Intolerance

[Zammit]

MDN.tv said:

"Why would anyone want to teach their children their bodies are disgusting, unacceptable and offensive to even look at? Why would anyone want to teach their children self shame, self disgust and to despise their body or any one else's body? Why would anyone set a bad example to their children by having a prejudicial bigotry against another group of people?"

Honestly, I disagree with this. I think that people have a right to be s or be clothed. I also think that s should respect clothed people (I refuse to use the term textile, as it is somewhat belittling) and clothed people should respect s. I mean, the bginning states "why would anyone want to teach their children(s)that their bodies are offensive and disgusting?" Yes, some people have that attitude but some people who don't decide to be s. If people choose to wear clothes, I think that's completely fine. If people choose not to, that's fine to. It's like how some people say media is bad and decinsitizing whereas others support it and try to disregard it. If everybody is a and has that attitude, there wouldn't be personality anymore. You know how wars get started? Remember WW2? Hitler hated Jews but there isn't anything wrong with Jews and he went on an extreme genocide. s should respect the opinions of clothed people and vice versa. Those people who keep saying that are very immature, and needs to grow up.

[Rabid_Clam]

As there are as many personalities as there are people there also are philosophies about any subject one can imagine.

The body can be viewed by as many philosophies. In the case of the body being other than good to look at the opposite philosopies can also include looking at it in a sexual and non respectful manner which reinforces the prior philosophy. That is, there are those that see the naked body only in sexually stimulating terms thus it is bad and ugly to view nude.

Nudism is absent, or at least supposed to be, of this. There are those who just cannot see that or understand it.

So we have both ways of looking at the naked body.

[RichNH]

Zammit, what I can't figure out is what the deal is with using letters instead of words, particularly the letter "s".

It's causing me headaches trying to read your notes, why not just say what you mean?

Rich

PS Small technical correction from a history nut, Hitler didn't start WWII because he hated Jews, he invaded Poland (the official start of WWII *in Europe*) because he wanted to take over Europe and then the world. The Jews, who had suffered many pogroms over the centuries in almost all European countries, were simply the largest group to be included in the Nazi policy of cleansing society of undesirables so as to purify the white race).

13 million died as a result of that policy, "only" 6 million were Jews.

[nudebushwalker]

Hey, Rich,

re: Hitler -

* demonizing the Jews also gave the Nazis a necessary rallying-point - a scapegoat - to help him get support from (enough) fellow Germans and Austrians for his plans to take over the world...
* the total deaths from the 'Holocaust' is 15 million, not 13... that means 9 million non-Jews - and let's not forget that these are civilian [i.e. non-combatants..] deaths - the Jews make up the single biggest segment of the Holocaust;
* the total number of deaths from WWII was somewhere over 55 million..
* the biggest group from this wasn't the Jews, nor the Germans themselves, but the 20 million or so Russians that died during the early 40's - many from starvation, or freezing to death; [as an aside to this: Russia still suffers today from a shortage of men, and negative population growth, as a result of the fact that of combined losses from WWII and the communist revolution (another 20 million or so..), around 85% were men - Russia virtually lost a generation of men between 1917 and 1944..].

Some people these days will even claim total deaths from German, Italian and Japanese policies of that era of around 70 million, but for that period I will stick with 55 million or so; until someone can explain that extra 15 mill'? [ maybe they had added some hypothetical figures for the Japanese expansionism in the 1930's - 40's, which actually preceded their entry into WWII ?].

[Naturist Mark]

Zammit - is "s" supposed to be short for "nudists"? Why "s"?

[Zammit]

Sorry those s mean "N.a.t.u.r.i.s.t.s" but if I spell it out my computer will delete all the letters except for the ending s.

[N8urist]

A weird filter perhaps?

[Stu2630]

Zammit

I don't think many parents do teach their children that their bodies are "disgusting" - they just teach them that there are times and places where it is acceptable, and not acceptable, to expose certain parts of their bodies.

If people choose to wear clothes, I think that's completely fine. If people choose not to, that's fine to.

It's not quite as simple as that, though. Virtually all textiles spend some of their time naked. Similarly, almost all nudists wear clothes most of the time. Nudists are not (generally) upset or offended by the sight of clothed people, but textiles may be very uncomfortable if exposed to naked people outside of certain settings. So the issue is when and where it should be acceptable to be naked, and in my view the answer to that is those occasions and locations at which nakedness could reasonably be expectable.

There should be opportunities for naturists to enjoy their preferred mode of (un)dress but also textiles should be able to avoid the sight of nakedness if they wish to. As a non-nudist, I value my ability to be able to use public spaces confident in the knowledge that there is an almost zero chance that I will encounter nudity.

Stu

[RichNH]

I totally agree with you about the Jews NudeBushWalker. It was more a matter of how many words to put in a post script. They did indeed hold a special place in that conflagration, in specific point, the Nazis singled them out as a special group to be exterminated.

[SpiderThug]

Originally posted by RichNH:
I totally agree with you about the Jews NudeBushWalker. It was more a matter of how many words to put in a post script. They did indeed hold a special place in that conflagration, in specific point, the Nazis singled them out as a special group to be exterminated.

