thing! :)

[Agde]

At the extreme end of things, there may be some programming that distinguishes yin from yang, but I am not convinced that, in the wide middle overlap, women generally need to "fear" (or whatever). Any difference in physical strength, for instance, is compensated in so many complex ways. Just consider Conrad Lorenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Lorenz) and successors ideas of imprinting, ritualization of aggression, the ethology of fear and protectiveness, and the modern human incentive to choose friends and mates on the basis of "kindness of heart."

Ultimately, as ellie illustrated at the top of this tread, topfreedom is matter of "ritual". Substituting old rituals with new, as happened with men's bare chests and even modern church liturgy, is a straightforward and common phenomenon. Because ritual is just a stylized form of communication, any new ritual just has to be clearly formulated and demonstrated. I see this all the time on French beaches where "top-free" in a context of French ritual is completely "anxety-free" for the "good girls" from North America, without any change in predatory male "instincts."

Just a thought on "ritual": National GoTopless Day (http://www.gotopless.org/) might more usefully be at the beginning of summer, with a little celebration at your favourite park or beach to publicize and demonstrate the new ritual of choice, rather than late in August.

[Running Bear]

... Given that men are programmed to be more predatory (I do NOT mean that in a bad way) and some men take that preditory nature to extremes, and are aggressive, I am not sure how realistic it is to hope that we can all overcome whatever innate programing there might be....
Isn't human nature a wonderful thing! :)
You know I dispute this. I have found some women very predatory and aggressive. I do not agree that the male/female divide is as great as you suggest. A naked woman or man is no more threatening to each other than if they were dressed. I do accept there is programming but naturists are able to change that (IMHO). The naturist man may be strong but a naturist lady wielding a small scissors would scare the pants off me :-(
Glad I am not a spider :-(

[Sanslines]

You know I dispute this. I have found some women very predatory and aggressive. I do not agree that the male/female divide is as great as you suggest. A naked woman or man is no more threatening to each other than if they were dressed. I do accept there is programming but naturists are able to change that (IMHO). The naturist man may be strong but a naturist lady wielding a small scissors would scare the pants off me :-(
Glad I am not a spider :-(

Boreas is speaking in general terms and has not drawn any distinction between the aggressiveness of clothes versus unclothed women. There are always exceptions to generalities but the fact that most men are physically stronger then women and can physically subdue women is a fact that most women never forget. How many women actually get into physical fights with men? Sure, there are some women who may physically fight men but the vast majority will not engage in physical combat.

Another example to consider is this. Consider internet dating. Women are constantly reminded to be cautious and to always meet their potential dates in safe, public areas where they can seek help from others if need be. The message that society sends to women since childhood is always 'be careful.....be cautious.....don't place yourself in a risky situation'. Men, being the predators, are not given the same message and are not influenced by different (fear based) messages. None of this means that women are walking the streets in a state of panic, but it does mean that most women are aware of their surroundings and will not take reckless chances with their safety.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

the government has a say in setting up standards and those in education have a say in what is taught. As a parent, you may offer your suggestions and ideas, but you can not 'buy' a say in what is taught.

Because the school our daughter goes to it is a private school, the government has no say in what is taught beyond the basics of literacy, numeracy and basic science, and it is extremely accommodating to parents’ wishes. If we say we don’t think something is appropriate for her, she doesn’t get it. The school is desperate to prevent parents from taking their students away, especially in the present economic climate.

Why is that you don't want your children to be fully educated in the ways that will prepare them for life.

We do. Remember that we are Puritanical Atheists and so we have our own beliefs on sex and relationships. So our daughter has been withdrawn from the relevant classes at school and taught our beliefs at home.

They may (or may not) then come to the realization that they allowed a whole bunch of nonsense to prevent them from doing certain things in life. How sad is that - to go to your death knowing in the very end that you allowed others to influence you to do or not do certain things that you otherwise would have done.

I don’t think I’ll be doing that. But I really don’t think the majority of people have the slightest desire to try nudism. I think that if they did harbour such a desire, most would do it in spite of what others may think, but they don’t. Nudity to you is a source of pleasure while to others it is a necessary state for taking a shower, and nothing more.

My understanding of most textile beaches is that topfreedom has not sharply declined at all because it was never allowed in the first place.

Yes, that applies in your country, but Europe is quite different. It was not only common here 20-years ago – it was the norm. Nowadays, the norm is to wear a top.

Thus, it appears to most readers that you have formed your conclusions and are only searching for information to substantiate those conclusions rather then gather unbiased information first and then form your conclusions as a result of that information.

There are several nudists on here telling you what I am telling you, namely that toplessness has declined, particularly in Europe. Even GERMAN women have now started putting their bikini tops back on, and they were among the first to whip them off at the earliest opportunity! I didn’t search for either the Politiken article or the Telegraph article: these are newspapers I happen to read in any case.

Boreas

Perhaps if we could get a group out, it might become more okay.

That sounds a bit like a nudist interfering in textile beach dress codes. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

How would you like it if I wrote on a textile website that “if we could get a group of gawkers out”, we could discourage nudists from using a nudist beach so that it could revert to being textile again?

Stu

[Boreas]

Stu, no I do not agree with your statement:

That sounds a bit like a nudist interfering in textile beach dress codes. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

How would you like it if I wrote on a textile website that “if we could get a group of gawkers out”, we could discourage nudists from using a nudist beach so that it could revert to being textile again?

Many of society's views have changed over the years because of group action. Most people do not have your extreme phobia of nudity, so they would not respond as you would. I do believe that if a group of women decided to remove their tops, in Canada, they might gain some acceptance. It is legal here. Most people are not aware of that fact, and many would welcome the opportunity to wear less clothing on a hot summer day.

Face it Stu, you are not winning any converts here. The folks who are trying to influence you do not realize how steadfast you are with your view of the world.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

I do believe that if a group of women decided to remove their tops, in Canada, they might gain some acceptance. It is legal here. Most people are not aware of that fact, and many would welcome the opportunity to wear less clothing on a hot summer day.You are a nudist and this doesn't affect you, but it does affect me and people like me who find the sight of naked female breasts to be objectionable. You are advocating interfering with my environment to make it a bit more like yours, yet you would be horrified if I tried to compel women on nudist beaches to wear tops. Don't you see the double standards here?

By all means inform women of the law in Canada, but getting a group together and going topless to engineer the situation, then going back to your nudist beaches, is wrong in principle.

