Topfreedom in Europe

[www.topfreeaction.com]

Although Europe is still "topless paradise" there are certain signs that things could be changed in future:

-these days POLAND police started to ticket topless women on their beaches on north of the country
-few weeks ago in SPAIN, Costa Brava, initiative for forbiding toplessnes on beaches started
-last year ITALY tryed to outlaw topless sunbathing (so far without success)
-also last year, in FRANCE, Paris, topless was forbiden on artificial beach on Siena river
-in GREECE topless on the beaches is tolerated but still illegal and police, if someone ask that, can ask from woman to put top on
-last year, in Albania, group of Scandinavian women was arrested (or just warned, don`t know) for being topless on the beach

[www.topfreeaction.com]

Although Europe is still "topless paradise" there are certain signs that things could be changed in future:

-these days POLAND police started to ticket topless women on their beaches on north of the country
-few weeks ago in SPAIN, Costa Brava, initiative for forbiding toplessnes on beaches started
-last year ITALY tryed to outlaw topless sunbathing (so far without success)
-also last year, in FRANCE, Paris, topless was forbiden on artificial beach on Siena river
-in GREECE topless on the beaches is tolerated but still illegal and police, if someone ask that, can ask from woman to put top on
-last year, in Albania, group of Scandinavian women was arrested (or just warned, don`t know) for being topless on the beach

[hm0504]

These news reports are very unfortunate -- one of the strongest defences the West has against terrorism is body freedom.

[hm0504]

topfreeaction, welcome to CFF. Your news links are much appreciated (btw, links to sources along with the headlines would be helpful).

Please tell us a bit more about yourself if you feel comfortable doing so.

[nakedjohn]

Well, Belgium is still topless!!

[www.topfreeaction.com]

Thanks for welcome !

Ok, we will put links to all news that we post in future - actually we didn`t do it this time only because we wanted to "force" you to take a look on our new page as all links for news mentioned above are there, except those about beaches in Albania and Paris - we will add those two too soon.

As you can note I am writing "WE this", "WE that" because there are more of us under this nickname but we are all involved in "topfree action".

[Stu2630]

I wonder if toplessness was just a fad which is now slowly fading and becoming unfashionable. Two or three years ago, a Danish newspaper did a double-page feature asking this question. The researcher showed that, about a decade before, a woman who was wearing a top on a Danish beach was the exception whereas she found that only about one in five were topless. Here in the UK, toplessness did become popular on some beaches in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but it's now fairly rare to see a woman exposing her breasts on a non-naturist British beach - especially a popular beach.

My wife reckons one of the reasons is that women who have particularly attractive figures enhance their looks by wearing striking bikinis, leaving the older or over-weight women being the ones most likely to let it all hang out. When such women see their younger and slimmer counterparts looking nicer in swimwear, they are more likely to follow suit. I think my wife may have a point.

Stu

[eaglepeakpete]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.topfreeaction.com: (http://www.topfreeaction.com:)
Although Europe is still "topless paradise" there are certain signs that things could be changed in future:

-these days POLAND police started to ticket topless women on their beaches on north of the country
-few weeks ago in SPAIN, Costa Brava, initiative for forbiding toplessnes on beaches started
-last year ITALY tryed to outlaw topless sunbathing (so far without success)
-also last year, in FRANCE, Paris, topless was forbiden on artificial beach on Siena river
-in GREECE topless on the beaches is tolerated but still illegal and police, if someone ask that, can ask from woman to put top on
-last year, in Albania, group of Scandinavian women was arrested (or just warned, don`t know) for being topless on the beach </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They willnot get away with it in Spain here you have a civil right to be nude anywhere.
A man was recently arrested for walking around Barcelona nude when it went to court the judge fined the policeman for arresting the man, saying there was no case to answer.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
My wife reckons one of the reasons is that women who have particularly attractive figures enhance their looks by wearing striking bikinis, leaving the older or over-weight women being the ones most likely to let it all hang out. When such women see their younger and slimmer counterparts looking nicer in swimwear, they are more likely to follow suit. I think my wife may have a point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm ... there may be a kernel of truth in that. But it seems to me that the women most likely to go topfree are the least vain, so not as likely to be swayed by the good looks of 'younger and slimmer' women. However - the relentless and increasing media message to women about how their bodies should look, and the impossibility of the average, or even spectacularly above average woman to measure up to the imaginary standard set by the media probably has more to do with the reluctance to toss aside their concerns and 'let it all hang out'.

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

Even what you see on live video may not be totally true because of high speed digital image manipulation that can make people look slimmer than they really are.

A lot of people that we think have perfect skin are actually spending a lot of time with professional make-up artists in order to look that good. Very few people will ever come close to that in every day life.

[Hasse]

Poland, Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Albania, and only a small part of most of those countries, is a very low percentage of all places in Europe.
So don´t be afraid that topless or c/o will disappear.

[MoonShadow]

Women (and men) have to get beyond all the media and social hype about whether or not their bodies are up to "standards". People should be able to enjoy nudism regardless of what they look like and not be scorned or ridiculed if they do not "look nice" or are "attractive". It is about freedom to be natural and with that comes all degrees of what is natural including how we look.

It is tough for many to rise above all of this but once one does, a true sense of freedom is felt and lived out. It is a great frame of mind to be in.

[Dick Springer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Women (and men) have to get beyond all the media and social hype about whether or not their bodies are up to "standards". People should be able to enjoy nudism regardless of what they look like and not be scorned or ridiculed if they do not "look nice" or are "attractive". It is about freedom to be natural and with that comes all degrees of what is natural including how we look.

It is tough for many to rise above all of this but once one does, a true sense of freedom is felt and lived out. It is a great frame of mind to be in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Body acceptance is the basic value of the Naturist Society. Think of all the misery this other garbage causes, primarily to women.

[www.topfreeaction.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hasse:
Poland, Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Albania, and only a small part of most of those countries, is a very low percentage of all places in Europe.
So don´t be afraid that topless or c/o will disappear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s true what you are saying for Spain and France that only small part of these countries MIGHT have problems in future with topless women but things are different with other mentioned countries where, by or knowledge, topless women are prohibited by law on all their territories (tolerated although in Italy and Grece). I would like not to be correct on that one.

Unfortunately you are so correct when saying that less and less women are topless because of media TERROR for "how you must look to be considered atractive". This influence on women is quiet devastating, not only when beach is concerned. I hope that none will feel insulted if I say that in quite big part of Europe, I dare to say in fact in bigest part of Europe, "syliconized" women are considered freaks. I hope that sylicone will dissapear from face of breasts one day, for ever. Of course, this doesn`t go for victims of breast cancer for example who had to go through mastectomy.

NATURE RULES, get rid of plastic butchers ! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[MoonShadow]

Bravo, topfree! Yes, let's let our breasts be natural and unaugmented unless there are medical reasons.

It is refreshing to hear that in a large part of Europe silicone breasts are not liked. There are loads of American women with them and they are just not natural at all!

I liked your quote! Nature does rule!!!!!!

[Stu2630]

I am 100% in agreement with breasts being natural. To undergo surgery is quite a drastic step to take, and shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Like men, all women are made with a slightly different shape and that's how they should be.

I have no problem with there being topless beaches but there should also be beaches where people can avoid the sight of topless women. Personally, I prefer to see females in swimsuits and with their breasts covered - especially when I'm with my kids.

It's a big world and there's space enough to cater for all preferences. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Yes, Stu, there is a lot of room to cater to different preferences.

