Nude teens in Vermont town

[JoshuaZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/us_nm/life_vermont_nude_dc_2

Wish I could participate.

[nifocinphx]

Originally posted by JoshuaZ:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/us_nm/life_vermont_nude_dc_2

Wish I could participate.

There are others that wish they could participate, JoshuaZ

Click on Link to CFF "Nude Legally" thread (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016152/m/4120042344?r=4120042344#4120042344) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

I'd rather be sunning my buns and skinny dippin' at Shangri La Ranch (http://www.shangrilaranch.com/) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

I hope someone from Clothesfree gets up there and interviews them before the kneejerk politicians make it illegal because they figure that they have to protect someone.

NDR

[hojo44]

I would move to Vt to ,if it wasnt for the long and cold winters.I enjoy going to the Ledges,which is just outside of Brattleboro , in Wilmington.Its a nice clothing-optional beach on the Harriman reservoir.Its nicer later in the summer when the water level is lowered and the sandy beach is more"exposed".

[nifocinphx]

If you're interested in reading more about the story, click on
Link to Brattleboro Reformer - Nudists seek harmony (http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_4207655)
Link to The Boston Globe - Law of nature prevails in Vermont (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/08/23/law_of_nature_prevails_in_vermont/)

If you read The Boston Globe article, click on the Do you think nudity is a basic human right? (http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=6546&webtag=bc-news) link
to view some very interesting opinions. I noticed that AANR and The Naturist Society websites are mentioned in a couple of the posts.

nifocinphx http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/user.gif

[NakedGary]

Seems as if Vermont has been in the news lately on the subject or skinny-dipping, being nude in public, and state laws, and local community’s ordinances on nudity.

Interesting I would come across this on line petition which had a deadline a year ago on 8-03-2005, where only 259 signatures were posted out of a goal of 10,000 required to petition to keep skinny dipping legal.


Link to Petition to Keep Skinnydipping Legal In Vermont. (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/467596756?ltl=1156699258)
.

[Stu2630]

This is the letter I like:

Posted by lamourie on Aug-23 6:01 PM - Message #6546.138 in response to #6546.1
Speaking as a naturist, I believe that we do have a basic human right to be nude. BUT we all are different people, and we must respect the customs and regulations of the society in which we live.

There are many naturists in New England. Most of us restrict our nudity to spots where skinny dipping is traditionally accepted, our own private property, and nudist or clothing-optional resorts. We do not simply strip anywhere even if technically legal. That's because we respect the values and opinions of others and never wish to offend "textiles" (non-naturists). Courtesy and common sense prevail.

I believe that society's uptight attitude and shame about nudity -- especially concerning less than perfect bodies -- is unfortunate. Non-sexual social nudity is a great way to feel good about one's self and one's body....Social nudity brings feeling of freedom, comfort, and exhilaration to many, but it is not for everyone. Certainly, many people still object to seeing others, and even themselves, nude. So stripping anywhere you like is disrespectful and will only bring about legal means to curtail the practice. It will be many years before public nudity is more widely accepted, so until then, please respect others and be nude where appropriate.

Well said!

Stu

[Boreas]

"We have a nuclear power plant a few miles away and a ridiculous war in the Middle East, countries getting bombed," said Ian Bigelow, a 23-year-old who had gathered with some of his friends outside a bookstore. "So why's it such a big problem if we chose to get nude?"

This is a quote from the article cited above. I think it says it all. So I know I am preaching to mostly choir here, but aren't there more important things than nude teens in a parking lot. I think it is great they are pushing the envelope. Maybe someday I will have their courage to get some of my friends together.......it may be awhile though. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/embarassed.gif

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Why must nudists be pacifists? I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?

Is it appropriate that if one clothed person is offended, then one clothes-free person must put their clothes on? What if one clothed person complains about ten clothes-free people?

Must nudists only practice what should be and seems to be their God given right only when the majority approve? Must we always tip-toe around those who are so easily offended?

When a single individual can complain about a group of nudists, not only have we become subject to the rule of the majority, but the minority who disapprove as well.

Nudity should not be subjected to such terms as "when appropriate", for there will always be at least one who finds it "inappropriate", and we will always have the threat of having someone harass us for being nude.

If nudity is OK, then it is OK. And as long as the youth mentioned in the article are doing nothing lewd or sexual, we should be willing to stand behind them and support them. After all, isn't that the sort of rights we would all like to be able to exercise?

NDR

[Stu2630]

I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?

There are many kinds of behaviour that are "appropriate" in the eyes of some but not others and public nakedness is just one of them. Other behaviours include using certain words that the English-speaking world consider obscene, or having sex. Where a person wishes to behave in public in such a way that they know may cause offence, then they have a moral obligation to minimise that risk. This can be done either by negotiation with the potential offendees, or by exercising discretion. The writer (lamourie) recognises this, and I applaud her for it.

Standing on principle, being unwilling to respect the values and sensitivities of others, refusing to enter into dialogue or to compromise - these are the foundations of fundamentalism. As we can see, fundamentalism rarely succeeds and is the cause of most of the world's strife.

Stu

[Dick Springer]

To STU2630:

Right on!

[Boreas]

Why must nudists be pacifists? I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?

My concern is that we are concerned about a female breast or a nipple or an aereola, while at the same time we can watch tons of violence on TV or have a fake war. Personally, I think we ought to be more concerned about the amount of murders or other violence we can see on TV.

[sportkid]

I see it as if there is a problem about seeing someone nude, then do not look. Back in the day, it was innappropriate for females to wear pants, Interracial dating, black people on the wrong side of the road. If those people believed that they shouldnt do it because it will cause offence, then where would this world be. I believe it to be great that they are people out there who will stand up and be naked. If more people were open and acceptable to the human body, then life might just be better. In society now, when nudity is brought up, it is almost immediatly thought to be either sexual or sinful, rather than normal and natural. So of course, when a child is taught that throughout their life, whenever they get nude or se nudity they will believe that and act on it in that mannor. I think optional nonsexual nudity in a casual way is harmless and actually be beneficial. There have been studies on children and nudity, and it all proves to be unharmful. http://www.fcn.ca/children_2.htm

ps. I believe that it is innappropriate to smoke in public, because it is a health factor, yet people do it and it is harmful to children and yet the government isnt doing anything about it. I think people should spend the time that they are dissing nudity and making laws and stuff for it, and spend that energy on bigger more important issues.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Standing on principle, being unwilling to respect the values and sensitivities of others, refusing to enter into dialogue or to compromise - these are the foundations of fundamentalism."

That also describes many textiles, especially those in office. That stance, Stu, is the reason why there are so few places that allow legal nudity.

The most repeated fallback position that prudes take where nudism and public nudity is concerned is: "What about the children?" When asking that rhetorical question, one which they neither want to hear an answer to nor one which they can answer, they are refusing to enter into any dialogue or making any attempt to compromise.

Nudists are not the problem, Stu. The general public are the fundamentalists when it comes to public nudity and nudism in the vast majority of cases. When a nudist attempts to go outside the norms, one of two things happen: He is either arrested or, as in this case, the people in charge decide to change the law to make it illegal so they can arrest anyone else in the future who follows the same behaviour.

So who, pray tell, is the fundamentalist, according to your definition, in that scenario?

Bob S.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

You do not really address the issue. In this instance, the young nudists are doing nothing illegal. Why should they have their "rights" removed by another individual or groups of individuals, who claim to be offended?

Must nudists always take a back seat in the "right"'s department, even when they have the legal right to be nude? Or will it always be the nudist who must give way to the wishes of the clothed?

If we do indeed believe that nudity is ok, then we must defend that right. And we must do it even more vigilantly where it is a right that someone is trying to take away.

NDR

[florida-david]

boy, i wish i had some friends like that when i was young. Vermont is generally considered an open-minded state, the citizens of Vermont should stand up for the teens right to be naked. I am surprised that they are bending to pressure from one little person.

I agree that there are bigger issues than some naked kids, maybe they should concern themselves with these bigger issues...

[Stu2630]

What is permissible in public is a matter that should be negotiated between "interested parties". I totally agree that textiles in authority are often the ones who are intransigent, and that is equally wrong. I have consistently agreed with nudists that the places allocated to them in many countries are too few in number, with poor facilities and are often inaccessible. By failing to take heed of the wishes of nudists to have places to enjoy their chosen lifestyles and make provision for them accordingly, some authorities are, indeed, behaving like fundamentalists. But two wrongs don't make a right. My posting was intended to applaud "lamourie" for her common sense and reasonable approach. You can't expect consideration for yourself if you don't show consideration for others.

In the case in point in this thread, the teenagers concerned are not nudists. They have no interest in "nude recreation" and would probably shun the thought of using a nudist beach or club. Most of them, when they grow up, will probably abandon any ideas of getting naked in public. This is a youthful jaunt and, like many similar examples of "shocking" behaviour, it's causing irritation to some locals.

Many parents make a conscious decision to shield their children from the sight of nakedness. Rightly or wrongly, they consider it to be at best undesirable and at worst harmful. Understandably, nudists don't share this perception, and so they bring up their own children differently, as they are entitled to do. Nudists don't like it when their choices are interfered with by textiles (e.g. the efforts to prevent nudist teen camps). Surely textiles should enjoy corresponding parental rights and be able to prevent their children encountering naked adults.

I am now aware of the history/reputation of this particular Vermont town. If I ever decided to move to the US, I wouldn't live there and if I did, I would have no grounds to complain about behaviour that has long been accepted. But the people who have lived there all their lives have every right to make their public spaces as comfortable and benign as they wish, and if that means curtailing the activities of some of the town's teenagers, then that, too is their right.