Face it Stu, you are not winning any converts here. The folks who are trying to influence you do not realize how steadfast you are with your view of the world.Maybe, but I would never assume to prescribe how people should dress on a nudist beach, let alone try to act as a catalyst for change on nudist beaches, as you appear to be instigating for textile beaches.

Stu

[Oldman]

Boreas

You are a nudist and this doesn't affect you, but it does affect me and people like me who find the sight of naked female breasts to be objectionable. You are advocating interfering with my environment to make it a bit more like yours, yet you would be horrified if I tried to compel women on nudist beaches to wear tops. Don't you see the double standards here?


The decision of the appeals court in the Gwendolyn Jacob case reads as follows:

"<i>The Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Payne that a finding of indecency under section 173(1)(a) required that the act exceed the community standard of tolerance. However the panel found that Judge Payne applied the community tolerance test incorrectly. The essence of 'tolerance' is not that people have accepted or rejected a particular activity as good for themselves, but rather that they will accept that others be permitted to engage in the activity, notwithstanding their personal disapproval of it.

In applying the community standards test, the Court of Appeal found that it was irrelevant that most women in Guelph chose not to expose their breasts in public. Rather the Court assessed what the contemporary national community would tolerate.

The community standards test is set out by Justice Sopinka in R. v. Butler, [1992] section 1C.R. 452:

The courts must determine as best they can what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure. Harm in this context means that it predisposes persons to act in an antisocial manner as, for example, the physical or mental mistreatment of women by men, or, what is perhaps debatable, the reverse. . . . The stronger the inference of a risk of harm, the lesser the likelihood of tolerance.

At the heart of the community tolerance test is the notion of harm; as Osborne J.A. went on to explain:

It follows from Butler that in applying the community standard of tolerance test, the court must consider what harm will accrue from exposure to the allegedly obscene act or material. The correlation is inverse in the sense that the greater the harm that may flow from a particular exposure, the less the community will tolerate others being exposed to it. Tolerance cannot be assessed independently of harm.

The Court of Appeal held that the only evidence presented that suggested that Ms. Jacob's actions were harmful was 'grossly speculative'. As the Court was not satisfied that there was evidence of any harm, it concluded that the national community would tolerate women choosing not to cover their breasts in public."</i>

Thus she was doing something that did not violate community standards and thus was not interfering with the textile environment.


Addtionally you may wish to read the following from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada on why anti-toplessness laws would be difficult to write, and that they can only limit toplessness in certain areas.

http://www.ulcc.ca/en/criminal/index.cfm?sec=3&sub=3d#EXPOSURE

[Boreas]

You are a nudist and this doesn't affect you, but it does affect me and people like me who find the sight of naked female breasts to be objectionable. You are advocating interfering with my environment to make it a bit more like yours, yet you would be horrified if I tried to compel women on nudist beaches to wear tops. Don't you see the double standards here?

Your environment! Yep, you are pretty narcississtic aren't you. Stu, it is not at all the same thing. As Oldman stated, the judge in the Gwen Jacobs case did not feel that she was violating community standards.

I had the view that women ought to be topfree in certain spots BEFORE I became a nudist and BEFORE I became more comfortable with my body. This is not a nudist issue. Plus you as a man have no right to dictate to women what they can and cannot wear.

[LamontCranston]

... but it does affect me and people like me who find the sight of naked female breasts to be objectionable. No it doesn't. At least it doesn't bother *you* because you indeed seek out the sight of nude people every day by logging in here and taking a look. If you found it objectionable, you wouldn't be here.

[Stu2630]

Oldman

I wasn't talking about the legal situation (I can if you like - I'm a law lecturer!) I was talking about the moral principle of someone going out of their way to change the environment of others when it doesn't affect them.

In most countries, there would be nothing in law to prevent me from taking a bus full of prudes to a nudist beach with the purpose of embarrassing the nudists (e.g. by blatant gawking, or making rude comments etc) so they would feel uncomfortable and leave, and we could re-designate the beach as textile. While that may be legally permissible in some places, it certainly isn't morally right. Nor is it morally right for nudists to try to impose a change on a textile beach to fit in with some aspect of nudist ideology.

Boreas

As Oldman stated, the judge in the Gwen Jacobs case did not feel that she was violating community standards. 1. As I told Oldman, I'm not talking about the legality, but the morality, and 2. I'm not talking about some past legal case, I'm talking about your suggestion that YOU, as a nudist, would go to a textile beach just for the purpose of trying to instigate a change in an environment which you don't use.

I had the view that women ought to be topfree in certain spots BEFORE I became a nudist and BEFORE I became more comfortable with my body. This is not a nudist issue.Fine. Before you were a nudist you could have made out a case for doing that, but you're not a textile now, are you? By becoming a nudist, you can use your own beaches topless to your heart's content, so you should leave any such notions of changing textile beaches to textile men and women.

Plus you as a man have no right to dictate to women what they can and cannot wear.By that token, I can not dictate to anyone what they can and can not wear. If someone wants to walk around wearing a tee-shirt which says that graphically depicts a person having oral sex with an animal then, even though I find that outrageously offensive, I have no authority to ban this. But, as a user of the public environment, I have a say in what I find acceptable and what I don't. A judge, acting in his professional capacity, has no such right. He must follow the law as he sees it, but every citizen has that right. As such, I am using my right to express my preference for having a ban on women going topless in public, and a lot of women actually agree with me.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Because the school our daughter goes to it is a private school, the government has no say in what is taught beyond the basics of literacy, numeracy and basic science, and it is extremely accommodating to parents’ wishes. If we say we don’t think something is appropriate for her, she doesn’t get it. The school is desperate to prevent parents from taking their students away, especially in the present economic climate.

Of course if YOU don't feel that something is appropriate, you then demand that the school change their curriculum to accomodate you. Of course you do not care about others or have respect for the education process and demand that the process be changed to meet your demands. Of course you know that if you do not approve of the education program at this particular school, you have the option of either enrolling your daughter at another school or home schooling your daughter where you can teach her anything and everything and ignore any standards that educators have set up to ensure that your daughter gains access to enough basic education in life to prepare her to function properly and productively in society.

Good thing that you don't have to do any of this for it sounds like this particular school is so desperate to keep students ( and more importantly to keep tuition monies flowing into their coffers) that they will sell out the education process to accomodate parental demands.

Too bad you can not accept that schools need to prepare students for life and part of the problem with education has been that schools have sold out to accomodate students and parents to the severe detrement of the education process.



