Recent topfreedom on TV

[Macanudist]

I've noticed something on a couple of popular shows recently that I hope to be the start of a trend. A few months ago on "CSI" they were examining a female body and briefly showed her bare breasts. On last night's "ER" the doctors were examining an elderly lady having some sort of trauma. In the process they very realistically removed her shirt and bra to attach leads. For a few seconds I had to wonder if what I was seeing was real but it was.

Everyone is familiar with the "National Geographic" specials or the Discover Channel programs about tribes which show totally nude women and men. But these were mainstream shows employing nudity, albeit just female breasts, but I find it encouraging. Does anyone have other examples of this? Care to share your opinion of these advances?

[Macanudist]

I've noticed something on a couple of popular shows recently that I hope to be the start of a trend. A few months ago on "CSI" they were examining a female body and briefly showed her bare breasts. On last night's "ER" the doctors were examining an elderly lady having some sort of trauma. In the process they very realistically removed her shirt and bra to attach leads. For a few seconds I had to wonder if what I was seeing was real but it was.

Everyone is familiar with the "National Geographic" specials or the Discover Channel programs about tribes which show totally nude women and men. But these were mainstream shows employing nudity, albeit just female breasts, but I find it encouraging. Does anyone have other examples of this? Care to share your opinion of these advances?

[nudeM]

We watch a show that focuses on the emergency rooms thoughout the country. This show blurrs out the genitals on all of the subjects, but at times, they will show breasts. They even show operations being done, from the start to finish. It's weird that they show the blood and guts of patients, yet, go out of their way to blurr the genitals.

Also, speaking of National Geographic, I have seen episodes of tribes where all members were nude, yes, even the men. This one particular tribe showed the men with some sort of ribbon or cloth tied around their penis'. Evidently, after the males reach a certain age or after they go through a ceremony, they are allowed to wear this piece.

Just an observance I have noticed on how much nudity has come and how much left there is still to do when it comes to the mainstream TV.

Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Too right. In films and TV programmes we know they're not real. But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I know you are a troll here, so I hate to reply to your non-sense, but I think you just have a very filthy mind.

Brian

A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year. Hardly the behaviour of a troll, is it?

And why should there be anything filthy about my mind just because I disapprove of actors and actresses exposing their naked bodies before the world?

Please don't feel that you hav eto answer these points - after all, why reply to a troll?

Stu

[sawdust]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Brian

"A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year."

I've never heard the term TROLL used to identify an argumentative person before, but accepting this as a new definition, Stu most certainly fits the bill. The fact that he has been prevoking arguments for over a year only makes him and Old Troll. I pointed out some time ago that we could always be sure that nomatter which way the tide was flowing, Stu would be swimming in the opposite direction. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All that said, isen't this is what these postings are all about, the civil exchange of different points of view. I don't have to like or agree with Stu's point of view. Indeed I find sometimes humor in some of the positions he takes. That though is his right as a poster. So let him rant and rave. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Thanks for your time, Sawdust

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Too right. In films and TV programmes we know they're not real.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do we? It's my understanding that the shows to which nudeM referred were live operations, not staged.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps if it became more commonplace, fewer people would see it so. This is the kind of nudity that I and many others would like to see more often on small and big screens: non-sexual, non-glamorous, everyday nakedness. Still, I respect your opinion while not sharing it.

[BrianM]

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

A troll is someone who posts just to spark an argument. I believe what I say and engage in debate issues with others here, and have done so regularly for nearly a year. Hardly the behaviour of a troll, is it?

And why should there be anything filthy about my mind just because I disapprove of actors and actresses exposing their naked bodies before the world?

Please don't feel that you hav eto answer these points - after all, why reply to a troll?

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, I am somewhat self diagnosed as psycohotic, so I will reply to a troll....ocassionally. While I have my own views on several subjects, I like to think of these forums as a means to exchange ideas, sharing and learning from others. News forums have actually been a way that I have shared my ideas, which is also a springboard to test your own ideas by getting logical feedback on your views. Such as..."I think nudity is wrong, and is taught as bad in religion." as an opinion or view, with an opposing argument of "well, actually, there is very little if any reference to simple nudity as bad in the Judeo-Christian text, however conservative teachings in the latter centuries has covered up nudity in a poor attempt to control promiscuity". Then a person with a one sided opinion, realized that there may be merit in what was presented, since they shed some facts on the argument.
However, while in your case, you came to this forum with a "position" on nudity. Given that position I cannot understand why you spend so much time here unless you are not actually a believer in the firm opinions you promote, but enjoy playing the "devil's advocate", thus "sparking an argument".
As far a having a filthy mind, your automatic association of skin with filth is my answer. If your mind were clean, then you would view a naked body on TV as a body, without adornment or protection from the elements and possibly chilly unless in a warm climate or in the sun. Is it "necessary", perhaps not, but given that, is any visual represention in the form of TV necessary, or would radio suffice for entertainment and news. But is the sound of a voice really necessary, since we could just read everthing we need for entertainment and news. Or perhaps reading is too far out, and we should just sit alone and meditate (clothed of course) and await spiritial entertainment and guidance.

[namedun]

Yeah and stu, on trauma shows, blood and nasty stuff inside your body (or in the unfortunate victims' cases: outside their body)is real. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see naked people than blood and bones and exposed muscles. Have you ever seen facial reconstructive surgury? It's probably the most disgusting thing I've ever seen!

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Brian

"Such as..."I think nudity is wrong, and is taught as bad in religion." as an opinion or view,"

Brian, have I EVER said that? No. Clearly you don't read my posts (which is probably why you think I'm a troll) because that's not my position and never has been and if you had read what I actually said rather than just made assumptions you would know that. And because you start with a false assumption about what I think, the rest of your arguments don't make any sense.

"However, while in your case, you came to this forum with a "position" on nudity."

I did come here with a position on nudity. I have said, consistently, that there is nothing wrong with nudity per se nor with naturism. My objection is to PUBLIC nudity other than where appropriate - e.g. it IS appropriate in showers, changing rooms etc at swimming pools, gyms etc, and also at properly auhorised naturist venues and events. It is NOT appropriate at textile beaches, parks, streets, shopping centres, railway stations, lidos, public houses or airports.

"If your mind were clean, then you would view a naked body on TV as a body, without adornment or protection from the elements and possibly chilly unless in a warm climate or in the sun."

I don't like to see nudity on TV, so if it comes on, I switch it off. I'm not campaigning to have it banned. I'm not trying to prevent YOU from watching it. But I'm still entitled to my opinion.

namedun

"Yeah and stu, on trauma shows, blood and nasty stuff inside your body (or in the unfortunate victims' cases: outside their body)is real."

I know. But reality TV is generally educational and informative. It's not usually watched for titillation. They don't add bits to make it as gruesome as possible. I'd much rather see a documentary showing a heart transplant than a bunch of middle-aged, overweight nudists basking like whales on some beach in in Hawaii.

"I don't know about you, but I'd rather see naked people than blood and bones and exposed muscles."

