Would you uncover the windows?

[Gary Naturist]

Your club organizes a monthly clothing-optional nude swim at a public recreation center. One of the members has suggested that the club stop covering the windows that look into the pool area and the glass door that leads into the pool facility.

The member has two reasons for proposing this:
1. Hiding themselves from view is hypocritical and doesn't advance the cause of nudism.
2. If people can see nude & clothed people having fun together they may, at some point, decide to join in.

Do you agree that either is a good enough reason to support the proposal? Ignore what the pool management's position would be.

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

Your club organizes a monthly clothing-optional nude swim at a public recreation center. One of the members has suggested that the club stop covering the windows that look into the pool area and the glass door that leads into the pool facility.

The member has two reasons for proposing this:
1. Hiding themselves from view is hypocritical and doesn't advance the cause of nudism.
2. If people can see nude & clothed people having fun together they may, at some point, decide to join in.

Do you agree that either is a good enough reason to support the proposal? Ignore what the pool management's position would be.

Gary

[mel]

I voted yes but you need to have the pool management's OK or you may not have a place to go soon. It would be stupid to uncover the windows if they told you not to, because you are renting from them.

While I voted yes on both I do have to wonder about some things.
1. If the windows are uncovered, they could get a lot of voyuers who just want to take pictures.
2. Prudes could complain to the police and get the nude swimming stopped.
3. The club owners would have to OK it.

[greensunshine]

I voted "NO" on both issues, because I don't want everyone I know to know that I am a nudist. I live in an area and belong to several organizations where if the word got back to any of them I was a "Nudist", the damage to my own reputation could be a "Whole lot worse" than letting others in on my secret that I am a nudist would benefit.

The other reason I voted "NO" is because the area I live in, job hunting is already hard enough without making it worse on my own behalf...and for those looking for a new adventure and place to live, SW Washington/NW Oregon is definitely not the place to come looking unless your intention is to join the ranks of the many who are somewhat used to changing jobs on a regular basis...our cost of living may be lower, but so are the wages /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kenny G]

I voted affirmative as both are valid reasons, though the biggest obstacle would be legal issues. Theoretically, one could post "if nudity offends you..." type warnings, that might help with a club owners issues but probably wouldn't hold water with the local constabulary. Of course, location of the windows and limited viewpoints might carry some weight. After all, if the club is on private property and a person would have to be on said property (ie: not directly visible from the public street) then "reasonable expectation of privacy" might hold up. What I find awkward is with all the hype in politics and legal issues about "human rights", it's odd that the right to be "human" in it's natural state is forbidden in virtually every community, Strange.....

[TXK NUDE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
I voted "NO" on both issues, because I don't want everyone I know to know that I am a nudist. I live in an area and belong to several organizations where if the word got back to any of them I was a "Nudist", the damage to my own reputation could be a "Whole lot worse" than letting others in on my secret that I am a nudist would benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generally, I agree with greensunshine in this area, but I voted yes on both IF nudity were not a threat to my life and employment. In other words, if life were perfect, and people weren't so judgemental...

[hairyhomer]

I voted yes on both but have the same concerns as Jon-Marc.
I also live in SW Washington and can relate to Greensunshines concern and how people would take to being a nudist here, and the job market does really suck. Some of the people that I have told about my nudism think I am nuts or just don't belive me. The ones that think I'm nuts think it has to do with a mid life crises or that the radiation I had for prostate cancer affected my brain!
I was almost on the front page of or local paper when they did a story about the sheriffs department at Collins Beach (it was a very positive article on how the CO Beach has the fewest problems and is the cleanest of all the beaches on Sauvie Island) and I realized that if I wasn't comfortable with people knowing about my nudism than I should not be going to the beach. I am secure in my job and they could not fire me for being a nudist so the next day I decided to go right back to the beach and enjoy life the way it should be. Nude and Natural

[NoodJuggler]

I also voted no on both issues. But I agree with what Mel Said "I voted yes but you need to have the pool management's OK or you may not have a place to go soon. It would be stupid to uncover the windows if they told you not to, because you are renting from them". Also with the Laws the way they are someone would call the Police and all that would do would make us Nudist look worse than they already picture us as. If the authorities have no problems with it and the windows are not normally uncovered then leave them uncovered. You would need some type of Security set up to keep unwanted one from taking pictures without your concent. Unless you don't care. It should just be something natural, if you just want to have people look at you just because your Nude just stand in front of your living room window with the lights on and you will be noticed. The ones who don't care won't say anything but the lady or man who is opposed to nudity will. Did you know that there is a group of people who buy Disney movies and run them backwards and in slow motion just to see if they can find anything bad! and did you know that in the Lion King there is a couple of places where they put in the word Sex? Also there is some things in the Little Mermaid. Someone will complain about anything or try to find fault with it, why add fuel to the fire..Keithmj /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[nudeM]

I voted no on both issues for many of the same reasons that have already been stated. There are some people who would get all uptight and possibly call the law. Also, there are those who would object that there is a private nudist party at a local pool, that is being supported by tax dollars, i.e., public swimming pool, which is usually being ran by the local recreation departments.

The only other public pools that are around, are the ones that are privately owned and privately funded. But if that pool is in the middle of town, then they, the owners, must abide by local laws, such as the YMCA that caters to it's members.

The only exception would be the indoor pools. If there is no windows to the outside, then the owners could very well lock the doors and post that there is a private party going on inside.

Just by looking at the results, the votes are rather split. Great poll.

[Peter Stokes]

I voted 'no' to both. I thought both were very good reasons for uncovering the windows, but both were overruled by the need - often discussed here - not to impose our nudity on others.

I mean, look at it from the other point of view. There you are, happily walking along the nude beach, and someone suddenly appears wearing a swimming costume!! We shouldn't have to put up with shocks like that!!! So why give the poor textiles a heart attack at seeing people enjoying themselves.

[shãybare]

I, too, voted no on both. I agree with the others that it would not help further nude recreation by "forcing" the unsuspecting to view nudity. Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed. I also agree that crowds of people would probably be gawking and therefore police would get involved to the detriment of the owner and the nudists. The hypothetical situation doesn't say whether the door is locked or not. If it isn't, I'm sure the place would soon be crowded with a lot of undesirable people.

Peter Stokes I like your humor.

Shaybare

"I agree with the others that it would not help further nude recreation by "forcing" the unsuspecting to view nudity. Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed."

Well said! From now on I look forward to counting on your support on the Steve Gough thread. You've just made my day.

Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[tarsus]

it never ceases to amaze me that i have to agree with stu sometimes.
i think it would do nothing for the cause,but more
important is;this most likely would be a private affair.and i think private affairs should be just that.

[Gary Naturist]

Some people would be concorned about possible complaints to the police.

In the situation that I described, I can't see how the police could have a problem. In the typical situation of a rec center, people would have to take some action to see the people -- e.g. walk up to the window and look in.

If people don't want to see naked people, they don't have to look. If they make an effort to look and then are offended, that's their own problem and no one else's.

Gary

[Jochanaan]

I voted "no" on both questions. This may surprise those who know of my support for the Naked Rambler, but here are my reasons:

1. Merely by being in existence, nudist/naturist organizations are making a statement. Adding an open-window policy does not increase the statement's force, and may cause much more trouble for the org. than it already faces.

2. For most people it takes long and hard thought to accept that nudity is healthy and natural. Merely seeing a bunch of naked people will do nothing for people who aren't already sympathetic to our cause.

In short, the trouble that will come through the open windows outweighs any possible benefits.

How is anyone being "forced" to view nudity when the nudists are indoors? Just because the windows are uncovered doesn't mean anyone HAS to look in them. It was the same when someone looked in my uncovered window and saw me nude. I was the one in the "wrong" even though they were looking in my window. I didn't force them to look in my window. I didn't stand there waving flags to get their attention. I doubt that the nudists would put up signs saying, "Hey! Look in this window. There are NAKED people in there!"

What I can't understand is why is a world that loves to view sexual nudity in videos, on TV, in porn magazines, so opposed to simple, non-sexual nudity? It sounds rather hypocrital to me. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar business because many people get turned on by seeing naked people have sex, and yet they're opposed to non-sexual nudity? It makes absolutely no sense to me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Jon-Marc

"What I can't understand is why is a world that loves to view sexual nudity in videos, on TV, in porn magazines, so opposed to simple, non-sexual nudity? It sounds rather hypocrital to me."

May I try to answer that for you? People who view porn generally do so in the privacy of their own homes. They are usually alone but sometimes with their sex partners. They aren't in the street or at a swimming pool or in a public park. They aren't with their children or their old Aunt Sally.

Another factor is that with porn you are not actually seeing nudity at all - you are seeing pictures of nudity. Images are not the real thing. They tend to be glamourised; they are fantasy and not reality. Pictures don't smile at you and say "Good morning". They don't notice if you're staring at certain parts of their bodies. They don't know if you are aroused or not. You can see them but they can't see you. With porn, it is the viewer who is always in control.

Stu

OK, Stu. I think I understand what you said. Maybe I'm just dense, but I still can't understand why someone can look at pictures of nude people but not at the real thing. Is it because they want to stare and fantasize about what they see, and they can't do that with a real person but can with pictures? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[NudeAl]

I don't feel there is enough information on the poll to answer this accurately. I don't think that we should uncover the windows if the pool is viewable from the street. If however it is on private property some distance from the road and not viewable by a passing pedestrian then maybe.