I do need to ask one question and that is why would you not want your children to see women's breasts? Not asking to start an argument or a disagreement but just curious as to why a male's bare chest would be okay but not a woman's bare chest.

And you are right, breast augmentation should never be taken lightly.

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

I suppose it's because I have always regarded women's breasts as an intimate part of the human anatomy. Men don't generally have "breast tissue" as such, albeit they may have an accumulation of fatty tissue in the same area, usually caused by obesity of hormonal imbalance. As I consider female breasts to be intimate, and I don't like the idea of my children seeing the intimate parts of adults, it follows that I prefer for them not to encounter bare breasts. Does that make sense? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

Just as we are all different in shape, so we are all different in values, beliefs and preferences and there is plenty of space to cater for us all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Stu

[garbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MoonShadow:
I do need to ask one question and that is why would you not want your children to see women's breasts? Not asking to start an argument or a disagreement but just curious as to why a male's bare chest would be okay but not a woman's bare chest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "idealist" says.. there is nothing more beautiful than the human form that was created in God's image. Therefore, logically, there should be nothing illegal or immoral about exposing breasts! The "realist" says.. we live in a society that sexualizes women's breasts and it is illegal to expose them in public.

Are you an idealist or realist when it comes to raising your children???

[Pete Knight]

And therein lies the problem, when misguided people see women's breasts as intimate playthings whilst babies see them as as source of nourishment, makes you wonder if we still have the common sense we were born with!!!

The sole function of breasts is to nourish babies, do any other mammals have the same fixation with mammaries?

The only reason they are source of titillation is because we humans insist on covering them up, but now we are back to the same old story of why women wear bra's, because the manufacturers perpetuate the myth that women need support when in fact the bra causes the degradation of supportive muscle leaving many women dependant on bra's for the rest of their lives.

Pete Knight

[MoonShadow]

Yes, Stu, as you see and define women's breasts I see your viewpoint regarding children seeing bare female breasts.

But now, here's a question or two.....what happen to make us in this culture/society so sexually dsyfunctioning? I mean, to think women's breasts are sex organs/intimate parts of their bodies - that is sexual dsyfunctioning. Why are we still holding on to archaic ways of thinking the human body is sexual? (If you are nude, to many non-nudists, it is sexual; if you are clothed, with the fashions today, it is sexual?)

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sole function of breasts is to nourish babies, do any other mammals have the same fixation with mammaries?

The only reason they are source of titillation is because we humans insist on covering them up, but now we are back to the same old story of why women wear bra's, because the manufacturers perpetuate the myth that women need support when in fact the bra causes the degradation of supportive muscle leaving many women dependant on bra's for the rest of their lives.
Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not quite, Pete. The females of all other mammillian species do not have extended mammary glands except while suckling their young. Human femalse have developed permanently enlarged breasts as a sexual display, similar to bright bird feathers or the pink rear displayed by some monkey species females.

Other mammals, the ones that walk on 4 feet, females do their sexual display with primary sex organs that are at eye and nose level. A mare, monkey, or lioness can turn her behind toward the intended male and display her readiness for mating. Not so with human females. When human ancestors stood up females lost their primary sexual display. Her primary sex organs are hidden between her legs and way below our noses.

To compensate for the loss of sexual display, successful human females adapted. Over many generations human famale breasts became enlarged permanently, an evolutionarily adapted sexual display. The only purpose of permanently enlarged breasts is for sexual display, not for nursing children.

However that still doesn't mean that clothing should be required. Human females manage to do lots of sexual display no matter what they are wearing. And, in fact, clothing is often more of a display than being naked.

Blessings

Bob

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Why are we still holding on to archaic ways of thinking the human body is sexual? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course bodies are sexual. If they weren't our species would have gone extinct millons of years ago. But its okay to be sexual. Acceptance of our bodies means accpetance of our inherrent and natural sexuality as well as everything else. Denying our inherrent physical sexuality and/or pretending that it is either "bad" or doesn't exist is what is dysfunctional.

Blessings

Bob

[Pete Knight]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sole function of breasts is to nourish babies, do any other mammals have the same fixation with mammaries?

The only reason they are source of titillation is because we humans insist on covering them up, but now we are back to the same old story of why women wear bra's, because the manufacturers perpetuate the myth that women need support when in fact the bra causes the degradation of supportive muscle leaving many women dependant on bra's for the rest of their lives.
Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not quite, Pete. The females of all other mammillian species do not have extended mammary glands except while suckling their young. Human femalse have developed permanently enlarged breasts as a sexual display, similar to bright bird feathers or the pink rear displayed by some monkey species females.

Other mammals, the ones that walk on 4 feet, females do their sexual display with primary sex organs that are at eye and nose level. A mare, monkey, or lioness can turn her behind toward the intended male and display her readiness for mating. Not so with human females. When human ancestors stood up females lost their primary sexual display. Her primary sex organs are hidden between her legs and way below our noses.

To compensate for the loss of sexual display, successful human females adapted. Over many generations human famale breasts became enlarged permanently, an evolutionarily adapted sexual display. The only purpose of permanently enlarged breasts is for sexual display, not for nursing children.

However that still doesn't mean that clothing should be required. Human females manage to do lots of sexual display no matter what they are wearing. And, in fact, clothing is often more of a display than being naked.

Blessings

Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob
A wonderfully well thought out theory, but I don't buy into it.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But now, here's a question or two.....what happen to make us in this culture/society so sexually dsyfunctioning? I mean, to think women's breasts are sex organs/intimate parts of their bodies - that is sexual dsyfunctioning. Why are we still holding on to archaic ways of thinking the human body is sexual? (If you are nude, to many non-nudists, it is sexual; if you are clothed, with the fashions today, it is sexual?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MoonShadow

I'm not sure that we are "sexually dysfunctioning". We humans are far more complex than our fellow mammals and we associate sex with the complexity of relationships and even with love. Womens breasts are a source of arousal, not just for men who like to look at them and touch them, but also for the women who like having them touched - and that pleasure is at the same time sensual and sexual. I'm not convinced the same can be said of animals. My female great dane rolls onto her back and loves it when I rub her chest, but I seriously doubt she finds it sexually arousing and would not expect a male dog to engage with her chest as part of mating foreplay. Bob has explained this in far more detail and with far more knowledge on the subject than I can offer, but I do like and can well believe the theory he supplies.

The same logic applies when nudists ask why non-nudists (like me) associate nudity with sex. Of course, that's not an entirely fair question because we don't always make such an association. When I shower alone, it's not sexual. If I see guys naked in the locker room, it's definitely not sexual. If I see a naked child, it's not sexual. If I entered a geriatric ward and saw an elderly female patient in a state of undress, I promise you that my mind would be a very long way from sex. So when do most non-nudists see adult, non-elderly members of the opposite sex naked? The answer is that generally only happens prior to sexual activity. It's a bit like the famous Pavlov's salivating dog syndrome - it's hardly surprising that non-nudists associate such nudity with sex.

Maybe your third question will be whether I think such an outlook is a healthy way to perceive the naked human form. Personally, I don't think it is either healthy or unhealthy - it's just a matter of perception. Whether they actually realise it or not, non-nudists enjoy the stimulation they get from seeing naked members of the opposite sex and they would be bound to lose some of that if nudity became commonplace. Consciously or otherwise, I think that's a major reason why we textiles don't embrace nudism.