I don't believe the Jews were singled out at all. They push it as if they were to claim ownership but in reality, oppression and murder was committed against; disabled, Masons, certain Christians, etc etc etc.

[nimrod]

I think this as been said here before, but....

You no what I really cannot stand?
Intolerance!

[nudebushwalker]

I don't believe the Jews were singled out at all. They push it as if they were to claim ownership but in reality, oppression and murder was committed against; disabled, Masons, certain Christians, etc etc etc.

Yes, NakedSpider, your 'right-on' when it comes to the Nazis' "Ethnic Cleansing" and all those groups (inc. Catholics, communists, other brands of socialists, Gypsies, those libertarians and bohemians cheeky enough to speak up against the Nazis and fascists; as well as those minority groups you mentioned..) contributed towards the 9 million that brings the total for the Holocaust up to 15 million. However, if you look at some of Hitler's early rallying speeches, and the actions of the assorted fascist thugs, the Jews, gypsies and communists were his favoured "scapegoats" for this rabble-rousing, and to help build the powerbases for the nazis in Germany and Mussolini's fascists in Italy.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

Looking at the total deaths across WWII, the 'Holocaust' Jews account for roughly 11%; the total Russian losses about 35 - 36%; and how many Germans, Austrians, Italians, Danes, plus those French, Dutch and Polish collaborators who fought along side them ? Then there's the Japanese victims in Asia and the South Pacific - a combined total again greater than the Jewish losses. BUT - this shouldn't be used against the Jews themselves, nor to trivialise any of these losses - but to simply point out that a couple of these "Zionist" groups can be just as bad themselves in their own way - as there are people among them who seemingly trivialise or ignore those other 49 million deaths in WWII...
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[chuckincville]

Originally posted by nimrod:
I think this as been said here before, but....

You no what I really cannot stand?
Intolerance!

Nimrod
If there's one thing i won't tolerate it's intolerance! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

I think inolerance comes from fear. Fear that if a person alows someone to think or act differently that somehow that weakens what that person believes and will affect his/her world in a negative way.
E.G. right wing christians - scare the he** out of me. If you don't believe like they believe then you're dead wrong, unpatriotic, a threat to society and you will be damned for eternity.
And I am definitely afraid if what that does to my/our freedom. Freedom of dissent, freedom of choice, freedom to marry who one wants, freedom to be nude in appropriate venues, etc., etc.!

Freedom is all about tolerance!

[nimrod]

Originally posted by chuckincville:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nimrod:
I think this as been said here before, but....

You no what I really cannot stand?
Intolerance!

Nimrod
If there's one thing i won't tolerate it's intolerance! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I had heard it before, I just misquoted.

E.G. right wing christians - scare the he** out of me.

I thought that that was there goal.

[chuckincville]

I thought that that was there goal.[/QUOTE]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif Good one Nimrod!
You ever hear of "wolves in sheeps' clothing"?

[RichNH]

Nakedspider, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[missouriboy]

Freedom of dissent, freedom of choice, freedom to marry who one wants, freedom to be nude in appropriate venues, Why does 'freedom to be nude' need a limiting qualifier, if the others do not? Sounds like the current trend of "free speech zones," when the constitution does not say "zones" at all.

[chuckincville]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Freedom of dissent, freedom of choice, freedom to marry who one wants, freedom to be nude in appropriate venues, Why does 'freedom to be nude' need a limiting qualifier, if the others do not? Sounds like the current trend of "free speech zones," when the constitution does not say "zones" at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Moboy
Guess I wrote that because that's how I think and where I am in my personal growth as a nudist. You're correct, of course, it shouldn't need a qualifier.
I hate the feelings associated with "being caught" or being "outed"!
I'm active in an organization that would surely kick me out if they knew I was a nudist. My involvement in this org. is very important to some who are near and dear to me. So until the time comes when my involvement is no longer necessary I will be thinking "appropriate places". It will be a great relief to have the freedom to OPENLY be who I am!
chuck

"Clothes Free As I Can BE! -- in reality". http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/stickdance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

[walter05]

Clam;

You said, “That is, there are those that see the naked body only in sexually stimulating terms thus it is bad and ugly to view nude.” Why are “sexually stimulating” bad and ugly. Sexually stimulation is an important step in creating another human being. Sexually stimulating should also be considered wonderful.

Chuckincville;

It is possible to believe that the body is beautiful but should be clothed. It is possible to believe that modesty can help us appreciate the body more. Please don’t assume that just because someone believes we should wear clothes that this person is ashamed of the body.

Nudebushwalker;

There is nothing intolerant about being a “Zionist”. There is something intolerant in your statement. Since I will assume that you may have misspoken, please PM me if you wish. We can discuss this one on one so you can have a more accurate understanding of what a “Zionist” is and is not.

[David77]

Walter05 states;
Why are “sexually stimulating” bad and ugly. Sexually stimulation is an important step in creating another human being. Sexually stimulating should also be considered wonderful.
I think one of the reasons that "sexually stimulating" has gotten a bad rap, is because in the New Testament it states that if you lust, you have COMMITTED ADULTRY in your heart.