It ultimatly is up to the owners of the facility. I would think they would want limit the exposure some how. Perhaps restricting the nudity to areas other than the main entrance and lobby and placing a sign on the front door indicating that a nude swim was in progress, there by forwarning anyone who might be upset by the nudity. In this situation, if the owners agreed to it, and it was not likely to cause a huge public out cry then I would say it is okay.

[NoodJuggler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
OK, Stu. I think I understand what you said. Maybe I'm just dense, but I still can't understand why someone can look at pictures of nude people but not at the real thing. Is it because they want to stare and fantasize about what they see, and they can't do that with a real person but can with pictures? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Jon-Marc. No your not dense. It doesn't make sense. It is just like those who like to look at pictures of nude children. If they post the pictures on the net they can get arrested for child porn. So what these people are doing is using graphic programs to make cyber kids. These are not real pictures but madeup graphics that look like kids. And they can get away with it. You also have to remember that a picture can not talk back or respond. They also can not separate sex and nudity, so when they see innocent nudity they make it something dirty. They think if your nude you have to be having sex or something to do with it. I have read some of Stu's answers and he make sense on some. But that is a different story. I am sure people don't agree with me about what I write at times either but that is another story also. Just stay retired and nude and enjoy it. Keithmj

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
I voted "no" on both questions. This may surprise those who know of my support for the Naked Rambler, but here are my reasons:
...
2. For most people it takes long and hard thought to accept that nudity is healthy and natural. Merely seeing a bunch of naked people will do nothing for people who aren't already sympathetic to our cause.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that what is more effective than people thinking long and hard about nudity is people seeing nudity. While they may react negatively at first to seeing naked people, after a few times it's highly likely that they will become used to seeing them and the nudity will cease to be an issue.

Gary

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I think that what is more effective than people thinking long and hard about nudity is people seeing nudity. While they may react negatively at first to seeing naked people, after a few times it's highly likely that they will become used to seeing them and the nudity will cease to be an issue.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True. And maybe some who are willing to take a long, honest look at such things will join us with no preparation. But how many persons do you know like that? Far too many human minds think little more than the sum of their prejudices.

[NudeAl]

It is also far more likely to get a negative reaction from some extremist portion of that society and then you would jepardize the limited success you are having and gain nothing. The local customs will dictate here that which may be tolerated and that which is just pushing the envelope to far. The residents of the area will be best able to judge for themselves how liberal their community is in that respect.

One thing I saw in years past is more public advertising of naturist resorts or groups. Get the word out in the main stream media about who we are and what we do. I know this is far more easier said than done. We all know that unless you know of a contact in this area, nudism, you are likely to feel that you are all alone with your beliefs. There are probably lots of closet nudists out there who only need to be contacted and reassured of how normal this is to join in. I believe our society as a whole is ready to accept this. It is just some of our more backward citizens who have hangups about nudity. Of course these are exactly the people who our politicians pander to when running for reelection.

Al

"There are probably lots of closet nudists out there who only need to be contacted and reassured of how normal this is to join in. I believe our society as a whole is ready to accept this. It is just some of our more backward citizens who have hangups about nudity. Of course these are exactly the people who our politicians pander to when running for reelection."

It's all a matter of degree - and I'm sure there are quite a few closet naturists. But I don't believe that the majority of people where I live would be willing to tolerate widespread and open public nudity. I think they would accept more spots being allocated for naturists or clothing-optional.

People DO generally view naturists and naturism as harmless. But don't imagine that means they will be happy to see nudity in the places THEY frequent.

It is still only a minority of people in my society at least who would be willing to be naked in the presence of strangers of both sexes, or would feel comfortable in the presence of naked strangers. And it is only a small minority of parents who would find adult nudity i the presence of their children to be acceptable.

Stu

[shãybare]

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

"I agree with the others that it would not help further nude recreation by "forcing" the unsuspecting to view nudity. Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed."

Well said! From now on I look forward to counting on your support on the Steve Gough thread. You've just made my day.

Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I may have to cut my tongue out, stu, if I,m giving you support. lol

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
I, too, voted no on both. I agree with the others that it would not help further nude recreation by "forcing" the unsuspecting to view nudity.... I also agree that crowds of people would probably be gawking... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh? You mean the crowds of people gawking are unsuspecting people who shouldn't have nudity forced on them? Perhaps you mean that all those unsuspecting people would have to force their way to the front of the crowd just so they could be offended.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly what sort of harm do you imagine they'd come to?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The hypothetical situation doesn't say whether the door is locked or not. If it isn't, I'm sure the place would soon be crowded with a lot of undesirable people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are these the same unsuspecting people who don't want nudity forced on them? Why on earth do you think that undesirable people will be battering down the door to get a view of all those flabby bodies? Perhaps it's because they wouldn't be able to see through the windows because all the best gawking places had been taken by other unsuspecting people.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by greensunshine:
I voted "NO" on both issues, because I don't want everyone I know to know that I am a nudist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? Do you think that everyone you know would be looking through the window? You must know a lot of weird people!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I live in an area and belong to several organizations where if the word got back to any of them I was a "Nudist", the damage to my own reputation could be a "Whole lot worse" than letting others in on my secret that I am a nudist would benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be serious for a moment, what would be the impact on you should your reputation be 'damaged' in this way?

Rik

[fred950]

I too, voted no on both issues. All the club would need is a "Protect the children" busybody to happen by, combined with a local D.A. who shoots first, asks questions later, on the guise to protect us from ourseves. That, in turn, would get the Bible thumpers out to "save our souls" by blocking the entrance...I think most of you get my drift.

[nudeM]

fred950: You brought up a very good point. Some of the "gawkers" could be friends of the D.A., or may have an aquaintance with them. If you had kids, and an individual were to report that you liked to be nude at a public function, then it could raise a few eyebrows. It could get to the point that if the individual were to contact the right person, then that person (the D.A. acquaintance) could possibly get a hold of the local CPS to file an complaint. Having dealt with the CPS, I am very well aware how they "usually" get things turned around to benefit themselves.

I would rather just keep my nudity among other "nudists" and not involve the outside world, who as you, take things to the extreme limits.

[RIVERRAT]

about this post, the beach that I go to is not nudist or even clothes optional, you bare if you dare, I prefere to bare, many texties and there kids walk this beach . it's miles long, we who choose to get naked walk quite a ways from the regular beach to do so, the beach is also a sceanic beach with dunes and the like, many people take the time to walk it, they for the most part unless they live in bubble, know they will see nude sunbathers, oh well, they gauke or pretend not to see, I also spend all my time at nude, I have mowed nude, and done some gardening nude, I live at the arena parking lot, I also leave all my shades open. I figure I'm not the voyour they are. I have the right to be nude in my place if someone has a problem with that, thats there problem, If they want to say something to me about that after I answer the door I'll probably have to put something on. nough said, Later the RAT /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I think that what is more effective than people thinking long and hard about nudity is people seeing nudity. While they may react negatively at first to seeing naked people, after a few times it's highly likely that they will become used to seeing them and the nudity will cease to be an issue.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True. And maybe some who are willing to take a long, honest look at such things will join us with no preparation. But how many persons do you know like that? Far too many human minds think little more than the sum of their prejudices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't really suggesting that many people would look through the window, see the fun and decide then and there to join in.

I could see a few people deciding to join in after a few times seeing the group.

However, what I was really saying was that I think that MOST people would adjust quickly (say after 2-3 swim session) and just pass on by, ignoring the situation.

Gary

[Bob S.]

I answered no to q.1 and yes to q.2. There is nothing hypocritical about having the shades drawn. If that is the policy, that is the policy. The shades are there to prevent a crowd of curious onlookers from gazing inside and causing a scene at the front door or worse, blocking it, resulting in a fire hazard.

I answered yes to q2 but really felt that it would be for those who are interested enough to look in to be able to know of it and maybe ask for info. Most rentals like this do not accept walk-ins, especially those who are not a member of any nudist group.

"Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed."

Shay, what did you mean by this? That they could be squished up against the glass by the press of the other people who are trying to get a look? Nudity cannot harm anyone. If their parents have taught them that clothes are necessary, then it would just be a confusing scene for them. If they have been told that nudity is sin, they will wonder what all these sinners are doing in the facility. I don't understand how they will be harmed.

Also, how will they see inside? If they are too young, their parents are responsible for them and they should not let them too far out of their eyesight. The ones who can go out by themselves for short amounts of time should have a curfew (this is, after all, about 9:30 at night). That leaves teenagers as the only ones who are old enough to actually see this on their own. And most of them would be just sexually curious about seeing the human body. Others would see some interest in wanting to do that.

just curious stu, assuming you weren't on the board of your fitness centre, what if you went looking for a place to work out and saw some lights on at a promising centre. You park and look in the window and see some people walking about with no clothes on. What would be your next move (after recovering from seeing the nudity)?

Bob S.

[Buzzer]

This was a hypothetical question, & I voted as such. It is the managements property & they hope to continue to do bussiness with other groups, besides your's. So my vote ignored their feelings, but in reallity, I would respect it.

