Being natural and matter-of-fact

[Rex]

Hi Stu, a Happy New Year to you and your family and I hope you lose your 20 pounds. [In weight, not in cash!]
I would refer you to INA "Today's Quote", which I repeat below:
Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from developing an attitude of shame and disgust about the human body. If parents are very secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming, about human nudity.- Dr Lee Salk, Psychiatrist.
[Back to my words]. I realise this is just an opinion, but it is an informed opinion from a suitably qualified person, [just like your legal opinions].
And Dr Salk says what is, not what may be, the result on children, [again just like some of the legally based statements you have made to me and others].
Stu, as you know from a previous post, I understand your situation hopefully as much as any of us ever can, so please do not take this as an insulting encroachment into your private life, because it is certainly not meant that way, but what about your children?

[Rex]

Hi Stu, a Happy New Year to you and your family and I hope you lose your 20 pounds. [In weight, not in cash!]
I would refer you to INA "Today's Quote", which I repeat below:
Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from developing an attitude of shame and disgust about the human body. If parents are very secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming, about human nudity.- Dr Lee Salk, Psychiatrist.
[Back to my words]. I realise this is just an opinion, but it is an informed opinion from a suitably qualified person, [just like your legal opinions].
And Dr Salk says what is, not what may be, the result on children, [again just like some of the legally based statements you have made to me and others].
Stu, as you know from a previous post, I understand your situation hopefully as much as any of us ever can, so please do not take this as an insulting encroachment into your private life, because it is certainly not meant that way, but what about your children?

[Gary Naturist]

Those of us of a certain age will remember the effect that Dr. Spock had on parents in terms of bringing up kids.

If there was a Dr. Spock today who came out stronly in favour of casual family nudity, this would do a lot for healthier attitudes towards our bodies and, as a side effect, for nudism.

Gary

[Glen M]

My children, son 18, daughter 17, were raised as naturalist. They are very well adjusted and "happy campers." There were very few issues with nudity as they grew up. My son gets nude as soon as he is inside the door and hates wearing clothes. He has recruited most of his Frat to go nude when the frat house is just restricted to the brothers. He told me after the first week when vistors were restricted he was going down the hall to the showers nude and the other guys said why do we bother with the robes and towels just to go to the John? Also he says Thursday nights are for the brothers only and it is clothes optional, he says about 75% go naked then. Some have brought in their girlfriends and he says there is more respect for the ladies when everyone is nude. My daughter is comfortable nude or dressed up and I do mean dressed to impress. She prefers to go out with guys she knows are nudist as she says there is less pressure about sex and thinks they are more themselves when she knows them naked. We have gone nude behind closed doors at home and at resorts from the time the kids were born. I think it has been good for them.

[Rex]

Congratulation, Glen. You and your family are wonderful examples.

One thing, Glen. It's "naturist" not naturalist".

Rex,

There is an old joke that goes like this:

Question: What do you get if you put 100 psychiatrists in a room?

Answer: 100 different opnions.

By far the most eminent child psychiatrist of our time was Dr Benjamin Spock. If I remember rightly he expressed the view that it was unhealthy for children to see naked adults - including their own parents.

I take a moderate line on this believing that there aren't any hard and fast rules on this but rather that children should be brought up to understand and conform to the norms and values of the family they come from. And I'm not alone in that view. Here is the view of another eminent child psychiatrist, Dr Debra Haffner.

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9036,00.html

As far as our own kids are concerned - the eldest girl of 19 and our son of 16 are perfectly normal healthy young adults with no particular hang-ups. Both - yes, including our son - are in steady relationships with partners of the opposite sex. Our youngest daughter is just 8 years of age and she already appreciates being given her privacy when getting dressed or bathing and every other member of the household respects that. She has learned to lock her bedroom door and the bathroom door when she is in a "rude" state (i.e. undressed or partially dressed). She is a very lively and intelligent girl and always willing to question and to challenge, yet she is fine about our strictness when it comes to nudity and decency.

Not everyone wants, or is suited to, a nudist lifestyle, Rex.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Yeah but Stu, Rex's examples make more sense than that crap from Dr Spock or that article you showed. I just dont see any real logic in raising kids the way they suggest. I mean yeah they can have their opinion but I think the people Rex was suggesting are much better at explaining how to raise kids than Dr Spock, because I think his opinion stems more from his personal experiences than any actual facts. Maybe his twisted logic works for your family but I think Rex is just saying overall this may not be true for the majority of people and that his examples might actually help out alot more and there are many naturists who could say that Rex's examples of raising a family have helped them just as much if not more than your examples do. I just really dont see anything wrong with his examples and they just seem like they would work and if I had kids id probably go along with that advice because it seems really sound. I dont think kids should have the need to be private or ashamed of their bodies around their own family, I just think that will make them grow up to have negative views of their bodies and there is just no need for it. Most families in the past who had only 1 or 2 bathrooms/bedrooms in their houses did all sorts of things in various states of dress in the presence of others and it had no lasting effects on them and actually helped them, so why would you say now that just because we have the privacy that somehow kids need it? I just realy dont see any good reason for anyone to go along with this stuff that Dr Spock says because ive seen more negative comments about his ways of doing things than I have for these other ones where most of the negative comments are almost non existant.

[MikeJB]

Rex,

There is an old joke that goes like this:

Question: What do you get if you put 100 psychiatrists in a room?