We do. Remember that we are Puritanical Atheists and so we have our own beliefs on sex and relationships. So our daughter has been withdrawn from the relevant classes at school and taught our beliefs at home.

You certainly are free to shield your daughter from the realities of life but you must also know that you are hindering her full development and preventing her from gaining access to information and experiences that are absolutely necessary for her to function properly and fully in life. It seems that you would rather force your daughter to get her sex education on the streets or from peers (which can certanly be full of misguided and false information) rather then stop thinking about your selfish interests, put the interests of your daughter first, do the right thing, and fully educate your daughter.


There are several nudists on here telling you what I am telling you, namely that toplessness has declined, particularly in Europe. Even GERMAN women have now started putting their bikini tops back on, and they were among the first to whip them off at the earliest opportunity! I didn’t search for either the Politiken article or the Telegraph article: these are newspapers I happen to read in any case.

I am telling you that in the USA, toplessness has not declined in the vast majority of areas because it was never allowed in the first place. Laws prohibited toplessness from occuring on textile beaches. Instead of acknowledging this clear fact, you embarrass yourself by trying to tell me what is occuring within my own country. How ridiculous.

[Sanslines]

Stu, no I do not agree with your statement:



Many of society's views have changed over the years because of group action. Most people do not have your extreme phobia of nudity, so they would not respond as you would. I do believe that if a group of women decided to remove their tops, in Canada, they might gain some acceptance. It is legal here. Most people are not aware of that fact, and many would welcome the opportunity to wear less clothing on a hot summer day.

Face it Stu, you are not winning any converts here. The folks who are trying to influence you do not realize how steadfast you are with your view of the world.


I know women from near Hamilton who go to the nearby Niagara region in Summer and sunbathe topfree. They most certainly do not do this in open areas. They find secluded areas where they can be free from gawkers and other assorted troublemakes and can relax in peace. You will also not find them giving interviews to the media for they most certainly do not want their private places ruined. There are also many remote areas along Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where women will sunbathe topfree as well as on boats out on the lakes.

I doubt very much that Stu has ever been to Canada and yet he is trying to tell us what is occuring in our own backyards.

[Eternity]

But, as a user of the public environment, I have a say in what I find acceptable and what I don't. A judge, acting in his professional capacity, has no such right. He must follow the law as he sees it, but every citizen has that right. As such, I am using my right to express my preference for having a ban on women going topless in public, and a lot of women actually agree with me.


There's no reason to make a difference between a man and a woman's chest. It's pure discrimination if a man is allowed to go topless and a woman isn't. How can discrimination ever be acceptable?

[Boreas]

There's no reason to make a difference between a man and a woman's chest. It's pure discrimination if a man is allowed to go topless and a woman isn't. How can discrimination ever be acceptable?

Oh Eternity you have hit on something that Stu will passionately argue against......it is a moral issue according to him.

It is pure discriminatation, but Stu will never see that!

[Oldman]

I know women from near Hamilton who go to the nearby Niagara region in Summer and sunbathe topfree. They most certainly do not do this in open areas. They find secluded areas where they can be free from gawkers and other assorted troublemakes and can relax in peace. You will also not find them giving interviews to the media for they most certainly do not want their private places ruined. There are also many remote areas along Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where women will sunbathe topfree as well as on boats out on the lakes.

I doubt very much that Stu has ever been to Canada and yet he is trying to tell us what is occuring in our own backyards.

If you noticed, I am from the Niagara region, and there are some places where people do go to quietly sunbathe topfree, but those places are those that have been used for years before Gwen Jacobs won her case. The fact remains, there has been little growth in the numbers since then. I lived for many years along the edge of Lake Ontario, and know the area quite well, including all the little knooks and crannies that can be and are used for topless and nude sunbathing. I haven't seen an increase in numbers.

[Running Bear]

Boreas is speaking in general terms and has not drawn any distinction between the aggressiveness of clothes versus unclothed women. ...

Another example to consider is this. Consider internet dating. Women are constantly reminded to be cautious and to always meet their potential dates in safe, public areas where they can seek help from others if need be. ...
I was commenting on the vulnerability of women should be identical regardless of their state of dress. I was also commenting that I felt both men and women can feel vulnerable.
Men would also be ill advised to meet a lone female off an internet dating site (do they not call that a honey-trap?).
The reason for my post is to consider the idea of balance and that what applies to one gender often applies to the other equally.
I was also concerned that men should not protect women because of what they think they may want. They have a voice themselves and need to use it.

[Eternity]

Oh Eternity you have hit on something that Stu will passionately argue against......it is a moral issue according to him.

It is pure discriminatation, but Stu will never see that!

I just don't understand why morality about a harmless thing such as topfreedom is more important than not discriminating against women. Women should have the same rights as men, no matter what.

[jon71]

I just don't understand why morality about a harmless thing such as topfreedom is more important than not discriminating against women. Women should have the same rights as men, no matter what.

Amen to that. The same rules should apply equally to all but some people refuse to see that.

[Sanslines]

If you noticed, I am from the Niagara region, and there are some places where people do go to quietly sunbathe topfree, but those places are those that have been used for years before Gwen Jacobs won her case. The fact remains, there has been little growth in the numbers since then. I lived for many years along the edge of Lake Ontario, and know the area quite well, including all the little knooks and crannies that can be and are used for topless and nude sunbathing. I haven't seen an increase in numbers.

I agree that (based upon my observations) that there have not been huge increases in topfree sunbathing in the Niagara region. I have also not seen a huge decrease in topfree sunbathing in the region either. There were never hoards of women sunbathing topfree in the first place and hence there could not possible be a 'huge' decrease in topfree sunbathing either. All of the words "huge, minor, increase, decrease" are relative and subjective and very specific to certain areas. I would not form a worldwide and global conclusion based upon personal experiences in any region. The point of all of this is that those of us who have actual and first hand experiences with the topfree crowd are sharing our observations and opinions. Hence, what you or I see (or anyone else for that matter of fact) are our observations and each is valid for each individual.

Stu, on the other hand, is basing his conclusions on a couple of newspaper articles (and we all know to take any newspaper report or article with a grain of salt) and the observations of a couple of individuals. He has no first hand experiences to share and it seems that he is attempting to justify his conclusion by actively searching for any and all inforrmation that supports it rather then keeping and open mind, first gathering all information, and then forming a conclusion based upon that information. It seems that he is hell bent on proving that topfreedom is dying out and will only accept information that supports this notion and ignore all other information.