[Rex]

I haven't voted, because I think that it's up to the individual circumstances, as others have pointed out, but generally speaking, I go along with openness.
What concerns me is how people feel it would adversely affect their work and social life if it became known that they are nudists.
I live in one little corner of the world, so I am not going to tell anyone they are wrong, but I will just relate a few of my experiences.
At one time, I was Northern Territory manager for an insurance company, calling on business owners, senior govt people etc. I never hid the fact that I was a regular at Casuarina free beach, Darwin.
I moved back to Perth in Western Australia and became very annoyed at the way nudists were discriminated against, so I became an activist.
By then, I was running my own small business and my clients included well respected business and professional people, govt depts and several churches.
My friends told me to keep my head down because I was in business and that I would get myself arrested. I said that I would be in good company, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Jesus Christ.
Eventually, my wife and I did get arrested ---- and acquitted. [Story posted under "cops"].
At the time, I was president of the local community association and head of my suburb neighbourhood watch.
The govt dept which had me arrested was doing business with me. After I beat them in court, they carried on dealing with me.
A while later, I had another very public confrontation with authorities [story posted under "Getting a legal fair deal for nudists"].
A nudist friend who was accountant with a big company told me his general manager was very narrow-minded, so he had to keep his nudist activities secret. Later, I met this so-called prude at a meeting to do with the environment. When he realised who I was, he could not have been more friendly. He said he'd heard so much about me and always wanted to meet me.
I will repeat that I do not tell individuals what they should be doing, they know their own circumstances better than I do, but until as a group we are prepared to come out of the closet, we will stay where we are or go backwards.

[blackrebel]

C'mon folks. Reality vs. what we'd like. We had this problem and it resulted in an apology and taping up another window in our health club. Plus, we have moved nude area back through another closed door in case a visitor comes into the club on a wrong nite and finds a bunch a naked people, as has happened before. And, if you leave the windows open, you know that it will result in gawkers, cameras and news crews making this another sensationalized story about naked people. Also, it is imposing to make people see us, even if by accident. This kind of radical nudism is what get's us that unsavory reputation. It may not be fast enough, but it will take time before we will be accepted more.

Bob

"just curious stu, assuming you weren't on the board of your fitness centre, what if you went looking for a place to work out and saw some lights on at a promising centre. You park and look in the window and see some people walking about with no clothes on. What would be your next move (after recovering from seeing the nudity)?"

I'd leave, Bob, and double quick. If it were a public facility I would write a letter of complaint to the management for not ensuring that the windows etc were covered up, or at least that there were large, prominently displayed signs warning people of the dangers.

blackrebel,

"Also, it is imposing to make people see us, even if by accident. This kind of radical nudism is what get's us that unsavory reputation."

Wise words indeed!

Stu

[WNYjoe]

I would tend to vote that the windows should generallly be kept covered. Ads on the front door for the club, and/or the night's activity might be a good way of recruiting, though.
Some people are not willing to let others know they are nudists. Some textiles DO get offended by nudity of others.
The police should not be an issue, because-with some exception-generally this type of activity is not illegal. There is a fine line between "freedom of expression," "consenting adults," "doing what you want on your own property," "nudism is not immoral," "this is a private party," "we are not harming anyone," etc. Many communities try to push the laws as far as they can. Many others at least have not gone as far yet, thankfully.
Personally, I have gotten much more open about admitting that I am a nudist. And I do feel that if my nudity offends someone, then it is more their problem than mine. By the same token, the structure of the building in question, as well as it's location does lend to a question of overall visibility. If I were to arrange a function where nudity was "the norm," I would try to give enough publicity to it that there is some probability of pre-notice to passers by. You can not do that with a health club on a main street with windows directly to the first floor. Our non-landed club has gone to several different health clubs over the years. And the visibility to the street has been different in each one, based on the building. As such, our response has been different accordingly.

I guess, best put:
I don't feel I am doing anything wrong.
I think there is a long way to go for community education.
However, forcing your ideas on someone who is not ready for them NEVER works.
Should someone come across me in an area where it "should" be OK for me to be nude, though-then they need to learn how to deal with it.
Joe

[Bob S.]

"If it were a public facility I would write a letter of complaint to the management for not ensuring that the windows etc were covered up, or at least that there were large, prominently displayed signs warning people of the dangers."

So it would be the management's fault for you looking into the window? And the question did not say anything about there being a sign advertising that there is a private party sponsored by the British Naturist Youth group. And stu, I find it humorous that you are saying that viewing naked people is a "danger".

"There is a fine line between "freedom of expression," "consenting adults," "doing what you
want on your own property," "nudism is not immoral," "this is a private party," "we are not harming anyone," etc. Many communities try to push the laws as far as they can. Many others at least have not gone as far yet, thankfully."

Joe, this is not freedom of expression. This would be freedom of association and of peasceful assembly. "Concenting adults" argument would not apply here. WHat if there were children amongst the nudists? The privagte property argument is the best one, but this poll assumes that this is at a public rec center. Nudity is not immoral, actually, the law can and does support supposedly immoral activities. Not saying that nudity is immoral, but that argument does not reason why police should not get involved. They would if the nudity could easily be seen from street level.

The worst argument is the private party one. You could sell illicit drugs at a private party. We are not harming anyone. Well, as we have shown here, the term harm is subjective. stu sees harm as any negative reaction caused by a stimulus. I see it a as long-term negative effect to a stimulus.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WNYjoe:
... However, forcing your ideas on someone who is not ready for them NEVER works.
Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary, this is what a lot of consumer advertising is about. Same for political advertising. The idea is to condition people's minds for change and then to change their views.

If we wait for people to get ready to change their ideas on nudism by themselves, we'll wait forever.

Gary

"If we wait for people to get ready to change their ideas on nudism by themselves, we'll wait forever."

Why try to force people to "change their ideas on nudism"? Accept people as they are. Respect their existing ideas as legitimate even though they are at odds with your own. Enjoy your nudism with and among likeminded people and leave the rest of us - the vast majority of people - to enjoy our textile world.

Stu

[sawdust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"If we wait for people to get ready to change their ideas on nudism by themselves, we'll wait forever."

Why try to force people to "change their ideas on nudism"? Accept people as they are. Respect their existing ideas as legitimate even though they are at odds with your own. Enjoy your nudism with and among likeminded people and leave the rest of us - the vast majority of people - to enjoy our textile world.

Very good advise Stu. Now take your own advise and leave we nudist alone to enjoy our nudist world. Sawdust

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sawdust

"Very good advise Stu. Now take your own advise and leave we nudist alone to enjoy our nudist world."

I do!! And I'm glad you agree with me that there is a place for nudists and a place for the rest of society! I don't go to naturist beaches and stand there fully clothed. I don't attend naturist venues to spoil their enjoyment. I studiously avoid your "nudist world". I hope that, when nude, you nudists will be equally studious in avoiding our textile world.

Nice to have someone here who sees things my way about keeping nudists and textiles thoroughly segregated.

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Enjoy your nudism with and among likeminded people and leave the rest of us - the vast majority of people - to enjoy our textile world.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do not wish to live in a community comprised only of people aged 50 or older. I don't wish to live in a country where people are segregated by race. I am not interested in restricting myself to being only with other nudists.

What you are suggesting is that nudists should live on reservations, like native people were once forced to do. Today, native people can choose to live on reservations, or be integrated with the non native world. Their own choice.

That's what I want for nudists: the right to choose to live in nudist communities, or be integrated with the textile world.

The only reason why this is not allowed everywhere is that the law acts as a mirror which reflects the hangups that people have acquired over a considerable period of time about the human body. The hangups are dissipating, but there is an inherent lag involved between the laws in effect and the current views of the population.

Society is making good progress. We don't force native people to stay on reservations. We don't segregate the races. And, in the future, we won't segregate nudists from textiles either.

Gary

[aunaturelone]

The answer to the particular question depends heavily on where you are geographically, personally and politically.

Keeping the window covered/uncovered is at all times the decision of the management. The question as stated is moot since the club who is using the facility really has no say in the matter. You didn't mention it, but I'd have to assume you were covering the windows because you were asked. Even if you weren't, since you are already covering the windows, the management has every reason to assume you'll continue to cover them.

A better phrasing of the question might be "Would you ask the owner/manager's permission...?"

In most areas I wouldn't bother asking. I'd assume the answer was "no". It is a public facility with a primarily textile clientele. As a governental entity they are bound to operate the facility in such a way as not to violate the "least common denominator principle". Put a different way, they are bound to operate it in such a way as to generate the least controversy while still offering some benefit to everyone.

It would be different if nudity were considered a form of speech but that notion is only accepted in a small number of jurisdictions.

Geography does make a difference. There are a number of very liberal cities where leaving the windows uncovered might be a legal option. San Francisco comes to mind immediately. I don't know the politics of the rest of the country that well but I do know there are a number of cities in northern CA and Canada where the population is liberal enough to accept it, esp. if there were signs posted indicating the pool was in use by a clothing optional group, proceed at your own risk.

As far as personal risk in being seen and recognized, that's a very private affair. Wouldn't make me hestitate even a second but I don't believe in "outing" people. Those who choose to live in seclusion and secrecy have every right to do so. The transition from the nudist ghetto to being openly nude needs to be a voluntary one. Uncovering the windows should be undertaken only after examining what a voting majority of the group wants and considering any potential impact on attendence.

As long at it was legal and okay with management and passed a vote and didn't seriously impact membership participation, I'd do it in a heartbeat. YMMV.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kids being brought up in a textile world could be harmed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That argument has precisely zero merit when discussing the question with nudists. It is fundamental to being a nudist that you believe that the mere sight of a nude person cannot "harm" the viewer, regardless of age or gender or belief system. It is like saying to an economic conservative that taxes are good for you because they keep you from wasting your "excess" money.

Gary

"I am not interested in restricting myself to being only with other nudists...".

