The Law: My Suggestion

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

I take it you get a kick out of being seen nude by children and women..

We have a word for that..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah and so do I.... it's called flaming and you've been warned about that.

[DoubleRK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not quite. I am saying that any behaviour that the majority finds offensive should not be permitted in public places. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then by your "logic" blacks should have been given equal but seperate facilities since the "majority" found their presence "offensive". And before you start on "they can't help their skin color" let me point out that their skin color wasn't the problem, the "problem" was they wanted to use the same facilities as everyone else but many people found their mere PRESENCE offensive. For that matter, it wasn't even the majority that felt this way, but the ones who DID feel this way were the most vocial so they got laws enacted to ensure these "black" people didn't cause THEM offense. In other words, they weren't opposed to BEING "black" but rather they were opposed to "blacks" sharing THEIR facilities. Another one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. The same thing you are suggesting apply to naturists, you aren't opposed to them BEING nude, you are just opposed to them being nude in YOUR presence or where YOU (or someone else that might be offended) can see them.

[DoubleRK]

cyndiann

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

I believe our society would break down if something like this was common place. Most people wouldn't want to go out in public. I wouldn't like to take a child to the playground..and see some guy hanging around there nude.

The damage this concept of public nudity would cause would just be..

Imagine..as a woman..being on a crowded bus..with a bunch of nude men in it and near me!!! And if someone was aroused....

Imagine...as a woman..going to a public swimming pool..and being confronted with nude men in the pool.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to me I've heard that before, just replace the word "nude" with "black" and it's almost the exact same thing people were worried about THEN. That's why I don't respond to Rocket any longer, seems she only wants to agrue.

DoubleRK

"And before you start on "they can't help their skin color" let me point out that their skin color wasn't the problem, the "problem" was they wanted to use the same facilities as everyone else but many people found their mere PRESENCE offensive."

If one group wants to keep itself separate from other groups then I don't have a problem with that. This happens in some countries of the world (e.g. certain groups in India) and with some religions. Provided that no group is either especially priviledged and no group is disadvantaged then segregation is fine by me. If I were black the last thing I'd want to do is to live among white racists!

"For that matter, it wasn't even the majority that felt this way, but the ones who DID feel this way were the most vocial so they got laws enacted to ensure these "black" people didn't cause THEM offense."

So what's the problem? I'm calling for the will of the majority to reign supreme, not the will of a minority, no matter how vocal.
Your analogy has just collapsed by your own words! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"In other words, they weren't opposed to BEING "black" but rather they were opposed to "blacks" sharing THEIR facilities."

OK, so provide this racist minority with their own facilities - just for them! But, as they are a minority, they won't get anything like as many or as good facilities as the majority, i.e. the blacks combined with the non-racist whites. If people wish to be separate from others, let them.

"Another one of those "out of sight, out of mind" things. The same thing you are suggesting apply to naturists, you aren't opposed to them BEING nude, you are just opposed to them being nude in YOUR presence or where YOU (or someone else that might be offended) can see them."

Exactly!!! I'm not against naturists at all. They are welcome to share my local park and enjoy my favourite beaches - just so long as they don't expose themselves in my presence. If they wish to be nude then that's fine too - just not anywhere that I or anyone else who is likely to be offended is likely to be. I'm glad you can see my position. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stu

[naturalmanwa]

First of all, I have been around racists of all colors. Not all are white or black, and as long as they act in a civil manner I get along with them even if I don't agree with their thinking. The same goes for people opposed to nudity---I feel they have a right to their thoughts but I don't think anyone has the right to force their opinion on anyone else. Discuss it, yes.

naturalmanwa

I appreciate your input. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The same goes for people opposed to nudity---I feel they have a right to their thoughts but I don't think anyone has the right to force their opinion on anyone else. Discuss it, yes."

I agree. What do you think about people forcing others to endure their nudity upon other people who find it offensive or shocking?

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
What do you think about people forcing others to endure their nudity upon other people who find it offensive or shocking? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you EVER explain why anyone finds simple nudity offensive or shocking in the first place? Is it the shape? The hair? The difference from their own body? Did God make a mistake somewhere?

[averagejoe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>STU2630:

So what's the problem? I'm calling for the will of the majority to reign supreme, not the will of a minority, no matter how vocal.
Your analogy has just collapsed by your own words <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought I read in one of your earlier posts that the first group of people to arrive at a place shouldn't set the undress code. But what happens if the majority of people at, say, a hot spring want to be nude? Should they cover up when one clothing-obsessed individual shows up? If we have twenty nudists, do they have to cover up when one clothing obsessive individual comes along?