I've actually seen surgery for real - me all gowned in the operating theatre watching the surgeon doing his stuff! Long story - I'll tell you some time. It was fascinating, though. Who wants to see naked people /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ?

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

I have said this before, but I'll say it again. Stu is hijacking topics and turning them into lengthy, repetitive and useless debates.

A few of you like to debate him as an intellectual challenge, but the rest of us are being buried in the verbiage.

There are topics that I would like to introduce, but now won't, knowing that Stu will fill up screens with his extreme views.

This forum is supposed to be about the Fun of Nude Recreation. With Stu around, it's anything but fun.

I don't believe that Stu has anything further of a positive nature to contribute to these forums. I recommend to the administrators that he should be asked to withdraw from further participation.

Gary

"A few of you like to debate him as an intellectual challenge, but the rest of us are being buried in the verbiage."

No-one is stopping you either joining in the discussions. This thread is about what is called "top freedom". That's what I have been talking about. There are plenty of discussions on here that I have not contributed to.

"There are topics that I would like to introduce, but now won't, knowing that Stu will fill up screens with his extreme views."

Nobody is stopping you, Gary. And my views are far from extreme. I would say that most of my views regarding ordinary naturist activities mirror those of the general population. If you can't debate with me the you can't debate with the wider society.

Now if you don't feel that you have the necessary skills in reasoning, debate nor self-expression to hold your own in these dialogues then feel free to withdraw yourself. But please don't try to gag those of us who enjoy participating in these discussions.

Stu

[Kenny G]

You know, Guy's (and Gal's too), while I'll probably never agree with Stu on anything, we've got to realize that his viewpoint is representative of what most of the lawmakers here in the states believe to be the majority. And in order to have an honest and open discussion, we have to have a contrasting point of view. Maybe Stu does reiterate the same point, but then again, aren't we???I'm sure that Stu believes that he is right, just like we think that we are right, that's why we have these "discussions" to try and convince the opposing viewpoints that we are right. Besides, some people do see arguing as "fun". Now off of the soapbox and back on track, a few weeks back an episode of NYPD Blue showed a full frontal shot of a woman preparing to enter the shower when in walked her roommate/boyfriends little boy. interesting scenario for primetime television, and oddly enough a very small ordeal as nothing was made of it...nicely handled, I thought. On the other end of the spectrum though, on the WB network, an episode of Angel got a precautionary warning of partial nudity,...only because in one scene you could tell that a guy was naked, even though nothing was exposed. There's more skin in a Victoria's Secret advertisement. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[BrianM]

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

Brian, have I EVER said that? No. Clearly you don't read my posts (which is probably why you think I'm a troll) because that's not my position and never has been and if you had read what I actually said rather than just made assumptions you would know that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu,
You misread my post, that was supposed to represent a typical nudist forum conversation, not something your said. How a discussion can be enlightening for both sides.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
...My objection is to PUBLIC nudity other than where appropriate - e.g.
Stu [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Most agree not to offend, the problem is that people are offended by simple nudity.

[Chief78CJ7]

My view of Stu is that:
1) He spends more time on these forums than I have free time
2) His views may be 'main stream' but not for these forums.
3) His views are always so pessimisstic that it isn't really worthwhile to debate something with him.

[Bob S.]

"Blood and guts are more acceptable to many people than nudity."

That about sums it up, Jon_Marc.

And it seems that it doesn't matter the context either. It could be in a real-life operation or in a TV show or movie about a killer with a knife. Heck, even the news shows nowadays will show the blood on the sidewalk and will try to get a picture of a dead body. Notice how police have to hold up a sheet to keep people from taking pictures.

"But nudity on such media is, IMO, unnecessary and filthy."

stu, I think people are more accepting of media nudity than they are of real nudity. And I am curious, you claim that you would rather watch a show about an operation, so how about a show about an operation on the testicles?

"I'd much rather see a documentary showing a heart transplant than a bunch of middle-aged, overweight nudists basking like whales on some beach in in Hawaii."

stu, I am very disappointed in this comment of yours. I think that some of Rocket is rubbing off on you, and I'm not talking about her pretty side. This is very inappropriate.

Just as an aside, on cable access here, there is an occassional Infomercial about a local plastic surgeon who talks about some of his past operations. On the infomercial, they show before and after pictures, including those of breast implants/reductions and do not blur out the nipples.

Bob S.

[Aaron Adams]

About the episode of Angel, I saw that and was hoping that there might actually be some nudity on a regular TV show. I didn't notice anything that was particularly unusual for a prime time TV show. I was hoping that the episode might be part of a trend toward actually showing naked people on regular TV. The show is also an exaple of something that, in my opinion, was inappropriate for children due to the graphic nature of the episode but was rather harmless as far as nudity is concerned.

Bob

"stu, I think people are more accepting of media nudity than they are of real nudity."

I agree and that's because you can watch television in the privacy of your home - i.e. your TV isn't a publivc place.

"And I am curious, you claim that you would rather watch a show about an operation, so how about a show about an operation on the testicles?"

Personally I think that, if the operation shows external body pictures, it should be o late at night with warnings. But if they did that I'd be OK with it.

"I am very disappointed in this comment of yours. I think that some of Rocket is rubbing off on you, and I'm not talking about her pretty side. This is very inappropriate."

Bob - you are correct. Let me rephrase that. I should have said that I'd rather watch an operation than watch people (not necessarily naturists), most of whom have less tha perfect bodies, sweating whilst either lazing on towels or running about on sand and intentionally damaging their own skin with UV light. The former may be a bit gruesome but it is interesting. The latter is unsightly as well as profoundly boring.

"Just as an aside, on cable access here, there is an occassional Infomercial about a local plastic surgeon who talks about some of his past operations. On the infomercial, they show before and after pictures, including those of breast implants/reductions and do not blur out the nipples."

Ewwwww /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu

[nudeM]

Most people hit the nail on the head as far as watching real life operations on TV, but some others (Stu) seem to suggest that some of the pictures being shown are (props). Well, this is not the case. When you can actually see the knife making an incision with the skin opening and the insides make their appearance, then this is not a prop. This is a series that is shown daily.

As far as the emergency room series, these are REAL victims being treated in REAL emergency rooms. The victims are stripped and put on a bed. Clearly the individuals are naked, but the genitals are blurred out.

Just my observation. Stu, these are real life episodes being shown as a educational guide. I think that the main focus here is to stress to the general public about life in the operation and emergency rooms throughout the country. I also believe they are trying to stress the safety practices we all must adhere by, or, you too, could end up being in the same situation. And, no, this is not Candid Camera. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

NudeM

I wasn't saying I thought that the real-life operation programmes used props. I was talking about the fiction programmes - you name it, Columbo, Star Trek, Friends, whatever. When they show violence or gore it's not real. When they show nudity on TV then it IS real. That's why I switch off when nudity is shown.

Stu

[Bob S.]

OK stu, so you don't mind the insides of our bodies; it's just our skin that you have a problem with?

"these are real life episodes being shown as a educational guide."

nudeM those shows that show the workings of the ER by following around a certain group of doctors are not educational, they are reality TV and entertainment. Shows that focus on a specific procedure and talk mainly about that procedure could be considered educational.