No-one is suggesting you should be. It's not NUDISTS as people that have to be segregated, it's NUDITY as a behaviour. I have no problem sharing facilities with clothed naturists whereas I would react very angrily to doing so with naked textiles. Surely you wouldn't want to be naked among people who were offended or disgusted by your behaviour. Surely you wouldn't want to spoil their enjoyment of a public beach or park when you could avoid doing so by using a naturist facility instead. Or don't you really care?

"That's what I want for nudists: the right to choose to live in nudist communities, or be integrated with the textile world".

They have that right now.

"..the law acts as a mirror which reflects the hangups that people have acquired over a considerable period of time about the human body".

You call it a hang-up, I call it a state of mind. However you want to label it, it's real and it exists and it affects people. A heck of a lot of people.

"We don't force native people to stay on reservations".

No. Because native people are prepared to adapt some of their ways and customs in order to fit in to the western culture. If they can't make any concessions at all then they should remain on their reservations. That's all I would expect of naturists. When in the presence of textiles, keep yourself decent.

"We don't segregate the races..."

Because we don't object to races. A person's race isn't something they chose, or can do anything about.

"...And, in the future, we won't segregate nudists from textiles either".

There are enough textiles who strongly oppose the idea of public nudity to prevent it becoming tolerated in most parts of the developed world for a very long time indeed. Gary, naturists can adopt one of two attitudes:

1. I'm a naturist and I like being naked. But I will do my best to enjoy my naturism as in such a way as to offend no-one. To that end I will confine my nudity to private places, or to those public places designated for the use of people like myself.

2. I'm a naturist and I want non-naturists to have to put up with my nudity whether they like it or not. If they don't like it that's their problem. Get over it!

I like category 1 because they are considerate and reasonable people who like their privacy and try not to offend. They are how most people imagine naturists to be.

I'm not worried about category 2 because, as they try to force the issue, there will be a massive backlash fuelled by an unholy alliance of mass media and religious and moral conservatives. Society will react and the authorities will be mandated to take stern action against them. Unfortunately the chief losers in this scenario will be all naturists - including the decent, considerate ones.

Stu

[soofreeemateomanian]

stu, I would just like to comment on some things

1. first of all I am offended by your STUpidity and stubborness. does that mean i call the cops, no.

2. I know you'll put this in quotes, to prove yourself right.
which if you do, you will only be proving your stubborness.

3.I can imagine your smug snout everday thinking "I outsmarted the nudists!!!

4. a seregationist senator believed in seregation on blacks and whites. His black daughter now came out into the public. That is right, he had relations with his black maid, the lousy hypocrite and possibly I see a little of you in this

5. please respond to this, I havent had a good laugh in some time.

[Bob S.]

"Why try to force people to "change their ideas on nudism"?"

stu, you love that term "force" don't you? Gary used the term "condition" which is sore subtle, long term, and acceptable to the person being conditioned (assuming positive conditioning). And why do we want others to change their minds on nudism? That should be obvious.

And remember, this is a societal as well as political issue. Changing other's minds will be in our benefit. We respect that others can have opposing ideas, but we can still wish for them to come to our side.

And no stu, we do not "have that right now" to be integrated into the textile world. You use the term "nudity" as a behaviour, so let me use the term "nudist" to mean being naked when the conditions permit. In that case, we cannot nudists have not been integrated into textile society as we cannot go outside on our property naked.

"When in the presence of textiles, keep yourself decent."

I'm decent when I am naked /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

" A person's race isn't something they chose, or can do anything about."

I can't do anything about my body either. I was born with it. I can't help that others cannot stand to look at it. Why should that be my fault?

freeman,

"1. first of all I am offended by your STUpidity and stubborness."

He has opposing ideas. They are not stupid just because they do not jive with yours. If one person can have stupid opinons, we all have stupid opinions. And we are also being stubborn, the difference is that we are in the majority here.

"a seregationist senator believed in seregation on blacks and whites..." I don't follow. How does Strom's love child have any bearing on stu's arguments? Keep in mind that he also had provided for her financially since she was 16.

Bob S.

[soofreeemateomanian]

that wasnt me, it was my clone!

[Rex]

In Western Australia, the govt uses large amounts of taxpayers money on TV and newspaper ads telling us all how to maintain or improve our health by doing or not doing various things. I agree with this concept, because prevention is better---and more cost-effective---than cure.
Many health checks and treatments involve invasive procedures in very psychologically sensitive parts of the body.
Nudists would hopefully take this in their stride and certainly not avoid or delay testing or treatment.
The WA Health Dept recognises that, for many people, the shame and embarrassment they have about their own bodies stops them from seeking necessary medical help and perhaps some will die as a result.
They aim advertising campaigns at people like this, in an endeavour to change their minds. [Condition, de-sensitise, call it what you will].
I can't see anyone seeing this attempt by govt to modify public attitudes as inappropriate.
I would suggest that the people who really need this sort of logical de-sensitising are what most of us would colloquially call "hung-up", maybe the ones who complain the most about nudist activities and often seem to have such a disproportionate influence with the governing authorities.
So, the WA Health Dept, but only when it sees fit, tries to change public opinion to the way we see things, whilst most of the other bureaucrats insinuate that if we are comfortable with our bodies, then there's something wrong with us.
I would love to see a comment on this from one particular person.

Mateo

"5. please respond to this, I havent had a good laugh in some time."

Sorry but I only respond to people who make rational points and treat others with respect.

Bob S.

"stu, you love that term "force" don't you?"

My dictionary defines force in this context as "to compel, posibly against..a person's wishes". That seems to fit.

"...and acceptable to the person being conditioned (assuming positive conditioning)."

What he was talking about didn't seem to be based upon the premise that it was acceptable to everyone.

"And why do we want others to change their minds on nudism? That should be obvious."

Not really. Let people be as they are - we can all live happily and we can all do our own thing. That doesn't mean we have to do them together. Some people like to listen to loud rock music outdoors. Others like to enjoy the sound of birdsong outdoors. The two things are incompatible together so we arrange separate venues for the music lover and the nature lover.

"And no stu, we do not "have that right now" to be integrated into the textile world. You use the term "nudity" as a behaviour, so let me use the term "nudist" to mean being naked when the conditions permit".

OK. But in my book "conditions" also refers to the place as well as the temperature.

"In that case, we cannot nudists have not been integrated into textile society as we cannot go outside on our property naked."

You can if you erect a fence or a high hedge, or if your neighbours don't object (and as we have seen here, many don't). Otherwise you have to consider the feelings of others - or re-locate.

"I'm decent when I am naked"

You may think that.

" I can't do anything about my body either. I was born with it. I can't help that others cannot stand to look at it. Why should that be my fault?"

Nobody is saying otherwise. You are just asked not to expose certain relatively small parts of it when other people might find it offensive.

Stu

[soofreeemateomanian]

because you are in the law business, it is your job to be hot tempered and to think everything you think is law. Well, ill tell you something, nudists have been the smartest and friendliest people I know. as for the respect issue, I really don't have respect for someone as arrogant and as stubborn as you.

[Rex]

Hi Stu,
I made a point a couple of posts back about the WA Health Dept trying to convince people who have a problem with personal nudity to try to look at it in a different way, for the good of their health.
I am hoping that you will respond.
They are not using force to try to change people's minds, just the subtle psychological pressures which the advertising industry is very good at and which often work far more effectively than force could ever do.
If, however, parents' or guardians' negative attitudes on nudity prevented a child from getting necessary medical testing or treatment and the authorities found out, then force would be applied through an appropriate govt agency.
This is not a matter of parental choice, or personal opinion, this could be a matter of life or death.
You may say that a normal, intelligent person would know the difference and, even though they may be extremely bodily modest, they would not hesitate to see a doctor, if it appeared necessary, and I would agree.
However, the WA Health Dept obviously has reason to believe that many people are not rational in this respect. Certainly, medical records show that many people, for whatever reason, are not diligent in respect to procedures such as pap smears, mammagrams, colonoscopies and digital prostate examinations, for example and some die as a result.
I realise that there could be other factors in not getting treatment in time, but quite often it's because the doctor or nurse would have to look "down there".
The problem usually starts with what we teach our children. Instruction, guidance, conditioning, indoctrination, brain-washing, there's a fine line between them. And if a child is told that nudity is a sin and sinners spend eternity in hell, then that is pretty powerful stuff.
Even the most intelligent people can be brain-washed. Think of agents operating in enemy territory. Not only are they likely to be intelligent and well educated, they have also been trained how to resist brain-wash if captured, but if they are taken and later on get back to their own side, they are psychologically assessed, one reason being to counter any brain-wash they may have succumbed to.
My point is that there are some very good reasons for society in general to be more accepting of nudism.
Stu, I invite you to reply to this.

Mateo,

Disagreeing with Stu and debating with him is perfectly OK. While I don't agree with most of what he says, I don't think calling him "arrogant and stubborn" is called for--particularly since we are ALL at least stubborn about what we believe--I know I am.

We have two sides of an issue here--ours and his. Yes, he seems to want to delude himself into believing that ALL non-nudists look at nudity the same as he does, which is not true. Still, there's no excuse for calling hin names.

Stu is always polite and has never to my knowledge called anyone a derogatory name. We should show him the same respect even though we don't respect the way he believes.

I can't help but wonder, though, if Stu stays in the forum because it's therapeutic for him in dealing with his extreme revulsion to nudity, or if he actually thinks he can change some of our minds, or does he just like to debate regardless of the fact that he's alone here in the way he believes. I've known people who would always take the opposing side just for the sake of arguing.