Answer: 100 different opnions.
-------------------------------------------------

Well that could be true but I think that most psychiatrists that go the textile route when talking about raising kids end up creating more problems than ones that go a more open and nudist route. If I had a 100 different opinions on how to raise a kid, id go with the more open and more natural ones because I just dont beleive in the whole closed door type of thing because I dont think family members should have to close themselves off from their own family *sex aside, because that is usually a private thing* but besides that I just think that by doing things like this you just cause the kid to have more curiousity and more questions and if you dont answer them, they'll go someplace else, possibly someplace you dont want them to go, to get answers.


------------------------------------------------
By far the most eminent child psychiatrist of our time was Dr Benjamin Spock. If I remember rightly he expressed the view that it was unhealthy for children to see naked adults - including their own parents.
------------------------------------------------

Oh really? Did this Dr Spcok ever say WHY it was unhealthy to do this? Also, is he stating actual facts or is he just going along with his experiences in his own life and just trying to say because it didnt work for him that being open wouldnt work for anyone else?

-------------------------------------------------
I take a moderate line on this believing that there aren't any hard and fast rules on this but rather that children should be brought up to understand and conform to the norms and values of the family they come from. And I'm not alone in that view. Here is the view of another eminent child psychiatrist, Dr Debra Haffner.

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9036,00.html
-------------------------------------------------

Well I beleive in that to a degree as well. I do think that there are some basic rules that every parent should follow reguardless of what their morals and values are and that being more open with your family seems to work alot and if youre not it can cause more issues than it helps. I just think people should apply this to their own values and morals but at the same time be open about their bodies and their feelings and not close doors so much.


-------------------------------------------------
As far as our own kids are concerned - the eldest girl of 19 and our son of 16 are perfectly normal healthy young adults with no particular hang-ups. Both - yes, including our son - are in steady relationships with partners of the opposite sex. Our youngest daughter is just 8 years of age and she already appreciates being given her privacy when getting dressed or bathing and every other member of the household respects that. She has learned to lock her bedroom door and the bathroom door when she is in a "rude" state (i.e. undressed or partially dressed). She is a very lively and intelligent girl and always willing to question and to challenge, yet she is fine about our strictness when it comes to nudity and decency.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats nice n all Stu and nobody is questioning that this Dr Spock has done wonders for your family. I think me and everyone else here is basically saying that while it mightve worked for your family because youre a special case, mostly his views cause more issues than they help and that some of these other psychiatrists have helped more than Dr Spock has, but I mean really it comes down to how well the parent can take this knowledge from them and teach it to their own kids. Im sure that if the parent is really lousy as far as teaching their kids good morals and values, then it wouldnt matter weither they used Dr Spock's ideas or used someone else's theyd still have alot of problems. Im just saying that if youre a good parent and go along with some of these other people's ideas that it can help alot more than this Dr Spock does.

-------------------------------------------------
Not everyone wants, or is suited to, a nudist lifestyle, Rex.
-------------------------------------------------

Well why dont parents just try to keep their kids open to such lifestyles and let them decide for themselves which one they want or are suited to instead of just limiting them to one and acting like the other is some bad lifestyle that youd be damned if you tried to pursue. The way you talk about the nudist lifestyle to someone who doesnt know any better, of course they wouldnt like it because you make it sound like its some horrible thing and you dont seem to be very open or understanding about it. I just think the only thing that saved you as far as bringing your kids up with this Dr Spock BS is that youre a good parent and raised your kids well enough that his logic didnt screw their minds up too much.

[Bob S.]

"Question: What do you get if you put 100 psychiatrists in a room?
Answer: 100 different opnions."

I would think that it woukld be 200 opinions /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"By far the most eminent child psychiatrist of our time was Dr Benjamin Spock. If I remember rightly he expressed the view that it was unhealthy for children to see naked adults - including their own parents."

And from what I have read about him, he reached this conclusion based on false assumptions. How I recall the story: He used to shave in the morning naked with his son (about 2 or 3) on the sink next to him. A couple of times, his son reached for his penis as it was dangling about. He concluded that his son was expressing sexual curiosity (and maybe even some envy) in grabbing for his penis. The problem with this line of thinking, as many people's line of thinking when it comes to younger children and nudity, is that he viewed his penis as a sexual object. His son would not have been thinking that. He just saw a part of daddy that was hanging away from his body. I am sure that Spock Jr. had also reached for daddy's hair as well, but nothing came of needing to wear a hat in the presence of his son.

"I take a moderate line on this believing that there aren't any hard and fast rules on this but rather that children should be brought up to understand and conform to the norms and values of the family they come from."

I agree with you.

"Our youngest daughter is just 8 years of age and she already appreciates being given her privacy when getting dressed or bathing and every other member of the household respects that."

Nudist children can also ask for privacy as well and be granted it. Privacy is something that is imperative in the growth of the child's personality.

"She is a very lively and intelligent girl and always willing to question and to challenge, yet she is fine about our strictness when it comes to nudity and decency."

She (as well as you other two kiddos) didn't know anything else so of course they were fine with it. All that is really required is being a authoritative parent. A parent who makes fair rules, giving reasons for them, and giving appropriate punishments for failing to follow them.

"Not everyone wants, or is suited to, a nudist lifestyle, Rex."

No, but not everyone is exposed to it so they do not know if they would be suited to it.

Bob S.

[luvnaturism]

Popular doesn't always = correct. We now know that there was little research behind much that Dr. Spock wrote, and important parts of his teaching have been discredited.