[Sanslines]

I was commenting on the vulnerability of women should be identical regardless of their state of dress. I was also commenting that I felt both men and women can feel vulnerable.
Men would also be ill advised to meet a lone female off an internet dating site (do they not call that a honey-trap?).
The reason for my post is to consider the idea of balance and that what applies to one gender often applies to the other equally.
I was also concerned that men should not protect women because of what they think they may want. They have a voice themselves and need to use it.

Women certainly feel more vulnerable undressed unless they are in a protected area such as a nudist resort. Men can also feel vulnerable too but then we open up the issue of degrees of vulnerability and specific environments where man or woman may fell more or less vulnerable (such as a church versus a crime ridden neighbourhood). The only advice that I have ever heard about men meeting women from the internet is to insist upon meeting a woman in a safe public area for HER safety (not necessarily for the safety of the man). When it comes to dating (internet or not) men usually pursue and ask women out on dates. Hence, it is normally up to the man to suggest where to meet and to take his date. Of course women have input into this but the man still initiates.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

you then demand that the school change their curriculum to accomodate you. Of course you do not care about others or have respect for the education process and demand that the process be changed to meet your demands.

If they are proposing to teach my daughter something I don't like, I simply tell the school and they have the option as to whether to change the curriculum, or allow my daughter to opt out.

you can not accept that schools need to prepare students for life and part of the problem with education has been that schools have sold out to accomodate students and parents to the severe detrement of the education process

Our older children were prepared for life. That's why they are balanced, successful and confident individuals. I simply don't accept that "the state" or "educators" know better than parents what is best for their children.

you are hindering her full development and preventing her from gaining access to information and experiences that are absolutely necessary for her to function properly and fully in life.

No, she gets her sex education from her mother, in a moral context. The biological bit we leave to the school.

I am telling you that in the USA, toplessness has not declined in the vast majority of areas because it was never allowed in the first place.

No, I believe you. And you should believe those of us in Europe who will tell you that toplessness was very popular here a couple of decades ago, yet now it is practised by the minority on most European beaches.

Eternity

There's no reason to make a difference between a man and a woman's chest. It's pure discrimination if a man is allowed to go topless and a woman isn't. How can discrimination ever be acceptable?

Comparing a woman's breasts with the corresponding part of a man's chest is comparing apples with oranges: they are fundamentally different, biologically, anatomically culturally. Women's breasts have an entirely different social role in modern, western culture than men's chests. Women's breasts are involved in the reproduction process in a way that men's aren't and so many women regard their breasts as being almost as intimate as their primary reproductive organs. Consequently, not only do most women not want to go topless in public, many do not approve of other women going topless.

If we are talking about textile beaches, then I would be more than happy to allow the textile women to decide whether exposed breasts are acceptable or not. If this is not a matter for men, then it is equally not a matter for nudist women.

Lastly, I don't get hung up on whether something constitutes "discrimination" or not. The purpose of having discrimination laws is not simply to uphold some nebulous "principle": it is to facilitate opportunities for people doing what they want to do. Some women want to go topless - some people (of both sexes) want to use beaches that are free from what they consider to be the objectionable sight of topless women. So I would prefer toplessness to be restricted to nudist beaches or specially designated beaches.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



If they are proposing to teach my daughter something I don't like, I simply tell the school and they have the option as to whether to change the curriculum, or allow my daughter to opt out.

So, if you object to the school teaching your daughter (as an example) Algebra, then you tell the school and they modify the curriculum to suit you or drop your daughter from the curriculum. Somehow I really do not believe you for if it was possible for parents to determine what the curriculum is to a major extent, then the school is failing in their primary purpose which is to expose students to the same subjects and information that students receive in other schools. There are certain basics that can not be omitted for the school would then fail national accredation standards. Of course, certain speciality schools, such as religious based schools can teach their religious priniciples but they must also meet national standards and can not change course contents on the whims of disgruntled parents.



Our older children were prepared for life. That's why they are balanced, successful and confident individuals. I simply don't accept that "the state" or "educators" know better than parents what is best for their children.

We will never really know no will we. The state and educators are responsible for setting national standards and exposing students to certain basics, such as language skills (reading, writing), Maths, Science, Health, etc and the techniques for achieving standards so that students are prepared to function and contribute to society.


No, I believe you. And you should believe those of us in Europe who will tell you that toplessness was very popular here a couple of decades ago, yet now it is practised by the minority on most European beaches.

You are basing your conclusion upon the observations of a couple of newspapers and a couple of forum members. I don't doubt that the forum members are sharing their first hand experiences but I also know that you are determined to promote a certain conclusion and are using certain, select information to support this conclusion.

[Eternity]

Comparing a woman's breasts with the corresponding part of a man's chest is comparing apples with oranges: they are fundamentally different, biologically, anatomically culturally. Women's breasts have an entirely different social role in modern, western culture than men's chests. Women's breasts are involved in the reproduction process in a way that men's aren't and so many women regard their breasts as being almost as intimate as their primary reproductive organs. Consequently, not only do most women not want to go topless in public, many do not approve of other women going topless.


The current role of exposed breasts in western culture is a silly male dominated way of looking at things. It's no different than forcing women to wear burka's, scarfs, ankle high dresses etc. It's a men telling women what they should and shouldn't do while they themselves are exempt from these clothing rules. Women end up believing that such clothing rules make perfect sense because the generations before them have blindly followed such rules. It's a distorted way of looking at things which gets taken far too seriously by many.
Just because a females nipples have a purpose doesn't mean that they should be hidden, there's no logical reason for it. Yes our breasts are involved in the human reproduction process, but so are belly buttons.

[Oldman]

I agree that (based upon my observations) that there have not been huge increases in topfree sunbathing in the Niagara region. I have also not seen a huge decrease in topfree sunbathing in the region either. There were never hoards of women sunbathing topfree in the first place and hence there could not possible be a 'huge' decrease in topfree sunbathing either. All of the words "huge, minor, increase, decrease" are relative and subjective and very specific to certain areas. I would not form a worldwide and global conclusion based upon personal experiences in any region. The point of all of this is that those of us who have actual and first hand experiences with the topfree crowd are sharing our observations and opinions. Hence, what you or I see (or anyone else for that matter of fact) are our observations and each is valid for each individual.