Let's try to be more polite with one another. Disagree if you want, but let's be civil about it.

Rex

I did read what you said about the WA Health Authority but I must admit to being at a loss as to its relevance. Certainly it is legitimate to try to convince people that medical staff are unshockable - you haven't got anything that they haven't seen before - that they see and deal with some pretty intimate stuff every day and that people shouldn't avoid going to their doctors just because of embarrasment. That's one thing. And, OK, you might reasonably argue that nudists are less likely to be reticent about seeking medical help for delicate problems than a lot of non-nudists. But, unless you tell me differently, I would not think the WA Health Authority would act as a proponent of naturism as a part of its campaign. Even less would I expect it to try to change public attitudes on public nudity, or encourage a relaxation of the laws that prohibit it.

It's one thing to encourage someone who is bleeding from the rectum to seek medical advice right away to save their life. But it's quite another to suggest we should all be content to expose our private parts to all and sundry for recreational purposes.

"If, however, parents' or guardians' negative attitudes on nudity prevented a child from getting necessary medical testing or treatment and the authorities found out, then force would be applied through an appropriate govt agency."

I'm sure you are right and I don't have a problem with that.

"However, the WA Health Dept obviously has reason to believe that many people are not rational in this respect. Certainly, medical records show that many people, for whatever reason, are not diligent in respect to procedures such as pap smears, mammagrams, colonoscopies and digital prostate examinations, for example and some die as a result".

I admit that I would HATE anything like that and not seeking medical attentio would be an option I would consider. But I know the risks I take if I choose to do that. You see, I'm a grown up and it's my body. When my kids are of an age then it will be their decision (as is the case with my older daughter).

"And if a child is told that nudity is a sin and sinners spend eternity in hell, then that is pretty powerful stuff."

Bearing in mind that we're atheists we're hardly likely to tell our kids all that hell-fire nonsense, are we? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Even the most intelligent people can be brain-washed".

I haven't been brainwashed. I think things through and arrive at my own decisions. I would have hoped you would have seen that by now in my responses here.

"My point is that there are some very good reasons for society in general to be more accepting of nudism".

Of course I accept nudism. I actually support the efforts of nudists to gain more venues and beaches. I would stand up and fight your corner on this and indeed have done so. I'm not against nudism - I'm against inflicting nudity on those who don't want to see it.

Jon-Marc

I think Mateo is young and perhaps not as used to debating issues in forums such as this as the rest of us. Some of the teenage discussion groups are quite aggressive and things get personal pretty quickly.

He'll learn the ropes soon enough.

Stu

[aunaturelone]

It isn't just this group. This is one of the more civil groups I've participated in. I've seen some horrific flame wars, many started by people who do it for the pure joy of getting control of the other person and verbally hurting them. (IOW, an internet bully).

Most people simply haven't learned the ettiquette of debate. They didn't take any forensics classes so they don't understand logical fallacies. That's a big source of acrimony on buletin boards and chat rooms.

In a good bulletin board the moderator will make the rules, policies and traditions clear and gently (or sometimes forcefully) keep everything on track. This may require regular interevention until everyone understands.

There are often times that two people cannot simply agree to agreeably disagree. My feeling is that when someone decides that the other person is either deliberately obtuse or malcious, takes it personally and counters with ad hominem attacks, it is best to simply take a deep breath and walk away. Reasonable people understand that the ad hominem attack means the attacker has run out of logic and the name calling need not be taken seriously; time to move on.

Many people have "hot button" issues, issues that are connected directly to a deep emotional response. they can be cool and rational until that one issue comes up and then, bang! They go ballistic. An example is people who are so utterly repulsed by homosexuality that they cannot talk about it without their disgust dominating their debate. For people emotionally damaged by a crime, that particular crime becomes their hot button. (I suppose pedophilia is the most common hot button topic and for many people the most powerful because of the deep taboo about it. You don't dare talk about it in a dispassionate matter on most boards or you will be ripped to shreds.)

If enough people share a "hot button" issue then another factor comes into play: Political correctness. People will often make something a hot button topic simply because they want to avoid the hostile response they would otherwise get. I have on many occaisions had conversations with people who were privately open minded about something but publicly hostile (or even favorable).

There are also people who simply cannot debate reasonably on any issue. They cannot imagine arguing for the sake of argument and debate as a way to stretch the mind and seek understanding about those who disagree. It is always about winning and losing and truth is irrelevent as long as your side gains control. Any old tactic to gain an upper hand is acceptable, no matter how hurtful or deceitful. This can be the result of an overblown and over emotional ego that cannot tolerate disagreement or it can be the agenda driven individual who takes the Machiavellian principle to an extreme. The end justifies the means and my end justifies ANY means.

[Bob S.]

"What he was talking about didn't seem to be based upon the premise that it was acceptable to everyone."

stu, we are not going to be able to convince everyone that nudity is fine in more areas of the public. We have already resigned ourselves to that position. But we do not need everyone. There is no issue that everyone takes the same stance on. But if enough people are for an issue, then that is what matters.

"Not really. Let people be as they are - we can all live happily and we can all do our own thing."

Every day people try to convince others to think the way that they think. That is what politics is all about. You know what the reason for wanting to change other people's minds on nudism is for us. You just hope that we don't do it. The more people who understand and follow our way of thinking, the better it will be for us to gain more areas for nudity. It is all about public acceptance.

"You can if you erect a fence or a high hedge, or if your neighbours don't object (and as we have seen here, many don't). Otherwise you have to consider the feelings of others - or re-locate."

And you call that integration? That is segregation. Nudity and clothing aren't integrated together in society. They could be if society got rid of it's hang-ups regarding nudity.

"You are just asked not to expose certain relatively small parts of it when other people might find it offensive."

Small parts? Spreak for yourself! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But why should the thoughts of others force me to cover up my bits? Unless society had that hang-up on nudity.

"I did read what you said about the WA Health Authority but I must admit to being at a loss as to its relevance."

He was talking about the difference between conditioning and force.

"And if a child is told that nudity is a sin and sinners spend eternity in hell, then that is pretty powerful stuff."

"Bearing in mind that we're atheists we're hardly likely to tell our kids all that hell-fire nonsense, are we?"

Rex wasn't talking about you, I don't think. But if a parent told their child that, would you not agree that it would be powerful?

"I haven't been brainwashed. I think things through and arrive at my own decisions."

You were taught from your parents about many things. Many things, you agred with, others you rejected. You were also influenced by the happenings of your childhood. You agree that your nudity anxiety has had an influence on your stance on public nudity. It has to. In that case, your anxiety has prevented you from thinking completely through on the nudity issue. Not saying that your arguments are not valid, but if you had cured your anxiety earlier on, you may have had a different view of nudity.

My phobia of flying has caused me to not go to on trips. My shyness has caused me to miss out on meeting people. They have also made me unable to really think through some aspects of the issues that would be complicated by those two conditions.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

I dont think theyd be forcing nudity on anyone. They dont make people come in and strip and they sure as hell dont make them walk over to the window and look in so i dont see what the big issue is. If nudity isnt against the law in that area, especially in a privately run place then all the owner would have to do when and if the cops were called is just explain the situation to them and be honest and im sure they wouldnt give them anymore trouble. Most of the time simple nudity isnt grounds for any legal action unless lewd conduct can be proven. I mean if the people were purposely harassing the public or dancing sexually or something then yah I could see someone complain but if all they were doing is having a party then thats all they gotta say. I think yall here are a bit paranoid, just be nude, have fun and dont worry till the fuzz comes knockin at your door! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob

"Every day people try to convince others to think the way that they think. That is what politics is all about."

The vehicle of politics is communication - speaking and listening, writing and reading. Nobody is trying to gag naturists or prevent them from communicating to the wider society. But we are trying to ensure that their behaviour does not impinge upon the wellbeing or comfort of others.

"The more people who understand and follow our way of thinking, the better it will be for us to gain more areas for nudity. It is all about public acceptance."

I agree. You are entitled and indeed wise to press for public acceptance of more areas for nudity. So long as they are segregated areas.

"And you call that integration? That is segregation."

Naturists are already fully integrated into society and that's how it should be. I'm in favour of total segregation of nudity.

"Nudity and clothing aren't integrated together in society. They could be if society got rid of it's hang-ups regarding nudity."

Some (not all) naturists want that. A few textiles may want that. But I don't believe most people want that. If people are content with their attitudes (you call them hang-ups) regarding nudity, who are you to try to change that?

"But why should the thoughts of others force me to cover up my bits? Unless society had that hang-up on nudity."

Society does have attitudes about nudity. I LIKE my attitude to nudity. I don't want to be desensitized to the sight of nudity and I have yet to met any textile who says they do. Our attitude or hang-up, call it what you will, isn't something we want to be cured of - thanks anyway!

"Rex wasn't talking about you, I don't think. But if a parent told their child that, would you not agree that it would be powerful?"

Definitely. But here in the UK that sort of religious fervour is a rarity. Most people here who abhor inappropriate nudity don't feel that way on the grounds of their religious upbringing or convictions.

"You were taught from your parents about many things. Many things, you agred with, others you rejected. You were also influenced by the happenings of your childhood. You agree that your nudity anxiety has had an influence on your stance on public nudity."

Not quite. It influenced me in as much as I feel unable to allow others to see me naked - anywhere, public or private. I can't see how it would be relevant to my attitude on, say, Steve Gough, or mixed saunas etc.

