BBC "Horizon" documentary about nudity [Archive]

Lord Drakkus

03-03-2009, 08:20 AM

I don't think it's a matter of "shame" in most cases. People are rarely concerned about using changing rooms or showers with others of the same-sex. The feeling that nudity is inappropriate seems to occur either when people of the opposite sex are present, or are likely to be present, or when the situation is one where nudity is not expected.

As that is the case, I can't see how the predominant negative emotion is one of shame, so much as risking defying one or more of a combination of powerful social conventions.

Stu

Actually, I agree with this. I've never really thought that shame would be the real problem either. It's more the views of "society" that people are most concerned about. If that's truly the case, then the more open we are about our preference to be nude, the more realistic other peoples opinions on "society's" views will be.

If more people realize that those around them don't consider nudity to be an issue, then more people will be willing to try it for themselves. At some point, things will hit critical mass and we will finally get to our "mecca" of being able to choose whether to wear clothes no matter where we go.

David77

03-03-2009, 08:58 AM

richo

03-03-2009, 08:59 AM

Actually, I agree with this. I've never really thought that shame would be the real problem either. It's more the views of "society" that people are most concerned about. If that's truly the case, then the more open we are about our preference to be nude, the more realistic other peoples opinions on "society's" views will be.

If more people realize that those around them don't consider nudity to be an issue, then more people will be willing to try it for themselves. At some point, things will hit critical mass and we will finally get to our "mecca" of being able to choose whether to wear clothes no matter where we go.

When I first started working for my current company 11 years ago, I got put in a small open-office layout room with 4 other people. It was an analyst/data entry group, and I was the new analyst. The room was quiet all the time, only the noise of tapping keys, and rarely a conversation or any other kind of noise. It was pretty oppressive.

One day, I finally cracked at the silence, and put on some very innocuous, quiet, classical music when no one was around; when a few people came back, I left it on at a very low volume and just let it run for an hour or two. When I finally turned it off, I had a few people in the office ask me to turn it back on...

... It seems everyone in the office thought everyone else wanted it quiet, and so no one was willing to be the first to make a suggestion for music or anything. Within a month, we were having joint lunches together, enjoying ourselves with conversations and jokes while we worked, and - probably not incidentally - working far more efficiently. All because one person decided it was okay to be different.

I'm not saying it'll be the same with nudity in society, but I find that paradigm often repeats: that most people are afraid to be the first but will willingly follow (or at least have no objection when others do).

Running Bear

03-03-2009, 09:01 AM

I don't think it's a matter of "shame" in most cases. People are rarely concerned about using changing rooms or showers with others of the same-sex. The feeling that nudity is inappropriate seems to occur either when people of the opposite sex are present, or are likely to be present, or when the situation is one where nudity is not expected.

As that is the case, I can't see how the predominant negative emotion is one of shame, so much as risking defying one or more of a combination of powerful social conventions.

Stu

This is strange coming from you! I am well aware that many same sex rooms are a hive of shameful behaviour. Some men are ashamed to be seen naked in same sex changing rooms. I will concede they are more ashamed in a mixed sex changing room.
Shame is the fear of what other people will think of your nudity and is surely independent of gender.
Yes there are degrees of enforcement. Less enforcement on a naturist beach, more enforcement when being presented to the Queen. We are all expected to conform to an agreed morality but we also have a right to challenge those ideals.
I still feel that shame is a feeling of vulnerability when one is devoid of those 'rags-of-shame'.

Running Bear

03-03-2009, 09:35 AM

... All because one person decided it was okay to be different.
...most people are afraid to be the first but will willingly follow (or at least have no objection when others do).
Exactly. The yoga theory is that "the pursuit of knowledge requires one step". Somebody must take that first step and then others follow.

Stu2630

03-03-2009, 10:09 AM

Lord Drakkus

the more open we are about our preference to be nude, the more realistic other peoples opinions on "society's" views will be.

I have always maintained that nudists should be open about their preference. If you hide the fact, then you are implying that it's something you are ashamed of.

If more people realize that those around them don't consider nudity to be an issue, then more people will be willing to try it for themselves. At some point, things will hit critical mass and we will finally get to our "mecca" of being able to choose whether to wear clothes no matter where we go.

I don't see that happening any time soon. People, including non-nudists, are not 'strangers to nudity': they already have a relationship with their own nudity and that of others and they know when and where they find it acceptable. I believe that most people know what nudism is all about and really do not want to co-exist with it around them.

RunningBear

Shame is the fear of what other people will think of your nudity and is surely independent of gender.

I don't think shame is the issue. Shame implies that there is something to be ashamed of - something about the person which fails to meet the accepted standard expected of a human being. A man can be exceptionally well-endowed or a woman can have a superb figure, but these people are no less likely to feel uncomfortable on a nudist beach than people who don't have these advantages. Similarly, the concept of shame fails to take any account of the fact that people are uncomfortable around other people's nudity.

We are all expected to conform to an agreed morality but we also have a right to challenge those ideals.

The way we challenge ideals is through communication and persuasion. A person doesn't have the right to challenge the conventions that it is wrong to masturbate in public by masturbating in public. If he wants to challenge that convention, he is entitled to do it by communicating his views and persuading people because the behaviour he advocates has the potential to offend. The same applies to practising nudism.

Stu

Noodlebug

03-03-2009, 10:56 AM

The way we challenge ideals is through communication and persuasion. A person doesn't have the right to challenge the conventions that it is wrong to masturbate in public by masturbating in public. If he wants to challenge that convention, he is entitled to do it by communicating his views and persuading people because the behaviour he advocates has the potential to offend. The same applies to practising nudism.

I don't think entitlement is the right phrase, challenging conventions is something you do by definition when you are not entitled to do it. If it is a dumb convention, and others think it is a dumb convention, one person might be the straw that opens the floodgates (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor). However if people are not ready for the convention to be challenged, the challenger will find himself facing castigation, prosecution or other appropriate sanctions.

Nudism may not be mainstream but it is accepted, behind closed doors. Nudity in public is generally not acceptable but there seem to be ever more circumstances where those convention-busters can get away with it - the first hippie to disrobe at Woodstock, Spencer Tunick's first street models, the pioneers of the World Naked Bike Ride. Other people in other circumstances (think Vincent Bethell and Steve Gough) don't get away with it. Other conventions of course remain socially taboo and clear criminal offences, anyone trying to challenge those is more likely to end up in jail than on TV.

Lord Drakkus

03-03-2009, 11:24 AM

People, including non-nudists, are not 'strangers to nudity': they already have a relationship with their own nudity and that of others and they know when and where they find it acceptable. I believe that most people know what nudism is all about and really do not want to co-exist with it around them.

Stu, you're going back to your old ways. I thought you'd refined you're style a bit. I must say I'm disappointed. My statement had nothing to do with whether or not people are "strangers to nudity". Most people do know about nudism, and somewhat what it stands for. There are some that do not, but not very many.

It's my belief that people regularly do things they do not wish to do, or agree with, simply because "society" says that's how things should be. However, if more people come to realize how many "nudists" there truly are, then their views as to what the majority of others will believe will start to change. If people start to believe that social nudity is actually more acceptable than they previously thought, they're more likely to give it a try and find out what it is for themselves.

Once those people realize that nudity in and of itself is not as objectionable as they previously believed, then they will become "nudists" of a sort as well. Eventually, over a period of years/decades, nudity may become an acceptable norm and not be so "taboo". Once that happens, the laws will most definitely change, and we will no longer be required to dress unless specifically required to in certain areas.