I wonder why when I state "little increase" you turn it into "Huge increases"
That is intellectual dishonesty as you are implying that I have said something that I haven't.
The numbers haven't gone up, and actually, if the numbers were small, and a significant portion of the population had begun to go top-free, it would be a huge increase.
Eg: if there were five people top-free originally, and now 50 that would be a 500% increase, a statistically "huge" increase. On the other hand, if there were 5 and now 8, that would be a small increase. With small starting numbers it is easier to get a statistically huge increase than it is if you had large numbers to start with.

[Sanslines]

I wonder why when I state "little increase" you turn it into "Huge increases"
That is intellectual dishonesty as you are implying that I have said something that I haven't.
The numbers haven't gone up, and actually, if the numbers were small, and a significant portion of the population had begun to go top-free, it would be a huge increase.
Eg: if there were five people top-free originally, and now 50 that would be a 500% increase, a statistically "huge" increase. On the other hand, if there were 5 and now 8, that would be a small increase. With small starting numbers it is easier to get a statistically huge increase than it is if you had large numbers to start with.


I think that you are reading things that are not there. This is the problem here. No one is actually reading what another person has written and everyone believes that they are right and others are wrong. Just because my experiences in the Niagara region may or may not be different from yours does not make your or my observations any more right or wrong.

The point of all of this is that statements of major or minor increase or decreases are all based upon limited observations and opinions.

You certainly misunderstood my point and now claim that I am resorting to 'intellectual dishonesty' which is a misguided response based upon misunderstanding. If you go back and read caefully, you will see that I shared MY experiences and I have not seen huge or major increases. These are MY observations. Your observations are obviously different and in no way have I turned your minor increase into huge increases. You have done this yourself and now claim 'intellectual dishonesty' on my part. Such is a false claim based upon misunderstanding.

I sense that you believe that your observations are the only accurate ones and that other observations that disagree with yours are false. Is this a true assesment?

I have no such belief as everyone has different observations and each observation is valid for that person. We all observe different things. I have clearly stated that your observations are valid for you and that others may have observed different trends. Will you agree to this?

[Boreas]

I was commenting on the vulnerability of women should be identical regardless of their state of dress. I was also commenting that I felt both men and women can feel vulnerable.
Men would also be ill advised to meet a lone female off an internet dating site (do they not call that a honey-trap?).
The reason for my post is to consider the idea of balance and that what applies to one gender often applies to the other equally.
I was also concerned that men should not protect women because of what they think they may want. They have a voice themselves and need to use it.

You know the vulnerability of women should be identical regardless of their state of dress. The sad fact is that it is not identical for a variety of reasons. Eternity addressed a component of this in her post to Stu. Women have been told by men how to act for centuries. The Catholic church reveres women and condemns them. We have been subject to sexist policies and arguably, remnants of these policies still exist. Our Canadian PM and his crowd recently removed employment equity policies, or tried (I only partially heard this) and from what I can remember, used faulty logic. My point for is that equal pay for equal work should not even be something discussed in 2009. It should be a given.

You are a man, and as such have enjoyed certain privileges based on being a male. Of course, there are responsibilities and burdens in that status. Some of those burdens should be gone by now but they are not. For instance a male doctor must use caution, and possibly a chaperone when examining a female patient, often for his own protection. I did not feel the need for a chaperone for my male doctor because I trusted him. On the other hand, I did respect his need for one.

Women are still subject to domestic violence. Women are still assaulted for no other reason than they are female. In fact some clown knocked down and injured two women in British Columbia (Vancouver maybe?) last night. Granted, he could have a mental illness, but it still happened. Marc Lepine shot and killed women at L'Ecole Polytechnique because they were women in "male" studies of engineering. That was 20 years (:eek:) ago and hopefully things have changed since then. Never-the-less, the ghosts of these events still linger.

While I agree a woman ought to feel the same level of vulnerability dressed or undressed, many do not. It took me some time to get to that level of comfort. In fact, I think social nudity can be an EXCELLENT therapy for people with body issues. I suggested to a client yesterday that she needs to visit a nude beach and then she will have overcome her body issues......of course, she is not ready yet! Men should not protect women because of what they think the woman needs. Women do have their own voices, and should use them. That is the only way things change. If a man thinks the woman needs protection he needs to ask her, and furthermore, ask how he can help. Same goes if a woman feels a man needs protection or something.

So the fact is, women do have feelings of vulnerability in certain situations. This is complicated, and I do not think a man (with all due respect) can fully understand this, having been part of the "dominant culture". I totally appreciate men like you Running Bear who do try to understand, and who do try to make changes. I am hopeful that one day that vulnerability will completely disappear and that the need for this discussion is no longer there.

[Running Bear]

Women certainly feel more vulnerable undressed unless they are in a protected area such as a nudist resort.
I am only talking about a naturist environment with naturist men. This does not correlate at all. We have freerange girls quite happy walking in the open countryside naked who do not feel vulnerable in the least. Any more than the men do. They feel nervous of textiles but so do the men. Clubs are a thing of the past with more naturists striding out into the open countryside. Your ideas seem to suggest that you are quoting ideas of what you think women want rather than asking them directly. I also walk naturist with textile girls and they hold a conversation as if we were clothed and I forget they are indecently dressed :-)

The only advice that I have ever heard about men meeting women from the internet is to insist upon meeting a woman in a safe public area for HER safety (not necessarily for the safety of the man). ...
No, the honey-trap scenario is entirely for the safety of the man.

[Running Bear]

You know the vulnerability of women should be identical regardless of their state of dress. ...
I think this is the most important part of your post. Should in my world is do but I know there are exceptions.
The rest of your posts concerns the vulnerability of women and you seem to miss the idea of the vulnerability of men as well. Several men are assaulted by their wives as well. My work brings me into contact with violent women and I assure you men are no match. I hence refute your argument that women are subjugated in all cases. some men are also put down by their wives (the hen-pecked husband scenario).
I listen to what you say and I know you listen to what I say. Together it is good. Create an imbalance and that is bad. Discrimination on gender is wrong and that is what you are suggesting.
PS: My last post crossed with yours and we covered the same things.

[Sanslines]

I am only talking about a naturist environment with naturist men. This does not correlate at all. We have freerange girls quite happy walking in the open countryside naked who do not feel vulnerable in the least. Any more than the men do. They feel nervous of textiles but so do the men. Clubs are a thing of the past with more naturists striding out into the open countryside. Your ideas seem to suggest that you are quoting ideas of what you think women want rather than asking them directly. I also walk naturist with textile girls and they hold a conversation as if we were clothed and I forget they are indecently dressed :-)

From an Australia website:

Women's Safety


Men’s use of violence against women is a significant public health issue with serious social, economic and health consequences for women, their families and communities. Violence is the biggest cause of death, disability and illness for women aged 15–45 (VicHealth, Health Costs of Violence).