Bob S.

Bob,

"OK stu, so you don't mind the insides of our bodies; it's just our skin that you have a problem with?"

That's about it, Bob. But aren't we digressing here? I'm talking about what we see on TV - and I'm not advocating banning anything on TV - not surgery, nudity or anything like that. But I do think that, where nudity (or even gore) is to be shown, it should appear only on late night shows that have a warning.

In the public arena I would, of course, object to anything that would offend the majority sensibilities - and that includes nudity, sex, surgical procedures, slaughtering animals, foul language etc.

Stu

[nudeM]

I just saw a new commercial on TV today. It was about a product Lacrose I believe. It was about some product for men, and in the commercial, it showed a nude male. The male was clearly nude. From the time he got out of the shower to going into the living room, he was nude the entire time. His bottom was blurred out, but you could tell he had nothing on, as they weren't too concerned about that general area, other than blurring it out. Maybe nudity on TV will eventually become a thing in the future. Has anybody else seen it?

[Bob S.]

"That's about it, Bob. But aren't we digressing here? I'm talking about what we see on TV"

How am I digressing? I simply making a inquiry-statement noting that you were insinuating that surgery is preferable to nudity. That fake gore is better than TV nudity.

Bob S.

[NudeAl]

I believe this is related.

Did anyone else see the recent M-TV episode about a teenage boy who happens to be the son of the owners of Desert Shadows?

I was flipping channels last Friday night, my other favorite hobby, and there it was. It was just one bit in a series of you won't believe how weird my parents are senarios. The boy ends up inviting over his girl friend and he shows her around the place it must have been in the early morning hours or something because no one was around. Then they go and meet his parents and they hare having a discussion and he is basicly blasting his parents for being nudists, he calls his dad, "The nudist king." Makes a big deal about how this is such an embaressing thing. His mom then pipes in with how his girl friend mentioned she wouldn't mind giving it a try. Well her and ol' mom head out to the pool she sits on a lounge chair and gets some sun but it is pretty obvious that she is a little uncomfortable. She says that it isn't really her thing unable to get comfortable but glad she gave it a try.

I was hoping they woud go into it more but they didn't. only about 15 minutes long but still considering the intended audience I thought it didn't come off to bad. Oh, btw the son didn't want to go out there while she was at the pool cause he said it would be like he was trying to see her naked and he wasn't into nudity. I can respect that, it would have been tough for her to I think.

One more thing all the, "naughty bits," as Stu would put it are blurred out but you can tell they are naked.

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nudeM:
I just saw a new commercial on TV today. It was about a product Lacrose I believe. It was about some product for men, and in the commercial, it showed a nude male. The male was clearly nude. From the time he got out of the shower to going into the living room, he was nude the entire time. His bottom was blurred out, but you could tell he had nothing on, as they weren't too concerned about that general area, other than blurring it out. Maybe nudity on TV will eventually become a thing in the future. Has anybody else seen it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, I saw that commercial nudeM!!

I think I was watching "I Love The 80's"...great show!!

My wife said to me..."Look, there goes you!!" proving that I am not the only smart-a$$ around here...

[shãybare]

Am I the only one that watches "NYPD Blue"? Il may have missed it but I haven't seen any posts on it. They have had plenty of shots of female breasts and both male and female butts. Most of the time it doesn't have to do with sex.

[averagejoe]

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

"OK stu, so you don't mind the insides of our bodies; it's just our skin that you have a problem with?"

That's about it, Bob. But aren't we digressing here? I'm talking about what we see on TV - and I'm not advocating banning anything on TV - not surgery, nudity or anything like that. But I do think that, where nudity (or even gore) is to be shown, it should appear only on late night shows that have a warning.

In the public arena I would, of course, object to anything that would offend the majority sensibilities - and that includes nudity, sex, surgical procedures, slaughtering animals, foul language etc.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, just think for a moment... if this view of yours were correct, then inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to walk down the streets in some states. Banning anything that offends the majority's sensibilities is the surest path to a dictatorship of the bigotted.

Joe,

"Stu, just think for a moment... if this view of yours were correct, then inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to walk down the streets in some states. Banning anything that offends the majority's sensibilities is the surest path to a dictatorship of the bigotted."

I can't comment on your country because I don't profess to have any understanding of your culture. Firstly, I can not relate to a country that has different laws for different parts (i.e. states). Secondly, if you are telling me, in all seriousness, that there are states in the US in which the majority of the population believe that inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to walk down a street together, then the US is far more backward than I ever imagined. If that really is the case then I suggest that the main laws should be made nationally (at a federal level). I would also suggest that it would be better for inter-racial couples move out of those states to other states where civilisation has been established. How could you possibly live among such people?

I would take some convincing that in the US in 2003 there are whole states in which the majority would support a law that prohibited inter-racial marriage (etc), but I could be wrong.

We have bigotry here - but nothing like on that scale. I would trust the majority of the population never to allow bigottry like that to distort their reasoning and sense of fairness.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

But Stu, by your own account, Steve Gough was handled in many different ways by different courts and jurisdictions. The difference here is that our Constitution defines relatively clearly what the federal government can and, more importantly, what it cannot do. The Tenth Amendment states (I'm no legal scholar, so I may not understand this as well as I think I do) that any powers and rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the individual states, or for the people.

When the governments of our southern states were fighting to keep segregation intact, their legal defense was "States' rights." But the rest of the nation's will was against them. I like to think that, in this one case, a Godly moral principle prevailed. (Sorry if I offend you by calling it such, but by your strong reaction I know you agree with the principle.)

Still, I have heard from people I know and trust that in much of the South it is still as dangerous as ever for mixed-race couples to associate or marry--a bitter relic of a bitter legacy.

[averagejoe]

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

"Stu, just think for a moment... if this view of yours were correct, then inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to walk down the streets in some states. Banning anything that offends the majority's sensibilities is the surest path to a dictatorship of the bigotted."

I can't comment on your country because I don't profess to have any understanding of your culture. Firstly, I can not relate to a country that has different laws for different parts (i.e. states). Secondly, if you are telling me, in all seriousness, that there are states in the US in which the majority of the population believe that inter-racial couples shouldn't be allowed to walk down a street together, then the US is far more backward than I ever imagined. If that really is the case then I suggest that the main laws should be made nationally (at a federal level). I would also suggest that it would be better for inter-racial couples move out of those states to other states where civilisation has been established. How could you possibly live among such people?

I would take some convincing that in the US in 2003 there are whole states in which the majority would support a law that prohibited inter-racial marriage (etc), but I could be wrong.

We have bigotry here - but nothing like on that scale. I would trust the majority of the population never to allow bigottry like that to distort their reasoning and sense of fairness.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahh, but the majority did in Germany in 1932, didn't they? While I never had to experience the horrors that the majority inflicted on themselves, my Grandmother was one of the Righteous and I heard more than enough from her to convince me that basic human rights are too important to be determined on a whim of the majority.