".. your anxiety has prevented you from thinking completely through on the nudity issue. Not saying that your arguments are not valid, but if you had cured your anxiety earlier on, you may have had a different view of nudity."

I don't have any reason to think it would have caused me to have a different attitude about public nudity. The only thing that would persuade me that public nudity was acceptable and I should learn to accept it too is if it could be shown that a decisive majority of people were 100% OK with it. That's far from the case.

"My phobia of flying has caused me to not go to on trips."

I really do hope you ca get help with that one, Bob. If you do, look me up and I'll be happy to give you a tour of Yorkshire. Clothed, of course!

MikeJB

"I dont think theyd be forcing nudity on anyone. They dont make people come in and strip and they sure as hell dont make them walk over to the window and look in so i dont see what the big issue is."

It's all about environment - in the broadest sense of the word. I could buy a giant TV screen, set it up in my front garden and show hardcore porn films throughout the day. If people don't like it they aren't forced to watch it, are they? I'm not equating simple nudity with pornography but the underlying principle is exactly he same. What we do that is visible to others affects others and therefore has to be regulated.

"If nudity isnt against the law in that area, especially in a privately run place then all the owner would have to do when and if the cops were called is just explain the situation to them and be honest and im sure they wouldnt give them anymore trouble".

In most places in the UK, if you were nude and visible to others who were either in public places or on their own property and somebody complained to the police, the police would take action. Even thouh there is no specific crime of simple nudity, they would find an appropriate criminal offence or other legal power to remedy the situation. That's what has happened in the past.

"I mean if the people were purposely harassing the public or dancing sexually or something then yah I could see someone complain but if all they were doing is having a party then thats all they gotta say".

It wouldn't be all that different to me whether the were sunbathing nude or having sex. I'd find the former nearly as offensive and unacceptable as the latter.

"I think yall here are a bit paranoid, just be nude, have fun and dont worry till the fuzz comes knockin at your door!"

By which time you have seriously upset your neighbours and you might even find yourselffacing a court appearance.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The vehicle of politics is communication - speaking and listening, writing and reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...and action! Every government, from time to time, takes unpopular action because it believes that the action it takes will demonstrate that its beliefs or policies were right. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong but nevertheless unpopular action is a valid means of communication.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I LIKE my attitude to nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Presumably liking something is a positive and, perhaps, fulfilling emotion.

So if you can't explain what it is about nudity that you find so disagreeable then perhaps you can explain why you LIKE having an attitude which is clearly inexplicable.

What is it about your reaction to nudity that you find so much to your liking?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik

"...Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong but nevertheless unpopular action is a valid means of communication."

I don't have a problem with any kind of protest which is nothing more than communication. So a properly organised and authorised march with banners and slogans is fine. But unilateral action that causes alarm, offence or disgust goes well beyond mere communication.

"What is it about your reaction to nudity that you find so much to your liking?"

I think we have evolved a culture over many centuries, possibly even millenia, in which certain parts of the human body have become intrinsically intimate. Specifically the reproductive organs and those parts of the body used to evacuate waste products (I'm trying to be delicate here). Whilst most parts of our bodies are 'public' to a greater of lesser extent, these parts are special and we keep them to ourselves except under very particular circumstances. Those circumstances include human intimacy and also where our life is at stake (e.g. if we have bowel cancer). Where those parts cease to be speacial then I believe that we lose something. They become no more intimate than our elbows or our ears. The very act of allowing one special person access to those parts is what gives them a mystical quality, a magical 'specialness' that heightens the sense of intimacy with that one person.

By the open display of private parts of the body - including the female breasts - we have lost some of this. Womens breasts have become just that - 'boobs'! They have lost much of their mysticism to men and are just mundane apendages in many cases.

The last bastion of the human body to be preserved as 'private' are the genitals. Aside from their erotic associations, they are not an especially attractive feature of the human body in my opinion (and I'm sure plenty of people would agree with that). They are also the part of the body that directly comes into play during the sex act - they are what brings abour reproduction which is what sex is really for. I don't want the sight of these to become commonplace or mundane. I want them to retain their 'specialness'.

That's the best explanation I can give you, Rik. No doubt you see things differently, as you are entitled to do. But that doesn't alter the way my mind works, nor the minds of millions of others.

Stu

[Rik]

Stu,

So let me get this straight. On the one hand "they are not an especially attractive feature of the human body" yet at the same time "The very act of allowing one special person access to those parts is what gives them a mystical quality, a magical 'specialness' that heightens the sense of intimacy with that one person." So who in their right mind would want exclusive access to something so unattractive? Don't make sense to me!

The things you say about the genitals could equally apply to the lips which are constantly on show and yet remain special and erotic. Seeing another person's lips does not diminish their specialness: it's what you do with them that counts.

Rik

Rik

"So who in their right mind would want exclusive access to something so unattractive? Don't make sense to me!"

The situation of two lovers exploring each other with all their senses whilst erotically aroused is quite unique. None of it makes the sort of logical sense that you are asking for but it's still there. We can enjoy a poem or a symphony or a painting but our pleasure in the experience can't be distilled down to pure rationality. Poems are just words, a symphony is just tones and a painting is just blobs of paint. It's the totality of it that we enjoy - the result of the synthesis in context.

"The things you say about the genitals could equally apply to the lips which are constantly on show and yet remain special and erotic."

In some societies that may be the case. But the lips are used as a stimulant or an accompaniment to sex - they are not the defining organs. Furthermore the lips are part of the human face. Something like 20% of our brains are involved in face recognition - the face is entirely special and has a unique place in terms of our evolution and society. We even see 'faces' in clouds or the bark of trees! Lips have a mass of uses that have nothing to do with sex - eating, speaking, sipping, whispering, smiling, sucking, grimacing etc etc. The penis, however, is used for toileting or for sex. And that's it.

Stu

[Rik]

Stu,

All of which brings us all back to the simple fact that nudity, in itself, has nothing to do with sex. There is no correlation whatsoever between the sight of a naked body and "two lovers exploring each other with all their senses whilst erotically aroused" - trust me on this!

You should perhaps also realise that naturists do not lose the speciallness of sexual relationships just because they see other people's genitals. In fact many will report the very opposite - that their relaxed attitude towards their own bodies and others' enables them to have a better, healthier, relationship with their sexual partners.

But you see, Stu, you have to experience it to believe it.

Rik

[Bob S.]

stu, I find it interesting that you have these two statements, "Nobody is trying to gag naturists or prevent them from communicating to the wider society." and " You are entitled and indeed wise to press for public acceptance of more areas for nudity. So long as they are segregated areas." At first, you say that no one is trying to censor us, while you also say that we cannot try to get public places for nudity use. It seems here that you are trying to censor us.

"Naturists are already fully integrated into society and that's how it should be. I'm in favour of total segregation of nudity."

Practicing naturists are not integrated into society. Using your logic, you could say that rapists are fully integrated into society so long as they don't rape others.

"If people are content with their attitudes (you call them hang-ups) regarding nudity, who are you to try to change that?"

Because they do not agree with me and I want to change their minds so my rights are more protected and my views are more popular. Now stop asking why I want to change other people's views on this social issue. You understand the basics of politics and wanting your views to be the ones that are popular. It is why we vote, have a say in our government, have town meetings, have the right to give redress to the government, have the right to try to sway public opinion in our view.

"I can't see how it would be relevant to my attitude on, say, Steve Gough, or mixed saunas etc."

Your anxiety about nudity makes you see nudity differently than most people. The fear of seeing someone else naked in public would affect how you view someone who walks around naked in public. Your anxiety about seeing a memebr of the opposite sex would affect your views about being in a sauna with a naked woman.

"The only thing that would persuade me that public nudity was acceptable and I should learn to accept it too is if it could be shown that a decisive majority of people were 100% OK with it."

Is there any law or societal attitude that you disagree with? If so, why wouldn't this statement above also apply to you? Should people in the minority always accept the laws until the majority agree with them? I am not talking about breaking them, but rather just accepting them?

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"But unilateral action that causes alarm, offence or disgust goes well beyond mere communication."

Or is it just unpopular communication? And how many people must be affected so negatively? A majority? A minority? One person? And according to the survey, only 23% would feel alarm or disgust (offense not one of the choices). So if 77% of the population does not feel one of those choices, should it be considered bad? And going back to the survey, with 57% negative, with a +/- 3.5% (which I am still awaiting the actual margin of error) that could mean that only 53.5% of the populace has a negative reaction, which is hardly a grand majority, leaving a large minority.

"Specifically the reproductive organs and those parts of the body used to evacuate waste products."

And yet the breasts do not qualify in either of those categories. Their only purpose is to act as a feeding receptacle for the newborn baby. But we have gotten so off-course, that we force prepubescent girls to cover their nipples. And for what reason is that? They are not functionable at that stage.

"Where those parts cease to be speacial then I believe that we lose something. They become no more intimate than our elbows or our ears.

You assume that just because we do not hide them, we consider them as nothing special. All of our body parts are special. The intimacy of all of our body parts is saved for the bedroom and the one whom we love.

"The very act of allowing one special person access to those parts is what gives them a mystical quality, a magical 'specialness' that heightens the sense of intimacy with that one person."

No one else has access to those parts of us. We allow only that special person access to the genitalia. Just like with your lips; you allow everyone to see them, but only those who you love have access to them, unless you kiss strangers all the time.

"Womens breasts have become just that - 'boobs'! They have lost much of their mysticism to men and are just mundane apendages in many cases."