Stu

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

If hanging out nude with friends is not "nude recreation", then I think most of us nudists are in big trouble. I hope the textiles of the world do not begin to try and define what is nude recreation and what is not.

There are many things in public that do not have to be negotiated. We do have certain rights that are simply not negotiable. And in this instance what they are doing is already legal. The United States is a republic, and as such, we are not always at the beckon call of the majority, though it certainly can seem that way at many times.

It may have seemed at times that interacial couples and gay couples had to tread lightly and "negotiate" with the public at large. But in the end it was learned by the public that these couples had a right to be with the person of their choosing, even if one individual might be "offended". So we have come a long way and still have a long way to go.

Textile parents do have their "rights". But their rights should not override the rights of others. Textile parents should not be considered more equal than non textiled parents.

As to whether or not those teens will one day be nudists.....they are obviously already more comfortable with nudity than most, and in my eyes they are already nudists. After all, they are socializing with their peers....nude.

Best Regards,

NDR

[Stu2630]

Runner

I think that the young man that was interviewed in the article summed it up well when he said: "It's just that we're bored and expressing our right". Young people have long had a tendency to behave in any way they can think of to outrage their elders, and that's clearly what they are doing here. Similar things happened in the 1960s - but it was a phase that passed.

We may well have "rights that are not negotiable", but philosophers have long argued about what they actually are. One person's exercise of a right can result in another person's deprivation of a right. I have a right to practise playing my bugle, but my next door neighbour has a right to peace and quiet. It's even harder to define absolute rights when we are talking about public spaces because we all have to use them and we all have to pay for them. This is not simply a question of majority rule and tough on everyone else. The only way to resolve conflicts of interest are to negotiate - and negotiation must always involve compromise. If one belongs to a tiny minority, and one's behaviour impinges upon the values or lifestyle of everyone else, then there is an even greater obligation on the part of the minority to compromise. On the specific point, I certainly do not recognise any God-given, non-negotiable right to naked in public where that could cause outrage.The key question is whether these teens are behaving within, or outside of, the law. If they are not breaking any laws they should be allowed to continue, but that does not preclude any citizen using the democratic machinery to have the law changed. If the majority of people wanted to make my local shopping mall compulsorily nude, then the authorities would have a mandate to make this law and I would have to abide by it. If people in this Vermont town decide that public nudity is unacceptable, then they should make it illegal. In the name of fairness to minorities, however, they should then decent facilities for those who did wish to be naked to continue doing so. Where those facilities are sited, how large they are and what they comprise of, etc, are important matters, and it is these that should be up for negotiation and compromise.

I agree that we have come a long way in recent years, but this has been because of, not in spite of, majority rule. If the majority of people are opposed to, for example, gays kissing in public, then I have no qualms about that being made illegal. If it offends in public - do it in private where it will offend no-one. Legislators are there by virtue of being elected by the people: they are servants of the people, not their masters. If they can not in good conscience enact the will of the people, they have no business holding office.

Stu

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

So if this same town happened to be predominately catholic, and the citizens decided that there should be no public displays of other religions to protect what their children are exposed to, and banned synagogues, mosques, and other gathering places, as well as religious clothing, that would be acceptable?

The minorities in this case should are obliged to negotiate for the ability to do as they wish? I hope that day does not come again.

It is difficult for me to imagine sactioning the government to use physical force(police powers) to force my way upon another. Nudists are not forcing clothed people to disrobe. Yet clothed people are willing to force nudists to get dressed. Such a huge difference.

Unless it can be proven that seeing a nude person causes some harm, then nudity should be treated as just another choice an individual makes, such as tattoos, and body piercings.

Just because someone finds something objectionable is not reason to take away the rights of another(even though this happens time and again).

It is more important for the majority to learn to tolerate the minority than it is for the majority to use their power against the minority. For one day, they too will find themselves on the minority side of an issue. When that day comes, they will become believers in both tolerance and minority rights.

NDR

[Stu2630]

Runner

So if this same town happened to be predominately catholic, and the citizens decided that there should be no public displays of other religions to protect what their children are exposed to, and banned synagogues, mosques, and other gathering places, as well as religious clothing, that would be acceptable?

Something similar already happens in some societies. If the people of such a state agree that they find certain religious practices to be not merely disagreeable, but actually offensive, then they have every right to require them to perform those rituals etc in private and out of public view. But your analogy of banning synagogues, mosques etc does not work. Nobody is claiming that there is any right to ban, for example, a sign on some gates saying "Nudist Community" any more than there is a right to ban a sign saying "Synagogue".

It is difficult for me to imagine sactioning the government to use physical force(police powers) to force my way upon another. Nudists are not forcing clothed people to disrobe. Yet clothed people are willing to force nudists to get dressed. Such a huge difference.

I have learned since coming here that being a nudist involves more than merely taking your clothes off - nudism is a broader lifestyle. And so is being a textile. We are people who notb only feel uncomfortable being naked among strangers - we feel uncomfortable being in the presence of naked people. Many nudists, including the one I quoted, seem content to practise nudism with, and only with, other likeminded nudists. So we are talking about a section of a minority. These are nudists and who wish to be naked among people who are not nudists, and in the knowledge that they may well find nudity offensive. I'm afraid I'm solidly behind the majority on this one.

Unless it can be proven that seeing a nude person causes some harm, then nudity should be treated as just another choice an individual makes, such as tattoos, and body piercings.

I find tattoos and piercings unsightly but, unless they are obscene in some way, they do not offend me. I have yet to meet anyone who would go so far as to say they find these offensive. Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment.

I do agree that the majority has an obligation to tolerate minorities - that's not at issue. Where we disagree is with regard to what form that toleration should take. With regard to nudism, for example, it should take the form of plenty of areas being provided for nudists to use - venues that are accessible, well-signposted, clean, and with facilities that non-nudists enjoy such as toilets, lifeguards etc. If the nudists wish to use other places, nobody is stopping them. They just slip on a pair of shorts. I think this is a perfectly fair compromise for the majority to make with what is, in reality, a very tiny minority. Don't you?

Stu

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

No, I am afraid I do not agree on many points.

Comparing nudity to racist posters and pornography is part of the problem in our society. Do you really believe nudity is similar to explicit pornography and racism? Nudity is not pornography.

If nudity was not wanted in our environment, they why is there so much of it in not only movies, but the arts? Why is there so much nude advertising in Europe?

On public properties, I would agree on compromise. However, where private property in involved, the right to be nude should not be a question. The owner of the property should have the right to decide.

NDR

[BlobbyBob]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

I find tattoos and piercings unsightly but, unless they are obscene in some way, they do not offend me. I have yet to meet anyone who would go so far as to say they find these offensive. Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment.

I understand and respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and though you don't seem comfortable yourself with nudism to the same level many here do you do tend to at least respect others wishes, but to compare mere nudity to racism or pornography or drug use is offensive to, I'm imagine, a large percentage of posters on this board.

Racism is the seperation of people based on something as trivial as their skin colour or where they come from, and something which singles someone out based on anything like that has no place in a free society. In a similar fashion pornography is something which many believe to degrade women and treat them as objects, and though it is a rapidly changing and growing industry it has no place in a public place where children may see it. The law says we can't have sex until a certain age and so it is not something which should be flaunted where people under that age can see it. Drug use is a different subject I think because addiction is a disease and no-one is really suggesting it to be good and be flaunted, its graphic portrayal in films and such, which I presume you meant, shouldn't be banned if the film is rated such that children can't see it.

Nudity, however, is not even on the same level. As a society we have been raised to believe that it is wrong, mostly because many link it too quickly with sex, but innocent nudity is just that, innocent. If you don't like it you can avoid it, but it is hardly fair when people are persecuted merely for taking off their clothes when they mean to cause no offense. If someone is flaunting themself then fair enough, but mere nudity shouldn't constitute a criminal offense.

Everyone's bodies are fundamentally the same and I can't understand the mindset of wanting to make people believe otherwise. If you wish to keep your own body private then that is your right, but to stop others from doing so merely because you were raised to believe nudity is wrong is taking away their freedom. It isn't any single persons fault, I suppose it could be drawn back to the Bible where nudity was seen as shameful, and that has simply been upheld through the centuries, but just because it's an old 'tradition' doesn't make it right for the modern world.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

According to the Infoplease crime report, Vermont is the third safest state in the nation, behind North Dakota and Maine, on a per capita basis.

Perhaps the citizens of that state not only respect the right of individuals to be nude, but respect the rights of individuals overall as well.

If anyone else has done research on crime rates in areas that tolerate nudity, I hope you post it. There does not seem to be much research on the topic that I can find.

NDR

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

According to the Infoplease crime report, Vermont is the third safest state in the nation, behind North Dakota and Maine, on a per capita basis.

Perhaps the citizens of that state not only respect the right of individuals to be nude, but respect the rights of individuals overall as well.

If anyone else has done research on crime rates in areas that tolerate nudity, I hope you post it. There does not seem to be much research on the topic that I can find.

NDR

Vermont has long had a reputation for protecting the rights of the individual, even if (and perhaps particularly when) the individual is in the minority.

Dave

[4X]

Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
Stu,

So if this same town happened to be predominately catholic, and the citizens decided that there should be no public displays of other religions to protect what their children are exposed to, and banned synagogues, mosques, and other gathering places, as well as religious clothing, that would be acceptable?

Positing hypotheticals such as this is completely beside the point. The Founding Fathers recognized religious tolerance as a basic inalienable right of man, so they included within the Bill of Rights a clause establishing religious tolerance. As much as many of the people here wish it were so, there's no universally recognized right to nudity. As such, the government of Brattleboro is well within its rights to restrict public nudity if it so wishes. Prudentially, it might be a bad move, but the prudentiality of a question is irrelevant to the authority of a governing body.