Dr. Spock urged that babies and small children not be given too much attention, lest they become spoiled. Crying babies were to be checked to make sure they weren't hungry, stuck by a pin, or otherwise in actual distress; then they were to be put back down and allowed to cry it out.

Today we know that it is impossible to give a baby or young child too much attention, and that children who are showered with endless loving affection grow up to be strong, self-confident adults with a positive view of the world.

The view that the world is flat used to be extremely popular, but that didn't guarantee that it was accurate.

[missouriboy]

"Question: What do you get if you put 100 psychiatrists in a room?
Answer: 100 different opnions."

I look at that as not even being a joke, rather it's an opinion in itself positing that psychiatry is very little more than junk science to begin with. Real science would have to have much more consensus than that, wouldn't it!

Now, this is NOT meant to hijack this topic. Carry on!

[Rex]

Hi Stu,
I find it disturbing that your 8 year old daughter has apparently been taught that being undressed or partially dressed is a "rude" state. Often inappropriate, perhaps, especially in a non-nudist family, but surely not rude.
In X years, your daughter may be ready for a responsible, love-based, sexual relationship, with a really great guy, but to consumate their love, they both have to get into a "rude" state, even if they are both partially dressed, under the sheets, with the lights out.
This is similar to the well known scenario, where a girl has been indoctrinated that "nice girls don't do that" [ie have sex]. After marriage, the indoctrination may have gone so deep, that she still can't come to terms with the fact that now she "can do that". This can lead to a lifetime of psychological sexual problems, unfulfillment and maybe a breakdown of the marriage and also of subsequent relationships.
To me, teaching a young girl that even partial nudity is inherently rude, is metaphorically playing Russian Roulette with that girl's future happiness.
On a lighter tone, I would like to thank you for the Dr Spock website.
After I had read Debra Haffner's article, I clicked on Sex and Sexuality. I followed the topic, Vaginal Itching, and found a classic case of a woman, "bugaboosky", who is "very prone to yeast infections". She has a daughter who obviously has the same kind of problems. Because I have studied candida, I also recognise the significance of other comments made by "bugaboosky" and other women in the thread.
If I had a mother and daughter like this to work with, I could orchestrate a campaign which would grab at a nation's heart.
And, as we all know, once emotion is introduced into an equation, all sorts of things get re-assessed.
Maybe you would still be anxious to represent the prosecution if that mother and daughter were charged, after being nude on a quiet beach, for medical reasons, but you could be made to appear, in the public eye, as a callous, money-grubbing monster.
In WA, we have a very highly qualified lawyer, who holds the position of "Director of Public Prosecutions". He is able to decide that a case does not proceed, "in the public interest". I think I read in one of your posts that England has an Office which sounds similar. Maybe he would decide that it would not be "in the public interest" to allow you to proceed with what the British public would, by then, be seeing as a vendetta.
Just imagine getting the British tabloids on side. This isn't that eccentric Steve Gough, Stu, this is a poor, sick mum and her poor, sick little girl.

"His son would not have been thinking that. He just saw a part of daddy that was hanging away from his body. I am sure that Spock Jr. had also reached for daddy's hair as well, but nothing came of needing to wear a hat in the presence of his son."

I think you do Dr Spock a dis-service. He was a highly intelligent psychiatrist and much of his thinking was inspired by his eminent predecessors, Freud in particular. Of course Dr Spock isn't here to answer his critics, yet many people still trust his child-rearing theories and practice them.

"Popular doesn't always = correct. We now know that there was little research behind much that Dr. Spock wrote, and important parts of his teaching have been discredited."

And much is still revered! There are plenty of modern psychologists and child specialists who refer to the work of Spock. I'm not saying that he got everything right - but he was far more widely acknowledged than Dr Lee Salk (whoever he was).

Rex

"I find it disturbing that your 8 year old daughter has apparently been taught that being undressed or partially dressed is a "rude" state."

All my kids were brought up the same way. It didn't hurt the eldest two.

"but to consumate their love, they both have to get into a "rude" state, even if they are both partially dressed, under the sheets, with the lights out."

Yeah. That's how I enjoyed (and still enjoy) the sexual realm. It wasn't a problem for me even though my wife has never seen me naked.

"This is similar to the well known scenario, where a girl has been indoctrinated that "nice girls don't do that" [ie have sex]."

Nice girls get married and then have sex. Same with nice boys. Call me old-fashioned but I'm a big believer in keeping sex within marriage.

"This can lead to a lifetime of psychological sexual problems, unfulfillment and maybe a breakdown of the marriage and also of subsequent relationships.

Crumbs! I wonder how mine has lasted 26 years then (?) I'm the reigning World Heavyweight Champion in prudishness yet we never had any problems in that area.

"Maybe you would still be anxious to represent the prosecution if that mother and daughter were charged, after being nude on a quiet beach, for medical reasons, but you could be made to appear, in the public eye, as a callous, money-grubbing monster."

Sorry, Rex, that's patent nonsense. Nobody has to be nude on a public beach "for medical reasons". It wouldn't wash! And, to mix my metaphors, the public wouldn't buy it either.

"I think I read in one of your posts that England has an Office which sounds similar. Maybe he would decide that it would not be "in the public interest" to allow you to proceed with what the British public would, by then, be seeing as a vendetta."

Not a hope! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Nice try, though.