Even now, would you argue with me that there are some parts of Europe where the majority consider the wearing of headscarves offensive? Or why else would we have students expelled from schools in France and state governments in Germany seeking a ban on such expressions of faith? Check out this story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031026/ap_on_re_eu/italy_school_crosses) for details.

I was not suggesting that you would find a state in the United States today where such bigotry would be in the majority; I was using state in the broadest sense. But you might find a county or a town where such an outdated view might be in the majority. And yes, while I suppose that we can move, does that mean we should? Or wouldn't that just be segregation?

For an example, perhaps we could set aside areas for those that choose to wear plaids with stripes so that the majority of the fashion conscious won't be offended. We could have little camps located on the edges of town where the fashionably offensive could go to ensure they don't offend anyone.

I would argue, however, that at anytime we segregate someone because of their faith, their skin color, their politics or even their fashion sense, we belittle them. We imply that what they are is so dangerous that they must be excluded from mainstream society. Segregation suggests that what those behind those walls (even if they are metaphorical) are doing (even if it is only existing) is so dangerous that "Normal" society must be protected from it.

I have said it before and I will say it again: there is no universal human right to be offended. There is, however, a basic human right to be what you were born to be. I ask for nothing more than that. To exist as God made me, without shame or guilt, is all I want. To those that are offended by the way my maker designed me, get over it.

By the way, answer the question. If the majority DID find an inter-racial couple to be offensive, would that make it right? What if it was your town? Would you fight against the majority on that issue? Or would you also move, or live among those that would persecute others simply for being human? And what if tommorow, the majority in your town, or county or nation found clothing to be offensive? Would you move? Answer these hypotheticals for me please.

[johny]

I read somewhere the wonderful thougt, literally "In the disputes never has born the Truth".

It seems really contrary to certain ancient Greek sentence, but it IS a sad truth that disputes mean arguing, defending, biting, but never LISTENING and trying to UNDERSTAND.

So I feel the METHOD how STU use to discuss is fruiless and never will lead to nor peace between humankind, nor new knowledge for mind, nor nothing beneficial at all.

[LeeR49]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe nudity on TV will eventually become a thing in the future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure it will -- and probably fairly soon. However, I question if this will be a good thing. Consider the fact that the entertainment industry -- especially TV -- consistently goes out of its way to portray life in a sensualized, sexualized and even perverted way. I fear that, when nudity comes to mainstream TV, it will not be portrayed in the way that most of us would want to see, but will instead give more fodder to the Stu's of this world. I hope I'm just being cynical, but I rather doubt that we will see nudity portrayed in a positive, wholesome, non-sexual way.

Nudity portrayed in a "positive, wholesome, non-sexual way" would be boring to non-nudists. They want to see the intimacy involved with being nude, and the mentality of most people is that if a man and woman get nude together, it's for the purpose of sex--not to play volleyball.

As much as nudists would like to see nudity accepted, it is generally accepted by most people as being sexual. The movie makers would never show nude people just sunning themselves, swimming, sitting in a hot tub, and doing other things with no sex involved. They would have the couples making out in every scene--in the swimming pool, in the hot tub, on the blanket they've laid on the ground, and anywhere they're nude. I see many scenes where the couple is getting so heated up, I think that they need to find a bed somewhere. Although they still ahve their clothes on, the scene is getting very sexual. I've noticed for years that it is getting more and more where a man and a woman cannot meet in a movie without ending up in bed before the end of the day. I'm sure that happens in real life, but unfortuantely that's the way movie makers portray nudity--they meet, they get naked, they have sex.

Joe,

"Ahh, but the majority did in Germany in 1932, didn't they?"

Firstly, the people did vote for Hitler. In his manifesto he did not announce that he would be invading most of Europe nor liquidating millions of its citizens. Had he done so I doubt that he would have won power - but we can never know that for sure. Secondly, I have always said that, in extreme situations (i.e. life and death) it can be legitimate for a minority to fail to obey laws - including those made democratically.

"Even now, would you argue with me that there are some parts of Europe where the majority consider the wearing of headscarves offensive?"

No.

"Or why else would we have students expelled from schools in France and state governments in Germany seeking a ban on such expressions of faith? Check out this story for details."

As I understand it, they are being banned from wearing headscarves because it breaches the school rules - not because anyone finds headscarves "offensive". So your analogy doesn't operate here. Sometimes there are balances that have to be reconciled between religious rights and cultural conformities and it is not advisable to try to make hard and fast principles in such cases. My teenage son could declare that he is a Jedi knight and demand to go to school dressed as Darth Vader but I don't think the school would accommodate that, do you?

"I was not suggesting that you would find a state in the United States today where such bigotry would be in the majority; I was using state in the broadest sense."

So that analogy didn't work, either. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"But you might find a county or a town where such an outdated view might be in the majority".

You might - but it's unlikely - so let's keep our trust in the sense and reasonableness of the majority.

"And yes, while I suppose that we can move, does that mean we should? Or wouldn't that just be segregation?"

In the extreme circumstances you mention I suspect the law would be the least of your worries so I would say yes.

"For an example, perhaps we could set aside areas for those that choose to wear plaids with stripes so that the majority of the fashion conscious won't be offended. We could have little camps located on the edges of town where the fashionably offensive could go to ensure they don't offend anyone."

Now you are being daft. Besides, fashion conscious people neither expect nor want everyone else to be stylish like themselves because if they were then there would be no point in being fashionable in the first place.

"I would argue, however, that at anytime we segregate someone because of their faith, their skin color, their politics or even their fashion sense, we belittle them...."

I'm not advocating banning naturists from anywhere. I'm suggesting segregating naturist practices. That is a entirely different thing. Nudism is, for the most part, a recreational activity just as, say, rally driving is - which is something my wife enjoys. She is still allowed to drive normal cars on normal roads but, when she wants to enjoy her hobby, she goes off to a race circuit. It's the same with naturists. They are welcome on any public beach in the land but, if they want to get naked, they must use a naturist beach. My wife doesn't feel belittled" because she can't enjoy her hobby on public roads - she understands that there are reasons why she can't. And there are reasons why naturists can't be naked in most public places.

"I have said it before and I will say it again: there is no universal human right to be offended."

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. I have every right to use any public place and to do so without encountering behaviour that most people would find offensive (or dangerous like my wife's rally driving! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ).

"There is, however, a basic human right to be what you were born to be. I ask for nothing more than that."

You can be. You can walk around your own house, or the homes of your friends, or any naturist venue, as naked as the day you were born. But you can't walk around my home in that state, nor can you walk in my street, my park, my public beach. There have to be rules that regulate behaviour in these places and these rules must be designed in such a way that most people feel comfortable using them.

"To those that are offended by the way my maker designed me, get over it."

But if you want to be in a public place without being arrested you are going to have to keep your private parts out of sight of the rest of us and, if you don't like that, get over it.

"By the way, answer the question. If the majority DID find an inter-racial couple to be offensive, would that make it right?"

It doesn't make it morally right, no, not in my opinion. The majority is not infallible.

"What if it was your town? Would you fight against the majority on that issue?"

Sure. I'd join any campaign or sign any petition against such discrimination. I have fought bad laws by these means in the past.