I don't think shame is the issue. Shame implies that there is something to be ashamed of - something about the person which fails to meet the accepted standard expected of a human being. A man can be exceptionally well-endowed or a woman can have a superb figure, but these people are no less likely to feel uncomfortable on a nudist beach than people who don't have these advantages. Similarly, the concept of shame fails to take any account of the fact that people are uncomfortable around other people's nudity.That's exactly why I don't agree with the concept of "body shame" being the primary reason people don't want to try nudism. It's not always about the fear of being inadequate. It's the fear of "society" in general and how they were taught that nudity should only be for sexual and hygienic reasons, such as intercourse or taking a shower, and any other reason for nudity should be avoided. Even to the extreme of covering the statue of David's genitalia. Not to mention the rampant misuse of scriptures, to portray nudity for any reason other than hygiene or intercourse, to be a sin.

The way we challenge ideals is through communication and persuasion. A person doesn't have the right to challenge the conventions that it is wrong to masturbate in public by masturbating in public. If he wants to challenge that convention, he is entitled to do it by communicating his views and persuading people because the behaviour he advocates has the potential to offend. The same applies to practising nudism.The concepts of public nudity and public masturbation have absolutely no connection beyond the fact that the genitals are exposed. Most people are against public nudity because of the perceived sexual aspect, whereas masturbation is obviously sexual. Nobody here is advocating public masturbation. The only reason to bring up masturbation in a discussion involving nudity is to reinforce the assumed connection between the two. Again, I'm disappointed Stu.

Stu2630

03-03-2009, 11:58 AM

Noodlebug

if people are not ready for the convention to be challenged, the challenger will find himself facing castigation, prosecution or other appropriate sanctions.

Which is pretty much what happens now when people get naked in public in circumstances other than those which can be expected.

The point I was trying to make, and which you made in part far more eloquently than I did, was that challenging a convention by discussion or debate is always legitimate and should only attract dissent and never formal sanctions. Challenging convention by behaviour may cause adverse reactions from those who witness it and so that behaviour will, and should, attract formal sanctions.

Lord Drakkus

Sorry if I disappoint you, but this is something I have been consistent about.

if more people come to realize how many "nudists" there truly are, then their views as to what the majority of others will believe will start to change

The logic of that is lost on me. There are certainly considerably fewer than 10% of the population of developed western countries who would identify themselves as nudists, while 90% or more would not. Nudists comprise a relatively small minority. Those who are not nudists could easily become nudists if they wished - as you say, most people know what nudism is about - but they choose not to. My argument here has always been that nudists, who themselves ask for respect, should show respect for the choice people make not to be nudists or socialise with naked people. Your view that most people are nudists at heart and will change as soon as they see it to be socially acceptable is unfounded. Nudists must try to accept that most people actually prefer to be textiles, and always will.

Eventually, over a period of years/decades, nudity may become an acceptable norm and not be so "taboo". Once that happens, the laws will most definitely change, and we will no longer be required to dress unless specifically required to in certain areas.

You are entitled to have that dream - but I believe it is only a dream and will never become a reality. People's perception of nudity changes over time and, from time-to-time, people actually flirt with it. Then it becomes either unfashionable again or else there is some other sea change and it becomes less acceptable. I have seen moves in both directions over the past two decades in particular.

The concepts of public nudity and public masturbation have absolutely no connection beyond the fact that the genitals are exposed.

That wasn't the connection I had in mind. You can masturbate while fully clothed! The connection, indeed the ONLY connection I was referring to, was that both being nude in public and masturbating in public are both serious breaches of convention, and are so socially unacceptable that they attract criminal sanction.

Stu

Pete Knight

03-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Again, I'm disappointed Stu.
And I'm not at all surprised, you'll find yourself on the same old merry-go-round of Stu rhetoric.

I wouldn't mind if he debated and/or brought something new to the forum, but he doesn't. Please do us all a favour and do not reply to the troll, you're giving him what he wants.

Pete Knight

Wcstflyer

03-03-2009, 12:48 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7915369.stm

The documentary is entitled "What's the problem with nudity" and takes a scientific approach to analysing why humans evolved to be naked (ie furless) and why many find being naked so shameful. Includes some interesting experiments involving non-nudist volunteers.

Tuesday 03 March, 9.00pm, BBC2 for those in UK.

My wife and I dearly love the British. In fact we've spent several summers as typical American "Yanks" exploring everything from the Cotswalds to Yorkshire. However, something we have yet to understand is the culture of the BBC and UK television in general. Why oh why do they feel it necessary to reduce anything that could be perceived as racy to a scientific study that would cure any insomniac? Just watch; "What's the problem with nudity" could be alternately titled "Were the ancient Neanderthals promiscuous?"

Here is a perfect example. Dr. Dawn Harper in a clip discussing- scientifically and biologically of course- the infinite variations of the male organ. Search around in that same link and Dr. Harper examines a poor bloke's testicles with the gentleness of a nutcracker. No wonder the chap wears an expression like he is about to be shipped of to Afghanistan.
http://channel4embarrassingillnesses.com/video/am-i-normal/am-i-normal-penis/

nimrod

03-03-2009, 01:31 PM

Interesting article, particularly about some people adapting/adjusting to nudity easily and some not. The comments at the end as well were of interest. Too bad there weren't more as it's hard to get a general idea of what the public thinks.

It still begs the question as to how deeply nudity= shame is ingrained in society and the mechanism as to how it comes about.

I read the comments too and thought of a question from one of them that mentioned that it is not about shame but just keeping things private. Why else would you keep something private if it were not for shame? Even if you are told that things should be kept private, that will develope some amount of shame if you do not.

If I feel ashamed about being nude, then they should also, that is how I used to think. I would become uncomfortable around anyone that was nude because of my own feelings that they should not be nude around me and feel shame at their own nudity.

Has for "body shame", that is just one aspect of why one would not want to be nude around others, the feelings of being physically inferior to another can motivate one not to disrobe around others.

Bob S.

03-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Mark: "Too bad we'll never see it in the States. BBC America is basic cable, so it will not be allowed to show nudity."

Mark, the FCC does not control basic cable--it only controls over-the-air broadcasts that one cannot get unless one has a cable service. Even if it were on an over-the-air network such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, etc it would still be allowable within the context of FCC regulations.

Stu: "The feeling that nudity is inappropriate seems to occur either when people of the opposite sex are present, or are likely to be present, or when the situation is one where nudity is not expected."

In other words Stu, in public where it is illegal. I keep saying that one powerful force against nudity is the perceived illegality of it--in areas where it is legally inappropriate. Take the illicitness out of the equation and you get people who may at first fight it, but eventually will at most grudgingly accept it.

Stu: "I can't see how the predominant negative emotion is one of shame, so much as risking defying one or more of a combination of powerful social conventions."

Stu, body shame can be either not accepting one's own body or not accepting how others look. Another reason for the negative reaction is the fact that they do not know how to react to a naked body. They feel shame for the naked person and embarrassment for themselves and do not know ho to get past that aspect of it.

Bob S.

Running Bear

03-03-2009, 09:00 PM

RunningBear
I don't think shame is the issue. Shame implies that there is something to be ashamed of - something about the person which fails to meet the accepted standard expected of a human being. A man can be exceptionally well-endowed or a woman can have a superb figure, but these people are no less likely to feel uncomfortable on a nudist beach than people who don't have these advantages. Similarly, the concept of shame fails to take any account of the fact that people are uncomfortable around other people's nudity.
If we read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame) we see that one aspect of shame is a sense of restraint against offending others. The root of the word comes from cover.
I feel shame because I wish not to offend others by my nudity not because I feel shame in my anatomy. I expect others to feel that my nudity is wrong. What I wish to see is for others to feel that my nudity is not wrong.
I cover-up because I am ashamed of other people not because of myself.

Society has created this shame and surely it is our duty to educate society that nudity is not wrong. The balance is a right to my expression against the right of society and I maintain that laws, rules, conventions are always fluid and need to evolve over time. I see around me the general acceptance of naturists and nudity so things are moving forwards.

The way we challenge ideals is through communication and persuasion....
Stu
All it takes is one individual to take the first step and others often follow. It is not always the case that we accept the status quo. If a convention is never challenged we become stale. Pushing boundaries is what man has always sought and what makes us different from the beasts. We are not sheep. Elsewhere this comment was made and it seems appropriate to restate it here. We are never sure how people will react. They may react differently to how we expect. If we never challenge them, how will we know. We may be pleasantly surprised.