"Just imagine getting the British tabloids on side. This isn't that eccentric Steve Gough, Stu, this is a poor, sick mum and her poor, sick little girl."

I could tear them limb from limb in the witness box. Then I'd have an army of specialists to say that nudity wasn't necessary and that they could have quite easily worn, say, a sarong or a short skirt etc etc and that the medical condition is just a ruse. Then I'd show that they could have sunbathed elsewhere - completely out of public view. Easy-peasy for me or any lawyer worth his salt!

Stu

[Bob S.]

MOboy, psychology is an inexaxt science. In an ideal world, psychologists could do unbiased studies and come up with unbiased conclusions. However, different phychologists can look at the same results of a study and come up with sometimes opposing conclusions. It is only with consistent, unwavering results that a conclusion can become a rule.

"{Dr. Spock} was a highly intelligent psychiatrist and much of his thinking was inspired by his eminent predecessors, Freud in particular."

I am sure that he got some things right. But anyone who relies on Freud's psychosexual theory is relying on a faulty theory. It has been virtually discredited by most psychologists. Not everything in a person's childhood is sexually based. Realize that according to Freud, If a baby has issues stemming from the Oral Stage, smoking, sucking one's thumb, overeating, etc wil result later in life. If one has issues in the Anal stage, one will become anal-retentive later in life.

The best things that Freud came up with were the idea that problems originated in childhood and that talking out issues would help solve them. His theories are faulty so basically anyone who bases their theories on the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, in my opinion, cannot be seen as totally legitimate.

"And much is still revered! There are plenty of modern psychologists and child specialists who refer to the work of Spock."

Freud was and still is much revered. It doesn't mean that he is correct. And that is the problem with popular media "doctors." They use their national podium to further their own agenda. I recall a popular media doctor over here, Dr. Joyce Brothers, who has a daily advise column. One parent wrote in to her asking if she should allow her son and daughter (possible 13 and 11 or around those ages) to sleep in the same bed for one night while either visiting fmily or having family visit. Dr. Brothers' opinion was to get them separate sleeping arrangements because she suggested that one night in the same bed could alter their relationship forever with their unrequited incestuous feelings that could be below the surface. And if they slept together, something could happen, and even if it didn't the guilt could permanently harm their relationship with each other and future relationships. Mind you this was one night sleeping in the same bed while clad in pajamas. BS to me.

Bob S.

""I find it disturbing that your 8 year old daughter has apparently been taught that being undressed or partially dressed is a "rude" state."

All my kids were brought up the same way. It didn't hurt the eldest two."

This from a man that says he's not phobic and yet is totally petrified he may see someone nude. Stu, you don't even admit your own problems, you aren't going to admit a problem with your children, especially if caused by your own condition. I feel you aren't in a position to say if they are hurt or not because you are selectively blind.

[nudeM]

I just love reading some of Stu's posts. Though not a nudist himself, I do like to read some of the things he has to say, being that his opinions are coming from the "other" side (non-nudist). I believe that Stu has the right to raise his kids in a texitle atmosphere if he wishes to.

Attacking Stu by calling him "selectively blind" is not called for. There are many others who choose to raise their kids in a textile atmosphere, but are acceptable to nudist issues.

Even though I do not agree with many of his views, I do admire his ability to state his opinions without attacking anyone. I believe that Stu has come a long way by being an "honorary nudist" (in his own words), but still chooses to be out the the nudist lime-light.

I have nothing against those that wish to raise children as textiles... not the best way to raise them in my opinion but certainly within the boundaries of being ok.

The situation with stu is quite different. He's related many stories about his severe reactions to nudity and it would virtually be impossible for his condition to have no affect on his children. He taught them not only to shut the door when getting nude but is vehement about it being locked as well. He never changed his own childrens' diapers and left all that and all bathing for his wife to do (I really don't believe she didn't mind being left with all the work). That goes past what would occur in the average textile home and we have only heard a small bit of it.

I'd love to talk with his kids about their childhood.....

Look nudem.... calling him selectively blind is not an attack. Please, all you want to do is make me look bad all the time and it's obvious to a lot of people, not just me. Chill out and get a life. My opinion.... sometimes you only defend what I am on the other side of the coin just because I am on the other side of that coin.

Stu is hardly an "honorary nudist". Read his Yahoogroup... it appears that he's talking to himself, posting under two names and isn't so nice in his description of nudists.

A quote from the "honorary nudist"
"Unfortunately there is a band of vociferous and thoroughly antisocial campaigners out there trying to change our society and laws in order to force the rest of us to have to put up with their vile behaviour. Such people refer to us disparagingly as "prudes". OK well it's high time for us prudes to get together and make our voices heard and stop these characters in their tracks! Let's have a voice - and be proud to be prudes. This can be our forum."

Bob

"His theories are faulty so basically anyone who bases their theories on the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, in my opinion, cannot be seen as totally legitimate."

OK Bob - you have obviously studies Freud and you have formed an opinion that some of his theories are "faulty". Fair enough. But, as Freud is probably the world's most famous psychiatrist and is known as the "father of psychoanalysis" I'm not sure we can dismiss him quite so easily and just come up with another psychiatrist (e.g. Dr Lee Salk) and hold his opinions up as the expert and unarguable truth.

"And if they slept together, something could happen, and even if it didn't the guilt could permanently harm their relationship with each other and future relationships. Mind you this was one night sleeping in the same bed while clad in pajamas. BS to me."