If we want to extend the availability of public places for nudity, then we have to focus on making prudential arguments. An argument about "rights" regarding this issue is absurd on its face and isn't likely to convince anyone. Indeed, it makes nudists come across as a bunch of whackos who have nothing serious to contribute to public discourse. Instead, we have to be like any other special-interest group wishing to receive government sanction - argue convincing and reasonably within the public sphere in the expectation that our arguments are the winning ones. Even so, we might still not get our desired outcome right away, in which case we keep at it, convinced that reason will see the light of day and triumph in the end.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

4X "Instead, we have to be like any other special-interest group wishing to receive government sanction - argue convincing and reasonably within the public sphere in the expectation that our arguments are the winning ones"

When the public sphere is consistently and repeatedly lumping nudism into the same category as pornography and strip clubs, how do you ever plan to win a majority consensus on the subject?

What other special interest groups do you feel nudism is like?

As for the religious "hypothetical", the opposition of communities to churches, mosques, and synagogues occur every day here in the United States, despite that "right".

If believing that I have the right to do what I desire, especially on private property, without the sanction of the government makes me a "whacko", then so be it.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"You can't expect consideration for yourself if you don't show consideration for others."

These were three young adults who were exercising the right to practice a legal activity. Why concnetrate on these three in suggetsing that "we" should show consideration. What about the every other time "we" show consideration by abiding by the law? How often does that heppen? How about every day millions of times a day. How many times is a nudist caught in an unusual or illegal area naked?

Ax I keep telling you Stu, the consideration flows only one way. And when the extremely rare time that "we" do something out of the ordinary,all hell breaks loose in the textile community.

Stu:"Many parents make a conscious decision to shield their children from the sight of nakedness."

Ah, playing the children card again? Why is that used so much, Stu? Every politician who wants to make a point uses children for their benefit. Usually, it is to deprive someone or some group of rights.

I agree with you in compromise, but that assumes the fundamentalists (read textile leaders) would even wantt o compromise. Legislators are there by virtue of being elected by the people: they are servants of the people, not their masters. They are above everything, servants of the law. I understand that it is different in the UK, but here, they have to first look at what the higher laws allow.

I acknowledge that nudity is not proteted yet, but as in NY, sometimes an exposure law can fall to higher laws.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment."

So these three teens, Stu, are they similar to skinheads who are spraypainting racist graffiti around? Does their hanging around naked have any similarities to an public orgy? Would it be right to compare them to heroine addicts who are shooting up on the corner?

Stu:"With regard to nudism, for example, it should take the form of plenty of areas being provided for nudists to use - venues that are accessible, well-signposted, clean, and with facilities that non-nudists enjoy such as toilets, lifeguards etc. If the nudists wish to use other places, nobody is stopping them. They just slip on a pair of shorts. I think this is a perfectly fair compromise for the majority to make with what is, in reality, a very tiny minority. Don't you?"

Sure. Unfortunately, he fundies (read the leaders) do not provide us anything or extremely few places. And now you are saying that even when it is legal, we shouldn't do it? These young men were naked in an area where it was legal to be so. How much of a compromise do you expect? I know, that is a little extreme, but you have to understand the predicament nudists are in. We have nothing and are expected to compromise with nothing offered. How is that a good deal for us?

Bob S.

[John P]

Stu: I am now aware of the history/reputation of this particular Vermont town. If I ever decided to move to the US, I wouldn't live there and if I did, I would have no grounds to complain about behaviour that has long been accepted.

If you moved to Brattleboro, you'd be in the footsteps of Rudyard Kipling, who lived there for four years because it was his wife's home town. Unfortunately he got into a public scuffle with his brother-in-law, which left Kipling looking so ridiculous that he felt he had to leave town. So no, you probably wouldn't like it, though it's hardly a den of nudists most of the time. The climate really isn't favorable!

[sportkid]

EVERYONE, Think of the children.
Isn't it weird that whenever someone wants something changed for thier own benefit they say something like that as if it was a trump card.
stu, you should really do research on the psychological affect of nudity and children. There has not been any report of a negative effect on a child, raised in a healthy nonsexual nudist family, there actually have been reports of positive effects. When i look at the news every night, unless something good is on. I only see "textile" people causing mayhem. There will be a rare time when a nudist will do something wrong, and of course it will be on every newspaper and such, but they never show the positive things. It is just like the views on teenagers. I am not sure how old you are, but by the way you are speaking, you aren't a teen. I like how you are able to speak for all teenagers. That we do things to irritate and cause trouble. you should reread the article a couple more times. Maybe even have someone else read it aloud to you. They were not trying to irritate anyone. It was hot and a couple of dozen teens decided to have hula hoop contest, riding bikes, other things nude. God forbid they do that, rather than sit at home with clothes on smoking pot. It also stated that Nobody, including the police, seemed to take offense. Noone was arrested and their law is "public nudity isn't illegal in the town of 13,000 people, unless it's done to arouse sexual gratification." So they weren't having sex on the road. I wish i could take off my clothes during the summer down here. When everyday for 3 or so months it is 90 and up degrees but feels like 100. here is another story of the issue http://www.reformer.com/search/ci_4207655

[Danee]

Well said sportkid and I have been following this with interest. All good and valid points.

-Danee

[tinner666]

According to the Infoplease crime report, Vermont is the third safest state in the nation, behind North Dakota and Maine, on a per capita basis. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there, http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there, Smiler


According to Infoplease, Florida and South Carolina are the most dangerous states, both are "Shall Issue" states meaning that police are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who can legally purchase a gun.

Perhaps there is another explanation for the peaceful nature of Vermont citizens?

-Mark

[Stu2630]

BobS - I'm not defending the extremes of anti-nudism you people have to deal with when you encounter some authorities. I'm 100% on your side in that respect. Consideration is a two-way street. By definition, so is compromise. Nudists and textiles must be prepared to give and take.

As for children - of course they are relevant to this. So far as possible, we don't allow children to hear obscene language or witness sex acts. There is no evidence that I know of that children being exposed to these things are caused any PHYSICAL harm by them, any more than there is by being exposed to nudity. Indeed, there are some people (a few) - including some parents - who think it is healthy and natural for kids to see adults having sex as part of a normal, loving relationship! I don't agree with them, as I suspect you don't. I also think it is preferable for children not to see nudity. You don't have any such concerns, and that's fine, but who should decide what my kids should and should not be allowed to see? Should the "kids-can-see sex" people be allowed to indulge openly in sex in public parks because a minority thinks it's natural and harmless? Or should the parents decide what their own kids should and shouldn't see?

Do I compare these kids in Battleboro to those who spray grafitti or shoot-up drugs on street corners? No - because, so far as we know, they are doing nothing illegal. But if they change the law, and that change is brought about through the will of the people, then they have both a legal and a moral obligation to respect that.

And now you are saying that even when it is legal, we shouldn't do it?

I'm not sure why you are saying that, Bob. I'm not asking these young people to compromise when what they are doing is lawful. I've tried to be clear all along that, so long as what they are doing is legal, they are entitled to do it. The people are, however, free to object to laws that permit behaviours they find unacceptable and the onus is then upon the legislators to consider bringing news laws in accordingly. It is only at that stage when negotiation and compromise should come into play.

Sportkid

I think I have answered some of your points above, but I would like to add one thing. Psychology is not and never has been accredited as a true science. It is inherently subjective and composed of countless theories, sometimes based upon "research", and many of these conflict with one another. Psychologists may, for example, talk about "positive psychological effect" or "positive body image", but they are both nebulous and utterly subjective.

The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to? Should it be (a) some nudists?, (b) one or other psychologist, or (c) the child's parents? I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want my youngest child to see a naked adult just yet. I feel very strongly about this and I couldn't care less what some middle-class, liberally-minded psychologist thinks is a "positive psychological effect". I don' know if you are a parent yourself but if and when you are, you will have the right to follow any psychologically based conclusions you like when determining how to raise your own child. We textiles are entitled to the same consideration, even though you may think we are very wrong.

Stu

[NewShyNJGuy]

Hey Stu, i agree with you that kids should not see sex... but no one has said anything about sex. As it has been said numerous times before on this forum nudity does not equal sex. Even grown adult shouldn't see others having sex unless they choose to do it, but they should not be subjected to it out in the public, what they do behind closed doors is their own business. As far as nudity and children, i see it as if they are seeing humans like any other animal... with out clothes. Not that i'm trying to call humans animals in a negative conotation, but just that we indeed are of the mammilian species homo sapiens (latin for "wise man" or "knowing man"). No one in this forum has said "sure, let the kids watch us have sex because it is part of life" From what I read i think most keep that behind closed doors while the kids are away or when they aren't around. In my opinion there is nothing wrong seeing what humans do on a day-to-day basis in the buff b/c it is like watching... lets say a dog, for arguement sake, doing it's day to day activities. That's just my opinion... i may have been reading the threads wrong. Someone let me know if I'm wrong in my way of thinking.

But you are right, they are your kids and you can raise them the way you think is correct. People can give you all the suggestions in the world, but that does not mean that you have to take them. Take what people are saying here as suggestions and things to ponder about, that's all. These forums were created so that we may learn to help eachother and to share our points of view with like minded, and not so like minded people, which is all fun in my opinion.


Sportkid

Keep up the good work. You're a wealth of information at your age, and i think that is great. Thank you for all your insight.

[tinner666]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there, Smiler


According to Infoplease, Florida and South Carolina are the most dangerous states, both are "Shall Issue" states meaning that police are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who can legally purchase a gun.

Perhaps there is another explanation for the peaceful nature of Vermont citizens?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry for the topic diviation. Fla.'s problems have a lot to do with drugs and illegals. SC. may be getting some of the overflow.
Vermont has fewer of these issues.
We could open another topic on this. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Bob]

In NYC you can get arrested even if you are not naked:

No pants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7snbtwG5wc)

FYI, all 8 people arrested had their cases dropped. (Which makes sense since no one committed a crime!)