Stu

[BlobbyBob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
Whether they actually realise it or not, non-nudists enjoy the stimulation they get from seeing naked members of the opposite sex and they would be bound to lose some of that if nudity became commonplace. Consciously or otherwise, I think that's a major reason why we textiles don't embrace nudism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that logic every nudist has absolutely no sex drive, because seeing each other naked is so 'commonplace' that they can't be aroused.
It is very different being nude with others in a situation where you are doing something, anything non-sexual, as opposed to 2 people being alone, in the privacy of wherever, engaging in whatever sexual acts together.

If you can't seperate the 2 things in your mind then it is your own problem. You are entitled to do and believe whatever you like, and if you don't want your children to see breasts because you find them sexual, it is your right. Doesn't mean that women shouldn't be free to go topless if they wish to do so. You should just avoid places where you are likely to see that.

[Pete Knight]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
Womens breasts are a source of arousal, not just for men who like to look at them and touch them, but also for the women who like having them touched - and that pleasure is at the same time sensual and sexual. I'm not convinced the same can be said of animals.
Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Stu

The stimulus that a female enjoys when her nipples are touched is all to do with making the nipples erect for feeding and to make the feeding process a pleasurable one, otherwise the baby would starve it mum got nothing for her troubles.
The pleasure human females get from nipple stimulus during sex is a bonus, we are the only creatures that adopt a different sexual position during mating, and we are the only creatures that enjoy recreational sex.

Humans have knowledge, they know that baby has to be fed, animals only have instinct so without the pleasurable stimulus they would go off the process and baby would suffer.

That one is my theory Bob, how did you like it?

Pete Knight

[BlobbyBob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
we are the only creatures that enjoy recreational sex </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure I've heard that dolphins and certain primates do it too.

[Stu2630]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By that logic every nudist has absolutely no sex drive, because seeing each other naked is so 'commonplace' that they can't be aroused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not the logic I'm using. A non-nudist can find the sight of an elegantly or provocatively dressed woman to be very sexy - just as sexy as a woman who is naked. The same can be said, I am sure, for a non-nudist. A sailor who has been on an all-male ship for many months will find even a plain woman attractive, and he would be less likely to regard her as anything other than a potential sex object. A man who works as a hairdresser for a modelling agency may become blasé about the sight of beautiful women. Non-nudists very rarely see naked women other than prior to or during sex, so they are bound to make a strong association between nudity and sex. A nudist, on the other hand, may associate the same nudity with relaxing on a nudist beach.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you can't seperate the 2 things in your mind then it is your own problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can separate them in my rational mind - the question is do I want to? Do I want to destroy that association which may be a source of pleasure?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are entitled to do and believe whatever you like, and if you don't want your children to see breasts because you find them sexual, it is your right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just that I find them sexual - women's breasts are widely regarded in our culture as sexual and we tend to keep our children away from sexual things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doesn't mean that women shouldn't be free to go topless if they wish to do so. You should just avoid places where you are likely to see that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I entirely agree - so long as there are such places that I can go to where I can be confident that neither my children nor I will see naked breasts (etc). As I said to MoonShadow - it's a big world and there is plenty of space to accommodate all tastes, values and preferences.

Pete

I don't disagree with anything you have said - but I don't see it as incompatible with Bob's theory, either.

You are both right! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Stu

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
The stimulus that a female enjoys when her nipples are touched is all to do with making the nipples erect for feeding and to make the feeding process a pleasurable one, otherwise the baby would starve it mum got nothing for her troubles. The pleasure human females get from nipple stimulus during sex is a bonus, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many men like to have our nipples fondled too. Nipples are hard wired to primary sex organs. They are a good source of erotic stimulation for men as well as for women.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> we are the only creatures that adopt a different sexual position during mating, and we are the only creatures that enjoy recreational sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say Pete, you need to get out more and read some more. Bonobos, for example, do lots of sex for fun, and even have prostitution. Seems like lions and some other species also do recreational sex.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Humans have knowledge, they know that baby has to be fed, animals only have instinct so without the pleasurable stimulus they would go off the process and baby would suffer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't really accurate either. Many speices take advantage of extensive training from their parents.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That one is my theory Bob, how did you like it? Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good theory, Pete, but your knowledge of human anatomy, animal species, and animal behavior is not extensive.

blessings

Bob

[MoonShadow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">women's breasts are widely regarded in our culture as sexual and we tend to keep our children away from sexual things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you think that is a shame? Why does our culture make women's breasts sex-organs? They are not. (I am not discussing the pleasure that can be enjoyed by either male or female in sex-play) but why not have a culture that accepts topless women wherever men can be topless?

And this boggles my mind ....why would you keep your children away from the very source (seeing topless women) that began their nourishment on earth?

[Stu2630]

A shame? Good heavens no. I think it's wonderful!

If you want to reduce breasts to their most basic purpose, then yes, they were originally designed for feeding infants, just as a woman's finger and toe nails were designed as tools for such things as peeling fruit, climbing and as weapons. But that doesn't stop her lenthening and colouring her nails and so using them as a sexual allure. We have come a very long way since primitive times and nowadays we have a complex culture in which the female nails, breasts and other body parts play very different roles.

Girls love to have breasts and to display them in certain ways as they go into young adulthood. They can be a source of pride - a marker of femininity and thereby female identity and so on. We should not try to reduce them down to milk producing organs because they have become so much more than that. That's why so many women are eager to enhance their breasts with implants and it's why women are so devastated when they lose a breast, even though they are well past the age for suckling babies.

A woman's breasts are often involved in sexual activity, especially in foreplay, and they can't be disassociated from sex even if we wanted to do that. I reckon most people don't. A man's chest may be attractive to a woman, but it is far less sensuous and therefore less sexual and it is part of an overall physique rather than an attribute in its own right.

We have three children - all bottle fed (and extremely healthy and intelligent!). Even if they had been breast fed, that would have ceased within a year or so anyway, so they wouldn't have had any recollection of seeing breasts by the time they were old enough to take any notice, or to understand that breasts have another significance.

Women's breasts are a source of pleasure and joy not only for babies but for women and their partners. There is nothing wrong with that and I see no reason to change the status quo simply because a very small minority of women desire it. Nevertheless, fairness dictates that provision is made even for such minorities and it is only right that they should have beaches and other facilities where they need not wear their tops if they so choose. But those of us who prefer not to have to see bare breasts should also be considered, even if their attitude in this respect seems illogical. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

Your opinion is amazing. It is apparant that you show a great appreciation for sex and how wonderful it is.

You also think it is wonderful that a woman's breast can provide sexual attraction because you believe that sex is so wonderful.

Your attitude shows a very healthy appreciation for the gift that sexuality is. I think you have grown a lot. I think your opion is positive, upbeat, celebrating sexuality and the body. I agree with your approach and opinion. I am impressed.

[MoonShadow]

Stu -- no, I am not relegating women's breasts to just basic breastfeeding milk organs. Such is just one function of the female mammaries. You seem to think breasts should be defined as sex organs for sexual pleasure when, in reality, they are a part of the overall female body just as men's breasts are. And an added bonus is that both men's and women's breasts can be enjoyed sexually.

You also think men's breasts are just part of a man's overall physique but women's breasts simply because they are larger must be defined differently. How strange that such clear delineations are made between men's and women's breasts.

By the way, whether a woman has breasts or not has nothing to do with femininity. Femininity is a state of mind. Do your breasts define your masculinity? .