I agree with you about that.

cyndiann

"This from a man that says he's not phobic and yet is totally petrified he may see someone nude".

I don't mind seeing someone nude where it is appropriate. I am a member of a gym and often pass men in the showers. The thought of seeing someone nude on a beach fills me with revulsion.

"Stu, you don't even admit your own problems,"

I don't have any problems.

"...you aren't going to admit a problem with your children, especially if caused by your own condition".

My kids don't have any problems. My older two are young adults and both are in steady relationships. Both play sports and shower with others as they did when at school. Can you tell me how my kids are anything other than normal?

"..I feel you aren't in a position to say if they are hurt or not because you are selectively blind."

My wife doesn't think they've been hurt - neither do their grandparents. My eldest daughter is a medical student and she got (and still gets) straight 'A's in her psychology exams. I have discussed this with her many times and she says she is perfectly at ease and comfortable with her body - clothed or otherwise. She has encountered adult nudity both at the hospital where she works, and at a rock festival she used to go to annually. Nevertheless she says there is no way she would ever visit a nudist beach.

"He never changed his own childrens' diapers and left all that and all bathing for his wife to do (I really don't believe she didn't mind being left with all the work)".

You don't know me or my family or how we operate. My wife didn't mind doing those things because I took on many of the chores she hated when our children were small. For example, I did ALL the night feeds when they were babies and I also undertook all the laundry and ironing in the home - something she hated! In contrast she loved bathing the children.

"Stu is hardly an "honorary nudist". Read his Yahoogroup... it appears that he's talking to himself, posting under two names and isn't so nice in his description of nudists."

Cyndiann - I will not break my habit of making personal attacks but you tempted me sorely with this accusation. You are quite simply wrong. If you want to know who the other correspondent ther is, why not do a check of their IP address. If you do you will discover that, whilst mine is in the UK, that person's is in Canada. Now, unless you think that I have a jet aeroplane in my back yard it would be pretty difficult for me to get to and from Canada in the time periods between the posts. Any person with perspicacity would have compared the sentence construction and spelling characteristics of that correspondent with my own and arrived at the conclusion that that person is not me. If you want to know who it is - work it out for yourself - it isn't ROCKET science /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . If you are gracious you will apologise for impuning my integrity as you have, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for my opening address that you quote at the start of the board, that was, as I have already told others here, if you read it you will see that it is not aimed at nudists or naturists. It is aimed at the fanatic set - Bethell, Gough and Co - who insist that they aren't nudists at all.

They have two similar boards on Yahoo! called "gobare" and "stopsegregation". My address was intended to be a bit of a rallying cry - a way of finding people who are likeminded to myself - people who are willing to stand up and be counted against these extremists. I can't understand why you see my stand as being hostile to the genuine and considerate nudists who post here. It is no such thing.

Cyndiann - maybe I have a problem with nudity. But you have a problem with fairness.

Stu (still an honorary nudist and PROUD of it)

[P & C]

I would like to add a second voice of support to bigbadron in support of Stu's standpoint. I simply can't believe that the way to promote social nudism in America is to force it upon everyone to understand something that is appealing to a relatively small percentage of the poplulation. We live in a society that values conformity at worst, respects diversity AT BEST! If I expect Stu to respect my right to be nude, I need to respect his right to be clothed. And I still maintain that there is a LARGE percentage of the population (perhaps, myself included) that doesn't consider themselves as much nudist, but moreso as those who simply enjoy the rights for nude recreation. Desert Shadows in Palm Springs has illustrated this brilliantly marketing to a crowd that comes and bares all for the weekend - then returns to their otherwise routine clothed lives. Like it or not, most of the mainstream public is married to these routine lives and will be repelled by the intolerance of some proponents of nudism. I always thought nudity had more to do with freedom - - allowing people to dress, undress, or anything in between when the situation is appropriate to do so.

Sorry for Stu that he can't enjoy the sensual effect of walking on a nude beach - but excited for Stu that he has a system that works within his family and that from all we can tell, mutual respect within that family is fully operational.

So there it is! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Paul

Thanks for your input, bigbadron and Paul.

If you want to look at my "Prudes" board you can find it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prudes/messages

I only set it up yesterday. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to the discussion but there aren't too many of us involved just yet. Please bear in mind that it was not set up as a response to the discussion here, but the activities of the thoroughly antisocial (and anti-nudist!) Stop Segregation movement.

Another really interesting article can be found here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26403

Stu

[MikeJB]

That article was a bunch of crap! I cant beleive anyone would buy into that modesty stuff. I mean when people get to the point where they question priceless artworks and sculptures made by professional artists just because they are nude and some people cant control their hormones, thats the point when i think most people will draw the line. I mean its one thing to cloth people but to put clothes on statues just because people dont like seeing a figmentation of genitals is just stupid. The damned statues look more ridiculous in drab than they ever did naked. Im sure if their creators were alive today, there'd be lawsuits up the kazoo for half these people. I bet these are the same sickos and extremeists that want to ban christmas just because they feel it somehow goes against our separation of church and state. This madness really has got to stop and people like Ashcroft need to get a life or if those statues really piss him off so much, why doesnt he just do his speeches elsewhere? Nobody said he had to do them in front of those statues. There is something very wrong with our society when we get to the point where we cant even look at priceless artworks without feeling shame or disgust.