"Or would you also move, or live among those that would persecute others simply for being human?"

I wouldn't want to live among a people with such attitudes so I'd certainly consider moving.

"And what if tommorow, the majority in your town, or county or nation found clothing to be offensive? Would you move?"

You bet I'd move!!!!

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Nudity portrayed in a "positive, wholesome, non-sexual way" would be boring to non-nudists. They want to see the intimacy involved with being nude, and the mentality of most people is that if a man and woman get nude together, it's for the purpose of sex--not to play volleyball.

As much as nudists would like to see nudity accepted, it is generally accepted by most people as being sexual. The movie makers would never show nude people just sunning themselves, swimming, sitting in a hot tub, and doing other things with no sex involved. They would have the couples making out in every scene--in the swimming pool, in the hot tub, on the blanket they've laid on the ground, and anywhere they're nude. I see many scenes where the couple is getting so heated up, I think that they need to find a bed somewhere. Although they still ahve their clothes on, the scene is getting very sexual. I've noticed for years that it is getting more and more where a man and a woman cannot meet in a movie without ending up in bed before the end of the day. I'm sure that happens in real life, but unfortuantely that's the way movie makers portray nudity--they meet, they get naked, they have sex. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone please produce a TV series in which good nudity appears regularly! Let's get TV involved! (If possible.)

Seriously, many painters and sculptors have for centuries portrayed nudity in a positive, non-sexual manner. That is what opened my own mind and heart to the possibility that nudity may be just fine and not covered by Biblical injunctions against promiscuous sex etc. If someone produced a TV show that did the same things, it probably would open people's minds to nudity's legitimacy. (Yes, Star Trek has done this, but that was not its primary purpose, and it didn't have nudes very often.)

[Bob S.]

"I'm not advocating banning naturists from anywhere. I'm suggesting segregating naturist practices. That is a entirely different thing."

Not entirely, stu. Naturists are people who enjoy being without clothes. You are for segregating practicing naturists. The effect is still the same. It would be akin to telling a biracial couple that they couldn't hold hands in public. They could still appear in public, just not appear to be a couple.

"She is still allowed to drive normal cars on normal roads but, when she wants to enjoy her hobby, she goes off to a race circuit."

Bad analogy, stu. Your wife would be threatening the lives of other people if she were to race her car on the public roads.

"I have said it before and I will say it again: there is no universal human right to be offended."

"It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true."

So a white supremecist has the right to be offended by a Jewish person? People who believe that they have the right to offended by anything are being extremely prejudicial. You can choose how you react to something.

"Someone please produce a TV series in which good nudity appears regularly! Let's get TV involved! (If possible.)

Jochanaan, a long time ago in a site far, far away we talked about this very topic. One of the more popular ideas was a series ala "The Love Boat" that was set in a nudist park. The series would focus on the office staff and maybe a few other chaacters. Every week, there would be different people visiting and problems (not like "Love Boat") that would come up. It could even be sort of a dramedy.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Stu,

One of the principles of republican government (at least on this side of the Atlantic) is an intense fear of a tyranny of the majority.

We go to great lengths to protect unpopular opinions.

In your recent posts you have been mixing discussions about social mores with legal statutes. Let's try hard to separate the two as we debate this.

You are also aware of the sometimes maddening power of local governments here to set community standards, and thence laws about nudity and a whole host of other matters.

You seem to assume that our values will be static. Public demand for nude beaches might increase. The willingness of textile people to glimpse nudity in a city park or public beach might increase in the future.

We have debated the question of civil disobedience fairly exhaustively, but you have not addressed the scenario in which nude bathers might increase in numbers and begin to occupy strand closer and closer to the textile area. Our legislators tend to ignore requests for new beach for nudity unless there is already a precedent for nude use. The system we have in place almost mandates that we create de facto nude beaches, sometimes contrary to existing laws, then and only then are we free to appeal their status.
What say you sir?

[Macanudist]

Pulling us back a little closer to the original intent of the post...

To NudeAl at the top of the page - Yes, I saw the MTV show you're talking about. I was just channel surfing and happened to stop at the right time. The program featured three segments, each with a different teenager who was embarassed by his parents for one reason or another. I thought the segment about the kid whose parents own the nudist club was done very well. Of course everyone was pixelated but there was nothing exploitive about the interviews. Both sides were well represented. We all know that there is a profound decline in our numbers among teenagers so it was very enlightening to see an interview with a teenager who is more or less "stuck" in that situation.

Bob

"Not entirely, stu. Naturists are people who enjoy being without clothes. You are for segregating practicing naturists. The effect is still the same."

No. I' segregating people who want to be nude from people who are likely to find the sight of nudity offensive. Segregation - combined with a fair allocation of spaces and venues - should keep everyone happy. People go to the beach for pleasure. Why should the pleasure of a minority spoil the pleasure of the majority?

"Bad analogy, stu. Your wife would be threatening the lives of other people if she were to race her car on the public roads."

My wife would be causing danger - unauthorised public nudity would be causing offence. My analogy is aimed at showing that some activities can't co-exist with some other activities.

"So a white supremecist has the right to be offended by a Jewish person?"

Yes. Every right. And a Jewish person has every right to be offended by a white supremecist. What is unacceptable isn't what one is - it's the way one behaves (including the way one is dressed or otherwise).

"People who believe that they have the right to offended by anything are being extremely prejudicial. You can choose how you react to something."

You shouldn't be forced to make such a choice or put up with sights/behaviour that most people find offensive. Nudity is just one example of this.

Trailscout

"One of the principles of republican government (at least on this side of the Atlantic) is an intense fear of a tyranny of the majority."

It shouldn't be. In the first place you should trust the sense and fairness of the majority - I do over here even though there are laws being made (and taxes imposed) by our government that I profoundly disagree with.

"You are also aware of the sometimes maddening power of local governments here to set community standards, and thence laws about nudity and a whole host of other matters."

I am - because you have told me about them.

"You seem to assume that our values will be static. Public demand for nude beaches might increase."

If that happens then nudists are entitled to a greater share of facilities (I think they are anyway!)

"The willingness of textile people to glimpse nudity in a city park or public beach might increase in the future."

It might or it might not. But there have to be controls on where nudity is permitted until such time as a sizeable proportion of the population - a simple majority at the very least - are willing to say that they find nothin objectionable about publc nudity. We are far fro that position right now with regard to most communities.

"We have debated the question of civil disobedience fairly exhaustively, but you have not addressed the scenario in which nude bathers might increase in numbers and begin to occupy strand closer and closer to the textile area. Our legislators tend to ignore requests for new beach for nudity unless there is already a precedent for nude use. The system we have in place almost mandates that we create de facto nude beaches, sometimes contrary to existing laws, then and only then are we free to appeal their status.
What say you sir?"