My point is that women should have the freedom to be top free anywhere a man is allowed to be top free.

Also, Stu, does a top free man bother you?

[MoonShadow]

Oh, by the way, Stu, you wrote you were not a nudist. Why, then, are you on this forum?

Are you thinking about becoming a nudist?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Oh, by the way, Stu, you wrote you were not a nudist. Why, then, are you on this forum?

Are you thinking about becoming a nudist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, Stu won't be becoming a nudist anytime soon. Although he is a confirmed 'textile', some of us have conferred the title of 'honorary nudist' upon him.

He stumbled upon this site several years ago while researching naturalism, and became fascinated by the odd group of interesting people here abouts.

Some of us appreciate Stu's well considered and often insightful posts, even when we strongly disagree with his viewpoint.

Please note that Stu is unfailingly polite and considerate, and sets a fine example of how to engage in collegial debate.

Stu's on the top of my list of good people I'd like to meet should I ever make it to the UK. I promise I'll keep my pants on.

-Mark

[www.topfreeaction.com]

Time for us to jump in this thread again. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Like first we noticed that all this went in wrong direction, discussing are female breasts sexual (what would mean "harmful for society and kids") or not sexual ("not harmful"). Female breasts, eyes, legs, hair, hands, nose, lips, ears, tongue etc. are all parts of sexuality. Sexuality is just another word for attraction, there is nothing wrong neither with sexuality neither with sex and it is not question "are topless women harmful for kids" but "is it dangerous for kids to be raised in a way to think that sexuality is bad?".

Also, there is no reason for comparing males and females chests as differences can`t be reason for discrimination. Fact that men have no breasts can`t be excuse for society to not allow women to show them (breasts). Women have no beard, so should men be forbiden to show their beards only because women don`t have them?

Also you mentioned that women should be careful with "enhancing their breasts with implants". "Enhacing" is word that doesn`t fit here. Sylicone can replace breast which was removed because of medical reasons - and we respect that. But healthy breast CAN`T be "enhanced" with implants: it can only be RUINED and DEFORMED with it. I will ask for apology in advance for my next statement: fact that there are men who likes sylicone "breasts" is best evidence of sexual dysfunction in our specie.

Must say that we really enjoy to read and participate in this nicely shaped and tolerant discussion. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Stu2630]

First, can I thank Walter and Mark for your kind comments! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

MoonShadow

I'm not 'defining' breasts as sex organs, I'm saying that they play a major part in sexual attraction, arousal and even sexual activity in humans - and it could be argued they are used more for this purpose in our society than they are for their original purpose which is somewhat sidelined. You may not like this alteration in their status but it is real, it's been around a long time and it isn't going to change any time soon. Young women don't choose certain bra designs to make their breasts look 'nourishing' to infants, but to attract men, and men don't look at a woman's breasts and think of the owner in the act of infant feeding. Breasts are very sexual in our culture - and most other advanced human cultures too.

Most men don't have "breasts" at all - they have chests. If they have enlarged tissue beneath the nipple, it isn't usually breast tissue it is fat, or pectoral muscle, or a combination of the two. Women generally find the sight of something resembling a soft breast on a man to be deeply unattractive and certainly not something which has a sexual role and they are a source of embarrassment to the men who have them, rather than a source of pride. So women's breasts and men's (supposed) breasts are very different entities, both physiologically and culturally, and so I don't think they should be regarded in the same way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the way, whether a woman has breasts or not has nothing to do with femininity. Femininity is a state of mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think femininity, like masculinity, is an ecletic mixture of attributes - some mental, some emotional, but some physical too. Femininity isn't just how we feel about ourselves - it is also how others perceive us - and they do that to some extent at least by our physical characteristics. Many women report that, after losing a breast (or both breasts) to cancer, they feel that part of their female identity has been taken from them. Other women who have very small breasts report that they seek enlargement because that helps them to feel more feminine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do your breasts define your masculinity? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My physique is certainly an important part of my masculinity. It is what reminds me that I am different to my wife and that we are complementary rather than alike.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point is that women should have the freedom to be top free anywhere a man is allowed to be top free. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know you believe that, but I don't agree with you because I am offended at the sight of female breasts and also I don't want my children to see them. You may want the right to go without a top because you find it more comfortable - but I am put at discomfort at the sight of that. So what's the answer? As I said before, there should be places where women can be top free and places where I can go without encountering toplessness. A bit of a compromise, but that way everyone's happy - surely? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, Stu, does a top free man bother you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, firstly because I am male so I can tolerate male-only nakedness, and secondly because I don't consider that a man's chest is an intimate part of his body.

Stu

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
No, firstly because I am male so I can tolerate male-only nakedness, and secondly because I don't consider that a man's chest is an intimate part of his body. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
An external body part should only be considered intimate if it is required for sex. Breasts on a female are not required in order for sex to occur. They are secondary characteristics and not primary.

Do you think that secondary characteristics need to be covered? Does this apply to both men and women? If not, why not?

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Do you think that secondary characteristics need to be covered? Does this apply to both men and women? If not, why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't think that secondary sexual characteristics, or primary sex organs of men or women need to be covered. Being ashamed of our physical sex and sex organs is psychologically defective, in my opinion.

Sure, bodies are sexual, always have been and always will be. That doesn't mean that well adjusted mentally stable people will be ashamed of themselves. Our biological sexuality needs to be faced, declared acceptable, and accepted.

Blessings

Bob

[Pete Knight]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Do you think that secondary characteristics need to be covered? Does this apply to both men and women? If not, why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't think that secondary sexual characteristics, or primary sex organs of men or women need to be covered. Being ashamed of our physical sex and sex organs is psychologically defective, in my opinion.

Sure, bodies are sexual, always have been and always will be. That doesn't mean that well adjusted mentally stable people will be ashamed of themselves. Our biological sexuality needs to be faced, declared acceptable, and accepted.

Blessings

Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there's something I agree 100% with you on Bob, its a sign of immaturity or sexual depravity if a guy can't see a naked woman without being able to control is urge to procreate, that's what sets us apart from the other mammalian creatures on this planet.

Pete Knight


Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

MJ_KC:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you think that secondary characteristics need to be covered? Does this apply to both men and women? If not, why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see the relevance of the scientifically determined 'primary' and 'secondary' sexual characteristics when discussing this topic. People don't view their own bodies, or the bodies of others, by those terms.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An external body part should only be considered intimate if it is required for sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While that's a perfectly legitimate view of what parts of the body should be considered intimate, in my experience, it's not one that most people share. You go and touch a woman's breast uninvited and then tell her not to worry - it's not an intimate part of her body because it's not a primary sexual organ. I bet she'll tell you something quite different! What is and is not intimate is personal is for the individual to decide, not a biologist or anthropologist using a scientific definition. It is common, in our culture, to regard female breasts as at least partly sexual phenomena and therefore intimate. Even the law would agree with that because your touching her breast would count as 'sexual assault' in any country on the globe.