[florida-david]

maybe whatever ashcroft says is such dribble that the journalists are more interested in the statues. i would suggest that ashcroft move his speeches to a more boring location (like a white box with fluorescent lights) or lively up his speeches so the journalists are not so darn bored. what a moronic article (and uncover those statues already, they are art!)

as for stu, i like to hear his viewpoint, it makes me feel better about my viewpoints which are usually the polar opposite of stu's. his beliefs are so silly that it seems as though he is a puritan coming off the boat hundreds of years ago. as long as his posts are short and to the point, i will read them as he is also a good writer....

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
By far the most eminent child psychiatrist of our time was Dr Benjamin Spock. If I remember rightly he expressed the view that it was unhealthy for children to see naked adults - including their own parents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be eminent is not always to be wise. Nor free from prejudices.

[Jochanaan]

I agree with MikeJB about statues (and paintings and photographs). The visual arts have a long heritage of nudity, and such things can be a legitimate avenue for young people to satisfy their curiosity about what the human body looks like. (They were for me.) Granted, there are some works by Old Masters/Mistresses that border on pornography; but the majority of nudes in museums are celebrations of the most beautiful things in the world: human bodies, male or female.

P.S. Mike, your posts are getting more readable!

""Stu, you don't even admit your own problems,"

I don't have any problems.

riiiiight! ROFLOL!

Since this is supposed to be a nudist forum, I for one don't see what Stu adds to it other than someone for people to argue with since we aren't going to change our minds, and I doubt that he's going to change his. I don't read his posts other than to sometimes skim over them to see if he's quoted anything I've said which, fortunately, he seldom does.

[Bob S.]

nudeM, cyndiann was not insulting stu when she said that he was "selectively blind" in regards to his children and their issues with nudiy. She was, in fact, right on in her assessment of the situation. A deaf person cannot teach about music. A blind person cannot talk about colors. A gymnophobe cannot accurately judge whether his views on nudity have hurt or benefitted his children.

"But, as Freud is probably the world's most famous psychiatrist and is known as the "father of psychoanalysis" I'm not sure we can dismiss him quite so easily and just come up with another psychiatrist (e.g. Dr Lee Salk) and hold his opinions up as the expert and unarguable truth."

I never said that Dr. Salk's opinions are the unarguable truth. And yes, Freud was a great psychologist. And he has the right to be revered by his contributions to the field of psychology. But his ideas of the psychosexual stages have been and are being debunked. Englishman John Locke who was a philosopher, came up with the tabula rasa theory where he believed that children were born with virtually no personality and that how they developed was based entirely on the environment. That has been debunked. Just because someone was influential in their time does not mean that they were right. Just that they were outgoing and convincing.

"I don't mind seeing someone nude where it is appropriate...The thought of seeing someone nude on a beach fills me with revulsion."

But someone on a nude beach is somewhere appropriate. So you shouldn't mind seeing someone naked there. And what about seeing a woman naked? If you had no problems, you would not react so vitriolically when you see a naked woman approach.

"I don't have any problems."

You just avoid them.

"I simply can't believe that the way to promote social nudism in America is to force it upon everyone to understand something that is appealing to a relatively small percentage of the poplulation."

Paul, no one here has said differently. We would like to have that right and are asking that the population decide when it is acceptable. Take the legalities out of it. When referring to Steve, Vincent, and Co, they are doing something differently. They are more interested in overturning the laws using the legal system. They are not promoting social acceptance. For the most part, everyone here is promoting social acceptance, but we can also root for those who have the opportunity to overturn laws that we feel are wrong.

In reference to the article:

That exemplifies this country's attitudes toward nudity. Ashcroft's attitude is that the statues' nakedness is a distraction, so he is going to cover them instead of accepting that he will be in a photo with them. The photographers' attitudes are about getting Ashcroft in a picture with "the boobies." Almost like they are salivating to find that perfect picture. Both are being a bit immature.

Bob S.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
P.S. Mike, your posts are getting more readable! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, a little, maybe. But if he'd concentrate a little more on saying what "he means" the first time, they could be a hell of a lot shorter! "I mean" not as long, "I mean" less lengthy, "I mean" fewer redundant words, "I mean" ...

Mike

"That article was a bunch of crap! I cant beleive anyone would buy into that modesty stuff."

This isn't like you, Mike. Normally you offer a detailed critique and not just say things like "bunch of crap". I happen to agree with the thrust of the article.

I do actually agree wit you about dressing statues in clothes, though. That's a bit extreme. I find the statues revolting but other people seem to like them and covering them with cloth leaves one open to ridicule. As most people spend most of their lives clothed I fail to see the point of drawing, plainting or sculpturing them naked. People look MUCH nicer in clothes.

florida david

"his beliefs are so silly that it seems as though he is a puritan coming off the boat hundreds of years ago".

An atheist puritan. Hmm. That must be a first! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jochanaan

"Granted, there are some works by Old Masters/Mistresses that border on pornography;"

There are quite a few that are nothing other than pornography.

Bob

"nudeM, cyndiann was not insulting stu when she said that he was "selectively blind" in regards to his children and their issues with nudity....A gymnophobe cannot accurately judge whether his views on nudity have hurt or benefitted his children."