In Victoria significant advances have been made to improve assistance to women and children directly affected by this violence. Communities and agencies across the state have continued their work of decades in providing accommodation, legal advice, information, material aid and social support. Public awareness campaigns have expanded and there is evidence that the great majority of Victorians – 98% of women and 93% of men – identify violence affecting women as a serious problem (VicHealth 2006).

In 2002 the Victorian Government developed its Women’s Safety Strategy (http://www.women.vic.gov.au/Web12/owpMain.nsf/allDocs/RWP24265C7D59E92504CA2573E90015E19C?OpenDocument), a five-year plan to guide coordinated action across government to reduce the level and fear of violence against women. In 2005 $35.1 million was allocated as part of the Government’s A Fairer Victoria initiative to implement a plan to reform service system responses to family violence.

Such efforts are critical to mitigate the effects of violence, such as depression and homelessness, and to prevent further harm and the escalation of abuse. While it is essential that this work continues there is also increasing awareness of the need for new efforts to prevent violence against women from occurring in the first place. A commitment to strengthening efforts in prevention is reflected in both the Women’s Safety Strategy and, more recently, in A Fairer Victoria, the Victorian Government’s social policy action plan.

While primary prevention of violence is an emerging area of practice worldwide, there is a growing consensus that it is possible to prevent violence against women before it occurs (WHO 2002). There is also mounting agreement that this problem is too prevalent and its consequences for individuals and communities too great to limit efforts to responding after violence has occurred (WHO 2002). Rather, there is a need to develop a spectrum of prevention responses. This involves building on existing work with affected individuals and families to include strategies to support primary prevention (WHO 2002).




The Women’s Safety Strategy as it currently stands has a set of principles to guide the government’s future activities to reduce the level, and fear, of violence against women. There are four key areas:

Protection and Justice
Options for Women
Violence Prevention and Education
Community Action and Coordination
Underpinning these key areas, three state-wide steering committees (http://www.women.vic.gov.au/Web12/owpMain.nsf/allDocs/RWP486816863167EB40CA2573E90016190A?OpenDocument) were established to work in partnership with community and non-government agencies on the implementation of the Women’s Safety Strategy. The committees were set up to provide advice on how to reduce violence against women using broader partnerships and collaborative working arrangements with other agencies across all sectors.

From a UK website:

Safety in Public Urban Space: The Work of Women's Design Service

Women consistently express greater fears for their personal safety in urban environments than do men. Statistics demonstrate that, conversely, young men are the most vulnerable to actual attack in towns and cities, while women are more likely to be attacked in their own homes by someone they know well. However, these figures are possibly skewed by the fact that if women are afraid to go out on the streets alone they are less likely to become victims of crime in the urban environment.

Research by Women's Design Service reveals that it is fear of sexual assault which underlies women's anxiety. Women have been at risk from male sexual assault through history and across cultures, a situation often legitimated by a concept of women's inherent inferiority to men. Furthermore, they are rarely treated as innocent victims of assault. Where rape cases are brought to law, the woman often ends up ‘more accused than the accused' (Joyce Maluleke, Gender Coordinator, South African Justice Department) In the UK today only 7.5% of reported rapes result in a conviction, and it is widely thought that 90% of rapes go unreported.

During the 1970s, when the second wave of the Women's Liberation Movement was at its height, a number of "Reclaim the Night" marches were organised. The aim was to give women the confidence to go out into urban public spaces after dark. One of the popular chants was ‘However we dress, wherever we go, Yes means Yes and No means No!' These demonstrations helped to push the agenda of women's safety forward, but recently the marches have been revived by the London Feminist Network because the pace of change has been too slow.

Women's fear of going out alone after dark means that, in northern Europe, they confine themselves indoors from 4.0pm onwards during the winter months. This has a huge impact on women's ability to engage in employment, adult education, civic and community participation and social and leisure activities.

Our Making Safer Places projects, initiated in the late ‘90s, set out to identify how changes to the physical environment might help women to reclaim the right to use public space as and when they wish. Whereas previously many women may not have questioned the social factors that have contributed to their fears, the process of engaging with these issues through discussion with other women has led many of our participants to join groups and organisations working to change the relations between the genders and the social frameworks that perpetuate them.

http://www.gendersite.org/data/images/cs4_hb.jpg

A Making Safer Places audit underway in a London park


The process follows seven separate stages: discussion, mapping, observation, recording, analysis, presentation and implementation. We started by looking at pedestrian routes, play, leisure, and shopping facilities, with groups of women of different ethnic identities in three London neighbourhoods. Subsequently, we won a 3-year grant from the Lottery to run a major project in London, Bristol and Manchester. We identified two areas in each city and worked closely with existing groups and statutory agencies in the neighbourhoods to bring together representative groups of women to look at community safety over a period of months, ensuring that funding was in place to implement changes. All six neighbourhoods have successfully done so.

More recently we worked with groups of women to produce safety audits on a number of London parks (What to do about Women's Safety in Parks, WDS 2007 (http://www.gendersite.org/resources.php?action=showResource&resourceId=1133)). Better lighting and maintenance of clear sight lines by cutting back or re-locating shrubs and planting were common recommendations, but all the women were keen to retain a green environment. Some suggested giving pedestrians priority over traffic, and in particular removing pedestrian subways. Clear signage was another issue, since ‘knowing where you are' is very important from a safety perspective. Signs of physical neglect such as poor maintenance of buildings and street furniture, inadequate street cleaning, litter and dog mess made women feel that the area was uncared for, and in consequence that nobody would be looking after them either. Most of the agencies welcomed the women's findings, and because we had engaged with the decision makers at the outset generally delivered on at least some of the women's recommendations for improvements.

http://www.gendersite.org/data/images/cs4_msp_signs.jpg

Clear signage is important in making women feel safer in public spaces


The women took issue with mainstream UK initiatives to ‘design out crime' in their dislike of the surveillance culture and technology promoted in the name of community safety. This government-promoted approach includes felling trees to ensure clear sightlines for CCTV cameras, erecting railings around steps and public monuments where people like to linger and chat, covering public spaces with ugly signage prohibiting everyday activities, or installing "mosquitos" (high-pitched sounds) to deter young people from congregating in the street.