Stu

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.topfreeaction.com: (http://www.topfreeaction.com:)
Time for us to jump in this thread again. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Also you mentioned that women should be careful with "enhancing their breasts with implants". "Enhacing" is word that doesn`t fit here. Sylicone can replace breast which was removed because of medical reasons - and we respect that. But healthy breast CAN`T be "enhanced" with implants: it can only be RUINED and DEFORMED with it. I will ask for apology in advance for my next statement: fact that there are men who likes sylicone "breasts" is best evidence of sexual dysfunction in our specie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you about the look of plastic boobs, but that doesn't seem to have phased young women who are flocking to the surgeon's offices.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.funreports.com/fun/06-07-2007/1524-breast_enlargement-0

Breast enlargement becomes most common graduation gift in Italy 2007/07/06
Breast enlargement is now the most common graduation gift for girls who pass
their secondary school exams in Italy.
Boob jobs have knocked cars and summer holidays back into second and third
places respectively. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An external body part should only be considered intimate if it is required for sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that definition there isn't any part of the body that isn't an 'intimate' part. Burqas for everyone!

Sorry, but parts are parts. It isn't important what they can be used for - what matters is what you are doing now.

Apparently I'm one of those people labeled "sex negative", even though I'm very much in favor of it - I believe it is something that should only be done in private and in small groups (I prefer a group of two). When not being sexually intimate I don't think there is anything particularly intimate about those parts - and certainly not offensive. Your mileage may vary.

-Mark

[DenitaLC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.topfreeaction.com: (http://www.topfreeaction.com:)



Also you mentioned that women should be careful with "enhancing their breasts with implants". "Enhacing" is word that doesn`t fit here. Sylicone can replace breast which was removed because of medical reasons - and we respect that. But healthy breast CAN`T be "enhanced" with implants: it can only be RUINED and DEFORMED with it. I will ask for apology in advance for my next statement: fact that there are men who likes sylicone "breasts" is best evidence of sexual dysfunction in our specie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hummmmmmmmmm, should my "ruined and deformed" breasts and I unleash on that statement?
Nah, not worth the effort on the keyboard.
But we do take offense to those statements.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An external body part should only be considered intimate if it is required for sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that definition there isn't any part of the body that isn't an 'intimate' part. Burqas for everyone!

Sorry, but parts are parts. It isn't important what they can be used for - what matters is what you are doing now.

Apparently I'm one of those people labeled "sex negative", even though I'm very much in favor of it - I believe it is something that should only be done in private and in small groups (I prefer a group of two). When not being sexually intimate I don't think there is anything particularly intimate about those parts - and certainly not offensive. Your mileage may vary.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My mileage does vary.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
When not being sexually intimate I don't think there is anything particularly intimate about those parts - and certainly not offensive. Your mileage may vary.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My mileage does vary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as nudist - which 'intimate' parts do you believe should be kept hidden? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

[Tampanude]

"So as nudist - which 'intimate' parts do you believe should be kept hidden? "


I vote appendix!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/clown.gif

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
When not being sexually intimate I don't think there is anything particularly intimate about those parts - and certainly not offensive. Your mileage may vary.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My mileage does vary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as nudist - which 'intimate' parts do you believe should be kept hidden? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Men and women should have an equal right to not wear a top, anywhere that it is OK for a man to take off his shirt.

I wish that we could go fully nude, but I do not ever expect that it will be OK to do this in very many locations.

It isn't about what I believe should be kept hidden, but rather the reality of what we are ever likely to get politicians to agree to. I don't expect to get to drive to my local grocery store any time soon and go shopping in the nude.

I would personally like to only wear what you see in my photo.

[Grey Dog]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eaglepeakpete:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by www.topfreeaction.com: (http://www.topfreeaction.com:)
Although Europe is still "topless paradise" there are certain signs that things could be changed in future:

They willnot get away with it in Spain here you have a civil right to be nude anywhere.
A man was recently arrested for walking around Barcelona nude when it went to court the judge fined the policeman for arresting the man, saying there was no case to answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. A "civil right to be nude anywhere." I wonder how difficult it would be to immigrate to Spain?

[www.topfreeaction.com]

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

Hummmmmmmmmm, should my "ruined and deformed" breasts and I unleash on that statement?
Nah, not worth the effort on the keyboard.
But we do take offense to those statements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Women who practice naturism have lower percentage of plastic operations on their breasts probable because they have different understanding of what beauty is so it is small surprise for us that you are one of them - sorry, it was not on top of my head to insult anyone although I am staying behind of my words when shape of "syliconized breasts" is concerned. By implants you are either enlarging your breasts, either trying to reduce "saging effect" - and by my opinion both actions are unnecesary and are just commercial trick of plastic surgeons how they would earn more money. I just don`t understand that panic about "saged" breasts and don`t understand why are they considered less beautiful - that`s natural way of how woman looks like through the years and to change that by some plastic operation we found as crime against nature - literally. Same goes for enlargments of breasts although I personally can`t agree with that word too, "enlargement", because what comes as a result by my opinion have almost nothing in common with natural breasts. That`s BUSINESS - women with small breasts "should" make them biger, women with big breasts "should" make them smaller etc. - and everything how esthetic industry would earn more money.

Sorry again, our harsh words didn`t have intention to insult you but to discourage some women from doing that - by our opinion - big mistake in their lifes, "enhancing" their breasts.

[Stu2630]

Some more general thoughts on breast implants, although I'm not sure it has much to do with the issue of 'top freedom'.

I don't think breast enlargement is done to enhance a woman's beauty. It is performed because women regard their breasts as sexual 'assets' which enhance and help define their femininity. I don't blame them for undergoing such procedures - it's their own body after all - but I do question whether it actually adds to their beauty.

I think it's safe to assume that a surgical attempt to rectify sagging breasts is really an attempt to take years off the subject's age in most cases. Pert breasts are seen as youthful and women put in a lot of effort in preserving their youth, whereas sagging breasts are a symptom of aging. Again, I question whether it is purely a matter of beauty.

Stu

[MrTruth]

Most women undergo breast implant surgery for purely cosmetic reasons. Unless the surgery is done for established medical reasons, such as repair after mastectomy or to correct a birth defect, there is no need for this surgery. However, far too many women are brainwashed by advertising into believeing that their breast size is either too large or too small and in need to cosmetic correction to make the breast appear more pleasing to the eyes (of men). Women who undergo this expensive surgery, do it for vanity reasons. They are taught to believe that they must do this in order to attract men. Such women, in effect, reduce themselves to nothing short of a pair of walking breasts. Far too many women don't seem to realize they they can not make up for shortcomings in their personalities (that they obviously have) by resorting to breast surgery. Only shallow and superficial women who are hollow inside resort to such surgery in order to attract or keep men the only way that they can - by creating a medically enhanced image that will please the man. Little do such women know that they are being controlled and manipulated by men. Such women need to wake up, realize this, and say no to male dominated control. Cosmetic breast augmentation surgery for woman's purely superficial, shallow , and self centered reasons is akin to male circumcision - it is totally unecessary.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by www.topfreeaction.com: (http://www.topfreeaction.com:)
Women who practice naturism have lower percentage of plastic operations on their breasts probable because they have different understanding of what beauty is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have seen women at Haulover who did have implants. One time I was laying on my beach towel within hearing distance of a group of 5 or 6 women. They were discussing and comparing how well their breast implants had turned out. All of them had it done and they seemed quite proud of the results.

It was kind of like overhearing a doctor and patient discussion. They were speaking real loud and didn't seem the least bit embarrassed to be discussing it in public.

[DenitaLC]

TopFreedom should include ALL women, natural, implanted or even breastless (cancer survivors, etc).

It seems very strange to me that you would support the baring of natural breasts and discriminate against those that have gone under the hands of a surgeon. I'm sure that isn't your intent but your strong 'opinions' say other wise.

Sad

No, I did not need an augmentation...I wanted it and have no regrets about my decision.