Cyndiann was certainly insulting me when she suggested that I was talking to myself on my Prudes board! That was wrong, nasty and there was no need for it. As for my ability to judge is concerned - well I didn't bring up my kids alone. My wife has no "issues" regarding nudity and she would agree that our kids have turned out entirely normal. My older kids are highly intelligent and self-aware. They know my views and they also know yours - they have read postings on here. My eldest daughter smirked when I told her that it had been suggested she has been brought up to have self-image or body acceptance problems. If I had gone wrong with them my wife would have told me in no uncertain terms and, by now, my older kids would have reflected that back to me.

The reason I mentioned Freud was the same as why I mentioned Spock. I was pointing out that psychiatrists can't agree among themselves so why should we choose one - i.e. Salk - and hold him up as the voice of truth and wisdom. I'm not suggesting that Freud, in spite of his eminence, was right in everything he published. I'm certain he wasn't.

"But someone on a nude beach is somewhere appropriate. So you shouldn't mind seeing someone naked there".

I wouldn't object to seeing someone nude on a nudist beach. But I don't go to nudist beaches, I go to textile beaches. It is not appropriate to be nude on a textile beach.

"And what about seeing a woman naked? If you had no problems, you would not react so vitriolically when you see a naked woman approach".

Yes I do detest seeing women naked so I avoid places where I would be likely to see them in that state.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
...As most people spend most of their lives clothed I fail to see the point of drawing, plainting or sculpturing them naked. People look MUCH nicer in clothes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that a fact, or an opinion? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To portray a human realistically, artists must understand not only his/her surface but the underlying structure. This is best done by "figure studies" or "life drawing," two synonyms for nudity. Even the smallest bathing suit interferes with the kind of seeing necessary to portray humans with real accuracy. And many artists, once they become accustomed to nudity in this context, spend their lives celebrating the naked human form. Renoir is one of the best examples; at every stage of his life he painted nudes, not pornographic, but sensuous in the best sense.

Stu, it might be interesting to know which of the Old Masters' works you consider pornographic.

(It might seem as if I've hijacked the topic, but artistic nudity does relate to being natural.)

trailscout

"Is that a fact, or an opinion?"

100% opinion.

"This is best done by "figure studies" or "life drawing," two synonyms for nudity".

Yes, I realise that. And I'm not saying that those people who draw (etc) nudes don't have great skill nor do I say they shouldn't do so. I just find it gross.

"And many artists, once they become accustomed to nudity in this context, spend their lives celebrating the naked human form."

I just wish they would concentrate on painting people with clothes on - create pictures that would be suitable to hang in my home or that wouldn't cause offence in public places.

"Renoir is one of the best examples; at every stage of his life he painted nudes, not pornographic, but sensuous in the best sense."

Hmm! I wonder how many times "sensuous" has been used as a euphemism for prurient.

"Stu, it might be interesting to know which of the Old Masters' works you consider pornographic".

I'm not entirely sure. There was a series on UK TV recently (it might still be running) about art and artists and they showed some of the works of classical painters from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century and many of them verged on being sexually graphic (showing things such as a rape). No doubt those wealthy men who commissioned these works told their wives hat they weren't porography - they were high art! LOL

Stu

[Kari P]

Stu,

"My older kids are highly intelligent and self-aware. They know my views and they also know yours - they have read postings on here."

I admire you for letting them know about your writing here and learn about naturism this way. If they catch some enthusiasm for reading more on the subject, then what could be the result?

"My eldest daughter smirked when I told her that it had been suggested she has been brought up to have self-image or body acceptance problems."

I don't remember that anyone here has suggested exactly that. We can admit that your style of upbringing doesn't necessarily cause any bad effects on them. What at the most can be proven in psychological research is that one way of upbringing has generally more beneficial effects than another.

Kari P

[Bob S.]

"People look MUCH nicer in clothes."

But people seem to ACT much nicer whilst naked.

"Cyndiann was certainly insulting me when she suggested that I was talking to myself on my Prudes board!"

I didn't say that comment was nice.

"As for my ability to judge is concerned - well I didn't bring up my kids alone."

And if you had, boy what a difference that would have been on all of you!

"They know my views and they also know yours - they have read postings on here."

Well, tell them that they are welcome here anytime. Mi forum es su forum (ok, so it isn't mi forum, but you get the drift).

"My eldest daughter smirked when I told her that it had been suggested she has been brought up to have self-image or body acceptance problems."

stu, I believe that anyone who is uncomfortable seeing the naked body has body acceptance problems. She may encounter them at work, but she can't at a beach. In my opinion, society has a body issue problem.

"I was pointing out that psychiatrists can't agree among themselves so why should we choose one - i.e. Salk - and hold him up as the voice of truth and wisdom."

I never said that. Rex never said that. No one said that. Rex was just using him as an example of a learned person who has a pro-nudist theory of raising children. As Rex explained, he gave "what is, not what may be, the result on children." This is also backed up by the Yale Child Study Center clinical professor of psychiatry, Kyle Puett, MD as seen in a small half-page article by Louise Tutelian in June/July 2003 edition of the magazine "Working Mother" entitled, Development; The Naked Truth on page 102 (sorry, had to get complete reference in).

"I wouldn't object to seeing someone nude on a nudist beach."

But you just told us that it would fill you with revulsion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bob S.

[Rex]

For some informed opinions, have a look at "The Hidden Effects of Sexual Guilt"
http://www.theinternetcollege.com/16.htm
[and] http://www.theinternetcollege.com/17.htm
As long as you stick to these two sites, Stu, you will get no nude photos whatsoever.