Stu2630

03-04-2009, 03:20 AM

BobS

In other words Stu, in public where it is illegal. I keep saying that one powerful force against nudity is the perceived illegality of it--in areas where it is legally inappropriate.

You have expressed this view before, Bob, and I can't agree with it. Nudity is illegal because it offends people, it does not offend people because it is illegal. The law is designed to reflect public values, not vice-versa.

Take the illicitness out of the equation and you get people who may at first fight it, but eventually will at most grudgingly accept it.

People shouldn't have to "grudgingly accept" things they find objectionable. No matter how many people break wind in confined spaces, it will always be objectionable and I wouldn't appreciate anyone trying to de-sensitize me to the stink by doing it intentionally.

Stu, body shame can be either not accepting one's own body or not accepting how others look.

People do generally accept their own bodies - they just prefer that they are only seen in certain, limited circumstances. The same can be said for seeing other people's nakedness.

They feel shame for the naked person and embarrassment for themselves and do not know ho to get past that aspect of it.

Indeed they do suffer these unpleasant emotions.

RunningBear

one aspect of shame is a sense of restraint against offending others.In that sense, I agree with you. And it is right and proper that we avoid behaving in a way that offends others.

What I wish to see is for others to feel that my nudity is not wrong.

If your nudity gives rise to predictable unpleasant emotions in others, then it is wrong. Just as it's wrong to break wind in a life or pick your nose in a restaurant. People are repulsed by certain behaviours of others and we avoid invoking the negative responses and maintaining our own social acceptability by refraining from them in public.

Society has created this shame and surely it is our duty to educate society that nudity is not wrong

Who mandated you to "educate society"? You have no more right to do that than I have the right to tell your children that their parents are exhibitionists and should be ashamed of displaying their genitals to strangers as they do. It is your opinion that nudity in public should be acceptable: while that is a valid opinion, it is no more valid than my opinion to the contrary. Society creates what you call"shame" for a reason, and you have no business trying to dismantle public sensibilities to suit your own preferences any more than I am entitled to break wind in lifts to de-sensitize others from the (perfectly natural) smell of bowel gas.

I see around me the general acceptance of naturists and nudity so things are moving forwards.

I think the public acceptance of nudism is increasing, and I'm pleased about that. I see evidence in both directions about the public acceptance of nudity. There are certain events which occur that are permitted which would not have been tolerated years ago - although that may change when we get a decent government. But there are also moves in the opposite direction. Nudist beaches are closing. I visit Scandinavia and I have noticed a marked decrease not only in female toplessness, but also I have recently seen Danes, Swedes and even Germans getting changed on the beach under towels. That trend has been evident with schoolchildren declining to use communal showering and even changing, and this is now extending to public facilities such as gyms and swimming pools. Virtually all public spas and saunas in scandinavia are now single-sex sessions only.

Nudism is rapidly becoming a specialist interest of the middle-aged and eldery and the practice may die out over the course of this century.

Stu

Naturist Mark

03-04-2009, 04:52 AM

Mark: "Too bad we'll never see it in the States. BBC America is basic cable, so it will not be allowed to show nudity."

Mark, the FCC does not control basic cable--it only controls over-the-air broadcasts that one cannot get unless one has a cable service. Even if it were on an over-the-air network such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, etc it would still be allowable within the context of FCC regulations.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware that there is no legal impediment to seeing such shows on cable (and possibly over the air). But it won't happen under current self censorship. No nudity - even nonsexual - unless you pay extra for it. That is how they protect our "morals".

Blood and murder is just fine for basic cable though. After all, they don't want to treat us like "children". Country music, NASCAR and crime are still free.

My cable system offers 10 channels of porn (for pay per view), but even the (basic cable) travel channel has to carefully blur out breasts and butt cleavage from its coverage. Even the National Geographic Channel is safely behind a pay wall. Isn't it heartwarming to know that our morals are safely regulated by commerce?

By the way, if you like how cable TV is organized, you'll love how they plan to sell you access to the internet once net-neutrality (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html) is overturned (you won't be visiting this site anymore).

Pete Knight

03-04-2009, 07:17 AM

Well folks, the programme was quite interesting in a number of ways, but very disappointing in how they conducted the shame study, actually I would call it embarrassment study. The whole scenario was eight subjects who volunteered, knowing that nudity was involved, but it was carried out in a London house, not in an environment conducive to relaxed first time nudity.

Four of the subjects had to undress, one at a time alone in a room, knowing the cameras were there of course, and their stress levels were monitored, so that puts the stress level up straight away. Then they revealed to the subjects that one of the other subjects was watching them disrobe, and of course the stress level hit the roof. All of the subjects said they were uncomfortable, hardly bloody surprising really, even your average nudist would feel under pressure in that situation.

There were a number of American experts involved with their own studies in this field, one was at UCLA, and there was input from Finland too! Now the reason I'm pointing this out is that when British TV programmes involve Americans, its usually to make the programme suitable, and/or salable to the American market. But, and there is a big but, I think it will be heavily edited if/when you get to see it, there were a number of close up, lingering shots of male genitalia, starnge really because they didn't do that to the women.

One theory we all know about is how the human body has evolved, and is better at controlling it's temperature when naked, apparaently we are the only animals on thr planet to have evolved this way, we have more sweat glands than any other living creature. Most other animals have fur to protect them from the rays of the sun, we produce a staggering amount of sweat, the evaporation of which produces the cooling effect.

The final scenario was all of the subjects naked together, and they all apeared at ease, they had obviously got used to it, which is what we all know of course, nudisty is no great problem. In the closing moments the subjects were expected to leave the building and walk intot the streeat to get into two waiting taxi's, six of the subjects did so without a problem, two of them refused, but the most interesting thing was the reaction of the public. Lots of smiles and camera's whipped out to get a photo of the six naked people, I don't thonk anyone fainted in the street at all!!!!!!!!!

I really do hope you get to see the programme, in its uneditied state of course!

Pete Knight

Gunther Netzer

03-04-2009, 10:11 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j0hnm/Horizon_20082009_Whats_the_Problem_with_Nudity/

Fitz1980

03-04-2009, 10:57 AM

Does anyone know of a free proxy server that I could use to have a UK based IP address and watch that link?

Naturist Mark

03-04-2009, 03:33 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j0hnm/Horizon_20082009_Whats_the_Problem_with_Nudity/

Yep, can only watch that in the UK. Unless you do some tricky IP proxy hopping.

Naturist Mark

03-04-2009, 03:53 PM

Or go to "NinjaVideo": BBC Horizon (http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/19673)
(watch the "alternate" flash version if you don't trust the Java based "NinjaVideo Helper Beta" that they offer.)

BlobbyBob

03-04-2009, 05:48 PM

I have uploaded a small (200mb) conversion of the show to MegaUpload if it's ok for me to share the link here.

Bob S.

03-04-2009, 07:43 PM

Stu: "Nudity is illegal because it offends people, it does not offend people because it is illegal. The law is designed to reflect public values, not vice-versa."

It is both, Stu. Reactions to nudity are determined by the means of exposure. If someone accidentally loses their swimsuit while at the pool or beach, everyone is amenable to the nudity. If someone's towel comes off while they are changing, they do not mind the incidental nudity. If someone is fleeing a house on fire with no time to grab any clothes or covering, people will be understanding of the nudity. If someone is clearly going through a psychological event and removes their clothes in a fit, people will care more about his sanity than his nudity.

In the above circumstances, the nudity was either accidental or due to circumstances beyond the person's control. Sometimes, people even accidentally stray onto a nude beach and feel overwhelmed. The people's reaction to the nudity was different because they did not presume the nudity to be illegal. There are other times, as has been discussed extensively here, where textiles have just not minded the intentional nudity they witnessed such as people who talked and visited with Steve Gough, people who encounter freehikers, the people Pete described above who were taking pictures of the naked people getting into cabs, etc.