They never had any mysticism that you attribute to them. And since they became taboo to expose, they have become sexualized.

"I don't want the sight of these to become commonplace or mundane. I want them to retain their 'specialness'."

A body part can retain its "specialness" and still be common to see. Do you see your arms as mundane? Legs? Any part of your "public" parts of your body? Are they mundane? Mine aren't. You wouldn't find your body parts as mundane or commonplace if you were missing one of them. Using that rationale, all the parts of the body are special. They all have important uses. Just because one part is used for excretory and reproductive purposes does not make it more special than another whose purpose is to hold a pencil or type on a keyboard.

Bob S.

"The very act of allowing one special person access to those parts is what gives them a mystical quality, a magical 'specialness' that heightens the sense of intimacy with that one person.

Riiiiigghhttt!

Are you really feeling "mystical" and magical when you inadvertently see naked genitals?

You've said you were disgusted, horrified, repulsed, even worse!

Stu, you change positions and attitudes like I change underwear. Debating means you should really know what you are feeling before you get in the middle of these things. Obviously you don't.

Rik,

"But you see, Stu, you have to experience it to believe it".

I will. One day. Preferably after taking a suitably generous imbibement of laudanum or some similar tincture. And bring some smelling salts with you in case it wears off. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bob S.

You are confusing two quite distinct points, Bob.

You are entitled to campaign for whatever you want - a return of public flogging, the abolition of taxation, compulsory lessons in Norwegian for all children over the age of 7 etc etc. I'm not trying to gag you. But, as with my first example, it is perfectly legitimate to campaign for judicial flogging: but your support of this measure doesn't entitle you to drag some miscreant out and flog him.

"Practicing naturists are not integrated into society. Using your logic, you could say that rapists are fully integrated into society so long as they don't rape others."

Precisely! That makes perfect sense! Instead of rapists, let's take paedophiles. There is no law against being a paedophile. I have no doubt there are many people with such a bent who are well-integrated into our society and, because they are able to exercise self-restraint, never act upon their vile urges. Paedophiles aren't incarcerated for what they ARE but for very specific things that they DO. But unlike paedophilia, naturism is, for the most part, harmless. It only becomes dangerous and pernicous when acted out in the presence of others who aren't accustomed to it.

"Because they do not agree with me and I want to change their minds so my rights are more protected and my views are more popular".

OK, so speak to them when, where, and, more importantly, IF they want to listen. Otherwise you become like a sort of evangelist. The one thing you should NEVER do is to force nudity onto others who don't want to see it. Taking the evangelist metaphor again - to do that would be like a Jehovah's Witness bursting uninvited into a synagogue on the Sabbath and preaching to the Jewish worshippers that they had got it all wrong and need 'educating'.

"Your anxiety about seeing a memebr of the opposite sex would affect your views about being in a sauna with a naked woman."

I'd prefer not to think about that one.

"Is there any law or societal attitude that you disagree with?"

Yes, plenty!

"If so, why wouldn't this statement above also apply to you?"

It does. I have joined groups and campaigned against bad laws. But I respect the fact that the laws in question have been passed my a mandated Parliament and that, unless we can convince the masses of the justice of our cause, we are in no position to make demands. And in the meantime I will abide by those laws.

"Should people in the minority always accept the laws until the majority agree with them? I am not talking about breaking them, but rather just accepting them?"

No. As I said before, you are free to campaign agains any law with which you disagree - lawfully.

Bob S.
"And according to the survey, only 23% would feel alarm or disgust (offense not one of the choices)."

Let's have the FULL picture, Bob:

(a) I would feel alarmed or disgusted and would look for park attendant or policeman. 23%
(b) I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly. 34%
(c) I would feel slightly uncomfortable but would just ignore them. 19%

Now (a) and (b) are VERY negative reactions by any definition and together they make 57%. A further 19% answering (c) indicated a mildly negative result. And 3% gave no answer either because they didn't understand the question orpreferred not to comment. I can't imagine any truly dispassionate observer coming to any other conclusion from these figures that most people do not want to see adult people naked in public parks.

"Specifically the reproductive organs and those parts of the body used to evacuate waste products."

"And yet the breasts do not qualify in either of those categories".

Loosely speaking, female breasts are reproductive organs as they are concerned with taking over where the lining of the womb left off - in providing nourishment for a child too young to take other sustenance. Therefore, as far asI am concerned, the business-end of female breasts should be regarded as intimate. But I am sufficiently democratic to accept that I may be out of step with a sizeable proportion of the population on this one.

"You assume that just because we do not hide them, we consider them as nothing special. All of our body parts are special. The intimacy of all of our body parts is saved for the bedroom and the one whom we love."

Which is a different sort of approach and experience to the rest of us because we don't routinely SEE these parts on other people of the opposite sex other than our lovers. I'm not saying your experience is less special - just differently special.

"They never had any mysticism that you attribute to them. And since they became taboo to expose, they have become sexualized."

Yup! Men sexualize them. Many women use them as a sexual lure. That's great!

"Do you see your arms as mundane? Legs? Any part of your "public" parts of your body? Are they mundane?"

Of course. I see these parts on other people and think nothing of it. I can touch a colleague's arm to gain his attention, or help a lady to unfasten a sticking ear-ring. But there are parts of the bodies of others that they wouldn't want me to touch under any circumstances. These pretty well co-incide with those parts I don't want to see.

cyndiann

"Are you really feeling "mystical" and magical when you inadvertently see naked genitals?"

No. Because I don't see them. And nobody sees mine. For me, the sight of genitals plays no part in lovemaking or intimacy. I have already said that I realise it is different for some other people in these times.

It is possible to have sex in total darkness you know. Not everybody want to have the light on!!

Stu

Stu,

There is absolutely NOTHING "dangerous and pernicious" about a nude body. There is no action in being nude. A nude person just IS. Any action being taken is taken by the viewer by their reaction, if there is any.

I saw a preview of a TV sitcom, which I don't watch. A woman opens a door and sees a nude man inside. He's apparently changing his clothes. She stands there and screams hysterically. I always wonder WHY? Why doesn't she just excuse herself and close the door? What is there about the nude man to cause her to scream? He's doesn't attack her or make any obscene gestures. He just stands there looking down at himself, probably wondering what there is about himself to make her scream.

[MikeJB]

Yeah the nude body in and of itself isnt bad. I mean if you see a nude body and dont like it, just look the other way or if youre in another room just close the door or go do something else. People can chose to be offended or not offended by things and if they chose to be offended then thats their problem and no one else's, the nude person didnt make them offended, the person that was offended chose to be so.

[Bob S.]

"You are entitled to campaign for whatever you want."

stu, reread what you said previously: "You are entitled and indeed wise to press for public acceptance of more areas for nudity. So long as they are segregated areas." What I read here is that we can campaing for public nudity all we want, but we have to campaign for public nudity where the general public cannot see us. That is giving us a gag, that is censoring what we can campaign for.

"It only becomes dangerous and pernicous when acted out in the presence of others who aren't accustomed to it."

No. It is never dangerous or pernicious. It just causes temporary discomfort to those who aren't used to it. If it causes anything more, then there is an underlying psychological factor of the viewer.

"OK, so speak to them when, where, and, more importantly, IF they want to listen."

You get it! That is what I am talking about. People listen to messages every day and choose which ones will affect them. You asked why the need to educate others, I said to change their minds. That is the basic reason for any "education," to change others' minds. Now we can put this to rest.

"unless we can convince the masses of the justice of our cause, we are in no position to make demands."

But you are if you know that a law is wrong for the society even if you are in the minority. Let's take the Arkansas law. The masses there may agree with that law, but it violates four of the five (and arguably the fifth one as well) of our First Amendment Rights, five of the most important rights in the Constitution. Does that mean that the minority cannot demand that the laws are repealed because they are unconstitutional?

"As I said before, you are free to campaign agains any law with which you disagree - lawfully."

You are free (as in having the free will) to do anything you want to, so long as you understand the consequences of your actions. And sometimes, as we have discussed, it becomes necessaary to break the law that you want repealed (I support this credo as long as the crime does no long-lasting harm of any kind to any victim and the person must be doing something passive).

"But unilateral action that causes alarm, offence or disgust goes well beyond mere communication."

(a) I would feel alarmed or disgusted and would look for park attendant or policeman. 23%
(b) I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly. 34%
(c) I would feel slightly uncomfortable but would just ignore them. 19%

I see the term "alarm" in the choice a). I see the term "disgust" in choice a). I do not see the term offense. Neither b) nor c) has those terms that you used.

"I can't imagine any truly dispassionate observer coming to any other conclusion from these figures that most people do not want to see adult people naked in public parks."

And you are truly dispassionate? I wouls still like you to provide me with all the answers to my requests in that topic. Read my last posting to you in that topic and get back to me.

"Loosely speaking, female breasts are reproductive organs as they are concerned with taking over where the lining of the womb left off"

The umbilical cord has never been viewed as inappropriate to look at in public. Unusual maybe, but not inappropriate. In fact, on shows about pregnancy where they will blur out the woman's breasts, they will never blur out the umbilical cord.

"Which is a different sort of approach and experience to the rest of us because we don't routinely SEE these parts on other people of the opposite sex other than our lovers."

You don't know if others feel that they all of their body parts are special. Ask a one-armed man if he feels that his intact arm is special.

" I can touch a colleague's arm to gain his attention..But there are parts of the bodies of others that they wouldn't want me to touch under any circumstances."