The very presence of CCTV made women feel that an area must be unsafe. Although many wanted to see more uniformed people in public spaces, they preferred the sight of park wardens, bus conductors, and toilet attendants rather than police. Fenced-off areas and barriers made them feel trapped. Security guards, overseeing privatized public spaces, were also seen as a problem - concerned primarily with the profitability of the enterprise, and not the well-being of the visitor.

http://www.gendersite.org/data/images/cs4_msp_cctv.jpg

WDS's research has shown that CCTV does not make people feel safer


The factor that contributed most highly to women's sense of safety was ‘a variety of/ lots of other people about'; often they would add ‘smiling people', ‘happy people', ‘the sound of children laughing'. WDS therefore does not support the current mainstream approach to community safety. Designers and decision-makers need to think more about how to attract a wide range of different people to come and enjoy themselves in the public spaces of towns and cities. One way of achieving this is simply through making such places beautiful - a concept rarely discussed in the context of safety. It is this quality above all which will draw people out of their homes and cars to occupy and enjoy a sense of well-being in public urban space.

http://www.gendersite.org/pages/safety_in_public_urban_space_the_work_of_womens_de sign_service.html


There are so many other websites from so many countries around the world that all discuss women's safety and women's fear of safety. Violence against women is a real threat and many governments (including the UK) are taking this threat along with the fear of safety very seriously and doing something about it.

I can also post from websites in South Africa where there is an epidemic of violence against women (rape).

[Boreas]

First off, hen-pecked is WAY different from assaulted! Right now I have at least two women on my caseload that cause me much worry. They are being controlled and abused mentally by their partners, and arguably, their physical safety is at risk. I do know they have the skills to keep safe. Never-the-less, they have every right to be and feel safe in their own homes. Yes, I have met men who have been abused by their female spouses. This is a minority. I was happy to hear recently, that there is a shelter in Ontario that recognizes that men might need shelter from domestic violence as well. I never said that women are subjugated in ALL cases. Nowadays, generally we are subjugated because we continue to accept it. Part of my role in my work is helping people learn they do not need to accept it anymore!

I am NOT suggesting that we discriminate based on gender. My points were only to highlight why women might feel vulnerable. I would like to see an elimination of discrimination based on gender, race and whatever. At the same time, we need to realize that some people start off further from the finish line and are subject to the forces of sexism, racism etc. Some of that is internalized now. That comes from generations of the "ism".

Women who can walk comfortably in the open countryside naked have already overcome their sense of vulnerability, if they ever experienced it. The cool thing about human nature is that we all respond to society's forces differently. :)

I agree about "should". I see very few places where it can be used. I am with you should and do need to mean the same thing. I always tell clients not to should on others, not to should on themselves and not to let others should on them. It gets too messy! (say that out loud :sneaky:)

[Sanslines]

Women who can walk comfortably in the open countryside naked have already overcome their sense of vulnerability, if they ever experienced it. The cool thing about human nature is that we all respond to society's forces differently. :)


The question is should women let their guard down or should they always take necessary precautions to protect themselves depending upon the surrounding environment? We can all say that women should not be afraid but is this justifiable based upon the violence that so many experience.

In South Africa, women are being raped in record numbers and the legal system usually blames the women instead of protecting them. Hence, women are afraid and seem to have very justifiable reasons to be afraid.

[Boreas]

The question is should women let their guard down or should they always take necessary precautions to protect themselves depending upon the surrounding environment? We can all say that women should not be afraid but is this justifiable based upon the violence that so many experience.

In South Africa, women are being raped in record numbers and the legal system usually blames the women instead of protecting them. Hence, women are afraid and seem to have very justifiable reasons to be afraid.

I think one needs to be aware of the surrounding environment of course. When you and Running Bear were talking about being naked in the countryside, I was thinking that Canada is between the US and Britain with regards to safety and such. Yes, our police wear bullet-proof vests. Yes, there are areas in Canada where it is more necessay than others. I could walk around the countryside here (when it is warm enough.......will THAT ever happen??? :( I digress) and not meet anyone other than a moose or bear or magpie. I would be safe walking naked down the streets of this town. I might not be safe walking in certain parts of Toronto or Vancouver, dressed or undressed.

Blaming the women for sexual assault is wrong!!!! Blaming the victim of any crime is wrong. My belief is that even if a woman is walking down the street naked, she is not to blame for being rape, since men are supposed to have SOME control. Of course, that is not always reality and certain wisdom and precaution must be exercised. The situation in South Africa is related to political forces. Most of the doctors in this town are from South Africa. The physio (PT) I saw a couple of years is from South Africa. I asked why they are moving, and he commented about the safety factor. We are blessed to be relatively safe most places in this country, and likely yours too. The political upheaval in South Africa makes for some dangerous situations. That being said, I am sure there are many safe places there too. It is not all bad. Often our fear is over-rated, and manufactured.

Here is an article about domestic violence in the US: http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_domestic_violence.html

These are the stats they cite:




20-30% of American women will be physically abused by a partner at least once in their lifetimes
1.3 million women and 834,732 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually
201,394 women are forcibly raped by an intimate partner annually
11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner
503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually
1-25% of all pregnant women are battered during pregnancy
30-40% of women's emergency room visits are for injuries due to domestic violence
30% of women killed in the U.S. are killed by their husbands or boyfriends
50% of men who assaulted their female partners also assaulted their children
3.3 million children witness domestic violence each year


I have bolded the parts that cite the male female ratio. I have no doubt there's more men than is reported because it is more shameful for men to come forward......actually, there may be more women too, since many do not come forward. It is pretty clear that many more women than men experience the devasting aspects of domestic violence.

[Sanslines]

I have bolded the parts that cite the male female ratio. I have no doubt there's more men than is reported because it is more shameful for men to come forward......actually, there may be more women too, since many do not come forward. It is pretty clear that many more women than men experience the devasting aspects of domestic violence.

There are the actual statistics, which are facts, and then there are the perceptions that are based, in part, on media hysteria. Fear, in many cases, may be driven by irrational emotion but it is fear nevertheless.

We actually have been discussing at least there separate issues that are all interrelated: actual domestic violence, actual reasons to be fearful, and whether women have some level of basic fear regardless of whether that fear is justified or not.