The illegality or perceived illegality of nudity does bear on the person's reaction to viewing nudity. The reaction will differ whether they think the nudity is illegal or not.

Stu: "People shouldn't have to "grudgingly accept" things they find objectionable. No matter how many people break wind in confined spaces, it will always be objectionable and I wouldn't appreciate anyone trying to de-sensitize me to the stink by doing it intentionally."

We grudgingly accept that we have to wear clothes. Or are you now saying that I don't have to accept the textile world? :D The racists had to grudgingly accept minority's civil rights when the laws were passed. Nudism has grown out of grudging acceptance of certain aspects. People in New York must accept, if grudgingly, that women have the right to go topfree. I must begrudgingly accept that Obama is president. :eek::p

By the way, why is breaking wind in an elevator so objectionable? If someone has to pass gas, I would not want them to hold it in. To do so can be painful and I would not want anyone to self-inflicted endure pain just to make me confortable. Most of the time, you are in the lift for less than a minute, not an inordinate amount of time to deal with the stink, and even if it was a lengthy time, your olfactory sensors would quickly get used to the scent.

Stu: "Indeed they do suffer these unpleasant emotions."

But unpleasant emotions are not reason enough to make something illegal. Even when most of the population is negatively affected, it still isn't enough.

Bob S.

Running Bear

03-04-2009, 11:28 PM

...
Who mandated you to "educate society"? You have no more right to do that than I have the right to tell your children that their parents are exhibitionists and should be ashamed of displaying their genitals to strangers as they do. It is your opinion that nudity in public should be acceptable: while that is a valid opinion, it is no more valid than my opinion to the contrary. Society creates what you call"shame" for a reason, and you have no business trying to dismantle public sensibilities to suit your own preferences any more than I am entitled to break wind in lifts to de-sensitize others from the (perfectly natural) smell of bowel gas.
...
Stu
Every citizen has a duty to educate to disseminate knowledge but I accept that my right to express naturist ethics is no greater than your right to express non-naturist ethics. There is a balance here.

You can only give knowledge to those that seek it is another aspect to consider and you cannot educate those who are do wish to be educated.
I have many times changed my opinions based on what you have said so I bow to your greater knowledge at the time. I suspect that you are not the same person as when you started debating I am sure you change since that is the natural way of things.

I actually do have a mandate to educate as it happens (yoga teacher and medical professional). I used your mandate to educate when you helped me with legal issues from your own knowledge (as law professional?).

BlobbyBob

03-05-2009, 02:51 AM

Fitz1980

03-05-2009, 06:48 AM

Thanks Blobby.

Lord Drakkus

03-05-2009, 07:30 AM

Actually the quality of the ninjavideo stream is pretty high. I'm able to watch it full-screen on a 15" monitor and there are no issues whatsoever, looks almost like watching on TV. I don't know about the rest of the site, but I'm happy with this particular stream.

tiger79

03-05-2009, 09:31 AM

I thought it was an incredibly slow and tedious programme, using "nudity" in the title to attract audiences.

Free2bnaked

03-05-2009, 09:46 AM

Hi Noodlebug
Thanks for making us aware of the Horizon program, I hadn't noticed it. I really enjoyed it, quite informative and interesting, thanks again!!

Wcstflyer

03-05-2009, 10:28 AM

If it's not OK to post this then a mod can just delete this post, but -

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TD7DES51

That is a 200mb XviD AVI file. Usually a 60 minute show like this would end up between 550-700mb but I wanted to keep it smaller for people to download more easily. As such the quality isn't great, but it's no worse than a streaming video online.

Thank you for the megauload BlobbyBob. The program went as I suspected, with a tedious anthropological tone to it that brought back those 7-10 pm evening classes long ago with university professors speaking in a dull monotone. Who knew physical attraction between the sexes could be so boring?

Had I been in charge of the production I would have changed the cast somewhat, starting with the good Dr. Martie Haselton of UCLA (at 42:48) who should have been nude. :sneaky: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/about.html

Noodlebug

03-05-2009, 10:42 AM

Well I quite enjoyed it. The three most interesting aspects:

1) The DNA clock shows that clothes lice split from human headlice 650,000 years ago, implying that humans began wearing clothes around that time.

2) Crab lice are actually descended from the lice of another species, the gorilla (and no-one is entirely sure how the transfer occurred!).

3) Never let anyone hook you up to an optical tracking device, particularly when you are being asked to look at naked people!

Stu2630

03-05-2009, 11:02 AM

BobS

If someone accidentally loses their swimsuit while at the pool or beach, everyone is amenable to the nudity. If someone's towel comes off while they are changing, they do not mind the incidental nudity.

That's quite right. But we have always responded with far more tolerance to behaviour which is accidental or unavoidable yet would be objectionable if done on purpose. If a person vomits in a restaurant because they are suddenly taken ill, we don't judge them, but if they vomit because they are drunk, we are less understanding. In the case of nudity there is another dimension: people will often accept fleeting nudity while they are less tolerant of prolongued nudity. I noticed this on Scandinavian beaches some years ago where people sometimes changed in and out of swimwear without covering up. They always did it very rapidly and nobody minded. Had they taken their time about it, I'm sure people would have reacted very differently and started to object. Oddly, in more recent years, I have noticed the Scandinavians are beginning to adopt the British habit of wriggling about under towels.

We grudgingly accept that we have to wear clothes. Or are you now saying that I don't have to accept the textile world?

You certainly don't have to accept the textile world. I am more than happy for you to live in your own nudist world - so long as I can keep my world nudity-free. :D

The racists had to grudgingly accept minority's civil rights when the laws were passed. Nudism has grown out of grudging acceptance of certain aspects. People in New York must accept, if grudgingly, that women have the right to go topfree. I must begrudgingly accept that Obama is president.

People who live in Iran have to grudgingly accept Sharia Law? No, Bob, the benefit in living under a democratic system (which yours is, in essence, and as most people understand democracy) is that we can have a say in how the environment we live in is designed, controlled and regulated. People in New York only have to accept topless women because a judge decided that the Constitution gave women a certain right that was comparable to men's rights. If sufficient opposition to that had been expressed across your government, your Constitution could have been amended so that was no longer the case.

By the way, why is breaking wind in an elevator so objectionable? If someone has to pass gas, I would not want them to hold it in.

I would find that very objectionable. They could wait until they were out of the lift, or at least attempt to pass wind silently so as to minimise the embarrassment and offence. But my point was about doing this intentionally, for the purpose of de-sensitizing others to the stink. That is not acceptable.

But unpleasant emotions are not reason enough to make something illegal. Even when most of the population is negatively affected, it still isn't enough.

That's where we differ. We all have to share the same environment and we have a responsibility to avoid any behaviour that we can reasonably foresee will cause offence to others. That has been an accepted principle of our legislators since the fourteenth century and it is manifest in our laws. I suspect there is something along those lines in your laws, too.

RunningBear

Every citizen has a duty to educate to disseminate knowledge...

I don't think they do. I don't think I have any such duty except in my role as a teacher. In any case, I have no problem with you simply imparting knowledge - but I do have a problem with you trying to alter my personal sensibilities to accord with your own personal ideologies or preferences.

you cannot educate those who are do wish to be educated.

And you shouldn't even try. There is something deeply patronising, and even sinister, about imposing "education" upon those who have not sought it. People in China who dare to question the prevailing communist ideology are sent away to be "educated". Communism is an ideology. So is naturism.

I used your mandate to educate when you helped me with legal issues from your own knowledge (as law professional?).

I was glad to be of help. :)

Nudists and textiles can get along without either side trying to "educate" the other side. What is needed is mutual respect. Textiles should respect nudists' need to have opportunities to enjoy clothes-free activities and recreation. Nudists should respect the fact that many textiles are not comfortable around naked people, and have no particular wish to be "educated" into accepting nudity.