[sw1sweendog]

im sick and tierd of (doing it for the kids)the way the u.s. is going.we'll have a country full of panzies.by the time thier adults .the'll have no clue,on how this world is running.that being said,it would be nice if we had world peace.but we all know.it's never been that way nor will it ever be that way.theres been war and violence sence the start of mankind.the way it's going with religion....dont see it changing any time soon..........

[BlobbyBob]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to?

So it'd be ok to teach your child that it was ok to murder other people if their religion was different than yours, or that it's ok to treat some people differently because of what colour their skin is?

In terms of the current context then of course it's ok for you to raise your children not seeing nudity, that isn't harming them physically, it just depends how you think it will affect them mentally. As you said psychology isn't an exact science, but if a child is more accostomed to nudity from an early age then chances are that when they get older they won't feel that their body is shameful and will feel more comfortable about themselves, as many people here are.


I still wonder though how you manage to draw parallels between mere nudity and public sex, vandalism and drug use.

[sportkid]

no, i am not a parent. I am a kid, who was raised in a "textile" family and for a long was never subjected to nonsexual nudity. I use to be afraid, confused, ashamed, and well the list goes on about my body. I still have questions as to why a parent would want to hide what God created. I am not saying that a parent should run around naked and point at every body part they have and explain what it does. I do believe that a parent should be lenient and not so fearful of their body or any other body and they should teach their child to not be fearful of their body. I think the people that are making such a big deal about it are those who have a problem with themselves and/ or ashamed of their own bodies and they are passing it down to their child like a sickness. Nudist express acceptence. Textiles dont. I am a teen and clothing now a days is a big deal. If you arent wearing the right type of clothes then you are looked down at or made fun of. It is stressful, well at least for everyone else, i was born with style and yet i still rather have no clothes. itd save me alot of time and money if i didnt have to worry about getin the top brand clothes and such. if you really wanna help your kids, don't let them grow up and be ashamed of their body. That doesnt mean make them a nudist, but dont make them shun their body.

the more people accept themselves, the more, people will accept others

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Nudists and textiles must be prepared to give and take."

Change that to just textiles and I'll agree. Not because I don't think nudists shouldn't compromise, but because we always do.

Stu:"As for children - of course they are relevant to this."

I didn't say children weren't relevant. You misunderstand. My comments were that by bringing up the protection of the children, textiles are trying to squelch the conversation. The question, "What about the children", as I already stated, is meant as a rhetorical question. They do not want it answered. And anyone who states that the children will not mind or be negatively affected are seen as perverts.

Stu:"Or should the parents decide what their own kids should and shouldn't see?"

The parents have the right to protect shield their children in their homes. But they do not have that right when they are out in public, especially where legal behaviour is involved. Parents cannot shield the world from their children unless they keep them within the home forever.

Stu:"Do I compare these kids in Battleboro to those who spray grafitti or shoot-up drugs on street corners? No - because, so far as we know, they are doing nothing illegal."

You wrote: Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment. So do you mean that only in areas where nudity is illegal, nudity is like those? Elsewhere, nudity is unlike those?

Racism does cause physical harm. Drug use also causes physical harm--especially illicit drug use. How does nudity have any connection to those two?

Bob S.

[sw1sweendog]

because seeing a nude body could blind you for life http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

[nimrod]

Originally posted by BlobbyBob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:

The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to?

So it'd be ok to teach your child that it was ok to murder other people if their religion was different than yours, or that it's ok to treat some people differently because of what colour their skin is?

In terms of the current context then of course it's ok for you to raise your children not seeing nudity, that isn't harming them physically, it just depends how you think it will affect them mentally. As you said psychology isn't an exact science, but if a child is more accostomed to nudity from an early age then chances are that when they get older they won't feel that their body is shameful and will feel more comfortable about themselves, as many people here are.


I still wonder though how you manage to draw parallels between mere nudity and public sex, vandalism and drug use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you manage to draw parallels between stating an opinion on how one desides to raise their own children when it comes to viewing public nudity to murdering someone? Did you stop to think that maybe it was just an example, an exageration to make a point? There are some who believe that exposing your kids to sex is healthy, and some think that there is nothing wrong with drug use, just as nudist believe that there is nothing wrong with being nude and that it is healthy for kids to be exposed to it. Self esteem issues are not exclusive to textiles, we are exposed to negetive images if we are in clothes or not. We, nudist and textiles, can raise our children not to believe what is presented to them through the media as the truth, and that there is no such thing as a perfect body, without exposing them to nudity and the outcome will be less self esteem issues when it comes to body image.

[nimrod]

Originally posted by sportkid:
Nudist express acceptence. Textiles dont.

I would not use generalisations. I was raised textile and still taught acceptance of others no matter their skin color, religion, or beliefs, and also acceptance of myself.

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Bob S.:

The parents have the right to protect shield their children in their homes. But they do not have that right when they are out in public, especially where legal behaviour is involved. Parents cannot shield the world from their children unless they keep them within the home forever.

Bob S.

I would have to disagree with that, parents have the right to shield their children no matter where they are. What they do not have the right to do is expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit their beliefs.

[OZJames]

I think the complainant in this matter was very foolish. The teenagers were just relieving their boredom. If prevented by law from being a bit outragious (in the eyes of some) they may well resort to DRUGS AND ALCOHOL to relieve their boredom.

If the nudity had been ignored, the teenagers would have had their fun, no harm done but now it will all be brought before the Government to make new laws, lots of publicity and may well incite teenagers to GREATER PROTEST by continuing the nudity despite it becoming illegal (if the law is changed).

In either senario it will be clear that the complainant should have looked the other way and forgotten about it (other than causing a stir at tea parties).

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
I hope someone from Clothesfree gets up there and interviews them before the kneejerk politicians make it illegal because they figure that they have to protect someone.

NDR

I agree. Being Irish and being raised in a "sexually" repressive environment, I can't help but note that the complaint comes from a "Theresa Toney" a rather common Irish Catholic name. Her reasoning is interesting too. Should children SEE these children? My response is God yes! They should long ago have had their curiosity filled by seeing their parents and siblings nude. These Vermont kids aren't fornicating! They will be better off by getting familiar with the nude bodies of their friends!

[BlobbyBob]

Originally posted by nimrod:

How do you manage to draw parallels between stating an opinion on how one desides to raise their own children when it comes to viewing public nudity to murdering someone? Did you stop to think that maybe it was just an example, an exageration to make a point?

Re-read my post with that in mind.

As for drug use - well it doesn't mater what some people think, using drugs can cause physical harm, that isn't an opinion but a fact surely. As for sex, well I personally haven't ever heard of a parent who thought it was ok to let their child see them having sex, but I am young so go easy on me lol

[Stu2630]

BobS What about the children", as I already stated, is meant as a rhetorical question. They do not want it answered.

If I ask the question "What about the children?", it's not because I want you to accept my reasons for not wanting them to see adult nudity, it's because I want you to be considerate enough to respect my views that they should not, Bob. Yes, I do think that kids are negatively affected, but I respect your rights to believe the opposite to be the case and to bring up your own children accordingly. Like it or not, we live in a clothed society. Most nudists wear clothes most of the time and many nudists regard nakedness as something they are content to enjoy for relaxation. Our children live in the same world and would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect nudists' children to be prevented from seeing clothed people. But it is not unreasonable to expect nudists to respect textiles' sensibilities when using non-nudist places.

The parents have the right to protect shield their children in their homes. But they do not have that right when they are out in public, especially where legal behaviour is involved. Parents cannot shield the world from their children unless they keep them within the home forever.

Two discrete issues here. Firstly, if a town, county, state or country has no legally-enforceable ban on public nudity and certain individuals choose to exercise what they see as a right to be naked in public, then anyone who objects should either (a) move somewhere else, (b) tolerate the nudity, or (c) canvass legislators to bring in the desired prohibition. The teenagers concerned can not, and should not, be prosecuted if they are breaking no laws. Nevertheless, if they know that their behaviour is causing distress, they certainly have a moral duty to do what they can to ameliorate it. The second issue you raise concerns parents "shielding" children from undesirable sights. I would argue that parents attempt to do that anyway, with varying degrees of success. We try to stop our kids being exposed to all sorts of stuff we don't want them to see and hear. The fact that they may encounter it anyway does not mean that we, as parents, should simply shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it.

Stu:"Do I compare these kids in Battleboro to those who spray grafitti or shoot-up drugs on street corners? No - because, so far as we know, they are doing nothing illegal." You wrote: Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment. So do you mean that only in areas where nudity is illegal, nudity is like those? Elsewhere, nudity is unlike those?

Racism does cause physical harm. Drug use also causes physical harm--especially illicit drug use. How does nudity have any connection to those two?

The SIGHT of other people indulging in racism does not cause physical harm. The sight of other people using drugs does no physical harm. Same goes for strong sexual imagery. And, of course, the same goes for nudity. For many parents like ourselves, nudity goes into the same compartment as these other things in that, while they cause no physical harm, but they are things we don't want our kids to be exposed to. So we don't want them visible in our environment, Bob.

Stu

[nimrod]

Originally posted by BlobbyBob:
Re-read my post with that in mind.

I do not need to, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy, but I am happy that you saw it yourself.