Mr. Truth.....Nice post. I'll tell my husband of 20 years that I'm a brainwashed, vain, walking pair of breasts that needs to wake up and blame the MAN. I'm sure he'll appreciate your enlightening view.

[jon71]

A friend of mine once bandied about the possibility of getting implants. I told her that she looked wonderful like she is and it wasn't necessary. If she did I would have never said the first unkind or negative word about it. Of course the decision would be entirely hers and I would respect any decision knowing that her happiness would be what matters most. DenitaLC you have said you are happy with your decision and that should be the end of (this part of) the discussion.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DenitaLC:
No, I did not need an augmentation...I wanted it and have no regrets about my decision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the best reason in the world to do it that I can think of. You did it because you wanted it.

Don't let the control freaks get to you. MrTruth needs to come up with a new name that reflects how far from the truth his statement was.

[www.topfreeaction.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DenitaLC:
It seems very strange to me that you would support the baring of natural breasts and discriminate against those that have gone under the hands of a surgeon. I'm sure that isn't your intent but your strong 'opinions' say other wise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are puting words into my mouth, when I said that women with sylicon breasts should not be allowed to sunbathe topless!? I said that I DISLIKE them, sorry if you take that as an attack on you, sorry if I didn`t salute you for your "action".

Should women who are smoking have right to sunbathe topless? Sure, but it would be better for their health to stop smoking - same goes for potentialy always dangerous sylicon in your organism.

You said that you did it by your choice - well don`t underestimate media influence on your actions. Maybe "brainwashed" is a little bit harsh word but it`s not completely wrong ! We are ALL brainwashed with media in one way or another, anyway.

As all this is not totally unrelated to topless issue, let me tell you few words more about sylicons. In fashion industry, majority of male designers are homosexuals. See what type of women are their "favourites": skiny, shapeless, breastless skeletors who have very little feminity. I am not saying that skiny women with small breasts are not beautiful - I am just against fashion dictating which women "are beautiful" and which "aren`t". Sylicone breasts have unnatural shape and they don`t have that femine move, tremble, bounce...as you want to call it... while woman is walking. It`s very important factor in visual perception of any woman and only sexualy undecided fashion designers can advertise that kind of ""enhancing"" simply because they don`t look for feminity in fact. And people, as always, will follow fashion dictate as holy Bible without even thinking too much about it. I am quite sure that when fashion (or should I write Fashion, with capital "F") would order women to remove one eye because "then they would be more attractive to men" there would be women who would do that - and same goes for men too. Fashion is misusing that most important thing for all, and men and women - to be attractive to opposite sex.

Just our two cents.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mr. Truth.....Nice post. I'll tell my husband of 20 years that I'm a brainwashed, vain, walking pair of breasts that needs to wake up and blame the MAN. I'm sure he'll appreciate your enlightening view. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My wife works as an RN in Oncology. She works with women who have breast cancer. In some cases, radical mastectomy is the only option and it is a very traumatic thing for a woman to have a breast removed. Corrective cosmetic surgery offers women who have undergone this a bit of hope. Women with either mastectomies or scars have all of my sympathy.

One of the main messages of nudism is body acceptance. Body acceptance means to accept yourself as you are or to work within natural means to improve yourself. It does not mean to go and have surgeries for no other reason then vanity. Yet, I have come across women at nudist resorts who sit around and compare their latest surgeries and breast sizes. It gets to the point that people who have had numerous cosmetic surgeries cross the line and are no longer natural human beings. Such people have been influenced by advertising to reject themselves and what is naturally human. They think that surgeries will improve their self image. What they need to do is to improve their self esteem and accept themselves as they are. They seem to have forgotten that there is something naturally beautiful about the human body in all of it's shapes and sizes. This is what nudism is all about. Nudism means: "Body Acceptance is Self Acceptance". Nudism is NOT about a man who influences his wife to undergo medically unecessary cosmetic surgery so that he can appreciate the medically enhanced appearance of HER breasts. It is NOT about a woman who submits to a man's unecessary and selfish desire for unecessary surgeries. Real men accept women as they are - warts and all.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't let the control freaks get to you. MrTruth needs to come up with a new name that reflects how far from the truth his statement was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MR MJ_KC needs to open his mind and consider a different perspective. MR MJ obviously does not work in a medical establishment with VERY REAL sick people. MR MJ obviously does not work in oncology with women who have breast cancer and require surgery. MR MJ is obviously not a medical doctor who deals with patients with real health issues. MR MJ would rather buy into the typical advertising philosophy that no matter who you are, you are not good enough and need this or that medical procedure to correct defects that dont exist. Shame on you MR MJ for advocating that a woman undergo unecessary medical procedures for the sake of pleasing a man. How disrespectful and degrading to women.

It's time to make perfectly clear what I am talking about. I am not talking about those with real medical issues such as mastectomies, scars, deformities, and breast damage and destruction due to other unrelated surgeries and accidents (such as car accident). I am talking about women with perfectly healthy breasts who decide to undergo an unecesssary operation for pure vanity reasons. Such decisions fit nicely within our hypocritical society which says that what is inside a person matters most and then the very same people run out to alter their appearance. Such a decision also fits nicely by reinforcing the message sent to our young daughters (some as young as 11 or 12) that breast size matters MOST and that in order to be happy in life, you must have larger or smaller breasts. Any parent who is currently raising young daughter(s) will know exactly what I am talking about.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrTruth:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't let the control freaks get to you. MrTruth needs to come up with a new name that reflects how far from the truth his statement was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MR MJKC needs to open his mind and consider a different perspective. MR MJ obviously does not work in a medical establishment with VERY REAL sick people. MR MJ obviously does not work in oncology with women who have breast cancer and require surgery. MR MJ is obviously not a medical doctor who deals with patients with real health issues. MR MJ would rather buy into the typical advertising philosophy that no matter who you are, you are not good enough and need this or that medical procedure to correct defects that dont exist. Shame on you MR MJ for advocating that a woman undergo unecessary medical procedures for the sake of pleasing a man. How disrespectful and degrading to women. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You aren't too bright to assume anything. Who said that a woman only gets breast surgery because she wants to please a man? Maybe she does it simply because she wants it herself. Women do not have to do things simply to please some man.

I nearly died from cancer when I was 15 and again one year later just a few days after I turned 16. I came within minutes of checking out and was saved by some very skilled heart surgeons. I have been going to a cancer center for the last 31+ years and have talked to a lot of people with various types of cancer. I have had two different type of cancers that required treatments and have to go in for checkups every 4 months to my oncology doctor.

You need to wise up, but I don't expect too much. I find people like you to be very offensive.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You need to wise up, but I don't expect too much. I find people like you to be very offensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't expect you to understand my viewpoint. It would take someone who can think outside of the box to do that. If you read what I wrote and attempted to think about it, you might understand something about where I am coming from. You obviously are NOT married and do NOT have a daughter. If you did, you might think differently. This seems to another case of a single man thinking that he has all the answers for women. Typical male domination over women. How dreadful!

I deal with very sick people day in and day out. I am sorry that you experienced cancer. However, because you have, you of all people should understand the difference between medically necessary procedures and cosmetic elective surgery. If you read and understood anything about what I wrote, I specifically referred to women who undergo elective cosmetic surgeries to please a man and also young women who bow to peer pressure and undergo unecessary cosmetic surgeries to fit in. My wife has counseled young women (girls) about breast surgery and (except for the cases that I clearly specified above), most of the young girls needed to build up their self esteem rather then undergo unecessary surgery.