Stu

Running Bear

03-05-2009, 09:01 PM

...
In any case, I have no problem with you simply imparting knowledge - but I do have a problem with you trying to alter my personal sensibilities to accord with your own personal ideologies or preferences.
...
...
Nudists and textiles can get along without either side trying to "educate" the other side. What is needed is mutual respect. Textiles should respect nudists' need to have opportunities to enjoy clothes-free activities and recreation. Nudists should respect the fact that many textiles are not comfortable around naked people, and have no particular wish to be "educated" into accepting nudity.

Stu
But are you not yourself guilty of trying to alter my ideologies by your debate? It is a fine line between taking a stance and debate.

My whole point can be made by simply inverting your second paragraph.Textiles should respect the fact that many nudists are not comfortable around textile people, and have no particular wish to be "educated" into accepting textile. I doubt I am alone in feeling that you are trying to force your sensibilities on the rest of us. I accept your opinions, and welcome them, but are you not promoting a textile life style? Are you not attempting to inform us of your own viewpoint and this in turn can be seen as an attempt to educate?

I see you are now taking a stance that is more balanced than I have seen in the past and I applaud that. The two words I rely on are respect and tolerance. I see you starting to throw them back in my face.

Recently there was a horizon programme discussing theories of shame and the evolution of clothing. You will see that being discussed elsewhere here. There is a link to watch it. It would be very constructive if you watched it and gave your opinion purely for a research reason. It seems to directly cover our debate concerning shame. It would appear that shame is very quickly unlearned and also how nudity in itself does not offend the majority when actually faced with it. Of course one can always argue bias toward any study but t is a start.

Pete Knight

03-05-2009, 11:04 PM

Recently there was a horizon programme discussing theories of shame and the evolution of clothing. You will see that being discussed elsewhere here. There is a link to watch it. It would be very constructive if you watched it and gave your opinion purely for a research reason.
You're joking aren't you, Stu wouldn't be able to sit through that, his illness would prevent him getting past the guy taking his socks off!

Pete Knight

Stu2630

03-06-2009, 01:52 AM

Running Bear

But are you not yourself guilty of trying to alter my ideologies by your debate?

Not at all. I don't want you to stop enjoying naturism. All I have ever wanted is to be able to continue to enjoy my nudity-free lifestyle in my nudity-free environment.

My whole point can be made by simply inverting your second paragraph.Textiles should respect the fact that many nudists are not comfortable around textile people, and have no particular wish to be "educated" into accepting textile.Which is why there should be locations and events that are specifically designated as nudist or clothing-optional. That way, both of our comfort-zones can be accommodated and respected. Of course, when designating such locations etc, we have to keep in mind that nudists comprise around 5% of the population.

I accept your opinions, and welcome them, but are you not promoting a textile life style? Are you not attempting to inform us of your own viewpoint and this in turn can be seen as an attempt to educate?

Firstly, I am not "promoting" the textile lifestyle. I have never advocated that textilism is better than nudism and you should all follow my example. In fact, I have consistently encouraged you to speak up and make your presence felt and fight to gain more and better opportunities. Secondly, there is a vast difference between informing people by communication and "educating" people by trying to alter their sensibilities, whether they like it or not. For example, I would have no objection to you visiting my youngest daughter's school and giving a talk on nudism, but I would strongly object to you walking around her school naked to show that the unclothed human body was nothing to worry about.

I see you are now taking a stance that is more balanced than I have seen in the past and I applaud that. The two words I rely on are respect and tolerance. I see you starting to throw them back in my face.

I suspect you have misunderstood my position in the past. As I have said many times, I support responsible and considerate naturism - I have even written letters in support of nudists where attempts have been made to deprive you of beaches. I recognise, however, that you and I may not share the perception of what constitutes "responsible and considerate naturism".

Recently there was a horizon programme discussing theories of shame and the evolution of clothing. You will see that being discussed elsewhere here. There is a link to watch it.

I will watch it today. I'll report back when I have seen it.

Stu

Running Bear

03-06-2009, 02:08 AM

You're joking aren't you, Stu wouldn't be able to sit through that, his illness would prevent him getting past the guy taking his socks off!
Pete Knight
Well he says he will and he knows it contains nudity. Perhaps leopards can change their spots. I would be interested in his opinion concerning the idea that nudity is always shameful how can these people unlearn shame so quickly and become at ease. To me it suggests a greater tolerance of the naked body. Stu does not need to view the images he can always look away but listen.
Watch this space.

Stu2630

03-06-2009, 06:18 AM

Running Bear

Well he says he will and he knows it contains nudityI watched it. All of it - nudity and all. It took me a bit longer than I thought because the iPlayer kept stopping to "buffer" (whatever that means!). Most of it was OK - and some bits were quite informative. I always wondered why we didn't have fur, but we do have hair on the top of our heads, and now I know why. I did find the nudity parts quite hard to watch but I stuck with it. The camera work did appear to be lingering unnecessarily over the female nipples and male genitalia. British TV lately has become obsessed with having words like "naked" and "nude" in the title, and I reckon that's to appeal to viewers' voyeuristic tendencies. In spite of the scientific content, which was interesting and instructive, I suspect the makers of this programme were appealing to these tendencies.

The participants had been told from the start that they were agreeing to participate in a series of experiments which involved nudity, so they already knew what they were up for. I believe many people would have refused to participate if told that. We have to keep this factor in mind when looking at the results.

I have never doubted that an aversion to nudity is a learned behaviour - I have said many times it is the result of social conditioning. As such, it can be unlearned, as this programme demonstrates. At the opposite end of the scale, our revulsion to killing people is also a learned behaviour, but we can train soldiers, and concentration camp guards, to regard killing as an everyday activity. Of course, nudity is not like killing other people EXCEPT in that it's not something we generally do, but once we have done it, we lose some of our disinclination, and the more we do it, the fewer inhibitions we have about doing it again.

It would be interesting to see those same eight participants again in, say, 15 years. If they haven't engaged in nudist activities, which they probably won't have, I suspect that they will be nearly as inhibited with regard to nudity as they were on their first day of the experiment. I say nearly because they will, for the rest of their lives, be able to recall the fact that they have done this before and they coped OK and got used to it.

The fact that somebody can get used to doing something or seeing something doesn't mean they should be compelled to do so in order to accommodate a particular minority. Nor does it mean that it should be something which is introduced into the wider public environment.

Lastly, I could not have done what they did in stripping off etc. With some supreme effort on my part, I could accustomise myself to coping with being around nude people. But I don't want to do that. So far as my life is concerned, I want nudity to remain something which is deeply private and intimate. And, outside of the male-only changing facilities of gyms and swimming pools, I do not want to rub shoulders in public places with naked people.

Stu

MoonShadow

03-06-2009, 07:11 AM

Endless whirring; endless anti-ness. Same messages over and over.

Pete Knight

03-06-2009, 10:01 AM

Endless whirring; endless anti-ness. Same messages over and over.

Same sh1t, different thread!

Pete Knight

Running Bear

03-06-2009, 12:53 PM

Same sh1t, different thread!
Pete Knight
No worse that my sh1t asking for respect and tolerance. Claiming that the body is perfectly designed by God or Darwin for our environment without the need for those rags of shame. Accepting sexuality as a fringe of naturism being non-judgemental. Diversity makes us human.
Everyone here is probably bored of my opinions as well?

Naturist4Ever

03-06-2009, 01:07 PM

Pete Knight >> Same sh1t, different thread!

Everytime Stu sticks his nose up in a thread, he leaves behind a trail of the same sh1t, and oh dear how much the moderators seem to enjoy it. Afterall, without all the whirring and whirring the forum may jut get very quiet....

tiger79

03-06-2009, 02:44 PM

Everytime Stu sticks his nose up in a thread, he leaves behind a trail of the same sh1t, and oh dear how much the moderators seem to enjoy it. Afterall, without all the whirring and whirring the forum may jut get very quiet....Isn't the whole idea of a public forum based on an exchange of views, some of which we might not agree with, or understand?