As for drug use - well it doesn't mater what some people think, using drugs can cause physical harm, that isn't an opinion but a fact surely. As for sex, well I personally haven't ever heard of a parent who thought it was ok to let their child see them having sex, but I am young so go easy on me lol

You were taught that the use of illegal drugs is harmful, but prescription drugs can be just as harmful. Most drugs, illegal or not, are not harmful until someone missuses them, like an addiction, and some drugs are more addictive than others. The drugs that are illegal are so because someone has determined that they have no medical value, their only use is for a high and they do not treat any disease. People use the drug alcohol legally and in front of their children every day with no thought of how it might effect them.
Just last night after I posted, I watched a TV program that touched on the subject of the exposure of sex and children. There is a group, you could call them a cult, that preached free love and they believe that not only should you expose children to sex but have them participate in it. Now that is an extreme case, and the result was one of the kids grew up to kill his own mother, then himself, and others are damaged psycologically.
I hope that was easy enough on you, I try to inform and not attack.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

The teens have no moral duty to ameliorate distress. If they feel your distress is inapporopriate they can say "Get over it".

Using this principle, vegan parents may not want their kids exposed to meat and people wearing fur. Should those that eat meat and wear fur now do so in private to keep the vegans from distress? Or would they tell the vegans to deal with it?

NDR

[nimrod]

Is there any scientific evedence that supports the belief that exposing children to social nudity leads to better body accecptance? Are the higher numbers of children with a healthy body image within the nudist community due to exposure, or is it because they were taught to accept the differences in others and themselves?
Is it a combination of both exposure and teachings? I was raised mostly textile, but my parents tried to teach me to be accepting of the differences of others and myself. Accepting others was the easier lesson to learn, accepting myself took a long time. Would I have learned to accept the differences in me just by being exposed to social nudity?

[sportkid]

How can you catagorize nudity with racism, sex, and drugs. Racism, sex, and drugs can cause a psychological harm. There has been no report of nonsexual nudity causing any harm.
Hey nimrod, there has been reports of social nudity being a positive influence on children. I think it was 7-10 year study. And there were quite a few that were 5 and up. There was either no effect or a positive effect.

Here is a question. Lets say that a child (steve) is being taught that the body is a natural thing and that the penis and such is normal like a hand or an arm, considering it is made of muscles, bone, cells, and such. As well as the breast and stuff.
Now there is another child (we shall call him Sam) who is taught not to be nude or to see others nude, and that those select body parts are sexual and are different from the rest of the body.
Now lets say they are both friends and are walking down the street and see a picture on the ground or see someone walking by naked. A female perhaps. Which child would be more curious, sexually aroused, and bring more attention to the image?
Stu and Nimrod, Do yall not have mirrors in yalls bathrooms?
if you do, you should take them down cuz your kids might see someone naked in them.

[Stu2630]

The teens have no moral duty to ameliorate distress. If they feel your distress is inapporopriate they can say "Get over it".

Obviously you and I have a different approach to morality. I regard the causing of unnecessary mental distress to be as unacceptable as causing physical pain or financial loss because the suffering involved can be just as great.

Using this principle, vegan parents may not want their kids exposed to meat and people wearing fur. Should those that eat meat and wear fur now do so in private to keep the vegans from distress? Or would they tell the vegans to deal with it?

That's a fantastic example - thanks! I never thought of it before. You see, I am neither a vegan or vegetarian. I once visited a Buddhist community village in which the people there are strict vegetarians, and some of the younger members have never seen, let alone eaten, any kind of meat. Such people really do find the stench and sight of meat unbearably repugnant - just as we would be disgusted by the sight and smell of a rotting corpse. When among such people, should I say "I'm gonna fry some steak. If you all can't stomach the sight and smell, well that's your problem"? OR Should I respect the majority sensibility and restrict my meat preparation and consumption to places where I would know that it would not cause anyone any distress?

Nudists are a tiny minority in most western societies. The majority have a responsibility to respect them and, so far as is reasonable, to make provision to accommodate their needs, preferences and lifestyles. In return, the minority must respect the feelings and sensibilities of the majority. That, surely, is the ideal to which we should be striving - not simply saying "I'm gonna do my own thing and if you find that objectionable, then you can go boil your head!"

Stu

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu,

Since you agree it is a good example about vegans, would you answer the question about whether or not vegan parents should have the right to protect their children the same as textiled parents apparently want to protect theirs against seeing a nude body?

Also, all of the reading I have done on nudism does not state that nudists are a "tiny" minority. Quite the contrary. More than a "tiny" minority have been skinny-dipping, for example. And nude recreation is growing quite rapidly. The recreation industry is chasing the nudist dollars and it is not because they are a "tiny" minority.

Perhaps you should rethink why you believe they are a "tiny" minority. Could it be the oppressive laws and risk taken in this country if you are caught nude? Could it be that the fear of prosecution keeps most nudists out of sight?

NDR

[sw1sweendog]

stu,your not a nudist.this is a nudist site,where we all like to share nudist experiences or tips,or for the newbies with questions.how about just going away and let us enjoy our nudity.go find a textile site and you can rag on the nudist all you want.

[unclothed]

Stu, shouldn't the minority also deserve some respect? Always being kicked around.Perhaps if you would try it, you would realize there is nothing wrong. After all, if people would open themselves, we could accomplish so much more than what we have in this society.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:
Originally posted by Bob:
In NYC you can get arrested even if you are not naked:

No pants

FYI, all 8 people arrested had their cases dropped. (Which makes sense since no one committed a crime!)



why did police charge them with disorderly conduct ?

Disorderly Conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct) (or "Breach of Peace" in Britain) is the charge police use when they want to charge or arrest someone who is not commiting a crime.

Of course, generally speaking, being "disorderly" is not a crime. In a free society such charges are seen as authoritarian oppression. A good measure of a society's respect for liberty is the number of charges against people for victimless crimes and, especially, for being "disorderly".

The nude boys in Vermont are also not being "disorderly", and the police are to be commended for not trumping up charges against them. Apparently Vermont is one of the vanishing list of places were Liberty still means something.

-Mark

[nimrod]

Originally posted by sportkid:
How can you catagorize nudity with racism, sex, and drugs. Racism, sex, and drugs can cause a psychological harm. There has been no report of nonsexual nudity causing any harm.

I do not think that anyone is catagorising nudity with racism, sex, or drugs. They were being used as an example. And the arguement as been made will seeing nudity, racism, sex, or drugs cause any harm, not if participation in those activities will cause any harm.

Hey nimrod, there has been reports of social nudity being a positive influence on children. I think it was 7-10 year study. And there were quite a few that were 5 and up. There was either no effect or a positive effect.

Can you lead me to any web sites? I have found some, but more cannot hurt any.

Here is a question. Lets say that a child (steve) is being taught that the body is a natural thing and that the penis and such is normal like a hand or an arm, considering it is made of muscles, bone, cells, and such. As well as the breast and stuff.
Now there is another child (we shall call him Sam) who is taught not to be nude or to see others nude, and that those select body parts are sexual and are different from the rest of the body.
Now lets say they are both friends and are walking down the street and see a picture on the ground or see someone walking by naked. A female perhaps. Which child would be more curious, sexually aroused, and bring more attention to the image?

Your question above has little to do with nudity, it has to do with sex and sexual perspectives. If you teach a child that elbows are objects that should only be seen during sex, the kid is going to become aroused every time he sees a naked elbow.

Stu and Nimrod, Do yall not have mirrors in yalls bathrooms?
if you do, you should take them down cuz your kids might see someone naked in them.

Stu is a self confessed textile. I, on the other hand, am a nudist/naturist and would not care if my children saw me or anyone else nude, if I had any children. I do not believe the way Stu believes, but that does not mean I will not defend his right to his beliefs.

[Liam]

Originally posted by nimrod:
Is there any scientific evedence that supports the belief that exposing children to social nudity leads to better body accecptance? Are the higher numbers of children with a healthy body image within the nudist community due to exposure, or is it because they were taught to accept the differences in others and themselves?
Is it a combination of both exposure and teachings? I was raised mostly textile, but my parents tried to teach me to be accepting of the differences of others and myself. Accepting others was the easier lesson to learn, accepting myself took a long time. Would I have learned to accept the differences in me just by being exposed to social nudity?

Yes there are such studies. There is even more first person reports from teens. I know that the AANR has a lot of information regarding children raised as nudists vs. clothed. I am sorry that I have been away from much participation in the last couple of years due to ill health, but I know there are a lot of sites that address these studies. I am sure that there are others here who have recommendations for scientific studies at their fingertips.

[Bob S.]

nimrod:"parents have the right to shield their children no matter where they are. What they do not have the right to do is expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit their beliefs."

That is what I meant.

Stu:"If I ask the question "What about the children?", it's not because I want you to accept my reasons for not wanting them to see adult nudity, it's because I want you to be considerate enough to respect my views that they should not"

So you agree that you do not want the question answered, Stu. It is not to further the dialogue, but to simply show consideration for your views. Yes, we have opposing opinions regarding children's exposure to nudity, so by asking the question What about the children? is not a way to show respect for views, but are instead espousing your views. And if I ask the return question, Yes, what about the children? is that me asking you to respect my views?

An open ended question is a point of debate, not an end of it.

Stu:"The fact that they may encounter it anyway does not mean that we, as parents, should simply shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it."

No. Parents can view all of the unfavorable encounters as a chance to teach their children their own family's values. Unfortunaltely, too many view it as an obstacle to happiness and a perfect society.

Stu"The SIGHT of other people indulging in racism does not cause physical harm. The sight of other people using drugs does no physical harm."

No. But people who indulge in racism are much more apt to be violent or cause physical harm. People who do illicit drugs are more apt to be violent or cause physical harm. I agree with you in terms of sexual imagery. But people who indulge in simple nudity are not very apt to be violent or cause physical harm.

Which would you rather have a problem with with your next door neighbors? A white supremicist group who puts up swastikas on and around their house? A couple who have drug paraphernalia and marijuana leaf curtains? A couple who sunbathes naked in their backyard?

Bob S.

[Jason Lee]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Bob:
In NYC you can get arrested even if you are not naked:

No pants

FYI, all 8 people arrested had their cases dropped. (Which makes sense since no one committed a crime!)



why did police charge them with disorderly conduct ?

Disorderly Conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct) (or "Breach of Peace" in Britain) is the charge police use when they want to charge or arrest someone who is not commiting a crime.

Of course, generally speaking, being "disorderly" is not a crime. In a free society such charges are seen as authoritarian oppression. A good measure of a society's respect for liberty is the number of charges against people for victimless crimes and, especially, for being "disorderly".

The nude boys in Vermont are also not being "disorderly", and the police are to be commended for not trumping up charges against them. Apparently Vermont is one of the vanishing list of places were Liberty still means something.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor crime when a person engages in activities that annoy police officers or (similar officials) or as a result of citizen complaints.

[WNYjoe17]

I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Stu. OK-to a point.

I see nothing wrong or offensive. I think we should not have laws against nudity. I also recognize that some people are offended (for whatever reason.) There are generally laws against vagrancy, loitering, etc. Am I the only one that noticed the part where one store owner said they were just hanging out? (loitering) Or someone else said they were eating pizza from a box. The way I read it, it implied a box that someone else had tossed.
Or the store clerk who said "I wouldn't want to get cigarrette butts on my butt"?
And what about the writer who said "clamydia lingering around the public seating..."?
Those are all examples of where courtesy goes a long way.
We should have no problem being nude. In public or not. We should be respectful of others. But when they are offended and use lines like "what if the children see this...?" there also comes a point in my mind where someone being offended is not founded in anything other than mis-information. Then we should help to educate those people.
"I don't want to see a fat, hairy teenage kid sunning himslef..." Talk about judgemental!! So what if he is nude, overweight, or hairy? What kind of person is he on the inside?
Is it possible he is a great person with an eating disorder with a family heritage that has hairy bodies?
Meanwhile, look at the sexual abandon and violence shown on TV

...


Joe

[Stu2630]

Runner

Regarding your point about vegans etc, sorry, I thought I had made it clear that vegans living in an overwhelmingly vegan society have every right to insist that meat is cooked and consumed out of their immediate presence. In the same way, textile parents living in an overwhelmingly textile society have every right to insist that nudity is confined to times and places where they can reasonably avoid encountering it.

Skinnydipping? Yes, even I have friends who admit to skinnydipping at some time in their lives, but that doesn't mean they consider themselves to be nudists and certainly not that they are OK with public nudity. The logic of your argument is rather like saying that someone who tried once smoking a joint in their student days has no objection to drug-taking.

I agree with you that nudism is presently in a state of growth - I have no problem with that. But it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of holidaymakers do not choose to go to nudist resorts. By that definition, it is unarguable that nudists comprise a tiny minority.

Could it be the oppressive laws and risk taken in this country if you are caught nude? Could it be that the fear of prosecution keeps most nudists out of sight?

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point, here. Different nudists I talk to seem to want different things. When I came here before, I had some delightful exchanges with someone called Max. He was clear that he simply wanted more and better nudist venues - decent, accessible places with all the facilities that textiles enjoy. I wholeheartedly support that demand. Others seem unwilling to accept anything less that a demand that nudity should be tolerated anywhere and everywhere. That I can not accept, and it is, in my opinion, wholely unreasonable. It is the "fundamentalism" I talked about earlier.

unclothed

I agree that the minority deserve respect - I respect the nudists with whom I correspond on here, and I support them when they make reasonable demands, as I have said above to Runner. I have never said there is anything wrong with nudity per se, I just believe that, because it has the potential to cause offence, it should be limited to certain venues (e.g. in private places, or in places set aside for nudists), or done discreetly (such as in very out-of-the-way places).

Naturist Mark

In the UK, the term "disorderly" is interpreted very widely, and includes behaviour that is "unexpectable" or that other people could find disturbing.

Stu

[Stu2630]

BobS

I will happily tell you about why I don't want my kids to see nudity - if fact, I'm sure I have done so before, and that's because I engage with nudists. But I don't believe most other textiles have any interest in doing the same, and they can't be forced to. If textiles give you reasons, are you going to say "OK, fine. We accept your reasons and we'll make sure we never get naked in your presence"? Somehow, I don't think nudists will do that. Instead, nudists will judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them. Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue - what matters is that they have a right to decide what they think is good for their own children. Where textiles do have a duty to show you respect, is when you ask for places and facilities to practise your lifestyle.

people who indulge in racism are much more apt to be violent or cause physical harm.

It's perfectly possible to hold and even voice strongly racist views without any hint of violence. Most racism in my country is non-violent. It involves excluding people, making hurtful or offensive comments and so on. How about huge billboards which say that black kids aren't as smart as white kids. Is that OK?

People who do illicit drugs are more apt to be violent or cause physical harm.

Do you think so? The vast majority of drug use in the UK involves cannabis, and I am not aware of anyone becoming violent after smoking a reefer. Another common drug is ecstasy, and that just seems to make people want to dance. So are you OK with kids being able to see people using these drugs then, Bob?

Which would you rather have a problem with with your next door neighbors? A white supremicist group who puts up swastikas on and around their house? A couple who have drug paraphernalia and marijuana leaf curtains? A couple who sunbathes naked in their backyard?

I wouldn't want to live next door to any of them, Bob. So long as the naked sunbathers kept themselves out of my view, and that wouldn't be difficult in my particular property, I wouldn't have any objection to them doing what they do.

Stu

[Michjoe]

This has turned into the same old debate we've heard so many times before. Enough already!

[Dick Springer]

According to the Infoplease crime report, Vermont is the third safest state in the nation, behind North Dakota and Maine, on a per capita basis.
Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there,


I am yet to see an armed nude citizen in Vermont.

[Centauri4]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

Could it be the oppressive laws and risk taken in this country if you are caught nude? Could it be that the fear of prosecution keeps most nudists out of sight?

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point, here. Different nudists I talk to seem to want different things. When I came here before, I had some delightful exchanges with someone called Max. He was clear that he simply wanted more and better nudist venues - decent, accessible places with all the facilities that textiles enjoy. I wholeheartedly support that demand. Others seem unwilling to accept anything less that a demand that nudity should be tolerated anywhere and everywhere. That I can not accept, and it is, in my opinion, wholely unreasonable. It is the "fundamentalism" I talked about earlier.

unclothed

I agree that the minority deserve respect - I respect the nudists with whom I correspond on here, and I support them when they make reasonable demands, as I have said above to Runner. I have never said there is anything wrong with nudity per se, I just believe that, because it has the potential to cause offence, it should be limited to certain venues (e.g. in private places, or in places set aside for nudists), or done discreetly (such as in very out-of-the-way places).
Stu


Stu, the one thing you are overlooking though is the large percentage of "public" money spent to many activities out of the public's eye and NONE of them involve nudism.

As a taxpayer in America I am in favor of public restrooms, "green areas" which shield commercial plazas from the road, reforestation (which keeps me from being offended by "strip mining" and extreme timber harvesting) and homeless shelters (for many reasons). And also as a taxpaying citizen I would like to be reasonably accomodated in my desire to visit a local public beach nude, even if for only one-half of a day once a week. Or, I would like to hike through a National Park "skyclad" or practicing my chosen [personal] religion of naturism without being fined by a U.S. Park Ranger. But so far these things are not possible and it is unconstitutional for the government to "exclude" my pursuit of happiness from the "list" of activities requested by citizens, and yet I suspect there are salaried government officials who regularly throw out such requests, screen them out, or cross them off the list as being "to difficult" or a "minority interest" unworthy of actual consideration. These are the real issues.

If the government is going to take action in the best interest of the "majority" when many people practicing a given behavior becomes "disruptive", then there may be times and places when nudists will have to assemble en masse in order to be recognized.

Many laws are passed in response to activities taking place. Criminal activities are remedied by the enforcement of laws by sworn officers [typically] paid by public funds. Crime was a problem, law enforcement the solution. Where is the huge public nudity problem?

Various jurisdictions have or are in the process of passing ordinances to restrict the public's freedoms even before anyone has caused offense or been indiscreet about their behavior! That is wrong; it is guilt by presumption of intent.

If I can walk down the street nude and behave in a civil manner, going about my business and patronizing stores or whatever, and the only problem is people shouting at me to 'get dressed' or physically assaulting me by throwing rocks or bottles, who is in the wrong? Throwing rocks at someone was illegal long before innocently strolling through town nude was, I'll bet.

The problem with "community standards" is that they are not flexible, they do not adapt well to change, and they mostly cater to the "least common denominator" (the least educated, least informed, fellow citizens who generally are offended by anything they do not understand).

If someone argues, 'well, parents simply don't want to explain why John or Jane isn't wearing clothes' I would counter that is because [many] parents are lazy and could care less about whether their children actually understand certain behaviors at younger ages. The best educated children, and the ones with the widest exposure to different cultures and behaviors, are the ones that eventually grow up to pass laws regarding catering to the least common denominators I mentioned above.

Adults forget the simple pleasures of our youth, or we (often) layer them with unnecessary double-meanings, judgements of "nastiness", or begin calling people indiscreet when they speak up or step out from the crowd naked in order to be recognized.

The public is not being educated in manners which throughly instill respect for our fellow men and women above ALL ELSE! I find this truth to be self-evident in the daily headlines of my local newspaper and on television. When it comes to respecting individual freedoms being more adaptble to situations, it usually takes DEATH or DISASTER to inspire change!

For now all we can do is hope the most understanding and truly caring children of the post-Hippie, post-Baby Boom and post-GenX eras grow up fast and do everything in their power to reshape society along better lines.

That's my opinion for the day.

[Stu2630]

Centaur

I have long been an advocate of spending public money on providing facilities for nudists. They can find public money for things such as skateboard parks - and skateboarding is very much a minority interest- so why can't the nudist taxpayers get a fair share of the resources? On this point, you are preaching to the converted. You say "as a taxpaying citizen I would like to be reasonably accomodated in my desire to visit a local public beach nude". That's not unreasonable. There are miles and miles of beaches surrounding your country and mine - nudists should be allocated a reasonable share of those beaches for their use. I have recently returned from a holiday in Denmark, where there are dozens of nudist beaches in that very small country, so it can be done. But once you have these facilities provided you should, as a general rule, avoid using other beaches naked. This need not be a totally rigid rule. If you find a remote, deserted beach, and you know there is virtually no chance that textiles such as myself will come along, and you take your costume off...well...what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over. We all have a moral obligation to avoid hurting or even endangering other people, and causing gross offence can be every bit as unpleasant as smacking someone across the face.

Public authorities must be prepared to legislate in a fair way, balancing the needs and desires of different minorities with the interests of the majority. In my town we have many Muslims. We also have many people who belong to ardent Christian sects. And we have many people who hold strong traditional values and sensibilities. All these groups would find the sight of someone being naked in public to be offensive and unacceptable. Taken as a whole, these people may or may not comprise a majority of the populace, but they most certainly outnumber nudists many times over. They too have rights.

You mention people being adaptable and accepting change. This cuts both ways. From what I read, this Vermont town has been extremely liberal in the past, but now people are beginning to complain about public nudity by these nude teens. The authorities have a duty to consult the people, regardless as to whether they belong to the majority or a particular minority or interest group. If, following these consultations, they deem it necessary to legislate to prohibit behaviour that, in the past, was tolerated, then so be it. You win some - you lose some.

Stu

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Stu said:

"We all have a moral obligation to avoid hurting or even endangering other people, and causing gross offence can be every bit as unpleasant as smacking someone across the face. "

Nudity is not a gross offense, and does not endanger anyone. I am sure that many of us here would appreciate it if you quit referring to it in such a manner.

NDR

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
nimrod:"parents have the right to shield their children no matter where they are. What they do not have the right to do is expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit their beliefs."

That is what I meant.
Bob S.

Okay.

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
Stu said:

"We all have a moral obligation to avoid hurting or even endangering other people, and causing gross offence can be every bit as unpleasant as smacking someone across the face. "

Nudity is not a gross offense, and does not endanger anyone. I am sure that many of us here would appreciate it if you quit referring to it in such a manner.

NDR

Just because nudity is not a gross offense to you and other nudist, does not mean that it is not a gross offense for everyone. There was a resent event at a certain military prison were nudity was used as a psychological weapon against POWs. Many people are raised to believe that nudity is wrong, so to them, nudity is a gross offense. I do not agree with them, but it is what they believe.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Is it really true that parents have a "right" to shield their children? I know that it sounds good, but look around us.

Advertising for adult beverages are seen many children every day, as are advertisements for Viagra, Levitra and other products that enhance sexual performance.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5534a3.htm Here is a link to youth exposure to alcohol advertising on the radio. Certainly there is no "shielding" of America's youth that can be found here.

I believe if there was a "right" to shield children from what parents find objectionable, certainly the alcohol advertising would be one of the first to go.

NDR

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Nimrod,

Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange.

Comparing the gross offense of stacking nude male prisoners on top of each other(which may or may not be a gross offense) to social nudism is a big stretch, don't you think?

What makes nudity a gross offense to you? Maybe if they were raised to "believe" nudity is wrong, is it not possible their belief is wrong?

The world was once thought to be flat. Believing so did not make it so. But those that thought otherwise were persecuted when possible, as are nudists today.

Nudity is not a gross offense.
NDR

[nimrod]

Stu, I was going to ask you questions on how you were raising your own children on the subject of nudity, then I realized that it is none of my business how you raise your children. It is no ones business how you raise your children. Unless you are raising them to deliberately harm others, as thieves, as murderers, or you if you are abusing them, no one has the right to question you on how to raise your own children.

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
Nimrod,

Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange.

Comparing the gross offense of stacking nude male prisoners on top of each other(which may or may not be a gross offense) to social nudism is a big stretch, don't you think?

What makes nudity a gross offense to you? Maybe if they were raised to "believe" nudity is wrong, is it not possible their belief is wrong?

The world was once thought to be flat. Believing so did not make it so. But those that thought otherwise were persecuted when possible, as are nudists today.

Nudity is not a gross offense.
NDR

I understand what you are saying, but, because someone believes that something is a certain way, it is that way for them. I know some people that would rather enjoy being stacked with a bunch of nude men, and I know people who are homophobes and that would be a gross offense. We are talking about ideals here, not physical truths.

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Nimrod,

So would you agree that some beliefs are wrong? And if so, do those who recognize the belief as wrong have an obligation to humor those with the wrong beliefs?

If nudists do not stand up and say "No, Nimrod, nudity is not a gross offense", am I not giving you an implicit agreement that maybe it is?



And I feel that it is our duty to dispell the common misconceptions about nudity that seem to be repeated most often by non-nudists. To tell me that it is a gross offense to see me nude an effort to control my behavior via guilt. To say I have a moral obligation to someone opposed to nudity is also an attempt to use guilt to change my behavior.

If nudists do not speak up about all of these wrong statements, who will?

If you are not already a member of AANR, you should join. Read the monthly paper. See what is going on across the country. Learn about the politicians who are now seeking support of nudists as they run for office.

NDR

[Stu2630]

Stu, I was going to ask you questions on how you were raising your own children on the subject of nudity, then I realized that it is none of my business how you raise your children. It is no ones business how you raise your children. Unless you are raising them to deliberately harm others, as thieves, as murderers, or you if you are abusing them, no one has the right to question you on how to raise your own children.

Nimrod. I don't mind you asking me, and I don't mind telling you. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

I have three children. We have a daughter aged almost 22 years. She is a 4th year medical student and is presently working/studying in a hospital in the gynocological ward at a hospital about 60 miles from our home. We have a son aged almost 19 years and he is a trainee electrical engineer and lives with his girlfriend. We also have a much youger daughter who is 11 TODAY! None of our children saw either my wife or me naked, nor did we allow them to see any other adult nudity. Similarly, they were brought up to understand that being naked in the home was allowed in the bathroom or their own bedroom, but with the door closed, and they were always to ask before opening anyone else's bedroom door. We did not encourage them to believe that the human body is dirty, and certainly not "sinful" (we are atheists, so we don't even acknowledge that there is any such thing as "sin"). We simply taught them that certain parts of the body were deeply private and not to seen by other people except in very particular circumstances.

My youngest daughter knows about nudists and what they like to do because I have explained it to her. I have told her that nudists are ordinary people, but who feel differently about the "private" parts of the body to ourselves, and that was fine. She comprehends that, just as she understands that some people are Jewish, and some people are vegans and so on. We have also instilled into her that people who are "different" to us in what they believe and the way they live help make the world such a colourful place.

Runner

And I feel that it is our duty to dispell the common misconceptions about nudity that seem to be repeated most often by non-nudists.

Textiles don't have misconceptions about nudity. They know what it is and what it looks like - their own and other people's - and they are even nude themselves at certain times. Textiles get naked in the bath, with their sexual partners, and even with other adults of their own sex in locker rooms etc. Textiles get close to being naked every time they go on a beach in swimwear! The only real difference between textiles and nudists is that most textiles don't feel comfortable exposing their groin area and buttocks or being around other people who are exposing theirs. It's not a question of "misconceptions".

To tell me that it is a gross offense to see me nude an effort to control my behavior via guilt. To say I have a moral obligation to someone opposed to nudity is also an attempt to use guilt to change my behavior.

To appeal to a person's conscience is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If anything, it should be taken as a compliment because it means that you are believed to be a person of sensitivity towards the feelings of others - someone who can empathise even though the other person has different perceptions and values to yourself. It is certainly not dishonest nor manipulative.

Imagine if the textile majority says to the nudist minority: "Please don't expose your naked groin area in certain public places because it really does upset us - especially when we know our children can see you. We will, however, provide you with places where you can enjoy your particular form of recreation", then I would argue that you have a moral obligation at least to negotiate - and that means being willing to compromise your own particular "principles".

The major problems of the world today exist because factions are unwilling to compromise. Be it for reasons of religion, nationalism or politics, they are committed to the concept that they are right, the other fellow is wrong, so why should they concede anything? When small minorities take such a hard line against a majority, they antagonise, get labelled as "extremists" and then they get marginalised and ignored. Nudists aren't going to win by trying to drag an unwilling majority kicking and screaming into a nudist's utopia.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu, first I want to wish your precious angel a Happy Birthday! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif Let her know that a nudist hopes she gets everything that she wants this enxt year, including those things that her Mom and Dad don't want her to have. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif May she never grow out of her naked proclivities http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

Stu:"I will happily tell you about why I don't want my kids to see nudity - if fact, I'm sure I have done so before, and that's because I engage with nudists. But I don't believe most other textiles have any interest in doing the same, and they can't be forced to. If textiles give you reasons, are you going to say "OK, fine. We accept your reasons and we'll make sure we never get naked in your presence"? Somehow, I don't think nudists will do that. Instead, nudists will judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them."

I know about the story of your children, but again, that is not the point. The question that is asked is not What about my children?[/B] but rather [I]What about the children?" Notice the difference? The debate ender is not asking personal questions, but about asking a general question about all children.