[Running Bear]

Sanslines post is a well balanced article. It suggests to me that women (I would prefer to use people) feel safer when in public as opposed to being alone. This idea works for both men and women.
Our perception of fear means we do not go out which is counter productive.
If we exclude the rape aspect but key into physical violence the genders should be close in proportions This result is skewed by the fact that more men feel shame in reporting physical violence than women. I would suspect the same number of non-reports would arise for other reasons. Incidentally when I mentioned hen-pecked I was referring to nagging>murder not a minor nagging.
There is an idea that rape is not a sexual attack but a controlling attack and as such men can be victims to.
Social science is a very complex subject with many factors that need to be considered.
I am only talking of UK. No mooses or bears to attack us here and no gun toting walkers. This ideal would not work in countries where women are subjugated.
Boreas sees the many women victims and I see the many men victims so we need to combine our experiences to give a realistic idea; that is my point. There will probably always be a slant in favour of women just like in marathon times. The lady runners are getting closer to the men's times but nor reaching it. I suspect that gender ratios in many aspects of life are approaching similar equality apart from naturism. Here we have an example of a male dominated sample. Does this suggest that the women we do have are the perfect example of our species and the rest are the chaff? Perhaps this does support the idea that women do feel more vulnerable?

[Agde]

Summarizing this excellent discussion with reference to the original topic, it sounds like, outside controlled environments, "the step to toplessness" is indeed "more difficult than total nudity" since it constitutes the difficult first step toward significant change in social attitudes toward women, and hence their sense of safety or vulnerability. Still, it sounds like the battle for the political correctness of the first step -- topfree gender equality -- has already been won (sorry Stu), so that what remains are really the logistics of implementation. How do we reassure the individual "pioneers" during the transition period to new norms?. How quickly can gender references in laws be deleted to provide room for common sense? As mentioned before, I suspect the younger generation, for whom gender equality is already a given, may lead the way.

[Boreas]

Thanks for the summary Agde. You made some good points. ...since it constitutes the difficult first step toward significant change in social attitudes toward women, and hence their sense of safety or vulnerability. I think the fact that topfreedom is legal in many places suggests that the change has already started.

Running Bear, I do work with men too. For the record, I think when there is domestic violence against women, the men are suffering too. I work at a local reserve where there is more than just "traditional" male female roles, there is mysogyny. Several of the younger men, those in their 30's and younger, are stuck between two worlds. The one where men can beat and control "their" women at will, and the one where men and women work collaboratively and where they have complementary roles within the family. There are men who are older who have sort of "burned out" and have become more gentle. And sober. Both men and women in this community suffer. Men may think they benefit from having the control and power in their home, but it is illusary. The only way men and women can heal is through less violence and more collaboration. Of course, there is the spin off of violence against children which is another related discussion. If men and women can get their acts together, they will be able to be bettter parents.

[Oldman]

I think that you are reading things that are not there. This is the problem here. No one is actually reading what another person has written and everyone believes that they are right and others are wrong. Just because my experiences in the Niagara region may or may not be different from yours does not make your or my observations any more right or wrong.




WHat I have consistently stated all along is that there has been little change from Pre-Gwen Jacobs days to now, other than a little blip of an increase immediately following her victory at her appeal.

My views on this are formed from not only my own observations but from others who regularly visit many quiet spots and beaches in the region. There has been little or no increase on the public beaches in the area as well.

[Running Bear]

.. If men and women can get their acts together, they will be able to be bettter parents.
Now you are talking with rose coloured spectacles but we can only hope! I think you and me see the bad side and forget there is good.

Your comments sound a little more balanced now and more accurately reflect my own perceptions. I admit my own sample is heavily biased against women (the homeless) since female perpetrators usually get homes and would be perceived to be more vulnerable on the streets. Talking textile here BTW. My naturist observations of gender behaviour are more balanced.

I will reflect on your idea that I am a genetically predisposed male leading a coveted life and I trust you will reflect that you are a female with balls (with the greatest of respect). Your gender specific policies may exist but I trust we are all working together to reduce them. You have a voice and I listen that is the start.

[Boreas]

Ah yes, after all these years, I still own some rose coloured specs! :sunny:

I really am fairly balanced, even in my unbalanced state shocked. One of the women I am worried about is the mother of a newborn, born early February. Her husband is being a class A turkey and it is hard to see her suffer. Having said that, I believe he has some mental health or similar issues that make him that way.

Remember too, many of the women who leave abusive relationships end up in poverty while the men carry on. I do know there are some extremely unfair rulings about child support for the record.

May we come to the day where there is no need for gender specific policies.

[Running Bear]

I have just gleaned a figure from a sociology thesis. 95% of females report rape and 7% of men report rape. These statistics fall down with the idea of what 100% reporting actually means. Rape may be defined as "sexual assault without consent exercising control of an individual by either sex"

It would then appear that in this scenario men are the weaker sex.

...and this video is so tragic :-(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lrJg8NMsFw

Edit: Please note this video is a spoof!

[MoonShadow]

Yes, all those videos are disgusting. I am familiar with such messages as I grew up during the times of blatant chauvinism. And, that is not that long ago! Young people today may scoff and laugh at them (hopefully they do) as they seem so preposterous, but those of us born in the 40s and 50s are well aware of what chauvinism was all about.

I grew up in an era where I, as a female, was NOT encouraged to go to college. Thankfully, my family thought differently. I tried to join the Air Force but was denied because of my gender. I tried to get a car loan but was denied because of my gender. I had to get my parents to co-sign for my first car loan. This, my friends, was in the 60s. I wanted to buy a house but was denied because I was 1) female and 2) single. I am thankful for the mid-60s to the 70s social revolts in this country and thankful that I participated in them.

So, when I see videos like this in the year 2009, and websites promoting chauvinism, it is truly sad, and tragic that some men and women want to hold onto oppressive ways to control and suppress another human being simply because of their gender.

[Fitz1980]

...and this video is so tragic :-(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lrJg8NMsFw

That video isn't real. It was made in 1996 by British comedian Harry Enfield, it's a satire of sexist attitudes of that era; kind of like a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, Fitz, that video was a spoof; however, I watched the other videos regarding this gentleman who runs a site promoting chauvinism and then was on the Dr Phil Show (but that isn't surprising as the Dr Phil Show is a joke unto itself).

[FreeinNJ]

I always found it wrong that a man could go with a top and women were force to cover up. I hope the option is place in all the women here instead of the US Government

[northlondoner]

I think the step to toplessness is not more difficult. Still a large step for UK and US society in general.