MoonShadow

03-06-2009, 03:41 PM

Sanslines

03-06-2009, 04:47 PM

Give yourself time, Tiger, you will be able to predict just what Stu will say. Most of us who have been here a while know the message, no matter what the thread is about.

LOL Pete, yep, sos!
:D

Naturist4Ever, Ummm hmmmmm. True!

RunningBear! Never could we be bored with you ;)

Just ask Tiger to ask you any question that he might have for Stu and you can answer for Stu. You know the routine and all of the answers by heart now.

Naturist4Ever

03-06-2009, 05:06 PM

>> Isn't the whole idea of a public forum based on an exchange of views, some of which we might not agree with, or understand?

What I find far more worrisome is that a number of people here - including one moderator - keep relentlessly debating with Stu in the minute chance that once he may convert to a nudist, while (seeminly, and certainly in the UK) > 50% of male nudists "struggle" with reluctant spouses.
How much more would everyone be helped if we diverted our attention to those that we would like us to join instead of the one person most of us could not care one iota if he were to join the lifestyle. And be honest, if you were a reluctant spouse and you would pick up one of the rants by Stu, will that convert you to the lifestyle? Me thinks NOT. His rants are so embarrassing to the average textile that I would not even think of introducing a reluctant spouse to them. At any self-respecting naturist club he would have been shown the door for ages ago.
There was a time - a few yrs ago, before Stu arrived - that we actually had some reluctant spouses here on the forum. Where have they gone: Long time - no see. No wonder. That's just my view...

Bob S.

03-06-2009, 08:32 PM

Stu: "But we have always responded with far more tolerance to behaviour which is accidental or unavoidable yet would be objectionable if done on purpose."

Which is what I am saying. The illegality of nudity does matter in how people perceive the exposure. The offense is based highly on the criminality or perceived illegality of the exposure, not the nudity itself.

Stu: "People in New York only have to accept topless women because a judge decided that the Constitution gave women a certain right that was comparable to men's rights."

Yes, and that right was decided because of a New York Constitutional Amendment (an Equal Rights Amendment if I recall) that the people passed. The US govt has layers of law where the judiciary can decide that a specific law is unconstitutional, a law allows certain behaviour, or which of two competing laws best applies to the case at hand. And of course these laws were created in the democratic method.

Stu: "We all have to share the same environment and we have a responsibility to avoid any behaviour that we can reasonably foresee will cause offence to others."

I disagree with the reasoning that offense is reason enough for declaring something illegal. You prefer to be better safe than sorry and ban things that are traditionally banned. I say we need some other overriding reason for a legal ban. A social ban is fine so long as the law cannot come into the picture. That happens all the time. One person is offended by another person's activities, but the law cannot do anything about it because it is either legal or specifically not illegal. That is how nudity should be: Not specifically illegal and must be accompanied by an actionably illegal activity to make it illegal.

Stu: "I do have a problem with you trying to alter my personal sensibilities to accord with your own personal ideologies or preferences...I have never doubted that an aversion to nudity is a learned behaviour - I have said many times it is the result of social conditioning."

Taking these two things you said, you should be against social conditioning. Social conditioning is altering a person's sensibilities. Nudity is illegal so it is socially conditioned that nudity is bad, but that is wrong because the social conditioning is altering people's sensibilities. You see a vicious circle here?

RB: "Recently there was a horizon programme discussing theories of shame and the evolution of clothing. You will see that being discussed elsewhere here."

Actually Running Bear, it is being discussed on this thread, just further up this thread.

Bob S.

Running Bear

03-06-2009, 09:32 PM

... Most of us who have been here a while ...
RunningBear! Never could we be bored with you ;)
Yes, I am not as old as you obviously are :-). I still have the innocence of youth and judge people by their actions. I do not find Stu distasteful although I have never personally taken a bite out of him to taste. I like wabbit stew just wish a girl squirrel could cook for me :-(.
I came into this world with Stu and I trust that after a long life of Stuology I will leave it having felt satiated. Can you promise me the same?
Light and Love for a change!

tiger79

03-07-2009, 12:08 AM

Give yourself time, Tiger, you will be able to predict just what Stu will say. Most of us who have been here a while know the message, no matter what the thread is about.Oh, right, I think I understand - my Join Date was May 2006 and your Join Date was May 2007, so you believe you've been around here longer?

Stu2630

03-07-2009, 03:14 AM

BobS

The offense is based highly on the criminality or perceived illegality of the exposure, not the nudity itself.

I know you believe that tio be the case, but I don't. People still have a concept of what is "decent" and what is not. If I were using a popular British beach and changed out of swimwear by stripping off completely for the purpose of drying myself before dressing, many people, especially those with children, would be outraged. That outrage would be because I wasn't behaving decently and because they don't want their children to be exposed to such things, not because they think that I have violated some law.

That is how nudity should be: Not specifically illegal and must be accompanied by an actionably illegal activity to make it illegal.

Our law isn't too far from that. There is no express law here in the UK that makes nudity illegal, but the circumstances of it can certainly make it so. The question the police and courts should ask is "is it likely that the nudity in this case would cause a person harassment, alarm or distress?" If the answer is "YES", then the nude person is guilty of an offence. Unlike you, I believe that people using public places have a right to expect those places to be regulated in such a way as to maximise the comfort experienced by everyone who is likely to use them. We wouldn't allow a woman to perform a sex act on a man in a public place - why? It causes no more physical harm to the observer, or his or her children, to witness this than simple nudity does? Behaviour which affronts people's sensibilities should be, and is here in the UK, a criminal offence.

you should be against social conditioning. Social conditioning is altering a person's sensibilities... You see a vicious circle here?

The social conditioning of children to accept the values of their parents and other adults in their lives is normal and proper and is essential for them to function in the world they are brought into. It's why we teach children good manners, consideration for others and so on. Once a child becomes an adult, he or she is free to reject certain aspects of their conditioning - which is why many children abandon the religion of their parents when they reach adulthood. Social engineering of adults is a wholly different ballgame. We wouldn't accept it from a government (by way of propaganda) and we certainly shouldn't accept it from interested minority groups.

Stu

LamontCranston

03-07-2009, 05:43 AM

Isn't the whole idea of a public forum based on an exchange of views, some of which we might not agree with, or understand? Yes, but this user named Stu says the same thing over-and-over-and-over. He's the Energizer Bunny beating a tuneless drum.

Why would someone supposedly offended by the practice of nudism spend so much time and effort looking at photos of nude people, writing, and reading in a nudist forum? Over a long period of time?

He's not genuine. He's a contrarian who craves attention. To me, that's a bit different than exchanging ideas.

I scroll past and don't follow threads where Stu posts his long rants but thought I'd chime in here. Read a paragraph of his a year ago and it's the same thing he writes today. Boring.

Running Bear

03-07-2009, 06:40 AM

Interesting. I see

Stu joined Jul 2005
I joined Dec 2006
Moonshadow May 2007

So Moonshadow you are just a tadpole to me and Stu is nothing like this picture, perhaps you are on a bad night? The Naked Mole rat has also seen the benefits of a naturist life style. Supporting the reason we lost our hair. Looks like he or she put on the wrong skin in the morning as it seems very loose :-) All together now: cute little fellow!!!!
http://nursemyra.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/penis-with-legs.jpg

MoonShadow

03-07-2009, 06:53 AM

I scroll past and don't follow threads where Stu posts his long rants but thought I'd chime in here. Read a paragraph of his a year ago and it's the same thing he writes today. Boring.

Yes, and you can go back in the archives and read the same he is writing today.

walter05

03-07-2009, 07:59 PM

Yes, and you can go back in the archives and read the same he is writing today.

I believe this is the point.

I am not offended by Stu.