You make the statement that "Who said that a woman only gets breast surgery because she wants to please a man?". That's right, who said that women exclusively get breast surgery to please a man. Because you make this statement you obviously either have not read what I posted above or can not understand it. Women get breast surgery for a variety of reasons - some medically necessary and some not. I specifically focused on the "please your man aspect" and anyone with intelligence can comprehend that this is not all inclusive.

My offense to you is clearly that I offer a different perspective to yours. Rather then discuss in a rational manner, you resort to insults. Shame on you!

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrTruth:
My offense to you is clearly that I offer a different perspective to yours. Rather then discuss in a rational manner, you resort to insults. Shame on you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not consider your statements to be those of a considerate person.

If I wanted to have an elective cosmetic surgical procedure done, I would have it done because I want to. The same could be said if I decided to have laser hair removal done instead of having to shave constantly.

People do things for themselves for a wide variety of reasons and I will not judge them as you seem so willing to do. They can do it to please themselves or their partner or any other reason that they come up with. It is their choice.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People do things for themselves for a wide variety of reasons and I will not judge them as you seem so willing to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pure hypocrisy! You HAVE judged me based upon my comments. You forget that I WAS a single person and can understand your perspective. From what I gather you are NOT married and do NOT have a daughter. Therefore, you can not relate to my perspective. Marriage and children do change a person. Before you judge me , you better understand that I love my wife just as she is. She does not need any cosmetice surgery to enhance her appeal to me. My love is unconditional and my wife is my best friend. She knows this and this is what our marriage is based upon. Out of this love came a beautiful daughter. You obviously have not raised a child and experienced what peer pressure can do to a child. You have not had your daughter come home in tears from school because other girls teased her that her breasts were too big or too small. You have not spent your life raising a daughter with love. That love involves teaching your child to grow into a strong, independant and intelligent woman who is happy within herself. The money that could have been wasted on unecessary breast surgery has been better spent on college education. She has grown into a beautiful young woman who now understands that she is much more then a walking pair of breasts. I am very proud of both my wife and daughter.

If you would stop and think with a wider perspective, rather then judge others without understanding where they are coming from, then you would know that young women are in desperate need of good roll models today. Young women are under enormous pressure to conform to society expectations which are generally male expectations. It takes a special kind of woman to stand up and reject that. Women are much more then sex objects or put on this earth to please a man. There is much more to women then just physical appearance and some men better learn this lesson fast.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrTruth:
She has grown into a beautiful young woman who now understands that she is much more then a walking pair of breasts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you keep making this kind of statement about any woman? Considering any woman "a walking pair of breasts" is demeaning.

Whether a woman has natural breasts that range anywhere from small to large, or whether they have had implants does not change who they are or lessen my respect for them.

Why are you so focused on this one thing as being so bad for a woman to choose if she so desires? Do you like being told not to do something that you really want to do?

I choose to let a woman choose how she wants her physical appearance to be instead of trying to impose my point of view on them. They can make up their own minds without needing to consult me or you.

You may not see it, but your words indicate male arrogance in play when you seek to tell a woman that you know what is best for her. I see this as more of a control issue instead of simple guidance.

[Pete Knight]

Is this a personal argument, or can anyone join in?

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
Is this a personal argument, or can anyone join in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Feel free to jump in if you want to. I don't like to tell others what to do or not do.

[Pete Knight]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
Is this a personal argument, or can anyone join in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Feel free to jump in if you want to. I don't like to tell others what to do or not do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's OK thanks, I think I'll sit this one out!!

Pete

[www.topfreeaction.com]

Pity that nice discussion went in wrong direction. Maybe we are partialy guilty for that, maybe we used too strong words in one moment and started all of this. Sorry all if that was the reason !

If someone is happy with artificial breasts - good for him/her ! Last thing which we would want to do is to make someone unhappy.

But, what we definitelly want to do is to discourage as much as more women is possible from doing that - by us - very harmfull act, and for health and for feminity.

Peace. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You may not see it, but your words indicate male arrogance in play when you seek to tell a woman that you know what is best for her. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never have told a woman what is best for her. Women have brains and can make up their own minds. You don't seem to understand the enormous pressure that women are under today. Most of this pressure is male generated. You also don't seem to understand how our society is a male dominated society and that men in MANY (not all) cases either directly or subtly dictate to women what they should or should not do.
It's been made very clear, from personal experiences, that women can live without implants and be very happy. Women can live without plastic surgery and can be very happy. My entire point is that women can stand up and reject the society lies that they need to create a certain appearance in order to be successful. More women need to stop submitting and start forcing change!
Far too many women are killing themselves by trying to be thin in order to fit a certain societal image. I believe that this is wrong. Women need to be who they are inside and stop trying to fit an image that is nothing more then an advertising created illusion.
Let's be totally honest about women for a minute. You know very well that that nice, caring lady down the street may be one of the nicest people in the world. However, because she is old, overweight, gray hair, saggy breasts, etc..most of society will reject her based upon her appearance and not who she is as a person. We all say what is inside is what matters most and yet we keep sending the exact opposite message to people - that in order to be accepted and fit in you must look like this or that.
Let's also be honest about women again. If a woman choses implants for purely appearance reasons to please someone, then she is vain (what is so wrong with admiting that a person is vain?) and she is also partly responsible for sending the message to young girls that in order to fit in, young girls must alter their appearances. If you had a young daughter, you would understand this.
Real nudism also involves the message that body acceptance is self acceptance and you dont have to have a certain body style or image to fit in. Real nudism is accepting all people just as they are - even the old and gray haired lady down the street.
I say again to accept all people as they are. Stop sending the wrong signal to all people that in order to fit in they must alter their appearance.
There are far too many sick people out there with real medical problems. The old, overweight, sick, and broken down people out there are far too often rejected by society. Let the compassion extend to them first.

The whole point of this is basically that you are telling women that it is ok to have implants. I am telling women that it is ok NOT to have implants. There are a whole variety of reasons for implants and I have talked about those that concern vanity reasons. Typical society lies dictate to women what they need to do to fit in. I am saying that women don't need to buy into the brainwashing lies and can chose not to have implants and still be happy.

What you interpret as male arrogance is actually male support of real feminism. I am saying enough of the society bs that dictates to women that they must fit a certain image in order to fit in. The message I am sending is that women are fine just as they are and don't need to submit to either male or societal demands that they alter their appearances in order to please either men or society. You certainly know how widespread this is. It is about time we stand up, admit the problem, and change the message.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, what we definitelly want to do is to discourage as much as more women is possible from doing that - by us - very harmfull act, and for health and for feminity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the entire point...that it is ok NOT to have implants and still be happy. Sadly, our society (through advertising lies) sends the exact opposite message and makes too many women feel so inferior.

[Boreas]

Mr. Truth you have expressed some of my views about breast implants. I think we do live in a society that imposes certain standards on us and we need to be aware of that. When we are aware, we can make more informed choices. I personally would not get breast implants, partly for the reasons you suggest. I am also leery of the possible health risks involved. I think you did mention this. My thing is, why have surgery that is unecessary.

That being said, I am not going to put someone down for having implants. That is her choice. I just would not likely do it myself.

Breast reductions on the other hand can be for medical reasons. I have met people who have had breast reductions and a significant reduction in certain kinds of pain, especially back pain. One woman had fewer problems related to cystic breasts following her reduction.