And why do you assume that nudists will judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them while giving textiles a free pass? What about nudists who give our logical reasons and textiles who judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them? That happens too often to count. The VA legislature heard nudist leaders before voting overwhelmingly to ban nudist summer camps.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"It's perfectly possible to hold and even voice strongly racist views without any hint of violence."

Yes. But racist language is more apt to lead to violence than non-racist language. Not necessarily by the speaker, but perhaps by those who listen and agree.

Stu:"The vast majority of drug use in the UK involves cannabis, and I am not aware of anyone becoming violent after smoking a reefer"

Yes. I was friends with marijuana users in college (I never partook, but I was around them while they did). I agree that they were very much non-violent. But the violence is not in the drug taking, but in the drug acquiring. Many people are killed over drug deals. Another person I knew in college who was the biggest pothead stole money from the vending machines while he restocked them. Crimes committed while trying to procure illicit drugs can sometimes lead to violence.

Mere nudity has rarely led to violence by the naked person. It has, however, led to violence against the naked.

nimrod:"Just last night after I posted, I watched a TV program that touched on the subject of the exposure of sex and children. There is a group, you could call them a cult, that preached free love and they believe that not only should you expose children to sex but have them participate in it. Now that is an extreme case, and the result was one of the kids grew up to kill his own mother, then himself, and others are damaged psycologically."

For the record nimrod, the man killed a woman who molested him when he was younger, not his mother. He never found his mother before he killed himself.

Bob S.

[Petrus]

Stu:"The vast majority of drug use in the UK involves cannabis, and I am not aware of anyone becoming violent after smoking a reefer"
It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.

P.S. I would much rather encounter somebody driving in the nude than a driver under the influence of cannabis!

[Stu2630]

BobS

I passed on your happy birthday wishes from my youngest daughter, and she asked me to send her thanks. They just seem to grow up so fast these days and it's so hard to know what they should and shouldn't be exposed to! A few minutes ago I realised she had been quiet for a while so I checked on her only to find her reading on her bed, and had almost finished the book. "What's that you're reading?" I asked her. "Oh, it's one of your old books. It's called The Metamorphosis," she said, "It's a brilliant story about a man who turns into a beetle." So I said, "OK" and left her to it. A few moments later it dawned on me that The Metamorphosis is a novel by Franz Kafka. I mentioned it to my wife, and she assured me that it would be OK for her. Although I recall there is nothing of a sexual or gratuitously violent in it, and it is a literary classic, I'm not entirely sure it is suitable material for children of such tender years.

Petrus

It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.

P.S. I would much rather encounter somebody driving in the nude than a driver under the influence of cannabis!

I'm afraid the context has got lost somewhere along the line. I was not comparing drug use to nudity: it goes without saying that most parents don't want their children to use drugs and that drugs are harmful.

I was making a point about what children should be able to see - and that parents determine what they consider is suitable for their own children to see. All parents do their best to shield their children from some sights. One example is that some parents don't want their children to see people using drugs - or even depictions of drug use on TV etc or even on billboards or in kids' comics. Such imagery is therefore permitted only for adult consumption, even though some parents may not have a problem with their kids seeing somebody smoking a joint or shooting up heroin. Similarly, some parents don't want their children to see adult nudity.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.

The study (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/blacer040615.htm) that spurred the inference of a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia found that marijuana use caused "transient (temporary) schizophrenia- like symptoms ranging from suspiciousness and delusions to impairments in memory and attention". It did not conclude that marijuana caused actual schizophrenia.

There has been some speculation that cannibis use while the brain is still developing (teen years) may alter brain development such that schizophrenia is more likely.

Drug and alcohol abuse is common among schizophrenics - it often leads to attemps to self medicate, so it would not be surprising if those with predispositions (genetic or otherwise) for schizophrenia would choose to use cannibis at a rate greater than the general population. Studies that show increased risk of schizophrenia among cannibis users do not typically account for this. What is known is that cannibis use is not a reliable indicator of schizophrenia, any alledged contributory effect is fleetingly small.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Harmony Parking Lot kids, except I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally used cannibis too. I doubt banning nudity in Brattleboro would reduce marijuana use, or vice versa.

-Mark

[John P]

I remember Mark Storey, a naturist activist from the Seattle area, talking about an annual event (I think it's an Art Parade) they have out there which in the last few years has featured a group of cyclists wearing nothing but paint. Mark said that among the families in the audience, some parents put their hands over the children's eyes and some hold the kids up so they can get a better look.

I'm not sure what this proves. Maybe nothing important, but one has to ask how something can be awful to one person and lots of fun to another, given that nothing and nobody is being harmed, or turned into a bug or anything like that.

At the end of the pre-Disney Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red-hot shoes until she falls dead. It's been a well-loved story for generations, eh.

[Stu2630]

Maybe nothing important, but one has to ask how something can be awful to one person and lots of fun to another, given that nothing and nobody is being harmed, or turned into a bug or anything like that.

To some people, hunting foxes with hounds is a fun sport - and even children participate. To others, it is a pointless and diabolically cruel way to treat a wild animal.

"Harm" is subjective. Some adults think it is good for kids to see naked bodies, while others are horrified at the prospect. Different strokes, as they say. Simple answer is to be careful about choosing your time and place to do something you already know has the potential to offend or to cause annoyance.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"I was making a point about what children should be able to see - and that parents determine what they consider is suitable for their own children to see."

Yes. Parents can determine their own values within the home. But then they take them outside and expose them to other values. That is the cost of living in a free society. Now to go back to the comparisons between nudity, and depictions of graphic sex and illicit drug use.: they are generally all illegal.

And that is why people are so much against nudity. It is illegal. Think about when racism was accepted and legal in terms of separating the different groups. It led to hatred to be accepted against those who held those racist beliefs.

Wen society deems something illegal, it is exponentially harder to turn the tide of public opinion. All that needs to be done is to continually make laws to further punish the lwabreakers. Nude beaches are always targets.

Legal racism (in my defintion above) only became illegal when things got extreme and society could not ignore it anymore.

Oh and Stu, look for a PM from me.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

To bring this topic back to the young Vermontians (what are they called?):

From the FresnoBee (http://www.fresnobee.com/24hour/weird/story/3364010p-12381013c.html):

Nude teens raising eyebrows in Vermont

By LISA RATHKE, Associated Press Writer

<span class="ev_code_PINK">(Updated Saturday, September 2, 2006, 2:22 PM)</span>

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) - Nudity isn't new here. Usually it bares itself in more subtle places than a downtown parking lot, though.

This summer, a group of teenagers has disrobed near restaurants, bookstores and galleries, igniting a debate about whether this bohemian southern Vermont town should ban a practice that has been tolerated until now.

"Brattleboro tends to be a laid-back town and pretty accepting of the unusual, but this is really pushing limits," said Police Chief John Martin.

"It's clearly to outrage people, it's clearly rebelliousness," he said.

By most accounts, the stripping started on a whim in early summer when a young woman sat naked on a park bench, Martin said. Then another woman started taking her shirt off downtown.

A music festival promoting nudity and rebelliousness set up in May in a downtown parking lot and attracted nude hula hoopers, Martin said.

Last month, a half dozen young people bared their bodies in the lot, encircled by the backs of bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants.

They say they're just exercising their rights.

"It's just an act of freedom," said 19-year-old Adhi Palar. "We're just doing so because we can." Palar and the others "do not consider nakedness to be innately sexual or rude and it shouldn't be confined to that," he said.

All the bare skin has raised eyebrows, even in a town that has seen clothing-optional swimming holes, streakers and an event known as "Breast Fest," which featured women parading topless.

To some, a bunch of teenagers going au naturel is just harmless rebellion.

"To most people, it's not a big deal," said Catherine Kauffman, 57, who calls Brattleboro "a don't-take-away-too-many-of-my-rights kind of town."

Rich Geidel, 50, co-owner of Everyone's Books, said the parking lot may not be the most appropriate place for nudity, but he said he's not concerned.

"We don't think it's bad for kids to hang out," he said. "As long as people are polite, don't block the entrance, we don't ask them to leave."

To others, it's disturbing. Some worry it could drive business away from downtown.

"It's a bad image for Brattleboro," said Ozzie Kocaoglu, 43, who owns Sundried Tomato restaurant at the far end of the parking lot, which has long been a teen hangout.

Vermont has no state laws against public nudity, but communities can pass their own rules banning it.

At least eight cities and towns have passed anti-nudity ordinances, according to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

So far, Brattleboro has chosen not to, but the teenagers' dress-down may change that. The town is researching what other communities have done to curb their nakedness.

The 50,000-member American Association for Nude Recreation espouses nude recreation in appropriate places, but doesn't use nudity "for social commentary, or rebelliousness or an act of civil disobedience," said Mary Jane Kolassa.

Baring it all as a form of social protest is growing.

This summer, nude bicyclists rode through Burlington to protest the country's reliance on oil, part of an event known as the World Naked Bike Ride. Elsewhere, nudity has been used to oppose the Iraq war and the treatment of animals.

In Vermont, voters in another town shot down a ban on nudity after two public votes.

Prompted by complaints about nudity and sexual activity at a swimming hole, the Wilmington select board passed an anti-nudity ordinance in 2002. But supporters of the freedom to skinny dip rejected the ban.

"There were some ugly moments in the debate with some name calling and lots of good healthy debate about reasonable rights and responsibility under those rights," said Town Clerk Susie Haughwout. Officials weren't sure how they would have enforced a ban and to what extent, she said.

For now Brattleboro is weighing its options. And waiting for summer to turn to fall.

"As soon as winter comes, there won't be a story anymore," said Town Clerk Annette Cappy.

[foux003]

I was in Brattleboro last weekend and I didn't see any public nudity. Not in town anyway.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
To bring this topic back to the young Vermontians (what are they called?):