However, I admit to being bored.

Running Bear

03-07-2009, 09:33 PM

I was trying to get back on topic of this thread discussing the evolution of nudity correlated with clothes and cited the naked mole rat as an example but was ignored :-(
Concentrate on the topic of this thread and if Stu gets in the way just ignore him like I have been done :-(. It is our own fault if we change this into a Stu thread; learn some judgement.

Bob S.

03-07-2009, 09:34 PM

Stu: "I know you believe that tio be the case, but I don't. People still have a concept of what is "decent" and what is not."

Stu, there is no way to separate the illegality of nudity with the social view of it. The two have gone hand in hand for many generations in some form. Decency is based on social conditioning and social conditioning is intertwined with what is declared illegal.

If a person strips off his kit on the beach in order to change, people may be offended because of the nudity, which they perceive to be illegal. If a person loses his kit due to rough wave activity, people will not be offended. The same nudity, different reactions. The only difference is whether or not they felt the nudity was illegal.

The reaction of parents where their children's exposure comes into play is based on the same principal, the legality vs illegality of the nudity. The personal views of the parent regarding sexuality, nudity, and other relevant factors also come into play, but again, that is learned conditionong and is still based on the legality of the public exposure of the factor.

Stu: "Our law isn't too far from that. There is no express law here in the UK that makes nudity illegal, but the circumstances of it can certainly make it so. The question the police and courts should ask is "is it likely that the nudity in this case would cause a person harassment, alarm or distress?" If the answer is "YES", then the nude person is guilty of an offence."

Dress code is not an actionably illegal acticity. If you can do it clothed, you should be able to do it naked. Again, the reaction of the individual should play a major part. The "alarm or distress" should not be just plain alarrm or distress as is the case for the majority of those who are exposed to nudity. There should be an extreme amount of negative reaction before an activity that can be performed legally clothed is made illegal in the nude.

A question for you as a law expert in the UK: what is the extent of alarm or distress before a behaviour becomes illegal?

Stu: "The social conditioning of children to accept the values of their parents and other adults in their lives is normal and proper and is essential for them to function in the world they are brought into."

For parents, yes. But for the society they live in, they have no options. Social conditioning is in effect as it will not allow for the alternative since the alternative is illegal. I have a problem that society is teaching nudist children the opposite of what their parents are teaching them. They are being socially conditioned to go against the teachings of their parents by the illegality of nudity.

Religion is a much different issue since the practice of religion is not seen as illegal or socially improper. If the practice of public nudity was socially regulated to specific areas and not made illegal, then you could argue that it is akin to religion, but since the pracitce of public nudity is illegal in virtually all of most areas, then the conditioning is against the practice of public nudity (note public nudity refers to nudity out of doors and not inside homes--including hidden areas).

Bob S.

Naturist4Ever

03-08-2009, 01:00 AM

Pete Knight

03-08-2009, 05:30 AM

Naturist4Ever

03-08-2009, 06:08 AM

>> I am not offended by Stu.

Then you haven't followed his statements about women breastfeeding in public!! It's ironic to see how much efforts go into "converting" Stu compared to real nudist issues of importance.

That will never happen, his phobia grips him too strongly. I'm aware of three people on this forum who were born with the same problem that Stu was, they are stronger in character and have used nudism as a tool to overcome their phobia using the aversion therapy self help technique.

There must be hundreds like Stu, but how many of them have taken it upon themselves to eradicate nudity in all places except those HE considers appropriate, which means behind a fence and secure gates.

Pete, not sure if you understood what I meant, I could not care less wether that happens (this not only about a nudephobia, but for all I can tell a mental disorder - and I am not the first one to point this out), but I do care about those 1000's of reluctant spouses, or wannabee-breastfeeding mothers for that matter. See Stu, smell sh1t.

Pete Knight

03-08-2009, 07:15 AM

Pete, not sure if you understood what I meant, I could not care less wether that happens (this not only about a nudephobia, but for all I can tell a mental disorder - and I am not the first one to point this out), but I do care about those 1000's of reluctant spouses, or wannabee-breastfeeding mothers for that matter. See Stu, smell sh1t.
Yes I see what you mean, and it's something I've pointed out in the past, the guy is forever trying to make people doubt their own rights. The breastfeeding issue drew more response than anything else he has said on CFF, even the most timid among us felt compelled to lambaste him for his outrageous statement.

Pete Knight

Boreas

03-08-2009, 08:04 AM

Yes I see what you mean, and it's something I've pointed out in the past, the guy is forever trying to make people doubt their own rights. The breastfeeding issue drew more response than anything else he has said on CFF, even the most timid among us felt compelled to lambaste him for his outrageous statement.

Pete Knight

Last week I was at a community baby shower. There were four babies. At one point there were three exposed breasts and then three feeding, happy babies. (the fourth is a bit older now) How shocking. :rolleyes: ;)

That documentary looks interesting. I didn't look at it online and might one day when I have time. Is it a starting point for further research?

Pete Knight

03-08-2009, 08:30 AM

Last week I was at a community baby shower. There were four babies. At one point there were three exposed breasts and then three feeding, happy babies. (the fourth is a bit older now) How shocking. :rolleyes: ;) Outrageous!

That documentary looks interesting. I didn't look at it online and might one day when I have time. Is it a starting point for further research?
I think it illustrates what many of us know, that nudity isn't shocking, but there are elements in society (Phobia's aside.) that see bad in everything, look at the nipplegate storm, a very small group complain vociferously, and the authorities fall over themselves to slam the TV station, yet the general populace thought it was a storm in a tea cup (Or should that be a 'B' cup!).

Those who participate in WNBR and freehiking have first hand experience and know that the public at large are undaunted by nudity, the prob;lem occurs when the complainers can't tell the difference between nude and lewd, or as in the case of Senator Foley, the ones with something to hide shout the loudest.

Yes I think if further studies were undertaken, and widely publicised, I think a lot more people would enjoy the freedom of a clothes optional lifestyle, even if they don't wish to categorise themselves as nudists. There are even people here who don't consider themselves to be nudists, but are comfortable being naked at home.

People need to free their minds of the social conditioning, and to stand up to the do gooder bullies that seek to control our lives.

Pete Knight

Boreas

03-08-2009, 09:10 AM

Yes I think if further studies were undertaken, and widely publicised, I think a lot more people would enjoy the freedom of a clothes optional lifestyle, even if they don't wish to categorise themselves as nudists. There are even people here who don't consider themselves to be nudists, but are comfortable being naked at home.

People need to free their minds of the social conditioning, and to stand up to the do gooder bullies that seek to control our lives.

I agree.

I am inclined to think things are changing, hopefully to a more cooperative, collaborative world. (if I am totally off base, I can enjoy my delusion! :p) Those bullies are working harder to maintain their control as others become more willing to make their own choices and not be controlled. Hopefully the bullies will lose their power overall.

walter05

03-08-2009, 09:39 AM

I do find his comments about breast feeding offensive.

However, I am not offended by him.

I feel sorry for him however. I think his phobia has lessened his marriage, his life, and recently, it may have threatened it.

Stu2630

03-08-2009, 10:19 AM

BobS

If a person strips off his kit on the beach in order to change, people may be offended because of the nudity, which they perceive to be illegal.I really don't think the perceived illegality of it crosses their minds in the first instant. People see illegal things all the time, but they don't react in the same way to, for example seeing a car illegally parked as they would if they saw a naked person approaching them in the street.

People understand that the concept of 'illegality' is set aside when it is either unavoidable or else an emergency situation It's why people may break speed limits rushing a woman in labour to hospital and no-one would judge them for that even though driving at high speeds is not generally allowed. And it's why they would be sympathetic to someone who unintentionally loses their costume while swimming in the sea so long as that person does their best to cover themselves as quickly as possible, but they would be less likely to be so tolerant of a nude sunbather. The legality issue is a red herring.