An interviewer asked Jimmy Carter if he had ever committed adultry and he replied that he had committeed adultry in his heart. Jokesters had a field day with his comment.

I think that passage in the Christian bible is very damaging to the psyche, as it makes persons try to assume unconsciously that they are not "sexually stimulated" by their rush of hormones, as would be a real, true human.

Get with reality! Because a person realizes that he may be naturally "turned on" by what he views, does not mean that your BEVAVIOR has to turn to sexual activity with that person, nor mean that you have a "sinful mind" - or have COMMITTED ADULTRY in your mind.

The courts see this correctly, as the courts do not judge a person by what he had <u>been thinking</u>, or feeling but only on his overt behavior.

[HaroldTheNudist]

there is nothing wrong with anything sexually stimulating.

[MoonShadow]

Anything?

[chuckincville]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by walter05:
Clam;

Sexually stimulation is an important step in creating another human being. Sexually stimulating should also be considered wonderful.

Chuckincville;

It is possible to believe that the body is beautiful but should be clothed. It is possible to believe that modesty can help us appreciate the body more. Please don’t assume that just because someone believes we should wear clothes that this person is ashamed of the body.


Clam,
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif I'm with you on this sexual stimulating idea -- it's my 1st favorite hobby! (even tho the wife & I are out of the baby makin biz) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif - followed a close second is being clothes free.

Walter,
Sure it's possible to think that a "beautiful" body should be clothed - just ask my wife!
Seriously tho - I re-read my post and don't see were I said or implied anything about clothed people. People should have the right to wear whatever suit - be it pinstripe or birthday. Personally I think some type of dress can be absolutely obscene. Sure clothing has it's place - I couldn't live in this climate most of the year without it. What I see mostly is that clothing is used to "improve" our bodies - i.e. shoulder pads to square the shoulders, bras to push up, padding in the rear, girdles to "slim" --- Jeez Louise!!!"

Here's a quote I think is appropriate:
"What spirit is so empty or blind, hat it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than te garment with which it is clothed?"
Michaelangelo

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by chuckincville:
Moboy
Guess I wrote that because that's how I think and where I am in my personal growth as a nudist. You're correct, of course, it shouldn't need a qualifier. Yup, I knew that's why you wrote it; to conform to the status quo. My comment was more or less tongue-in-cheek, to provoke all to dream a little further on the question.

Thanks for responding. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[usmc1]

I'm with the thread's author on some of it. People should have a right to be as they see fit, clothed or unclothed. Their option.

I agree with whoever said the term "textiles" has a belittling ring to it. It sets an us vs. them tone which, in my opinion, is not required. It just comes across to me as being a bit derogatory and sneering and not necessary.

Sexual stimulation? Well, who would want to be against that? But, as most of us who actually are nudists/naturists and who actually engage in social nudity know; in such contexts nudity in itself is rarely sexually stimulating! Yeah, I might see someone who's nudity is fetching or appealing and might give me a touch of "sexual" pleasure, but will not "stimulate" me.

Our minds function at many levels simultaneously and it would be disengenuous to claim that nudists never have a sexual thought or feeling while nude---but, as humans, we also have those same thoughts when clothed and when viewing an appealing clothed person. It ain't the nudity, its the sexual attraction and curiosity and they are there clothed or unclothed.

Most of us, depending on the circumstances, let the brief thought or feeling come and go..without becoming sexually "stimulated". People that can't do that and who surrender to those thoughts, feelings or impulses generally are people with problems--clothed or unclothed!

In fact, as regards clothing, yes some of it is designed to be "sexy"..But, for the average person, sexy does not necessarily equate to stimulation. And, just for the record, males have sexual "thoughts" quite often through the day without becoming "stimulated"...so too we can see a nude body and have a sexual thought without becoming stimulated.

But, I can say this, when nude, most women have a nice, pretty bodies...but when clothed the same women might appear to be overweight or disproportionate,,,the nudity brings out the natural curves and roundness and beauty of the female body and clothes tend to exaggerate one way or another. Of course, someone who is morbidly obese is so, clothed or naked.

I know that sounds a bit clumsy and is not entirely my point, (which, I think is simply that people often look a lot better naked than they do clothed) but is the best I can do on half a cup of joe.

[nimrod]

usmc, I understand what you are saying and agree with it. It just seems that the non-nudist are the ones that confuse a thought about sex and sexual stimulation, then want others to conform to what they deem to be non-sexual.

[Fitz1980]

But, I can say this, when nude, most women have a nice, pretty bodies...but when clothed the same women might appear to be overweight or disproportionate,,,the nudity brings out the natural curves and roundness and beauty of the female body and clothes tend to exaggerate one way or another. Of course, someone who is morbidly obese is so, clothed or naked.

I've heard that called 'sausage casing' and it can be really bad with lady's swim wear. And amount of body fat will get pinched like a sausage link and make it look worse than a little natural curves.