[FLslimguy]

The nude is a principal school of form. An overwhelming multiplicity of forms encompass us and all have bearing on the creative mind. We can justifiably single out the human body as the first school. How?.... For two reasons: The working principles of construction, articulation, proportion, diversity, and unity which drawing can disclose in the nude and the second reason is that the human body is the physical center of our world.
To deny an artist access to a nude model and to only "Paint models with clothes on" is the most assinine, prudish form of censorship I can imagine....and I have a great imagination....come on everyone...let's all head back into the 12th century!

Kari

"If they catch some enthusiasm for reading more on the subject, then what could be the result?"

That's upto them, Kari. If they told me they wanted to try naturism I'd be perfectly happy - I'd tell them I've heard that it's a very liberating experience and they'd meet some nice people.

"What at the most can be proven in psychological research is that one way of upbringing has generally more beneficial effects than another".

I know some psychiatrists have said that but I'm not sure that is actually a proven fact, Kari.

Bob S.

"But people seem to ACT much nicer whilst naked."

I'll have to take your word for that, Bob.

"I believe that anyone who is uncomfortable seeing the naked body has body acceptance problems. She may encounter them at work, but she can't at a beach. In my opinion, society has a body issue problem."

OK. But if people are happy as they are then it's not really a problem.

"Rex was just using him as an example of a learned person who has a pro-nudist theory of raising children."

I appreciate that, Bob, but I don't think there is an accepted view among psychiatrists or others in the field of child development that bringing up children either as naturists or as strict textiles (like ourselves) is better for children. So all we end up doing is swapping the names of academics who agree with our particular position.

ME: "I wouldn't object to seeing someone nude on a nudist beach."

"But you just told us that it would fill you with revulsion."

Sorry, I meant that I wouldn't have any legitimate objection to seeing someone nude on a nudist beach.

Rex

I read the articles on sexual guilt and found them quite interesting. I'm not sure how they are relevant to our discusion, though.

FLslimguy

Who wants "To deny an artist access to a nude model and to only "Paint models with clothes on"? Is that your Mr Ashcroft?

Personaly, I would never advocate anything like that. I admit I don't like to see representations of naked bodies in public places, but I wouldn't put clothes on them.

Stu

[FLslimguy]

You are missing my point entirely Stu.. You wrote:

I do actually agree wit you about dressing statues in clothes, though. That's a bit extreme. I find the statues revolting but other people seem to like them and covering them with cloth leaves one open to ridicule. As most people spend most of their lives clothed I fail to see the point of drawing, plainting or sculpturing them naked. People look MUCH nicer in clothes.

Try rereading what I wrote. I think you keep putting out so many fires on this Forum that you are losing track of reality...if you haven't already.

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> OK. But if people are happy as they are then it's not really a problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ohhhhh Stu. You really can't mean that.

Steve

[Bob S.]

"But if people are happy as they are then it's not really a problem."

So people in the KKK have no problem? People who prefer to segregate according to skin color have no problem? People who refuse homosexuals admittance to their businesses have no problem? People who are intolerant of differing religious beliefs have no problem?

Note: most of these are beliefs, not actions.

"but I don't think there is an accepted view among psychiatrists or others in the field of child development that bringing up children either as naturists or as strict textiles (like ourselves) is better for children."

That's because very few studies have been done on it. But of the ones done, all point to familial nudity being healthier. In fact, the article I referred to in my previous message (found at Working Mother (http://www.workingmother.com/june03/June03.learning.shtml) ) states that A parent who is comfortable in her own skin will relay that message to a child. A parent who reacts with embarrassment or anger may leave a lasting impression that a body is something to be ashamed of.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"But if people are happy as they are then it's not really a problem."

So people in the KKK have no problem? People who prefer to segregate according to skin color have no problem? People who refuse homosexuals admittance to their businesses have no problem? People who are intolerant of differing religious beliefs have no problem?

Note: most of these are beliefs, not actions.

"but I don't think there is an accepted view among psychiatrists or others in the field of child development that bringing up children either as naturists or as strict textiles (like ourselves) is better for children."

That's because very few studies have been done on it. But of the ones done, all point to familial nudity being healthier. In fact, the article I referred to in my previous message (found at "Development: The Naked Truth", the last of four articles) Working Mother (http://www.workingmother.com/june03/June03learning.shtml) ) states that A parent who is comfortable in her own skin will relay that message to a child. A parent who reacts with embarrassment or anger may leave a lasting impression that a body is something to be ashamed of.

Bob S.

[Rex]

Hi Stu,
I commented previously that teaching an 8 year old girl that nudity or partial nudity is "rude", has similarities to the well known scenario, where a girl has been indoctrinated that "nice girls don't do that" [ie have sex], and, after marriage, goes on to have psychological sex problems.
I believe the articles on sexual guilt are very relevant to this part of our discussion.
Stu, you are intelligent, observant and quite capable of seeing correlations. I sometimes get the feeling that, when it suits your purpose, you just pretend not to understand.
Politicians and bureaucrats sometimes refuse to "see" obvious relevances. This is because they neither want to acknowledge them, nor address them. Could that be the case with you?
Your constant assertions that your own children are, in no way, adversely affected by your attitudes may very well be true. I hope so, for their sakes. But to just assume that, and go on your merry way, is akin to saying, "Well, my old dad smoked like a chimney, and he was as fit as a fiddle, and he lived to be 99", with the obvious implication that tobacco health warnings are nonsense, and can safely be ignored.