The "alarm or distress" should not be just plain alarrm or distress as is the case for the majority of those who are exposed to nudity. There should be an extreme amount of negative reaction before an activity that can be performed legally clothed is made illegal in the nude....
A question for you as a law expert in the UK: what is the extent of alarm or distress before a behaviour becomes illegal?You can't measure the degree of alarm or distress to that degree of fineness and also different people react with different degrees of these emotions. What we can say is that certain behaviours "are likely" to invoke feelings of alarm and distress in a significant proportion of the population and so they should not be permitted in public. Nudity is one such behaviour.

I have a problem that society is teaching nudist children the opposite of what their parents are teaching them. They are being socially conditioned to go against the teachings of their parents by the illegality of nudity.I would have a problem if my daughter's school, or society in general, taught her that it was OK to be nude in front of strangers (subject to certain, closely defined exceptions). She thinks nudity is for the bathroom only and I want her to keep thinking that until she is old enough to make up her own mind.

To be fair, I don't think the rights and wrongs of nudity and taught to children far more by their parents than by society. I seriously doubt that many children brought up as nudists would ever react to nudity as I do, regardless of what society teaches them. The answer is that we should all be able to raise our own kids as we see fit. I would never go to a nudist beach and tell the kids there that their nakedness was revolting and unacceptable and I would hope you would never get naked in front of my child. Just as we accept and respect different religious beliefs, let's respect different perceptions of the naked body.

If the practice of public nudity was socially regulated to specific areas and not made illegal, then you could argue that it is akin to religion, but since the pracitce of public nudity is illegal in virtually all of most areas, then the conditioning is against the practice of public nudityIt's not so much a matter that I want to make nudity illegal for its own sake, Bob, I just don't want to encounter it and I don't want my family seeing it. If social pressure were sufficient to ensure that, then that would be fine. But we have characters like Steve Gough and our friend Pete who would exploit any relaxation in the law to get nude wherever they felt like it just to "de-sensitize" us. No thanks. I want to be able to enjoy the public spaces in my own country without having to put up with that kind of thing.

If I went to a nudist beach and started shouting that the people there were all filthy perverts, the law should, and probably would, step in. I would likely be arrested for behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress. The converse situation should also apply because many textiles would feel just as "harassed, alarmed and distressed" if Pete and his cronies turned up and started stripping off in their presence and in front of their children.

Stu

Sanslines

03-08-2009, 10:39 AM

What to do about the Stu's of the world who not only refuse to change but demand that the rest of the world change to accomodate them????

Sanslines

03-08-2009, 10:43 AM

It's not so much a matter that I want to make nudity illegal for its own sake, Bob, I just don't want to encounter it and I don't want my family seeing it.
Stu

You certainly did not 'see' it in London during the 'Steve Gough event" and yet you took it upon yourself to tip off the authorities for no other purpose then to abuse him and his group. You are consumed by a phobia that makes you want to be the UK National Cruisader Against (what you consider to be) Inappropriate Nudism. Stu, this is NOT normal behaviour. It is clearly an extremely unhealthy obsession!

Naturist Mark

03-08-2009, 10:44 AM

Last week I was at a community baby shower. There were four babies. At one point there were three exposed breasts and then three feeding, happy babies. (the fourth is a bit older now) How shocking. :rolleyes: ;)

OMG! What about the children! They were right there when it happened! SHAMEFUL! They'll probably need therapy ...

Stu2630

03-08-2009, 10:59 AM

Sanslines

What to do about the Stu's of the world who not only refuse to change but demand that the rest of the world change to accomodate them????

No, I like the world pretty much as it is, thanks. And that means I can live, as I do now, in a nudity-free public environment. YOU are the ones who demand that the rest of the world change to accommodate YOU. I'm simply trying to uphold the status quo.

..you want to be the UK National Cruisader Against Inappropriate Nudism

Great idea! I could start a new political party - the Party Against Inappropriate Nudity, or PAIN for short. Note that I'm against inappropriate nudity, not nudism.

Stu

BlobbyBob

03-08-2009, 11:54 AM

All of the people complaing about Stu; just do what I, and others, have already done - put him on your ignore list. It means that you never see any of his messages on the forum anymore. Simple.

baregreg

03-08-2009, 12:28 PM

All of the people complaing about Stu; just do what I, and others, have already done - put him on your ignore list. It means that you never see any of his messages on the forum anymore. Simple.
But with others quoting Stu in their replies, we can still see his comments.
(I think ???)

Pete Knight

03-08-2009, 12:30 PM

But with others quoting Stu in their replies, we can still see his comments.
(I think ???)
Yes, that's the drawback!

Pete Knight

Sanslines

03-08-2009, 12:41 PM

Sanslines

No, I like the world pretty much as it is, thanks. And that means I can live, as I do now, in a nudity-free public environment. YOU are the ones who demand that the rest of the world change to accommodate YOU. I'm simply trying to uphold the status quo.

Great idea! I could start a new political party - the Party Against Inappropriate Nudity, or PAIN for short. Note that I'm against inappropriate nudity, not nudism.

Stu

Yes Stu.....you are a real PAIN....in more ways then one!!! lol.......lol

Boreas

03-08-2009, 02:22 PM

OMG! What about the children! They were right there when it happened! SHAMEFUL! They'll probably need therapy ...

I know.....there were toddlers and other kids around too, if you can imagine! :eek: You know what though, they were running around the room playing, seemingly unconcerned about the whole deal. Perhaps the trauma will come later. After all, these women openly breast feed at home too! :sneaky:

Bob S.

03-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Stu: "I really don't think the perceived illegality of it crosses their minds in the first instant. People see illegal things all the time, but they don't react in the same way to, for example seeing a car illegally parked as they would if they saw a naked person approaching them in the street."

Well, if it wasn't illegal, they wouldn't be so offended by it. If it wasn't for society's conditioning, it wouldn't be illegal. As for seeing a car parked illegally, well, that is an illegality that is seen every day. Again, I am not saying that the illegal factor is the only one, but it is a primary factor. Again, the offense is quickly abated when the person realizes the exposure is not illegal. Someone could accidentally walk onto a nude beach. At first, they would see one or two people naked and get upset. Then they see more and realize they are on the nude beach. The offense is then lifted and they are instead just embarrassed.

Stu: "You can't measure the degree of alarm or distress to that degree of fineness and also different people react with different degrees of these emotions. What we can say is that certain behaviours "are likely" to invoke feelings of alarm and distress in a significant proportion of the population and so they should not be permitted in public."

So if a behaviour causes extremely minor alarm and distress, it should be treated as an illegal behaviour? Screaming children offend many people, so should a parent be barred from allowing their child from throwing a tantrum in public? There are some restaurants that have kicked families out for not controlling their children's tantrums.

The problem with your point of view is that it allows for blatant bigotry as long as the majority agrees with such bigotry. Your views allow for segregation of people by skin color and gender. Your views allow for one group of people not in the majority to lose their rights to the majority as long as the majority agrees with it.

Stu: "I would have a problem if my daughter's school, or society in general, taught her that it was OK to be nude in front of strangers (subject to certain, closely defined exceptions). She thinks nudity is for the bathroom only and I want her to keep thinking that until she is old enough to make up her own mind."

And we are upset that society teaches what our family values go against. So you are fine with our family values to be squelched so long as yours are upheld? How about a compromise--society can still advocate for less nudity but the law can't punish those who feel differently? And by the way, your daughter is old enough to make up her own mind, shes just not allowed to break house rules.

Stu: "It's not so much a matter that I want to make nudity illegal for its own sake, Bob, I just don't want to encounter it and I don't want my family seeing it. If social pressure were sufficient to ensure that, then that would be fine."

Social pressure will be enough, Stu. There may be a few who would flaunt the new freedom, especially at first, but you have mentioned that the vast majority of people do not want nudity, so a few social rule breakers should not be a problem. You have stated that the illegality is not the problem in people's reaction. So why would that change if there were no laws?

Bob S.