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by averagejoe:
[QUOTE]If we have twenty nudists, do they have to cover up when one clothing obsessive individual comes along? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good question! We need protection from that "one clothing obsessive individual".

Soundman

"Can you EVER explain why anyone finds simple nudity offensive or shocking in the first place? Is it the shape? The hair? The difference from their own body?"

The offence experienced is a conditioned emotion brought about as a result of a mixture of parental values and long-established cultural and societal norms. Are such feelings based on pure logic? No. But the feelings are nontheless experienced and consequently are real and significant to the individual.

"Did God make a mistake somewhere?"

Are you saying that there is some supreme being that designed the human form? Can you prove that?

averagejoe

"I thought I read in one of your earlier posts that the first group of people to arrive at a place shouldn't set the undress code. But what happens if the majority of people at, say, a hot spring want to be nude? Should they cover up when one clothing-obsessed individual shows up? If we have twenty nudists, do they have to cover up when one clothing obsessive individual comes along?"

If it's not at a recognised naturist venue - yes. Otherwise all naturists would have to do is go in sufficient numbers to any venue they liked and decide that it would be clothing optional, thus making the place inaccessible to textiles. Just imagine two bus-loads of textiles deciding to go to an established naturist beach and telling the naturists they were outnumbered so they had better cover up.

The 'majority' I was talking about wasn't the majority of people present at a venue - it was the societal majority. It is because the majority in society are textiles that the default dress code in public places (other than naturist venues) should be clothing-compulsory.

Stu

[Boreas]

"The offence experienced is a conditioned emotion brought about as a result of a mixture of parental values and long-established cultural and societal norms. Are such feelings based on pure logic? No. But the feelings are nontheless experienced and consequently are real and significant to the individual."

You know Stu, a conditioned or learned emotion can be unlearned or modified. We are able to change, maybe not easily, we can change.

Still-Boreas

"You know Stu, a conditioned or learned emotion can be unlearned or modified. We are able to change, maybe not easily, we can change."

I know that - many here have made such a change from being textiles to being nudists. That was their choice.

I myself had to make a far more radical change in childhood from being one type of person with a name and a set of habits, values and expectations to being an entirely different sort of person with a different name, different hair, different clothing, and even different toys! I even had to learn how to speak and walk in a different way! I had to abandon everything I was and become someone else practically overnight - not easy for anyone, especially a child. That was a difficult and painful process. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But most of us don't have any wish to 'unlearn' our attitude towards nudity because it's a part of our make-up, part of what we are. It probably sounds strange, but I think you'll find that the majority of textiles prefer to find nudity offensive rather than experience it as mundane.

Does that make sense????

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Are such feelings based on pure logic? No."

That is what I am saying. Let's get logical!!

"Are you saying that there is some supreme being that designed the human form? Can you prove that?"

Yes, we are here aren't we? The proof is in the result.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Bartamus]

To all who are posting here. After 260 posts..we believe this particular thread may have run it's course. Plus you're delving into religious arguments and that definetly belongs on the Nudity and Religion thread.
We don't plan to shut this discussion down..but we're encouraging you all to move on.
the Mgmt.

[missouriboy]

stu

"No. My position is reasonable and my proposals ought, if they were followed, keep everyone happy. If you can offer an alternative that would grant naturists the rights they want whilst guaranteeing that no offence will be caused to textiles the let's hear it.

Well?"

Guarantee no offense! Indeed. I already gave you my opinion of those who whine "that offends me" in another post addressed directly to you, but you ignored it. Must have contained too much logic.

"Are you saying that there is some supreme being that designed the human form? Can you prove that?"

Can you prove that mankind designed itself? Let's see... some man, somewhere, who already existed, designed himself into existence /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Hmmmmmm...

missouriboy

"Guarantee no offense! Indeed. I already gave you my opinion of those who whine "that offends me" in another post addressed directly to you, but you ignored it. Must have contained too much logic."

Yes your "logic" demonstrated by your attitude to those of us who experience offence - to you it seems we're just "whiners" and should get over it. I think the same about naturists who have to cover up when using public places.

Out of respect for the administrator's request not to get onto religious topics here I won't respond to your religious question about who created man except by inviting you to ask yourself that if it was God, then who created God? Well, you claim to be the logical one. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu