Public Nudity vs Public Sex

[MikeJB]

I was talking to the prudes over on their group and I had an interesting question which I actually know the answer for but couldnt convince them and they thought I should talk about it here so..... What do you think is the difference between allowing public nudity and public sex?

Say if you allowed public nudity but you didnt allow public sex, why would you do this and whats the difference?


I used the whole nudity is good, wholesome, natural and sex is too, but I also explain that the two are very different and you can get more negative results from allowing just anyone to have sex, especially out in public.

They said though that "its my body, my right, etc" that I tried to say about nudity, trying to make the two sound similar and I think thats one of their faults, making nudity=sex that they are the same thing *which they areint* and saying that because people get naked they must want sex or will make other people get sexually excited and want it.


Since some people want public nudity I also think this is an issue that would come up and be important and one people would ask that would need to be resolved. So I just want other people's input, not so much that I can explain it to them but just for my own knowledge and so I can have some facts about it and so I can just generally know how other people feel about it. Also id like everyone to tell me if I missed anything in my post that I shouldve put in?

[MikeJB]

I was talking to the prudes over on their group and I had an interesting question which I actually know the answer for but couldnt convince them and they thought I should talk about it here so..... What do you think is the difference between allowing public nudity and public sex?

Say if you allowed public nudity but you didnt allow public sex, why would you do this and whats the difference?


I used the whole nudity is good, wholesome, natural and sex is too, but I also explain that the two are very different and you can get more negative results from allowing just anyone to have sex, especially out in public.

They said though that "its my body, my right, etc" that I tried to say about nudity, trying to make the two sound similar and I think thats one of their faults, making nudity=sex that they are the same thing *which they areint* and saying that because people get naked they must want sex or will make other people get sexually excited and want it.


Since some people want public nudity I also think this is an issue that would come up and be important and one people would ask that would need to be resolved. So I just want other people's input, not so much that I can explain it to them but just for my own knowledge and so I can have some facts about it and so I can just generally know how other people feel about it. Also id like everyone to tell me if I missed anything in my post that I shouldve put in?

[Sol-Searcher]

Mike, my friend, their mind is closed to our way of thinking. You will never change it, even if you had a PHD. I would just stay away from the site and not waist my time with them.

Your friend,
Randy

[MikeJB]

Okay. They might say the same about us though, although we are definitely more open than they are. I just think its dumb how they are so closed minded and need some legal explanation for everything and just think that because the law says something is right, that it automatically is right or just because the majority says it is.

Mike,

Firstly, just to set the record straight, I haven't been involved in that discussion.

Personally I don't equate nudity with sex for several reasons. I am nude when I take a shower or a bath. I am never nude when I have sex. So I don't see any connection.

It would be naive to deny that there are a tiny number of people who use naturism as a front for their own sexual inclinations (no, I don't suspect anyone here of being such a person). There are, after all, paedophiles who manage to get jobs in working with children but most men who work with kids aren't paedophiles. There are men who get a turn-on from touching womens' feet who get jobs working in shoe shops but that doesn't mean that most men in shoe shops have this fetish. I have enough faith in the naturist community and those who manage naturist activities to believe that, should there be any inappropriate behaviour at a nudist venue, the offenders would be expelled!

The ONLY thing that public sex and public nudity have in common as far as I am concerned is that they are both inappropriate and antisocial things to do.

You can, nevertheless, understand why some people confuse the two things when there are organisations that have the objective to legalise BOTH nudity AND sex in public (e.g. Freedom International).

The fact that I hold a strong belief about something and haven't been persuaded to change it doesn't make me closed-minded. I could accuse people here of being closed-minded about the prude perspective but I don't do that because I respect opinions that differ from my own. Others should afford similar respect.

Stu

[greensunshine]

Actually Stuie,

You have come a long way since you first began posting on our website, I can remember a time that you were completely closed minded about anything to do with the naked body /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I can also remember those same times that when you did post something, I completely ignored what you said...times have come a long way /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Corky even says he has seen some major improvements in you lately (Yes, I PM'd him regarding something reciently and your name did come up in our PM to each other),...that and a few others, are why I have opted to reverse my vote on the poll regarding to either ban you or let you stay...the longer you are here, the more you are actually beginning to make some intellegent sense even if I don't always agree with you...but then again I don't always agree with everyone else who posts here either.

And Note, you aren't as closed minded as you think /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Female, Mormon, and Proud of Both /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

The fact that I hold a strong belief about something and haven't been persuaded to change it doesn't make me closed-minded. I could accuse people here of being closed-minded about the prude perspective but I don't do that because I respect opinions that differ from my own. Others should afford similar respect.

Stu [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[WNYjoe]

Stu.
Congratulations that you apparently have grown. Having not been here that long, I can only wonder what you were like previously.

I have to take serious exception with what you said before:
--------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't equate nudity with sex for several reasons. I am nude when I take a shower or a bath. I am never nude when I have sex. So I don't see any connection.

You can, nevertheless, understand why some people confuse the two things when there are organisations that have the objective to legalise BOTH nudity AND sex in public (e.g. Freedom International).
--------------------------------------------------
Do you really mean to say that you are NOT nude when you have sex??? My wife has never been interested in nudism, but to quote her when I read that line to her:
"hehehehe Oh My god. You're kidding. hehehe"
(No offense intended, but come on)

Before I make my main point, let me start by saying "Freedom International" is definitely to the FAR extreme. You and I do disagree on the concept of nudity. And without rehashing where we do and don't disagree, But with that being said, I think the diference between public nudity and public sex has to do with a factor of intimacy. An employee of mine happened to mention today about an area where he knows that there is some people who do have sex openly at night there. (This is a public park). The end result that I was saying to him is that ultimately a few have ruined this park for the rest of us. Police patrol it and kick everyone out after 9:00 PM. It becomes an example of authorities seem to think we need to be protected for our own good. Personally if I want to take a walk along that beach (clothed-so don't go down that road) it should not matter whether it is 11:00 AM or 11:00 PM. And if I decide to go down there with a few friends and responsibly sit by a campfire, talk, and drink (non-alcoholic beverages) I say what is the harm?
If in the process of getting to my destination, I happen to see someone having sex on the beach, I would:
A) not stare, but look elsewhere as I continue walking
B) shake my head & chuckle as I continue walking
C) Think that they must be hard up to find a place and/or into unusual things(as I continue walking)
D) Try not to think about the fact that they will get sand in places where sand should not get. (As I continue walking).

Do I advocate it? NO.
Do I thknk that my world has ended and I need to wash my eyes out with sterile solution for 10 minutes because of the horrible image burned into my eyes? Again, NO.

And the reason for that is that I realize that it is a natural thing. And on that same note, what works for one person does not necessarily work for another. But we really don't need to go down the road of what is sexually acceptable, what is unusual, what is wierd or downright kinky.

But the day that you decide life needs to follow everyone else's rules and you can never take a risk, and you can never grow, and you can never learn and you never question those rules, is the day that you need to turn it in.
Or to put it another way: Ben Franklin said "Those who would trade security for freedom deserve neither."

[MikeJB]

That was a great post! I wouldve said something like that but it wouldnt have come out nearly as good. I hope that somehow enlightens Stu. Anyways yeah basically I think even if you see someone naked, no reason to call the cops on them and cause some big ruckus out of it all, even if you dont like nudity, you should just shrug and move on. Only time id call the cops is if they were harming someone *physically*, stealing something or destroying property, otherwise id basically leave them alone, weither what they were doing was questionable to me or not. I figure why cause a problem when theres nothing really happening worth causing one.

Getting back to Mike's question which no one seems to answering, while we all (except Stu) know that there is nothing wrong with simple non-sexual nudity in any situation, sexual relations between two people, or masturbation for that matter, are things that should be kept private. While there is nothing wrong with sex, with someone else or alone, it's not something we need children watching. I might ignore it or say something to them about finding themselves a bed somewhere, but children are too impressionable and and could be affected in a negative way with viewing something they don't understand. My first ex-wife grew in a home where people had sex in the living room with young children watching, she and everyone else in that family grew up being VERY sexually promiscuous--to put it politely.

Children are natural-born nudists and are not embarrassed by nudity. However, there's no telling what they might imagine is happening when they see a man humping a woman, or whatever they might see. To a young impressionable mind, it could even look like he is harming her. Also, it can open up all kinds of questions that the parents may not want to answer at so early an age.

[MikeJB]

Yeah im not sure if Stu is just trying to cause problems or just thinks hes merely finding a fault in our logic. He seems to think that because we think that both nudity and sex are natural and that we want nudity to be open to everyone and accepted by them that we also want the same for sex, that isnt true. The problem is stu is an intelligent person, because of his law background he shoud know allabout sex and know that there is a difference between harmless nudity and children seeing it and sex and children seeing it. Children dont think twice about nudity, but wiyh sex they could think anything and ask all sorts of questions that parents either cant or dont want to answer at that stage. I just wonder what direction stu is coming from.

[Bob S.]

Mike, don't be too harsh on yourself. You couldn't convince "Sandy" that a car was coming until after it hit her, and even after that, she would still argue with you about whether it really happened. We have had some bad experiences with her over here as Rocket, Rocket2, Rocket3, Rufus, and Elvis (I think that was all of her aliases). Yes, she was kicked out five times. Give up on her. She's a hopeless cause.

"Say if you allowed public nudity but you didnt allow public sex, why would you do this and whats the difference?"

Being naked is being without clothes. Having sex means you are engaged in some sexual activity. And I like Joe's explanation, "I think the diference between public nudity and public sex has to do with a factor of intimacy." Just like we accept kissing, but not heavy petting. A dress code is much different than a behavioural code.

"It would be naive to deny that there are a tiny number of people who use naturism as a front for their own sexual inclinations."

Yeah, and for the most part, they wouldn't describe themselves as naturists/nudists. In fact, the majority of people who are arrested for such behaviour are textiles. But yes, a tiny fraction do think that nudism is a way to get away with more public sexual behaviour.

"Children are natural-born nudists and are not embarrassed by nudity. However, there's no telling what they might imagine is happening when they see a man humping a woman, or whatever they might see."

Jon-Marc, if it is a one time thing or a rare occurrence, then nothing bad will come of it and if the parents are there or (for the teens) if they are raised correctly. It is only in situations such as you alluded to where the child is raised in a sexual atmosphere that problems arise.

Bob S.

[Aaron Adams]

I think the reason why it is difficult to convince other people that a particular view of nudity and/or sex is correct is because most people's views, whatever they are, aren't entirely based on logic. Logically if something isn't harmful it ought to be permitted. Even there the definition of harm depends on your perspective. Stu is apparently offended by the sight of public nudity and is apparently happy that it is banned despite the fact that nudity is basically harmless. People's values often get in the way of logic and I don't neccessarily think that that is a bad thing.

[Naturist Mark]

Didn't we already have this topic?

So here's a question for the prudishly inclined:

Should public sex be acceptable as long as the participants are clothed and no breasts, buttocks or 'naughty bits' are visible to passersby?

If not...

Could we postulate that it is the activity which is inappropriate to the venue, and not the manner of dress or exposure?

Now imagine some strange alternate universe where nude is not lewd. In such a universe, is there any reason that the activity that is inappropriate in the prudiverse would be appropriate in the nudiverse just because of the sartorial differences?

-Mark

(Do you think I can trademark Prudiverse and Nudiverse?)

[MikeJB]

Personally as far as public sex goes, it would depend on the situation. If someone was having sex openly out on the beach, especially if kids could see it then yeah I might have a problem with it and ask the people not to do it out on the beach in view of others, but if they were doing it out of view of others and were being discreet about it even if they were still in a public place then even though I question it I wouldnt really worry about it because sex isnt a bad thing and if people at least make an effort not to be seen doing it then id just rather leave them alone than drag the police into it and make a bigger scene out of it than I needed to. Clothed or nude id probably handle this situation the same since nudity isnt bad and I dont think it really has anything to do with the fact they are having sex and where they are doing it.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
We have had some bad experiences with her over here as Rocket, Rocket2, Rocket3, Rufus, and Elvis (I think that was all of her aliases). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You forgot one alias: Scud5.

This topic was really discussed earlier, last autumn before I registered myself here. I remember Stu saying: "Why not?"

[MikeJB]

This topic was really discussed earlier, last autumn before I registered myself here. I remember Stu saying: "Why not?"
------------------------------------------------

I think its pretty obvious why not and people here have discussed this reason before in large detail and have done it quite well I would say and Stu knows this and also I would think being a legal expert, he would know the difference between sex and nudity and asking such a question like that just goes to show how weak a grasp he has on it but really if he thought long and hard enough he would know damn well what the difference between open public nudity and public sex would be.

==Mike==

[Jochanaan]

This is a topic that, for many reasons, is probably going to keep "rising" till the cows come home. Even if we cannot make our beliefs and practices clear to outsiders, we must still be clear among ourselves.

Assuming that the sexual relationship itself is acceptable (by whatever beliefs or definitions apply), there is no logical reason that it shouldn't happen in public. But this relationship is the most intense and intimate of all--far more than ordinary friendship or the affection between parent and child; so intimate that even long-time nudists often feel a sense of impropriety or invasion if they witness it. It is appropriate that it should be private.

If the textile public didn't associate public nudity with promiscuous sex so strongly, we might be more flexible. But since the public thinks as it does, most nudist organizations disassociate themselves with anything that smells like promiscuity. This is why some of our people feel as if we're trying to get them to be non-sexual beings. The problem will not be solved as long as there are many textiles who think "nude = lewd."

Some here have different practices than I, and I respect those. But these are my thoughts on why public sex isn't appropriate although public nudity is (at least among the nudist public /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Greensunshine

"you aren't as closed minded as you think"

I've never thought of myself as closed-minded. Intelligent people are reflective and constantly challenging and re-evaluating their own beliefs and attitudes. That's how we grow. Of course I have changed since I first came here because I have learned. But this is a two-way thing. I hope others have learned from me, too.

WNY Joe

You don't have to be naked to have sex - trust me on this! The idea of being totally naked during sex is a fairly recent phenomenon in the west. From Tudor times upto Victorian times it was not unusual for a man never to have seen his wife naked and vice-versa,

To everyone

If you read my posts you will see that I keep trying to disentangle the issues of public nudity with public sex. Nudity and sex have some things in common in that they are both natural activities normally carried out in private and generally regarded as being antisocial and offensive when carried out openly in public yet cause no physical harm to the viewer. But that does not imply that there is anything inherently sexual about nudity any more than it implies that it is not possible to be sexual unless you are nude.

NaturistMark

"Should public sex be acceptable as long as the participants are clothed and no breasts, buttocks or 'naughty bits' are visible to passersby?"

No. Public sex is another form of offensive and antisocial behaviour.

"Could we postulate that it is the activity which is inappropriate to the venue, and not the manner of dress or exposure?"

The sex is definitely inappropriate - and I am sure that would apply as much to a naturist environment as a textile one. In the case of the latter, the offence may or may not be compounded by the inappropriate exposure of certain body parts.

Jochanaan

"so intimate that even long-time nudists often feel a sense of impropriety or invasion if they witness it. It is appropriate that it should be private."

That's how many textiles feel about nudity. It's something that should occur in private. You can't apply direct logic to that "feeling..of impropriety" to public nudity any more than you can to public sex as, it can be argued, both are natural and harmless. But as Aaron said, "People's values often get in the way of logic and I don't neccessarily think that that is a bad thing."

Stu

[MikeJB]

------------------------------------------------
Firstly, just to set the record straight, I haven't been involved in that discussion.
------------------------------------------------

Okay thats fine, im sure you have an opinion on it though.

-----------------------------------------------
Personally I don't equate nudity with sex for several reasons. I am nude when I take a shower or a bath. I am never nude when I have sex. So I don't see any connection.
-----------------------------------------------

Thats fine and thats how it should be, although I do find the not being nude while having sex thing hard to beleive but I do agree that its quite possible to have sex while clothed so some parents who have the beleif that if their kids remained clothed that they wont have sex, that is not necessarily true, if they want to have sex enough they'll find a way to do it and keep their clothes on. I think its entirely possible to go and do almost everything in your daily life nude, do i expect people to do this blatantly without common sense or second thought on it? No. I want public nudity legalized but some firm standards in place and I want people to use common sense as to when and where to be nude in public so as to cause the least amount *if any* of harm and distress to people as possible. I dont think that this should interfere with nudity being legal in public but if we did make it legal id hope we would be rather smart about it when we did it.

-----------------------------------------------
It would be naive to deny that there are a tiny number of people who use naturism as a front for their own sexual inclinations (no, I don't suspect anyone here of being such a person).
-----------------------------------------------

I dont think that you think that way and im sure most everyone here is rather sane and wouldnt do that. I just dont like organzisations that want both sex and nudity legal in public but yet then again their idea of promoting both is what will make them unpopular and end up coming back around to bite them in the *** because the amount of people who want both SEX AND NUDITY legalized in public are even smaller than us who just want nudity legalized because even us nudists while we may think nudity is perfectly harmless in public would not go as far as to suggest people try humping each other on the beach in full view of others. I just dont think theres much demand for such an institution and thus I dont think *freedom international* will last that long, whereas INA and other refuteable organziations will.

------------------------------------------------
There are, after all, paedophiles who manage to get jobs in working with children but most men who work with kids aren't paedophiles.
------------------------------------------------

Thats true, but just because they are naked with kids wouldnt automatically mean that they intend to do something sexual or promiscuous with them. There would have to be more to suggest this than just their nudity, their nudity COULD be a factor but shouldnt be the only or #1 sign that thats their intention.


-----------------------------------------------
There are men who get a turn-on from touching womens' feet who get jobs working in shoe shops but that doesn't mean that most men in shoe shops have this fetish.
-----------------------------------------------

Ive never heard of that, that seems rather weird to me. Ive been to shoe stores and never really seen that, most people there seem to be rather sane.

-----------------------------------------------
I have enough faith in the naturist community and those who manage naturist activities to believe that, should there be any inappropriate behaviour at a nudist venue, the offenders would be expelled!
-----------------------------------------------

Thats always been what ive assumed of most nudist venues that any unsavory activities usually lead to expulsion and in most cases this should be true but this shouldnt just be automatic and should really depend on what the situation is and the factors involved in it. Some places take this expulsion thing to the extreme.

-------------------------------------------------
The ONLY thing that public sex and public nudity have in common as far as I am concerned is that they are both inappropriate and antisocial things to do.
-------------------------------------------------

As the law and public view is now, I would say this is true. My thoughts are that for the most part public nudity should be made legal and accepted in most places and situations whereas public sex should remain illegal and be unaccepted by people except in very few situations where the person is in private with little or no chance of anyone seeing them. Mostly though nudity should be legal and sex shouldnt be.

-----------------------------------------------
You can, nevertheless, understand why some people confuse the two things when there are organisations that have the objective to legalise BOTH nudity AND sex in public (e.g. Freedom International).
-----------------------------------------------

I dont feel most people take these organizations seriously and I dont think such things will last very long. I think its just a joke and just something to make public nudity even less accepted by the masses because they'll feel we are all like that when really its just these usavory people who are.

---------------------------------------------
The fact that I hold a strong belief about something and haven't been persuaded to change it doesn't make me closed-minded.
---------------------------------------------

Of course. I just think some prudes are closed minded and in fact will not listen to or try to compromise or accept anything and those are the people who I question because they go to the extreme, they dont just disagree with you they think their opinion is right without question and wont even consider anything else even if it would be beneficial or helpful to them.

-------------------------------------------------
I could accuse people here of being closed-minded about the prude perspective
-------------------------------------------------

Yes you could but its obvious and I think you know now that this would simply not be true whereas people like rocket would think it is. of course they think anyone who doesnt agree with them is closed minded even if they do try to accept or be open to some of their ideas.


------------------------------------------------
but I don't do that because I respect opinions that differ from my own. Others should afford similar respect.
------------------------------------------------

Same here. Thats why I want some sort of compromise or mutual understanding as far as public nudity goes or at least people acceptance or views of nudity in general go.

[George SoCal]

The problem we are facing as nudists is that public sex on our traditional and legal beaches is putting more pressure on to close them (And some have been). We are not gaining more beaches!

I think too much emphasis has been placed on the "Recreation" aspect of it, and not enough on the daily living with our families in our own homes. It's not supposed to be sexually charged!

I want to be able to take my family to an outing on the beach without enduring sexual promiscuity!

Rather than taking the more passive stance that is endorsed by MikeJB when encountering sexual activities, we should be more proactive and make citizen's arrests or call law enforcement if nearby. We should make it clear to those who would abuse the privilege of attending a nude beach or venue that sexual activities will not be tolerated! Period! And that goes for unwanted erections as well. It is easy enough to cover up, or roll over until it subsides.

Naturism should be a family activity and we should maintain a moral stance to preserve it. Without that we stand for nothing but a Free Love movement!

Mike

"Same here. Thats why I want some sort of compromise or mutual understanding as far as public nudity goes or at least people acceptance or views of nudity in general go."

There already IS an understanding (or compromise). It goes like this:

1. You can be nude on your own property

2. You can be nude on private property provided the owner doesn't object

3. You can be nude at naturist beaches (or clothes-optional), naturist resorts and organised naturist events. You are also free to campaign for more such places.

4. You can be nude in a few other places where it s accepted (e.g. some rock concerts permit it, some saunas, health clubs etc)

5. You can be nude in very remote places outdoors provided you do your best to ensure that others who are lkely to be upset by it won't see you (and if they come along, you cover up).

But elsewhere in public you can be ALMOST nude - wear skimpy shorts or a sarong etc.

Now I think that's an extremely equitable "compromise" on the part of the 98% of us who aren't nudists to the 2% who are.

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
There already IS an understanding (or compromise). It goes like this:

1. You can be nude on your own property <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow! Neighbors and passer-byes seeing you.

I didn't expect this from you, Stu.

[Bob S.]

"Thats true, but just because they are naked with kids wouldnt automatically mean that they intend to do something sexual or promiscuous with them."

Actually Mike, the comment was about men who work with children. An elementary school teacher should not be naked while teaching. A child phychiatrist should keep his clothes on while counseling the child.

"5. You can be nude in very remote places outdoors provided you do your best to ensure that others who are lkely to be upset by it won't see you (and if they come along, you cover up)."

Provided that they are not just passing by, are close enough, and actually ask you to cover up. Otherwise, you have no reason to do so.

Bob S.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Jochanaan

"so intimate that even long-time nudists often feel a sense of impropriety or invasion if they witness it. It is appropriate that it should be private."

That's how many textiles feel about nudity. It's something that should occur in private. You can't apply direct logic to that "feeling..of impropriety" to public nudity any more than you can to public sex as, it can be argued, both are natural and harmless.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately for my ego, you're right. My only excuse is that I never claimed that my practices or feelings were universal. In fact, as I recall, I specifically disclaimed to be speaking for anyone else out there. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I might have tried to defend my view by using Scripture, but that would have been futile since you and the majority of correspondents here do not accept its authority. But that is precisely where your beliefs and mine diverge. You believe that the strong opinions and tastes of the majority are, by definition, right (I hope I'm characterizing your beliefs accurately); but I believe there are certain universal truths that are right regardless of how many do or don't believe in them. That's why we disagree on so many things: our assumptions are different. Which of us is right remains to be seen. But are my beliefs any less valid than yours?

(Sorry for getting a little off-topic.)

[MikeJB]

Mike

"Same here. Thats why I want some sort of compromise or mutual understanding as far as public nudity goes or at least people acceptance or views of nudity in general go."
------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but who is that compromise really compromising for, you or the nudist? Your compromise has different intentions than mine. I want balance, acceptance, equality, and respect for the human body in most practical places, you just want us to hide our bodies from you so you dont have to a) see it or b) possibly and usually for no good reason, be disgusted or offended by it.


-------------------------------------------------
There already IS an understanding (or compromise). It goes like this:
-------------------------------------------------

This oughta be good.....I oughta order a pizza.


-----------------------------------------------
1. You can be nude on your own property
-----------------------------------------------

Okay, so if im nude in my yard and some kids sees it and not understanding what im doing, why im doing it or not understanding that nudity is good, runs and complains, does that make me the bad person here? I mean if you include my property, that oughta include my yard. So people still see my nudity and get offended, so how is this different than public nudity? Also why should someone get offended in the first place? Most who get offended just dont care or dont understand the facts anyways.

------------------------------------------------
2. You can be nude on private property provided the owner doesn't object
------------------------------------------------

Thats obvious Stu, I wouldnt be nude in someone else's house unless they didnt mind. Same with any private business.

------------------------------------------------
3. You can be nude at naturist beaches (or clothes-optional), naturist resorts and organised naturist events. You are also free to campaign for more such places.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah we dont have enough of these places. Anyways even if we did, all these places tell the public is that because we separate our nudity and ourselves from the public that our nudity must be bad and we must all be unsavory people because only such people with such intentions do such things as make small communities and resorts closed off from the general society. I really dont think thats the answer and thats not the kind of idea we need to be giving society.

----------------------------------------------
4. You can be nude in a few other places where it s accepted (e.g. some rock concerts permit it, some saunas, health clubs etc)
----------------------------------------------

Yeah but if we are nude at rock concerts and only there, people are gonna get the idea that we are only nude for the "shock" value of it and because of sexual reasons. I mean im sure most people who go nude at rock concerts dont just do it for the fun of it, although im sure some do though.

---------------------------------------------
5. You can be nude in very remote places outdoors provided you do your best to ensure that others who are lkely to be upset by it won't see you (and if they come along, you cover up).
---------------------------------------------

I would only cover up there if it offended them/or they asked me to, otherwise id have no reason to, hell they might even wanna join in or just walk away in a huff. Places like this would be good places to allow nudity, because few people would see it and even fewer would be pissed off.

-------------------------------------------------
But elsewhere in public you can be ALMOST nude - wear skimpy shorts or a sarong etc.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah youre almost nude, so when you get to that stage, its like whats the point? I mean youre not covering anything that people dont know is there or cant see through what is usually an opaque or see thru covering so I mean it makes little sense to even bother at that point. If someone isnt offended by you in a thong or bikini, they wouldnt be if you were naked or if they could see that 3% of you thats covered up. I would think that being nude promotes less curiousity and also doesnt sexually excite as much as a bikini would.

-------------------------------------------------
Now I think that's an extremely equitable "compromise" on the part of the 98% of us who aren't nudists to the 2% who are.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but who is it really compromising for? I think its still unfair to those of us who want to be nude in these places and unfair to those who wouldnt mind it that are being denied to experience the nude body in all its natural beauty.


Stu

[MikeJB]

"Thats true, but just because they are naked with kids wouldnt automatically mean that they intend to do something sexual or promiscuous with them."

Actually Mike, the comment was about men who work with children. An elementary school teacher should not be naked while teaching. A child phychiatrist should keep his clothes on while counseling the child.
-------------------------------------------------

Why do you think that a doctor or teacher shouldnt be naked? Nudity is good for kids, its even better if they could be naked too. I think a naked teacher would be a good thing for kids, it would get them to a) see nudity everyday and be exposed to and learn to accept it b) they can get a good anatomy lesson and c) I think it would help them develop more love and respect for their own bodies and each other. I mean being naked in school has gotta be better than those stuffy uniforms the conservatives issue out to kids these days, I mean I know they want conformity but cmon, these fricken schools are starting to end up like private schools and thats not a direction they wanna go. Besides if everyone was nude, youd have to accept them for who and what they are and youd see the real deal and eveyrone would be unique and notthing would be necessarily "hot" or "sexy" or "in style" and girls wouldnt have to spend 3 fricken hours just trying to figure out what to wear everyday just to impress or be "in style". Besides that whole attitude about teachers being professional in nice clothing is just bull****, you can be professional *acting that way* and still be nude. Youd just have to wear a id with a string on it so everyone would know who you are and that youre supposed to be there. Same with doctors *unless its unhealthy for them to do so* but psychologists/psychitricts work with people and mostly just talk to them and go over paperwork so thats hardly anything that requires clothing. Besides a clothed doctor talking to a kid is kind of contradicting himself, because how do you get a kid to really accept himself and his body if you feel too shamed enough to even be nude around people yourself?

[Ren]

I agree to a point Mike. A lot of students wear clothes that expose parts of their bodies, usually to enhance their sexual attributes. It's kind of creepy for 14-year-olds to do this, but it's done all the time. Girls wear barely there tops and shorts and guys wear clothes that are dangling off their waists and tank tops all the time.

I was in a class and the kids asked if I would be upset if they came in naked. I said as long as they weren't creating a disturbance in class and I could get work done, I wouldn't care. So, they continued their discussion and a lot of them thought being naked in class would be gross. A lot of them were wearing the above-described clothing.

Part of their ick-factor response comes from the idea that the naked body is always sexual. If they were brought up with a healthier view of the naked body, maybe then there wouldn't be so many quandaries with dressing to provoke. But that's not a proven point. I suppose ideally that nakedness in a classroom would make the kids more self-aware about their bodies rather than self-conscious about them.

[MikeJB]

I agree to a point Mike. A lot of students wear clothes that expose parts of their bodies, usually to enhance their sexual attributes. It's kind of creepy for 14-year-olds to do this, but it's done all the time. Girls wear barely there tops and shorts and guys wear clothes that are dangling off their waists and tank tops all the time.
------------------------------------------------

Of course its creepy for kids to do this, it shows that they are ashamed of body parts that are perfectly natural and are denying the wholesomeness of their bodies. Id rather see a kid fully clothed or naked than in suggestive clothing. Personally I think that itd be better if they were naked, it relieves alot of the shame and makes kids feel more open to each other and they can see themselves for what they really are. I think if we kept alot of this MTV and Porno/Fashion/Media Industry away from them that this would help alot ebcause these are the epople who promote this lifestyle and unfortunately make millions off of these kids being shamed and ruining their lives and personally I think those people are animals and really the people should make a big fuss out of it and run em outta business or make them change their ways.

----------------------------------------------
I was in a class and the kids asked if I would be upset if they came in naked. I said as long as they weren't creating a disturbance in class and I could get work done, I wouldn't care.
----------------------------------------------

That sounds reasonable. I mean if kids can to come to school and not create a disturbance and get their work done then whats the point of them wearing clothing, it only creates the sort of problem most schools have now with kids fighting over who has the latest style and that to me is just pathetic and nudity would rid the school, teachers, parents and anyone else of alot of this crap. Thats better than making them wear uniforms after all.

------------------------------------------------
So, they continued their discussion and a lot of them thought being naked in class would be gross.
------------------------------------------------

You shouldve explained to them that nudity wasnt gross and explained alot of the benefits of it. Could they really have come to class naked without getting in trouble with the teacher, principal, school faculty, parents, etc? I mean that just doesnt sound realistic nowadays.

------------------------------------------------
A lot of them were wearing the above-described clothing.
------------------------------------------------


Yeah I bet they were. I think its kind of dumb how they wear these peek-a-boo outfits but yet dont have enough guts to shed it all and expose their bodies and accept that they are natural and wholesome. Those outfits lead to more problems than soulutions.

-------------------------------------------------
Part of their ick-factor response comes from the idea that the naked body is always sexual.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah thats why we gotta get them away from all that MTV crap and get parents to teach these kids that their bodies areint always sexual.

-----------------------------------------------
If they were brought up with a healthier view of the naked body, maybe then there wouldn't be so many quandaries with dressing to provoke.
-----------------------------------------------

Exactly, there wouldnt be any reason for that if parents just brought them up right and taught them that generally what society says about nudity/sex/body is generally wrong and misguided at best.

-----------------------------------------------
But that's not a proven point. I suppose ideally that nakedness in a classroom would make the kids more self-aware about their bodies rather than self-conscious about them.
-----------------------------------------------

I think that if you look at http://rejectshame.com you can find proof about how kids react to nudity and what parents and other people can do to releive shame and theres some proven points there by several professionals, its kind of a god oreinted site and it kinda centers on women and families/children but its still fairly helpful and is actually supportly more or less directly by this site. Just thought id pass that along to you if you havent already seen that.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> a lot of them thought being naked in class would be gross <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's because they think the anal cleft, genitals and pubic regions are "gross". It is the natural result of having grown up in a world where those areas have to be kept covered because people like Stu think they are gross.

They also think body hair, surgical scars, stretch marks and fatty deposits are "gross", probably even more than genitals. It is a natural result of having lived in a world where in print, on the tube and on the silver screen you rarely see anything but airbrushed and cosmetically modified perfection.

They are also probably imagining sweat and bodily fluids slowly leaking out of ones anatomy onto chairs, boys becoming obviously aroused, buttocks sticking to plastic seats, etc. It is a natural result of a lack of experience.

[Trailscout]

When children or teens say that nudity is "gross", it betrays how little they know about hidden prejudices and the cultural isolation they inhabit.

We celebrate the nude in sculpture, photography and painting, but cringe at the sight of a real nude human in all her splendor?

There is likely a sexual component to the revulsion these kids feel to nudity, but I think most of it is the total unfamiliarity this current generation has with the nude body. There is a disconnect between the sexless clothed bodies they are used to seeing and a real exposed human body with its curves, exuberant pubic hair and mysterious genitals, strange yet beautiful, full of significance and power.

[MikeJB]

When children or teens say that nudity is "gross", it betrays how little they know about hidden prejudices and the cultural isolation they inhabit.
------------------------------------------------

Thats why they oughta start teaching body acceptance and ways to reject shame in school instead of sex ed, the parents oughta be teaching that.

What im wondering is how we would go about teaching kids body acceptance without "forcing" it on them like Stu would say?

-----------------------------------------------
We celebrate the nude in sculpture, photography and painting, but cringe at the sight of a real nude human in all her splendor?
----------------------------------------------

Well most of us do, except that ashcroft guy. Wouldnt it have been cheaper for him to just do his speech someplace else instead of buying those expensive curtains? Anyways yeah our society has a few screws loose and us nudists need to tighten em up a bit.

---------------------------------------------
There is likely a sexual component to the revulsion these kids feel to nudity
---------------------------------------------

Yeah...duh, isnt that what most of society is filled with these days and what these kids are overtly exposed to all the time? I think we oughta ban MTV, not nudity.

------------------------------------------------
but I think most of it is the total unfamiliarity this current generation has with the nude body.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah thats why more parents need to teach these kids body acceptance. Thats why im all for the nude school /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

---------------------------------------------
There is a disconnect between the sexless clothed bodies they are used to seeing and a real exposed human body with its curves, exuberant pubic hair and mysterious genitals, strange yet beautiful, full of significance and power.
----------------------------------------------

Well then we need to reconnect it dont we? We gotta get em away from all that sex they see on MTV and in movies.

[Bob S.]

"Why do you think that a doctor or teacher shouldnt be naked?"

Do you have to ask that question in this day and age? And that was what I was saying.

"Besides a clothed doctor talking to a kid is kind of contradicting himself, because how do you get a kid to really accept himself and his body if you feel too shamed enough to even be nude around people yourself"

So if both the doctor and child are nudists and prefer to be wearing clothes at this instance, is that still a contradiction? You can convince people to let go of body shame while clothed. After all, it is their problem, not yours. They have a problem accepting their own bodies, so how would you exposing yours help them?

And yes, "sexy" clothes for kids is very disturbing. They actually come in sizes for the preteen set as well. The premise is that kids want to dress like adults (especially their MTV idols) and the fashion industry is giving them that chance. On the news a while back, there was a story about that kind of clothing for teens and a mother was lamenting that she couldn't stand for her daughter to dress like that, but that she was having a hard time finding stores that sold regular clothes.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

"Why do you think that a doctor or teacher shouldnt be naked?"

Do you have to ask that question in this day and age? And that was what I was saying.
-----------------------------------------------

I think the fear of child molesation and pediphilia is one of the reasons people cant accept nudity, they gotta stop worrying about this so much, just get nude and enjoy life. Besides the media overexaggerates this issue anyways *no offense to those who have been molested/raped* so really the fear of getting raped is about as far fetched as terrorists coming and dropping a bomb on your head. I think if the media would stop promoting these things like hotcakes then people wouldnt have to worry about them so much and they make these incidents sound so much worse than they really are and that just freaks people out.

-----------------------------------------------
"Besides a clothed doctor talking to a kid is kind of contradicting himself, because how do you get a kid to really accept himself and his body if you feel too shamed enough to even be nude around people yourself"

So if both the doctor and child are nudists and prefer to be wearing clothes at this instance, is that still a contradiction? You can convince people to let go of body shame while clothed. After all, it is their problem, not yours. They have a problem accepting their own bodies, so how would you exposing yours help them?
------------------------------------------------

Most people who wear clothes seem to wear them because they feel shame about their bodies and im sure this is true ironically of most doctors, so if they were nude along with their patients then it would help them get over some of the trauma of getting naked in front of their doctor. Makes sense huh.

-------------------------------------------------
And yes, "sexy" clothes for kids is very disturbing. They actually come in sizes for the preteen set as well. The premise is that kids want to dress like adults (especially their MTV idols) and the fashion industry is giving them that chance. On the news a while back, there was a story about that kind of clothing for teens and a mother was lamenting that she couldn't stand for her daughter to dress like that, but that she was having a hard time finding stores that sold regular clothes.
-------------------------------------------------


Thats why itd be easier to just let em go nude, then you dont have this problem and if you get rid of MTV and alot of this media crap in their lives then they'll be less affected. I think itd be better if a girl was naked than in sexy clothing, they look much better and dont affect guys sexually as much.

[Ren]

To touch on a few points...

I didn't feel it was my place to discuss the benefits of being naked, because they could easily (EASILY) misconstrue what is being said to them. Then they go home, tell a half-listening parent, yada yada, complaints. Comes down to nudity=sex in many people's minds, and I'd rather protect myself and my job, than suffer at the hands of the misinformed reactionaries.

Sex ed should be taught at schools, because the idea is to give out accurate information about disease, about protection, and about responsibility. Some parents don't discuss sex, or throw in contrivances that don't relate to a kid's potential experience (ie. that in spite of being told not to, he might just go and do it). It is probably the best service provided in our schools since most now have to teach to a test rather than provide real learning opportunites.

The problem about the openness of nudity as it relates to pedophilia is fallacious. Consider, people are Catholic. A bunch of priests have been proven pedophiles with the Church covering it up. Are people banning religious education? Are people banning clothing, since the most active way people see a priest is in a nattily tailored black suit and collar or robes? Are people banning Catholicism? No across the board. Why would being naked lead to pedophilia? Pedophilic desires spring from repression of certain feelings combined with some sort of emotional/mental disorder. It happens to people who spend time in robes or in nothing at all. One does not beget the other.

The government and society have caused the clothing/nudity problem and has couched it in so many excuses, rather than in factual research. Usually it comes under "protecting our children." This is hypocritical. In the process of protecting our children, they allow pollution to occur and we buy fuel inefficient cars. In the process of protecting our children, they complain about artful, though curse-filled lyrics, while we watch murder coverage on the television news. Governments start wars for no reason, businesses knock people out of jobs or steal money, and social groups try to deny rights to all citizens. This is who is protecting the children? This is who is saying the naked body is bad? Why are we listening to them, when we know the truth?

[MikeJB]

To touch on a few points...

I didn't feel it was my place to discuss the benefits of being naked, because they could easily (EASILY) misconstrue what is being said to them. Then they go home, tell a half-listening parent, yada yada, complaints. Comes down to nudity=sex in many people's minds, and I'd rather protect myself and my job, than suffer at the hands of the misinformed reactionaries.
------------------------------------------------


That could happen with ANYTHING! Especially if the parent listens and responds the way that they did with their kid in your example. It would be the parent's fault for not carefully listening and taking in everything that the kid says, if they only hear bits and peices of it or if the child conveys it in a way different from what the doctor said then yeah I could understand the parent not getting it, but thats why parents gotta listen to their kids and understand what they say and instead of complaining, they need to talk to the doctor and find out what he/she said to the child and im sure the doctor could clear things up with the parent. Also, dont most kids see their doctors with their parents present or close by? I always did and so thus my mother always knew what the doctor did or said to me and besides she always listened to me quite clearly so she got the whole story. I just think that if parents dont listen to their children or think that nude=sex then thats their fault not the doctor's.

-----------------------------------------------
Sex ed should be taught at schools, because the idea is to give out accurate information about disease, about protection, and about responsibility.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah dont you think that an actual nude boy and girl would give a more accurate description and idea of the naked body than some fit, muscular, confusing medical drawing/sketch would? Kids need to see the real thing, not some fake drawing, drawings are good for inside stuff, especially when pictures are not readily available, but for the outside, they need to see the real thing to truly understand it. I think that alot of sex ed *at least the ones I saw* didnt really give a good enough description of these things and actually had a rather biased veiw of sex and the body so really thats not something id want my kid *if I had one* to learn, id rather teach them it myself.

---------------------------------------------
Some parents don't discuss sex, or throw in contrivances that don't relate to a kid's potential experience (ie. that in spite of being told not to, he might just go and do it).
--------------------------------------------

Thats why parents need to learn how to explain it properly and in the right context, there really isnt any excuse for this because there are some good books and material out there for this and the schools really should promote these and encourage strongly that parents talk with kids about these issues and actually instruct them on how they can go about doing it *i.e parent meetings*.


-----------------------------------------------
It is probably the best service provided in our schools since most now have to teach to a test rather than provide real learning opportunites.
-----------------------------------------------


I think that they need to be honest about sex and the body when discussing it and put their liberal/political bias on sex aside and just teach it how it is and make sure that these kids know what they gotta know and know that sex is something more intimate that two consenting *hopefully married* adults do and its not something that teens should just do for fun. Many sex ed things ive seen have failed to prove this point and many seem in some subtle ways to say that underage sex is ok while still acting like they oppose it.


----------------------------------------------
The problem about the openness of nudity as it relates to pedophilia is fallacious.
----------------------------------------------

That relation needs to be disconnected and nudity needs to be shown for what it really is and that it has nothing to do with pediphilia per se.

----------------------------------------------
Consider, people are Catholic. A bunch of priests have been proven pedophiles with the Church covering it up.
----------------------------------------------

Yeah because they dont want to have to admit that they are against the very things they do in private behind their members backs. I think that having more watchfulness among leaders and younger more impressionable people would help alot and there should be at least 1 more person present *an adult* so that it doesnt become a he said/she said scenerio. Nudity shouldnt be denied just because of this. There are ways to be nude and still learn scripture.

---------------------------------------------
Are people banning religious education? Are people banning clothing, since the most active way people see a priest is in a nattily tailored black suit and collar or robes? Are people banning Catholicism? No across the board. Why would being naked lead to pedophilia? Pedophilic desires spring from repression of certain feelings combined with some sort of emotional/mental disorder. It happens to people who spend time in robes or in nothing at all. One does not beget the other.
------------------------------------------------

Im confused, doesnt that mean that weither a preist is nude or not doesnt mean that they cant still be a pediphile? Also if pediphilia has nothing to do with nudity then why would nudity be bad in church?

------------------------------------------------
The government and society have caused the clothing/nudity problem and has couched it in so many excuses, rather than in factual research.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah I dont like all their offensive/indecent/immoral excuses, I want actual proof that nudity is inherently harmful, otherwise they have no legal grounds to deny people the right to be nude or ban nudity.

------------------------------------------------
Usually it comes under "protecting our children." This is hypocritical.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah what exactly are protecting children from? NOTHING in fact they are denying children from experiencing something very wholesome and beneficial to them. Parents do not need the government to act like a second parent and do their job for them.


-----------------------------------------------
In the process of protecting our children, they allow pollution to occur and we buy fuel inefficient cars.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah its like police who arrest nudists yet let a rapist get away from harming a young girl. You gotta deal with whats important and ignore the little things that dont matter or have any reason to worry about.

------------------------------------------------
In the process of protecting our children, they complain about artful, though curse-filled lyrics, while we watch murder coverage on the television news.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah its like how is dirty music not ok, but murder is, I just dont get that. Id rather they listen to snoop dogg than watch someone get murdered on tv.

------------------------------------------
Governments start wars for no reason, businesses knock people out of jobs or steal money, and social groups try to deny rights to all citizens.
------------------------------------------

Yeah and Stu tries to say what the government and lawmakers say is final and almost always right and that these people are never wrong and always have our best interests in mind, HAH!, this is the one reason I never really like our government, they concentrate on all the wrong issues and dont really give a damn about most of us.

-------------------------------------------------
This is who is protecting the children? This is who is saying the naked body is bad? Why are we listening to them, when we know the truth?
-------------------------------------------------

Exactly. I think theres a problem when what normal people, even nudists say makes more sense than what our own *******ed government says.

[Bob S.]

"I think the fear of child molesation and pediphilia is one of the reasons people cant accept nudity"

I agree wholeheartedly that is the number one reason for the "Protect the Children" anti-nudity crusades is because of the pedophilic witchhunt. Hippie Hollow in Texas decided years ago to ban children from the beach lest, the pervs get access to them. Apparently, they have no problem with the pervs being there, just as long as the kids are not there.

And yes, the media does tend to emphasize the bad news and thus, it seems like the world is a very dangerous place. "The summer of the abductions" was actually a normal year for abductions, but when the media picks up on a story and another similar event occurs, they will concentrate on that theme. The summer before that was "The summer of the Sharks."

"so if they were nude along with their patients then it would help them get over some of the trauma of getting naked in front of their doctor. Makes sense huh."

Makes sense if that was the point of the meeting. But if the child was there to talk about depression after his mother just died, what point would being naked have? And seriously, the time to get over the nudity is at home, not at the doctor's office.

"{Sex ed}is probably the best service provided in our schools since most now have to teach to a test rather than provide real learning opportunites."

I agree somewhat. But I feel that we need to give parents back a lot of their responsibilities. And sex-ed is one of them. Actually, and sadly, it seems that parents are the ones who need sex-education and how to teach that. The schools teach their own watered-down version but only parents can teach about the morals, values, and intimacy of the act. But for some parents, it seems that they balk at the mere mention of sex and that starts from when their young children ask where babies come from. If they can't even answer that question adequately for their four-year-old child, what chance do that have when they have to talk to theri pre-teen about more intimate aspects?

Parents have been screwing this topic up starting at an early age. And then they wonder why their children are reluctant to come to them in the future for the more intimate talks. When communication is open, children thrive.

"Yeah dont you think that an actual nude boy and girl would give a more accurate description"

Sure, but the modeling should ideally be done at home with familial nudity.

"I want actual proof that nudity is inherently harmful, otherwise they have no legal grounds to deny people the right to be nude or ban nudity."

Don't hold your breath. That proof will never come.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
But for some parents, it seems that they balk at the mere mention of sex and that starts from when their young children ask where babies come from. If they can't even answer that question adequately for their four-year-old child, what chance do that have when they have to talk to theri pre-teen about more intimate aspects? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why the schools have to teach it. In a perfect world the kids would learn everything they need to know, along with the correct moral values from their parents. But in this imperfect world the consequences of ignorance about sex include pregnancy, disease and death. That is too high a price to pay for preserving parental prerogatives.

I have no objection to parents being able to opt their kids out of sex ed -so long as they assume responsibility for it, and prove it by having their kids pass examinations on the subject. Ignorance is too dangerous.

-Mark

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
sex is something more intimate that two consenting *hopefully married* adults do and its not something that teens should just do for fun. Many sex ed things ive seen have failed to prove this point and many seem in some subtle ways to say that underage sex is ok while still acting like they oppose it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't mix sex education with teaching of morals. The latter is the task of the parents. Teaching the biological and health facts about sex suits well to the school.

Sex between teens is reality that cannot be hindered. The health factors are a sufficient reason to teach young teens like this: "You don't necessarily have to go into sexual intercourse at your age. Do it when you are mature enough, preferably with a steady partner. Always, at this age and later, bear in mind that if you do it, then do it responsibly to yourself and your partner. Avoid unwanted pregnancy and diseases, avoid hurting of each other's feelings." Not more morals needed in school.

[MikeJB]

"I think the fear of child molesation and pediphilia is one of the reasons people cant accept nudity"

I agree wholeheartedly that is the number one reason for the "Protect the Children" anti-nudity crusades is because of the pedophilic witchhunt. Hippie Hollow in Texas decided years ago to ban children from the beach lest, the pervs get access to them. Apparently, they have no problem with the pervs being there, just as long as the kids are not there.
------------------------------------------------

Shouldnt that place have banned the pervs from coming and not the children? Their solution is to deny children access to the beach just so a bunch of perverts have free reign over it? That doesnt sound right and if I was the parents of one of those kids who used to frequent there, id complain. They shouldnt have any right doing this, banning kids while allowing sexual predators to come in freely, I mean what kind of idiotic sob's do they have runnin this place?

---------------------------------------------
And yes, the media does tend to emphasize the bad news and thus, it seems like the world is a very dangerous place. "The summer of the abductions" was actually a normal year for abductions, but when the media picks up on a story and another similar event occurs, they will concentrate on that theme. The summer before that was "The summer of the Sharks."
------------------------------------------------

Maybe then we shouldnt allow the media to cover such things and thus lower the media backlash of it. The media doesnt have to cover every single rape situation, especially before its even found out the particulars of it or even before it is dealt with, usually with nudity having NOTHING to do with the crime being commited. I wouldnt want the media to cover a crime unless it can get its facts straight, because people dont deserve to know about this stuff unless they know the truth and not the media's exaggerated biased version of it. If thats the case, id rather I didnt know about it at all.

------------------------------------------------
"so if they were nude along with their patients then it would help them get over some of the trauma of getting naked in front of their doctor. Makes sense huh."

Makes sense if that was the point of the meeting. But if the child was there to talk about depression after his mother just died, what point would being naked have? And seriously, the time to get over the nudity is at home, not at the doctor's office.
------------------------------------------------

Well okay in that context maybe they dont "need" to be nude or the situation doesnt require it, but what would be so harmful about them being nude while doing this as long as they could get to the point of the discusssion and help the child deal with their depression? Besides isnt it more beneficial for kids to be nude or exposed to nudity on a regular basis? I think it would be cool to have a nude doctor.

-------------------------------------------------
"{Sex ed}is probably the best service provided in our schools since most now have to teach to a test rather than provide real learning opportunites."

I agree somewhat. But I feel that we need to give parents back a lot of their responsibilities. And sex-ed is one of them.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes and besides most "responsible" parents do a better job of teaching this than these schools do and when it all boils down to it, it IS their job to teach this, not the schools.

---------------------------------------------
Actually, and sadly, it seems that parents are the ones who need sex-education and how to teach that.
---------------------------------------------

They could learn this, there are alot of books and computer programs out there that could teach them this sort of thing, if theyd only bother to look at them before having kids. Theres also people they can seek out to talk to about this and get advice on talking about different things and sometimes this is good if theres one or two specific things a parent needs to talk about at a given time.

------------------------------------------------
The schools teach their own watered-down version but only parents can teach about the morals, values, and intimacy of the act.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah the schools are teaching to a wide and very diverse amount of children in a public setting where there are certain rules as to how graphic the situation can get and thus make the talk very watered down and simple and a parent could talk to THEIR kid, in PRIVATE, and give all the details in a no holds bar situation where they could say anything they want without some pricipal or school district or other parents chewing them out for saying something that is against someone else's morals or values and or the school rules.

-------------------------------------------------
But for some parents, it seems that they balk at the mere mention of sex
-------------------------------------------------

Thats their problem and something they have to and "should know" they have to deal with before having kids or at least before they need to talk with them about such things.

-----------------------------------------------
and that starts from when their young children ask where babies come from.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah if most parents are open and honest and have the right knowledge then they could tell them where they come from in an age appropriate manner but be honest and clear about it and not jerk their kids around about the facts or use little kiddy words to describe it.

----------------------------------------------
If they can't even answer that question adequately for their four-year-old child, what chance do that have when they have to talk to theri pre-teen about more intimate aspects?
----------------------------------------------

Exactly. Thats why these parents gotta get off their butts and learn this stuff so they can teach their kids properly and effectively.

-----------------------------------------------
Parents have been screwing this topic up starting at an early age.
-----------------------------------------------

Thats obvious and then they wonder why so many teens are self conscious about their bodies and find about things and do things behind their parents backs. The parents areint grown up enough or responsible enough for the teens to trust and I think alot of them know that.

-----------------------------------------------
And then they wonder why their children are reluctant to come to them in the future for the more intimate talks. When communication is open, children thrive.
-----------------------------------------------

I would have to agree with this, this is the most logical point of any sex/nudity discussion with or about kids.

-------------------------------------------------
"Yeah dont you think that an actual nude boy and girl would give a more accurate description"

Sure, but the modeling should ideally be done at home with familial nudity.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes of course but if schools must do this sort of sex ed and if the parents are too stubborn to teach their kids then this might be the only option for them and the schools teaching sex is generally better then the kids getting no education about it at all. School isnt the best place to learn it but if your choice is that or nothing then you go for what you can get at school. besides if you had actual kids participating for these demonstrations

a) They would feel special for participating in such things

b) They would learn to feel confident in front of others

c) They would have a new understanding and respect for their bodies because they would learn that nudity is ok and that being in front of others nude is no big deal.

d) they would learn the body parts more effectively and what they REALLY look like instead of some vague, toned up drawing of someone similar.

-------------------------------------------------
"I want actual proof that nudity is inherently harmful, otherwise they have no legal grounds to deny people the right to be nude or ban nudity."

Don't hold your breath. That proof will never come.
-------------------------------------------------

Then the reason for banning public nudity really doesnt hold any water.

==Mike==

[Bob S.]

"Which is why the schools have to teach it."

In my opinion, the government will screw up anything it touches. And I was suggesting that there be a large-scale movement by the government to give back that power to the parents and classes, guides, and any more help that they need to be successful.

Also, the schools are already overloaded in what they are required to teach the students. Not only that, but they also have the standardized tests to make sure the children are actually learning (which is very hard since the teachers don't even get all year to do that). The children should learn about the biology and specific terms regarding sex, but that is it.

And the way I see it, a parent who is afraid to talk to her children about sex is just like one who freaks out when her child sees her naked. Both are giving negative messages to their children that will affect their future sexual growth.

"Shouldnt that place have banned the pervs from coming and not the children?"

How often do politicians make sense? And there was a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court (I think) and they sided with the city claiming that they can control their own parks. Austin Texas, where pervs are welcommed and children are shunned.

"Besides isnt it more beneficial for kids to be nude or exposed to nudity on a regular basis?"

Sure, but they don't necesarily need to see nudity all over the place. I would still want police officers to be clothed. How about people at work are clothed and off duty are naked?

And as for your naked sex-ed demos: no, they wouldn't necessarily feel special for participating. In fact, they would become a target for taunting. Usually, the ones who are confident would be the ones who volunteer, so that nullifies argument b. Realize that you are arguing in a more ideal world. I am focusing in the present. I wish that your ideas were possible, but unfortunately they are not. If people had less of a problem with nudity, we wouldn't need all of this.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Which is why the schools have to teach it."

In my opinion, the government will screw up anything it touches. And I was suggesting that there be a large-scale movement by the government to give back that power to the parents and classes, guides, and any more help that they need to be successful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think sex-ed in the schools is preventing parents from teaching their kids first, better, or with a greater emphasis on their own values. Indeed it may complement them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also, the schools are already overloaded in what they are required to teach the students. Not only that, but they also have the standardized tests to make sure the children are actually learning (which is very hard since the teachers don't even get all year to do that). The children should learn about the biology and specific terms regarding sex, but that is it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that there is too much emphasis on standardized tests and too little on teaching. Some kids are spending 17 days a year taking those tests, and problably another 2 to 3 times that in test prep. That's up to a quarter of the school lost to instruction.

But I don't agree that the kids should only learn the basic biological facts. They need to understand the consequences. Young lives are at stake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And the way I see it, a parent who is afraid to talk to her children about sex is just like one who freaks out when her child sees her naked. Both are giving negative messages to their children that will affect their future sexual growth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm less concerned about their sexual growth than I am about their lives and health. The fact that some parents freak, and to be frank that some parents are lousy is yet another reason we can't just talk about 'empowering parents' and leave the less fortunate kids to suffer.

It sucks that we can't guarantee every kid good parents.

-Mark

[MikeJB]

In my opinion, the government will screw up anything it touches. And I was suggesting that there be a large-scale movement by the government to give back that power to the parents and classes, guides, and any more help that they need to be successful.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah well the school district I was in seemed to destroy everything it touched too and they had lots of money that they wasted on stupid programs and also on paying teachers who were lousy and because they had tenure couldnt be fired and replaced with competent individuals. I mean I would just screw the unions, fire the bad teachers and hire good young fresh ones who knew what they were doing and not these old farts that got lazy and didnt know how to teach kids, most of my teachers couldnt even make a simple lesson plan for the day and half the time ran out of time to teach lessons before they ran out of lessons, they also showed unplanned videos and had sick days too much when subs would come in and basically ignore the lesson plan and put a movie on or just let us sit there and do nothing. So really I mean I dont trust the school district anymore than i do the government, luckily I dont have to deal with that sorry school district anymore. The college has a better bunch of people running it than the high school and other schools I went to did, although high school was pretty good, its just the brass upstairs who always screwed up.

-----------------------------------------------
Also, the schools are already overloaded in what they are required to teach the students.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah tell me about it, the overloaded lesson plans plus the fact that the teacher cant organize their yearly lesson plans or stick to the ones they do organize just makes learning a real hell, because you dont learn half the stuff you should and they spend too much time or not enough time on things that should have more time or less time allocated to them.


-------------------------------------------------
Not only that, but they also have the standardized tests to make sure the children are actually learning (which is very hard since the teachers don't even get all year to do that).
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah if the teachers cant teach the kids what they need to know, how can they expect them to pass the tests?

-----------------------------------------------
The children should learn about the biology and specific terms regarding sex, but that is it.
-----------------------------------------------

They need to know the consequences too, but just not in the simple biased way they taught it to me.

---------------------------------------------
And the way I see it, a parent who is afraid to talk to her children about sex is just like one who freaks out when her child sees her naked.
---------------------------------------------

Sheesh, I mean when I have kids, they'll learn everything they need to know about sex, plus I wont really care if they see me naked nor if they are naked anytime they wanna be at home, doesnt matter to me.


-----------------------------------------------
Both are giving negative messages to their children that will affect their future sexual growth.
-----------------------------------------------

Eaxctly, im surprised stu's kids turned out ok but I guess he is an exception and hes just lucky his methods worked with his kids, alot of times that isnt true with other kids.

------------------------------------------------
"Shouldnt that place have banned the pervs from coming and not the children?"

How often do politicians make sense? And there was a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court (I think) and they sided with the city claiming that they can control their own parks. Austin Texas, where pervs are welcommed and children are shunned.
------------------------------------------------

Screw the politicians, if I lived there, I wouldve filed a complaint to that place saying that its not morally right that they kick children out but yet let their place be a haven for sexual predators, if that was the case, id make sure that place got very bad business and hopefully chase the owner out of there and get someone more competent to work there that allows children in and is extremely stricty when it comes to pediphiles.

------------------------------------------------
"Besides isnt it more beneficial for kids to be nude or exposed to nudity on a regular basis?"

Sure, but they don't necesarily need to see nudity all over the place. I would still want police officers to be clothed. How about people at work are clothed and off duty are naked?
-----------------------------------------------

Police officers need to be clothed for saftey reasons, thats just practical. Most nudists understand that in some situations and some jobs, you gotta wear clothing for practical reasons, although I have heard of some nude beaches where police patrol there naked wearing only what they need to carry their walkies and other equipment, these cops didnt have any guns though and im not sure what else they had on but they were obviously nude, but of course they werent there to handle people with weapons or high risk situations like that.

---------------------------------------------
And as for your naked sex-ed demos: no, they wouldn't necessarily feel special for participating.
---------------------------------------------

They would if they were confident and given a reason to, like given a good grade on their performance or getting support from their classmates. Its good to encourage kids to do this sort of thing, they gotta learn to be confident, even when nude, in front of others. There is no reason to feel embarassement or shame.

--------------------------------------------
In fact, they would become a target for taunting.
--------------------------------------------

Maybe, maybe not, like I said, it would be good to pick confident kids who agreed to do such a thing and make sure that the whole class supported it and it would be nice if the teacher ensured that if this was done that no one would tease the person involved and if they did the teacher should deal with it very stricly *i.e some sort of punishment*. I think you can deal with it if you have a confident kid, a good well rounded class and a responsible mature teacher that doesnt put up with crap from anyone.

------------------------------------------------
Usually, the ones who are confident would be the ones who volunteer, so that nullifies argument b.
------------------------------------------------

If they are confident and friendly and mature it means that they will get less ridicule from the class, thats good.

--------------------------------------------
Realize that you are arguing in a more ideal world. I am focusing in the present.
--------------------------------------------

I think if we worked hard enough, we could reach this goal, point is, we need to actually try and do it and not just give up just because the situation or odds might not be favorable. Its like a person not going nude out of fear of being attacked by a sexual predator, you just gotta go nude and dont worry about it until something does, if it all, happens.

---------------------------------------------
I wish that your ideas were possible, but unfortunately they are not.
---------------------------------------------

Depends on the situation. No need to give up right away.

-------------------------------------------------
If people had less of a problem with nudity, we wouldn't need all of this.
-------------------------------------------------

Maybe if we did this, it could help us move closer to dealing with the problem. I think its possible, id sure go for it if given the chance. I wish they did this sorta thing when I was in school.

==Mike==

[Bob S.]

"I don't think sex-ed in the schools is preventing parents from teaching their kids first, better, or with a greater emphasis on their own values. Indeed it may complement them."

It would compliment them if they actually knew what they were doing. Of ot were up to me, I would put together a huge social program together with help from the private sector such as family counselors, child psychologists and psychiatrists, pediatricians, etc and offer many sex-ed classes for parents with some benefits for those who attend.

"They need to understand the consequences. Young lives are at stake."

That is part of the biological facts. Pregnancy, STDs and the like are biological facts, aren't they?

"It sucks that we can't guarantee every kid good parents."

Tell me about it! If every kid had good parents, my job would be exponentially easier.

"Its good to encourage kids to do this sort of thing, they gotta learn to be confident, even when nude, in front of others."

So how about we start what we talked about previously in another topic. Co-ed showers starting from a young age.

"If they are confident and friendly and mature it means that they will get less ridicule from the class, thats good."

If they are the confident, friendly and mature ones, then who is sitting in the classroom

"I think its possible, id sure for it if given the chance."

Mike, if it was possible somewhere to do that, I'd be all for it.

Bob S.

[Frank R]

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


"Shouldnt that place have banned the pervs from coming and not the children?"

How often do politicians make sense? And there was a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court (I think) and they sided with the city claiming that they can control their own parks. Austin Texas, where pervs are welcommed and children are shunned.
==Mike== <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to set the record straight, the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal and let the decision of the Texas Supreme Court stand. The appeal was based on what, to me is common sense. Parents should be able to excise control over what their children can and cannot do, especially when the parent is with the child.

I assume by your use of the word "pervs" you are referring to homosexuals and I must disagree with you. I do not think homosexuals, any more than nudists, should be banned from public parks. I believe the police should only take action for illegal conduct (actions), not just for what someone is. Remember, the US Supreme Court overturned the Texas law on homosexuality so there is no law again homosexuals in Texas.

[Bob S.]

Frank, let it be known that the term pervs are meant to mean those who prey on children. I first used it in the following context: I agree wholeheartedly that is the number one reason for the "Protect the Children" anti-nudity crusades is because of the pedophilic witchhunt. Hippie Hollow in Texas decided years ago to ban children from the beach lest, the pervs get access to them. Apparently, they have no problem with the pervs being there, just as long as the kids are not there.

The officials were afraid that children would be in danger if they went to the beach naked, so they banned the children. Makes perfect sense to me /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
The officials were afraid that children would be in danger if they went to the beach naked, so they banned the children. Makes perfect sense to me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like Taliban logic...Lock away the potential victim rather than the perpetrator...

But what is really going on is an attempt to prohibit or curtail something that some people don't approve of by claiming to be preventing harm rather than admitting their real aims.

Such as when solid citizens who would never admit or even believe that they are even a little racist fight to keep low-income housing out of their neighborhoods in order to protect 'property values', not because they don't like black people.

Or that adult businesses supposedly attract crime to an area, so they must be prohibited or zoned to marginal areas (which are high in crime), rather than policing those areas if there really is a crime problem.

Or that public nudity causes offense and harm in some viewers, so instead of dealing with such a person's pathological aversion to nudity (so severe that the mere sight of a nude person causes harm) nudity needs to be prohibited...

-Mark

[shãybare]

The children were banned because it was easier. One can tell by looking if someone is a child but what does a "perv" look like. I am not saying that I agree with them for banning children. I am only stating the obvious. Even the parents would not know what a "perv" looked like until such person took an action.

Of course, without children there to victimize, the perverts probably won't stick around. So all you have left are moms and dads who can't have their kids with them, and they might decide to go some place else where they CAN take their kids.

[Bob S.]

"The children were banned because it was easier."

Yes. That is how government usually works, let's not do the hard work that is required of us. Instead, let us do take the simples route and make it look like we are actually doing something.

And for the record, I would never go any public place where children are not allowed. I much prefer the family atmosphere.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yeah honestly I agree thats what these people did and if I was there and had kids and they banned them, I would personally make whoever owned the beache's life a living hell by making sure that other people knew what these little sob's were really up to and id scare everyone off from there and tell them how sick these people are for banning innocent kids and leaving the place free for petty criminals to move on. If people are going to do such a sick thing then I wouldnt want my kids in a place that is owned by such trash, id rather take the someplace else that allows kids and supports a family atmosphere and that actually does its job and try to catch these pervs and when they do, they hand em over to the authorities and they are dealt with quickly and efficiently. I mean beleive me, I wouldnt go for bs that these people try and if they did it to me id make sure theyd lived to regret it. they wouldnt like the results im sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
"The children were banned because it was easier."

And for the record, I would never go any public place where children are not allowed. I much prefer the family atmosphere.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I agree. If children are banned there's a higher chance of the place turning into a swinger's club or whatever. While I see nothing wrong with having places where swingers like to go, I'm not a swinger and would be very uncomfortable and feel out of place. I also prefer the family atmosphere.

But you see, if all nudists stopped going to Hippy Hollow then the others would say "See? We were right! Nudity causes the perverts to come."

Because that is all that would be there. The exhibitionists, the bush whackers, ones looking for quick sex behind a rock.

I feel it is important to keep going there so that the rangers see that most people don't go there to stare at the naked bodies. It isn't just pedophiles there (if there are any at all, we don't know really) If we leave, we lose!

[MikeJB]

Yeah, we oughta go there and force them to leave and stick up for ourselves and get the management to kick this trash out and enforce the rules so that more idiotic pediphiles and such dont come in, because freedom or not I dont want any nudist club or beach supporting pediphiles in their place, especially en mass and the fact that these people KNOW there are pediphiles there and even know who some of them are and do nothing. Places like this should not support such trash and should be forced to find them and remove them or hand them over to the cops. I think nudists oughta go and bring their kids and just tell these idiots that they dont scare them and that they better get out before all the nudists cause them more trouble then those pediphiles bargained for.

[Bob S.]

OK for the record Mike, the city of Austin (I think) owns the Beach. It is not aprivately owned property. And I seriously doubt that pedophiles go there. After all, predators only go where there is prey.

I do agree that there should be a movement going again where parents en masse start bringing their children to the beach. Think of it this way: how many other open public places have a 24/7 rule banning children?

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yeah thats why the parents should complain and demand that they let children on the beach and the parents and kids oughta go there and if there are any pervs there they oughta scare em off, because how many pediphiles try to go after kids with their parents around? If this is a public beach, what right does it have banning children while allowing people who act in an illegal and lewd way to be on the beach.

Mike,

What we're saying isn't registering in your mind. If the children are banned, the child molesters won't stay there. They want victims and will go wherever the children are. This includes pretending to be a Christian in order to be near the children in a church, or being a teacher where there are a lot of little victims, or a scout master where he can be alone with the boys while camping, and the list goes on and on.

However, the perverted child molesters will NOT stay where there are no children to prey upon. Take the children away, and the perverts go where the children are. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to simply say "No Children Allowed" than to police the area and rid it of the predators.

[Nude in the North]

Hey! I got an Idea.

Let's ban the next 3 generations from having children.
That way there will be no children to molest.
Problem solved.

Steve

/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[MikeJB]

Yeah but at what expense are they doing this? Youd think theyd lose alot of business by doing this and really lose alot of credibility. The better thing to do is just go the hard way, police the damned place and scare off the pediphiles. Besides if the parents are WITH the children, how are the pediphiles gonna do anything to them? I hate these idiots always taking the easy way out at the expense of innocent people. You gotta do whats right, not whats necessarly easy.

[Frank R]

One thing you need to remember is that Hippy Hollow is a city of Austin park. The Austin city council is quite radical about not punishing individuals but groups of people. There was no real problem at Hippy Hollow but they changed the laws anyway to try and keep us "moss backed reactionaries" in line. Of course, in Austin, anyone more conservative then Fidel Castro is considered a "moss backed reactionary".
An excellent example of their "punish the masses" beliefs are the many "idiot bumps" (the city calls them "speed bumps") placed by the score on various residential streets to prevent people from driving the speed limit. It seems too many people were speeding but instead of giving tickets to those who broke the law, they just punished everyone. The police, medical and fire departments objected for reasons of public safety. I guess we don't have enough houses burning down and people dying since the ambulance is taking so long to get there. The city council decided to increase the response time for emergency vehicles rather than deal with criminals who broke traffic laws. Such are the joys of living in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Austin.