Then THAT is the nub of your problem! It has nothing to do with a right to be nude in public at all - it's a failure on the part of the authorities to provide you with your fair share of facilities. Nudists are not unique in this respect. In most areas in the UK there are woefully inadequate facilities for, e.g., cyclists (both roadies like myself and also mountain bikers). Cycling is probably far more popular a passtime than naturism and yet very few roads have cycle-lanes and some of the roads we have to use are more akin to motorways (like your freeways, except with a 70mph speed limit). Minority passtimes are often sadly under-resourced! So what's the answer? It has to be continual and unremitting lobbying, petitioning, campaigning and even protesting. It has to include forming organisations and pressure groups, winning influential allies (political allies, the media, celebrities etc). I have protested in London at the lack of facilities for cyclists. Britain has at least 9 million regular bikers and we get a bum deal. We COULD have protested by arranging to converge in London in vast numbers on the day of the prootest and we COULD by that means have brought our capital to a standstill. Inded some suggested doing that. Wiser heads prevailed and we kept our protest within the law. Since then things have been improving for bikers - albeit too slowly for our liking. Bu we'll get there in the end - that's what I say.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"Segregation - combined with a fair allocation of spaces and venues - should keep everyone happy."

Separate but equal is inherently unqual. Oops, sorry about that. Flashback to school segregation lessons. But we do not have a fair allocation of spaces or venues. Most of the nude use beaches are out-of-the-way places that may require a lengthy hike through wooded areas or other beaches. People in wheelchairs do not have access to these beaches. People who cannot walk long distances do not have access to these beaches.

"My wife would be causing danger - unauthorised public nudity would be causing offence. My analogy is aimed at showing that some activities can't co-exist with some other activities."

Fear for one's own life cannot be compared to seeing something you do not want to see. Nudity can coexist with clothing.

"You shouldn't be forced to make such a choice or put up with sights/behaviour that most people find offensive."

Your own personal opinion that has never been supported by fact regarding nudity.

"In the first place you should trust the sense and fairness of the majority"

For most things, yes. But other certain things, no. It seems at tiems over here that the vocal minority are getting their way too often.

"It has nothing to do with a right to be nude in public at all - it's a failure on the part of the authorities to provide you with your fair share of facilities."

stu sees the light! And the authorities do not create them because of their prejudices. We have to constantly fight to keep what we have. Even in our one authorized beach, Haulover in Florida, the local government was considering placing a school near where the beach was, which would have effectively shut down the beach for nude use because of nude use zoning laws. There was a big uproar, which cyndiann was a part of, I believe, and they rescinded.

The Ledges was made textile for a couple of months when a vote went out for referendum sponsored by those who wanted it closed for nude use. A couple months later, another referendum reversed that. Even now, Mazo Beach in Michigan is under attack with legislation created, in part, by a local reverend who is anti-nudity and who has harrassd beachgoers there for years. The legislation would bar any state land from nude use.

Again, the two big orgs, AANR and TNS as well as INA need to get together and get some heavy PR going. Individuals can only do so much. Without a larger message being put out, it is easy to just dismiss us as lunatic.

Bob S.

Bob

"Separate but equal is inherently unqual. Oops, sorry about that. Flashback to school segregation lessons."

Don't believe everything they teach you at school. We have separate toilets and changing rooms for males and females. Is that 'unequal'? Bob, at the end of the day naturism is rather like smoking (forget the health issues, I'm talking just about the 'offence' part, the horrible stench). Some people want to do it - they feel they need to do it. Others don't. Many of those who don't find the smell of it offensive - it spoils their enjoyment of wherever they happen to be (e.g. in a restaurant). What is more natural, then, than having a "smoking" area and a "non-smoking" area? You don't hear smokers complaining of segregation. And no considerate smoker would ever think about lighting up in a non-smoking area.

"But we do not have a fair allocation of spaces or venues. Most of the nude use beaches are out-of-the-way places that may require a lengthy hike through wooded areas or other beaches. People in wheelchairs do not have access to these beaches. People who cannot walk long distances do not have access to these beaches."

I agree. You have a good argument here. Don't go and spoil it by demanding the right to be nude on ANY beach. That will make you seem extreme and unreasonable and will lose you the sympathy of moderate and liberally-minded textiles.

"Fear for one's own life cannot be compared to seeing something you do not want to see. Nudity can coexist with clothing."

The principle is the same, Bob. Look at it another way. Suppose you went to the cinema to watch a film and a small group of people in the cinema began shouting obscenities and jeering every time a particular actor appeared on-screen (let's say because she'd had an abortion and they were Christian fundamentalists). They spoiled the film for you and your evening out. The manager tells you that these individuals have been offered their own private screening of the film, but they weren't content with that. They demanded the right to behave as they wanted in the public screening, and if others didn't like it - well that's just tough. Would you (a) have sympathy with their cause and (b) applaud their right to free speech?

"Your own personal opinion that has never been supported by fact regarding nudity."

My personal opinion about what? I don't just support the criminalisation of public nudity because I personally don't like it. I support it because most people find it abhorrent and it interferes with their enjoyment of public places.

"For most things, yes. But other certain things, no".

In other words you agree with democracy so long as the majority feels the way you do.

"It seems at tiems over here that the vocal minority are getting their way too often."

Oh I so agree! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"And the authorities do not create them because of their prejudices. We have to constantly fight to keep what we have. Even in our one authorized beach, Haulover in Florida, the local government was considering placing a school near where the beach was, which would have effectively shut down the beach for nude use because of nude use zoning laws. There was a big uproar, which cyndiann was a part of, I believe, and they rescinded."

So you CAN win by lawful means!! And people CAN be persuaded to listen to you. That was a great victory for naturists, Bob. Let's see a few more like that. But you won't get them by antagonising the majority textile ppulation by displays of unauthorised and inappropriate nudity that results in offence and a bad press.

"The Ledges was made textile for a couple of months when a vote went out for referendum sponsored by those who wanted it closed for nude use. A couple months later, another referendum reversed that. Even now, Mazo Beach in Michigan is under attack with legislation created, in part, by a local reverend who is anti-nudity and who has harrassd beachgoers there for years. The legislation would bar any state land from nude use."

Wasn't the reverend convicted of doing that harassment? So again we see that people are tolerant and reasonable and fair - provided you are reasonable and stay within the law.

"Again, the two big orgs, AANR and TNS as well as INA need to get together and get some heavy PR going. Individuals can only do so much. Without a larger message being put out, it is easy to just dismiss us as lunatic."

You aren't lunatic and, if you persist using GENTLE persuasion, keep your demands reasonable and work with (not against) the law and you will succeed in getting justice. Leave the 'lunacy' to Mr Gough and Co.

Stu

[dharmabum]

I have been reading this and other threads where the debate is about whether the public-at-large can insist and/or enforce their desire not to see naked people. This has brought several thoughts to mind:

The issue of whether one is comfortable baring what is deemed 'private parts' is an individual decision. No one (with the possible exception of Rocket) has disagreed that everyone is free to make that decision themselves, and to not be coerced by another in either direction. Everyone has the discretion to dress/undress as it suits them; a nudist has no qualms about seeing and being seen - a textile has qualms (for whatever reasons) about exposing themselves. But the argument doesn't seem to center around this, but rather whether the textile majority should have to endure seeing others' genitalia.

Why is this?