For the record, men also fall prey to some of these pressures. If not, steroids, hair implants and such would not be so profitable.

I agree that naturism is ideally about becoming comfortable with the human body as it is. The fact is, we are all human and do fall prey to pressures of various types. That is the beauty of humanity too.

MJ_KC, would you feel comfortable if your daughter annouced she was going to have implants?

Back to the topic of this thread, how do we continue to promote and keep topfreedom?

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
MJ_KC, would you feel comfortable if your daughter annouced she was going to have implants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't have any kids, but I wouldn't like it if this is what she wanted to do. I would state my opinion that it is a dangerous thing to do, but it wouldn't be my decision to make. It would be her body and what she wants to do with it would be up to her.

In the end, adults have to make and live with their own choices.

[MrTruth]

Still_Boreas,

I agree with your posting. Another strong point that I wish to make concerns teenage girls. Anyone who has a teenage daughter within the past 5 or 10 years and has been to junior high school will know exactly what I am talking about. In today's world, there is enormous pressure on teenage girls to conform to a certain image. I have seen many girls in junior high school come to school wearing fashion designer clothes, Gucci handbags, breast implants, other cosmetic surgery for appearance enhancement, etc. I think that this is entirely and completely wrong for a number of reasons. Junior high school exists as a safe environment for learning. It is not about a fashion show where the wealthier children come to show off their fashions, implants, etc. This makes the poorer children feel like inferior outcasts. When talking with some parents about this situation, I have found that some parents just don't care about other children. They are self centered and only seem to care about making statements about themselves and their families through their children. Teenage girls should not be walking billboards at school to demonstrate their parent's wealth. I also feel strongly that teenage girls with healthy and developing breasts should not have unecessary cosmetic surgery. It is wrong and it is wrong for society to send the signal to teenage girls that in order to fit in and conform, them must resort to society's standards of unachievable appearance. These society standards are one reason why teenage girls resort to the binge and purge cycles in an attempt to lose weight.

I think that society has a great deal to answer for in applying very unhealthy pressure against children. This is done all in the name of advertising and money.

It is up to adults and especially adult women to set a healthy example for their teenage daughters that it is ok to be who you are.

Any parent knows that when raising children, we don't always get to pick and chose the issues that our children bring home. We have to make decisions as to where we stand on a whole variety of issues and then set an example for our children.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would be her body and what she wants to do with it would be up to her. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not what a caring parent would say. A caring parent would do whatever is necessary to educate, help, and protect their children against that which will harm them. Once their children turn 18, then they are of legal age and can do whatever they decide. However, up until they reach the age of 18, the caring parent never gives up on their child and never stops trying to give them the knowledge and information to make healthy choices for themselves. Children are not adults and, depending upon their age, may or may not be mature enough to make appropriate decisions for themselves.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrTruth:
I have seen many girls in junior high school come to school wearing fashion designer clothes, Gucci handbags, breast implants, other cosmetic surgery for appearance enhancement, etc. I think that this is entirely and completely wrong for a number of reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless it is for medical reasons or to fix deformities, I do not think that anyone under the age of 18 or even perhaps 21 should be allowed to have cosmetic surgery. They are not mature enough to make this type of decision. Dental procedures are fine, but the rest of the body should be left alone until they become adults.

Some people mature late, so doing cosmetic surgery too soon could end up being a huge mistake. Parents who encourage this for young girls are being bad parents in my opinion.

I think that a primary point that I didn't make early on is that I only think that breast implants would be OK if this is what an ADULT woman decided she wanted. It would never be OK for a teenage girl in junior high or high school.

[Boreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the end, adults have to make and live with their own choices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if she was 16?

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the end, adults have to make and live with their own choices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if she was 16? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
She can wait a few years. She would never get my approval at this age. She will have to be old enough that I can't veto the procedure.

[atalanta]

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


However, up until they reach the age of 18, the caring parent never gives up on their child and never stops trying to give them the knowledge and information to make healthy choices for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be a pretty uncaring parent who gives up on a child once he/she is 18. Legal majority does not come into it.

[MrTruth]

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


However, up until they reach the age of 18, the caring parent never gives up on their child and never stops trying to give them the knowledge and information to make healthy choices for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be a pretty uncaring parent who gives up on a child once he/she is 18. Legal majority does not come into it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, to clarify a bit better, a caring person never gives up on their child regardless of the child's (young adult, adult) age. However, once the child reaches the age of 18, then the child can make certain legal decisions for himself/herself and no longer needs parental approval. The caring aspect continues........the legal aspect changes.....

[Agde]

What was the topic again? Ah yes, topfree Europe! Whew -- just checked -- it still is! The general attitude persists that if breasts are inherently sexual, so are mouths, ears, eyes, tummies, arms, thighs, etc. So it is clearer for laws to focus on behaviour rather than body parts. Meanwhile, people love to groom and change their look to be more "attractive" and what constitutes "attractive" changes by era, culture, age and situation. Parents and teenagers in particular often disagree! Some attempts to be attractive seem dumb or dangerous in retrospect, even our cherished seamless suntans if overdone without sunscreen. How about if we all live and let live, make informed choices for ourselves, let others' likewise choose, and encourage our officials to focus on creating a safe environment of cheerful tolerance where limits are designed to mitigate clear and proven dangers (eg. speed limits for vehicles), rather than enforce repressive homogeneity. The corollary of course is that when limits are agreed, they should apply equally to everyone. Back to topfree Europe! Is there any difference in danger for me or my family according to the amount of fabric women choose to wear? Do breasts of whatever size, shape or composition pose a public danger that requires a exception to legal equality? Nope.

[nimrod]

There was a time when an exposed ankle, or wrist of a woman was considered sexual, but the more that they were expose the less sexual they became. Our society now sexualizes the female breast, the bra companies, plastic surgeons, and Dow Chemical bank on this. So I say to you women fight for your right to be topfree, go topless as much as possible and adventually the naughty factor of the exposed female breast will go away.

[MoonShadow]

Great post, nimrod! I support it fully that women should go top-free as often as they can. It is time women showed the rest of society that breasts are not sex organs and that they are a part of our body that should not be covered and hidden when we are enjoying the outdoors, indoors, the sun, or wherever we may be.

Women need to take their bodies back as should men. Nudism is the best lifestyle to promote this. Let's convert them all!!! lol

[zauberkoenig]

Waaal, around 1980 in Austria "topless" was "allowed" by country laws here and "nt any more forbidden" there. (of course nipples exposed are no more danger to the morals and therefore no matter of Crminal Law any more. But inbetween the ladies just wear their bikinitops agan, just showing the latest fashion and taking up the coquettish plays like "Who pulls the triagles of a triangle top at most to the side"; "who gives the deepest look into the cleavage of his onepiece when coming out of the pool?"
(Please excuse me ladies; I not at all want to give the impression of lascivuous remarks)

Some two weeks ago a lady about 56 said they were swimming last weekend,. When I asked "Where" she freely said "At Donauinsel ( the large officially dedicated free nudist area dwn the Danube) - since 30 years; you knwo, my husband didnt want to tell me, he had thought, I`d not dare it - Well, I said, you`ll quite wonder what a girl from a farm up in the mountains dares ! But the youngsters just
are too lazy to join us together with their kids."

Fourty years ago we had nofeeway to Donauinsel,; we drove to a number of litle villages on narrow roads to the ferryboat and then still had along walk to get to the beach we sought; and it was illegal. That is long ago.