I have seen a variety of ideas proffered: that it is somehow upsetting to children; that it is offensive; that it is immoral; that it would incite others to sexual violence. Do these arguments hold any water?

- Sexual violence first: does social nudity cause some to commit acts of harassment or assault. Perhaps. But is that cause for laws against social nudity? The current body of rape law suggests not. It has been well established that no matter how provocatively one might dress, it does not give cause for sexual assault. A PERSON CANNOT USE ANOTHER'S' DRESS (or lack thereof) AS AN EXCUSE FOR THEIR OWN THOUGHTS OR ACTIONS.

- Upsetting to children: this is somewhat of a chicken/egg circumstance. Children who have been raised around casual nudity have a different attitude than those where nudity is rare. BUT IT IS SOCIETAL CONDITIONING. Not a hard-and-fast fact. For example: in Japan, the majority might think twice about being nude in public - but almost everyone has no problem with communal bathing. Similar circumstances can be found in a variety of other cultures. Add to that the cultures in Hawaii, New Guinea, Africa, and throughout the tropics where full or partial nudity was considered normal until christian missionaries came along and instilled their brand of shame/modesty.

- Immoral: To whom? The concept of immorality is hinged upon one's faith; one's religious convictions can convince them that their nakedness is immoral. But can one enforce their religious convictions upon another? Again, the body of western law says NO. Except in areas where another's life may be in danger, such as parents who refuse medical treatment in lieu of prayer for their children, the majority cannot hold the minority to their convictions. In fact, in a number of situations, the minority is given precedence: the school prayer issue, religious clothing (bourkas, Sikh headdress and yarmulkes), etc.

- Offensive: this is where most of the debate rages. Some find social nudity offensive, therefore it must be restricted to 'nude ghettos' or banned. Where do we look for analogies? Since religious and personal preferences have already been addressed, how about other clothes-related offenses? Swastikas, Klan robes and/or Nazi regalia - society howled, but the courts affirmed the right to be worn. Nursing mothers have had their right to nurse IN PUBLIC affirmed. Top-freedom (the idea of equality in the amount of exposed flesh between male and female) is gaining acceptance in the US, and has become the de facto standard in an increasing number of european beach venues.

So anyway, there are my thoughts. I don't consider myself a nudist/naturist, but rather a 'clothing-optionalist': nakedness is no big deal, and I do so whenever opportunity and desire dictate. My personal opinion is that if there would be any laws governing social nudity, they should be similar to laws regarding smoking and such: prohibited when sanitation and/or safety is an issue, and unrestricted by law otherwise. From there, consideration takes over: just as the considerate smoker does not light up when those around him would object, one would not be naked around those who have voiced an objection. But as a matter of conscience - not law. And it would matter who was there first. Stu's point that one could be naked in a remote site until someone came along wouldn't hold water: if someone was sitting on a park bench smoking, another can't come up and say "I object to your cigarette; put it out". In the same manner, if a textile comes upon a nude person in a particular local, and they were there first - it is the textile's obligation to either accept it or find another spot. If nudity is as small a minority as Stu/Rocket has posited, then it will be not be a major issue; if it were to become a majority activity - then the masses have spoken (and of course, the rules would apply to textiles in the same manner)

Namaste!

Hi..Anybody seen the new documentary making the rounds on HBO.."Naked World" a follow up to the original documentary "Naked States" about Spencer Tunicks Photo shoots?...In my area its on tonight at 10:30 on HBO2...I plan on tuning in...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dharmabum

I have never argued against nudity on the grounds of sexual harm nor immorality. My objection is that of causing offence.

"Some find social nudity offensive, therefore it must be restricted to 'nude ghettos' or banned."

A "ghetto" is a derogatory term suggesting somewhere unpleasant and impoverished. I for one do not expect naturists to put up with inferior venues.

"Where do we look for analogies? Since religious and personal preferences have already been addressed, how about other clothes-related offenses? Swastikas, Klan robes and/or Nazi regalia - society howled, but the courts affirmed the right to be worn."

Not here in the UK, nor in many European countries. You can wear all the Nazi regalia you like on private premises, but wearing them in public in such a way as could cause harassment, alarm or distress, or stir up racial hatred, would make you liable to arrest and imprisonment. And that's how it should be. Do what you like on your own property, but when you enter the public domain then you show consideration for he feelings of others.

"Nursing mothers have had their right to nurse IN PUBLIC affirmed."

That's never been ratified in law here.

"Top-freedom (the idea of equality in the amount of exposed flesh between male and female) is gaining acceptance in the US, and has become the de facto standard in an increasing number of european beach venues."

There have been topless beaches here in Europe since the 1960s - indeed most beaches this side of the Atlantic would tolerate it - although not here in the UK for most populat beaches. There has been a notable decline in topless sunbathing in Europe since it reached its peak in the early 1980s. This was even noticed and commented upon in the Danish press this summer.

"..nakedness is no big deal",

It's not to you but it can be to others.

"My personal opinion is that if there would be any laws governing social nudity, they should be similar to laws regarding smoking and such: prohibited when sanitation and/or safety is an issue, and unrestricted by law otherwise. From there, consideration takes over: just as the considerate smoker does not light up when those around him would object, one would not be naked around those who have voiced an objection."

More and more there are laws that dictate where people can and can't smoke - and rightly so. The simple fact is that many people just aren't considerate of others and, when that occurs, they should be compelled to respect others' sensitivities or leave the vicinity. That applies to smoking in public buildings and nudity on public beaches. If someone chooses to smoke in your home, or be nude in your home, it's upto you whether or not you find it acceptable. In public places it depends upon whether the majority find it acceptable. Generally they don't.

"Stu's point that one could be naked in a remote site until someone came along wouldn't hold water: if someone was sitting on a park bench smoking, another can't come up and say "I object to your cigarette; put it out". In the same manner, if a textile comes upon a nude person in a particular local, and they were there first - it is the textile's obligation to either accept it or find another spot."

No. Clothing is the norm and nudity is merely a minority preference. Using your rules would mean that all naturists would have to do is get to the beach, park, street, shopping mall, airport etc etc first and then everybody else has to put up with their selfish and antisocial behaviour. If you were in an airport lounge you would know whether you could smoke or not. There are areas for smokers and non-smokers. Smokers don't regard their area as a "ghetto", nor do they say "Well I was here first" because the rules are clear. It's the same with naturists.

"If nudity is as small a minority as Stu/Rocket has posited, then it will be not be a major issue";

Nudity isn't a "major ssue" for me because I don't encounter it - and I don't want to either. So I will speak up and say what I think here and also to lawmakers, administrators and other people with influence. If I don't say what I think then I can't complain when decisions are taken that I don't like.

Stu

[eurogeek]

I was zapping channels last week when I saw this rather nice commercial on a Dutch channel. It is for the Dutch part of the Swiss Life insurance group. I checked their website and noticed that the commercials are online to:
Go to http://www.zwitserlevengevoel.nl and click on the "Huub & Ellen Downunder" icon, in the lower right hand corner. In the last of the 5 clips Ellen challenges Huub to go skinny-dipping.
I find this clip rather nice because it presents the skinny-dipping as something positive which they want to associate their product with.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Separate but equal is inherently unqual. Oops, sorry about that. Flashback to school segregation lessons."

Don't believe everything they teach you at school. We have separate toilets and changing rooms for males and females. Is that 'unequal'? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.

Because men and women are plumbed somewhat differently they use the facilities differently. Equal accomodations for women means less utility. They need either 'unequally' more facilities, or must put up with much longer queues.

It has become fairly common in the US for women to 'invade' the men's rooms because of unreasonably long queues at sporting events and concert halls.

Alternately unisex facilities could be used so that both men and women are equally effected by the queues. Individual stalls preserve modesty. What about urinals? Even there women can achieve parity (http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html) .

Whatdaya think Stu? Ready for the brave new world?

http://www.restrooms.org/two.jpg

Mark

"It has become fairly common in the US for women to 'invade' the men's rooms because of unreasonably long queues at sporting events and concert halls."

In my experience it doesn't happen here. If I were using the mens toilets and woman came in I'd bounce her out double quick!

"Alternately unisex facilities could be used so that both men and women are equally effected by the queues. Individual stalls preserve modesty."

I don't have a problem with a proper unisex toilet with a proper and substantial door that affords full privacy. Why should I? I was born a unisex baby! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"What about urinals? Even there women can achieve parity."

Er no. She'd have to go. Voluntarily or otherwise.

"Whatdaya think Stu? Ready for the brave new world?"

Fortunately this is outside my experience. It had better stay that way.

Stu

[NudeAl]

ODB

I saw the show last night on HBO. It ws interesting. Some of those shots were incredible. He did achieve some pretty large numbers in Canada and Australia. I did grasp the concept that he uses the nude human form as a sort of paint on the urban canvass. Contemporary art has never been my thing. I was sort of unconvinced until I watched the show. While you do notice that there is nudity if it is done in large numbers from a distance they sort of form a mosaic they blend into one so to speak. I do think he is a bit full of himself though. A little egocentric, I suppose that is common in the art world though.

[Naturist Mark]

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

"It has become fairly common in the US for women to 'invade' the men's rooms because of unreasonably long queues at sporting events and concert halls."

In my experience it doesn't happen here. If I were using the mens toilets and woman came in I'd bounce her out double quick! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you really? Physically remove a woman in pain and distress?

I doubt it.

Women don't come into the men's rooms for kicks, they do it out of desperation.

-Mark

[Jochanaan]

Well, Mark, I for one wouldn't kick her out! I'd give up my place in line for her.

I am reminded of an experience from many years ago when I was a night janitor, before I became a nudist. I went with a rag and bucket into the ladies' restroom at the restaurant I cleaned at about 3:00 in the morning, thinking I would have it to myself as usual. But a woman's voice hailed me from the last stall!

I decided to play it cool. "Hi, I'm just coming in to clean. I can come back."

She surprised me. "I don't mind if you don't mind."

I realized I didn't, especially since she had closed the stall door. So I started my business in another stall while she finished hers. No big deal! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

stu, that little statement about Separat but Equal was meant as a joke. Whenever I see the word segregation, I recall the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court case that desegregated the schools. And that was a quote from the Chief Justice of that Court. I can believe that.

"You don't hear smokers complaining of segregation. And no considerate smoker would ever think about lighting up in a non-smoking area."

You don't live over here, stu. Smokers do complain about some of the laws that cast them aside. And they are actually losing virtually every place to smoke. Bars? Nope, not in some states. Home? Nope, not if the smoke happens to waft to their nneighbors' property. Work? Nope, they are subjugated to the outdoors. But don't even get me started about this issue.

"Don't go and spoil it by demanding the right to be nude on ANY beach."

I have made no demand. But what I am asking for is more beaches that anyone can get to.

"The principle is the same"

Not even close. Murder is not in the same category of crime as indecent behaviour.

"Would you (a) have sympathy with their cause and (b) applaud their right to free speech?"

a. I would not rely on how people acted during a movie to determine whether or not to sympathize with their cause.
b. This is on private property. Free speech rights do not exist as they do in the general public. The management would have the right to kick them out.

"My personal opinion about what?"

That the majority of the populace finds nudity offensive, abhorrent, grotesque, etc.

"In other words you agree with democracy so long as the majority feels the way you do."

Not what I am saying. I am saying that majority can be controlled by other forces, such as those that we both hate, political correctness.

"So you CAN win by lawful means!! And people CAN be persuaded to listen to you."

Too bad I can't get you to listen to me. I have never stated that going naked was the best way to win over the public. And again, for about the fourth or fifth time, let me explain. This time, read it. The whole civil disobedience issue was started when it was asked how to have the public become desensitized to nudity. Of the many, many ideas, one was mentioned that seeing nudity is the fastest way to desensitize the public. This then led into the realization that the public would not accept it if the laws were against it. That's when civil disobedience came forward. As a way to challenge laws and decriminalize simple nudity.

This whole topic was blown way WAY out of proportion when you were afraid that we were advocating going naked in spite of the laws. Then came the debate over whether support for Steve Gough equaled the intent to copy him. Stop assuming we are not looking for legal ways to overturn the laws. And we know that going after friends and family is the best way to change attitudes of nudity.

"Wasn't the reverend convicted of doing that harassment? So again we see that people are tolerant and reasonable and fair - provided you are reasonable and stay within the law."

Yes. He was convicted of harrassment. I don't recall the punishment. But let me show you what law is being proposed by the legislature (with the bad Rev. more than likely behind the scenes). I do not have the exact wording of the laws. (AB stands for Wisconsin Assembly Bill, the second being an amendment):

AB 574 is legislation that would prohibit nudity on all Wisconsin public land owned, managed, supervised, or controlled by a state agency.

As introduced, AB 574 would prohibit all parking in the lot near Mazo Beach. The amendment makes the parking ban effective only from May 1 through September 30.

Bob S.

NudeAl....Thanks for the reply...Glad you found it interesting...I saw the first HBO documentary "Naked States" and enjoyed it but did feel he would be much more effective if he was more comfortable being nude himself and the part he did at an actual C/O beach did not appear as favorable as it should have...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Mark,

If she made sure there were no men in there first then yes I've known that happen (i.e. when the ladies staff toilet was flooded at work and they had to use the mens room) and it isn't a problem. And I would expect the opposite scenario to operate as well.

BUT there is no way I would tolerate a woman just barging in when I'm in the gents. No way!

Stu

[Bob S.]

At sometime I think this past week, I was watching the beginning of "The View" which is a daytime talk show put together by Barbara Walters (for those who don't know her, she is a venerated interviewer and host of a newsmagazine called "20/20"). They were talking about Paris Hilton, heiress to the hotal chain and sometimes model. They were showing a spread of hers in one of the adult magazines and one of the co-hosts showed it while placing her hand over the exposed breasts. But as she brought the magazine back from camera view, she removed her hand too soon and her nipples were exposed to the national TV audience.

Keep in mind that this is a daytime talk show that here comes on at 11am on the ABC affiliate. I have heard nothing of any letters, apologies, or anything.

Bob S.