If he lets you. Some people are sensitive and do not like other people to touch them anywhere. And just because the body part is out in the open does not mean that people want you to touch it. You see the lips, but most people would not let you touch them there. The same goes with anywhere on the face.

"For me, the sight of genitals plays no part in lovemaking or intimacy."

And for us, the sight of genitals does not necessarily mean that we are about to get intimate or have sex. So we are pretty close on that.

Bob S.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Specifically the reproductive organs and those parts of the body used to evacuate waste products <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would have to include sweat glands, the nose and the mouth. And given that a woman's reproductive organs are inside her body....

[MikeJB]

"It only becomes dangerous and pernicous when acted out in the presence of others who aren't accustomed to it."
------------------------------------------------

Stu always does seem a bit extreme in his description of nudism. I mean at the very least nudism doesnt bother anyone and they generally ignore it even if they do or dont accept it and at the very most someone get s a hot head about the person's nudity and calls the cops and they come over, see nothing is wrong and go back to their business and even if they end up downtown, a judge usually lets em off or gives em a fine or a firm warning. I dont beleive that simple nudity is at all bad and certainly not dangerous, quite the contrary and like bob said, anyone who has issues with nudity have some deeper psychological issues going on and they need to deal with them and not ruin the nudist life because they cant deal with their own issues and come to understanding with them.

[Rex]

To paraphrase an old song,
"Hey Stu, what would we do without you?"

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Loosely speaking, female breasts are reproductive organs as they are concerned with taking over where the lining of the womb left off - in providing nourishment for a child too young to take other sustenance. Therefore, as far asI am concerned, the business-end of female breasts should be regarded as intimate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be very loosely speaking, stretching even, since breasts are not even organs of any kind. They are glands.

Breasts accomplish but one-half of the function necessary to sustain the child. The other half is performed by the child's lips, in receiving the nourishment secreted by the breast. By your logic, if the business end of the breast is intimate then so are the lips and mouth, therefore the human mouth should be concealed from view "forever and for always."
(Apologies to Shania Twain. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

[MichelleCA]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Breasts accomplish but one-half of the function necessary to sustain the child. The other half is performed by the child's lips, in receiving the nourishment secreted by the breast. By your logic, if the business end of the breast is intimate then so are the lips and mouth, therefore the human mouth should be concealed from view "forever and for always."
(Apologies to Shania Twain. ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's so true! Well Said MissouriBoy.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Stu, you change positions and attitudes like I change underwear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cyndiann! You change underwear? I thought that you were a nudist.

Gary

I NEVER change my underwear. Of course, I never wear any either!

[MikeJB]

Yeah I wonder what would happen if some kid was bugged about wearing underwear so much when everyone else wore something different and then like one day he came to school not wearing ANY underwear, then they couldnt tease him about anything. Makes those kids who wear the old men baggy boxers look really stupid. At least if they told them that those kids might be so scared or sickend of the fact that he was naked under his pants thatd they run off and leave him alone. Sounds good to me. Luckily I never had that problem, of course I never told anyone what I wore or didnt wear either.

Mike,

How would the kids at school know another kid isn't wearing underwear if he doesn't tell them? From what I understand they don't even take showers any more after gym class. I'm sure no one knows I never wear underwear unless I tell them, and I seldom find that necessary,

[aunaturelone]

Why not? That's what strict Sharia requires.

[toofeelgood]

I voted "No", why make a circus out of it. You can post adds and flyers in local papers etc announcing the event, the group, and the philosophy behind it all.

[MikeJB]

Mike,

How would the kids at school know another kid isn't wearing underwear if he doesn't tell them? From what I understand they don't even take showers any more after gym class. I'm sure no one knows I never wear underwear unless I tell them, and I seldom find that necessary,
------------------------------------------------

Ive wondered about that for a long time. Either kids tell their friends what underwear they wear on a bet or they find out in the locker rooms *jr high/high school* or another friend or brother/sister tells them. I mean theres probably several ways they could find out, but its just a stupid thing to worry about. I was just wondering how theyd react if the kid didnt wear ANY underwear at all. Nothing to make fun of then. As for the whole not making kids take showers in PE, I think thats just gross and it denies them those few minutes that they actually get exposed to nudity in a positive situation with other people who are naked. I think its good for em, at least then they dont go all dirty to class. Only reason I didnt ever do it is they didnt make me do it and I didnt have any time even if I had wanted to.

[NewAndNude]

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

How would the kids at school know another kid isn't wearing underwear if he doesn't tell them? From what I understand they don't even take showers any more after gym class. I'm sure no one knows I never wear underwear unless I tell them, and I seldom find that necessary,
------------------------------------------------

Ive wondered about that for a long time. Either kids tell their friends what underwear they wear on a bet or they find out in the locker rooms *jr high/high school* or another friend or brother/sister tells them. I mean theres probably several ways they could find out, but its just a stupid thing to worry about. I was just wondering how theyd react if the kid didnt wear ANY underwear at all. Nothing to make fun of then. As for the whole not making kids take showers in PE, I think thats just gross and it denies them those few minutes that they actually get exposed to nudity in a positive situation with other people who are naked. I think its good for em, at least then they dont go all dirty to class. Only reason I didnt ever do it is they didnt make me do it and I didnt have any time even if I had wanted to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my eighteen years of going through the educational system from elementary to middle to junior high to high school only once did I ever forget to wear underwear and that was when I was in third grade. Since I was so young and really incapable of realizing what this meant nothing ever bothered me about it or anyone else for that matter. I simply remember being surprised when I went to use the bathroom and found that I wasn't wearing any.

As for high school, from middle school on up we had to take physical education classes, changing in mass in rooms no larger than your average locker room, so I can guarentee you if one of my fellow male classmates had forgotten to wear underwear not only would it have been noticed, it would have gotten him teased for it as well. I never heard of it happening but all those guys taking all those p.e. classes i'm sure it's happened before. Though in high school it probably wouldn't have been *that* big of a deal, I know I would never have wanted it to happen to me. I started to 'develop,' if you will, at around age 12, so think about wearing those short p.e. shorts in middle school issued by the school with no underwear underneath. Boys wouldn't have been the only ones to notice, let's put it that way. In high school we could at least change into whatever shorts we brought with us, so if someone forgot their skivvies then it wouldn't have been seen as that big of a deal.

And I agree with the showers thing, but while I may have a better acceptance of my body now I sure as hell didn't in middle school. Even as far as high school I changed in the stalls. You couldn't have gotten me in the showers if you tried. The time thing not withstanding (five minutes before the next class to change back into regular clothes) I and many others were far too self-conscious to do such a thing.

[MikeJB]

And I agree with the showers thing, but while I may have a better acceptance of my body now I sure as hell didn't in middle school. Even as far as high school I changed in the stalls. You couldn't have gotten me in the showers if you tried. The time thing not withstanding (five minutes before the next class to change back into regular clothes) I and many others were far too self-conscious to do such a thing.
-------------------------------------------------

I liked the way it sounded in the past where the schools FORCED students to take showers and YES some of them probably were shy but im sure thats just something they had to deal with and learn from. Hell now, being shy is just the norm and everyone says its ok and gives ya a nice pat on the back for it and no one even tries to get ya to appreciate your body for what it is. I just think all these activists and parents complained enough citing all thes rights that the school was breaking by making these poor innocent little students march into an open shower room *GASp!* and actually take a communal shower together for 5 minutes, I mean sheesh, cmon that isnt that much to ask and as for all the shy kids, maybe theyre shy because the parents are too lazy to teach them any self respect and dignity. Its like they give em a nice pat on the back, hand them some cologne and say "its ok to be ashamed about your body, its normal" and then just let them trot their way to school. the other excuse is the time thing and the only reason they make it so short is so that they'll get the kids to hurry up and get done so they can get to class cuz if the time was longer theyd just waste more in the locker rooms. I say they oughta just lengthen the time a little bit, make everyone take a shower and just have some big bad ole coach in there making sure theyre doin what theyre supposed to be doing and if someone sees them WHO CARES!!! I mean there isnt anything wrong with the naked body and these people need to learn that plain and simple. I mean this whole body shame thing is annoying and it really needs to stop.

[MikeJB]

Also my second opinion on this whole thing is that instead of those idiotic stalls in showers, they oughta just keep the open gang showers and just tell kids to deal with them and just force em to go in. They should also say that they areint gonna waste needless school funds on some stupid peices of material just to separate everyone just because theyre ashamed of their bodies which is something the parents shouldve prepared em for in the first place. Either that or they shouldnt have showers at all, especially if none of the kids wont even bother to use them, because why build showers or stalls if no one is gonna use them and no one is gonna force them to use them???????

[MikeJB]

As for high school, from middle school on up we had to take physical education classes, changing in mass in rooms no larger than your average locker room, so I can guarentee you if one of my fellow male classmates had forgotten to wear underwear not only would it have been noticed, it would have gotten him teased for it as well. I never heard of it happening but all those guys taking all those p.e. classes i'm sure it's happened before. Though in high school it probably wouldn't have been *that* big of a deal, I know I would never have wanted it to happen to me. I started to 'develop,' if you will, at around age 12, so think about wearing those short p.e. shorts in middle school issued by the school with no underwear underneath. Boys wouldn't have been the only ones to notice, let's put it that way. In high school we could at least change into whatever shorts we brought with us, so if someone forgot their skivvies then it wouldn't have been seen as that big of a deal.
-------------------------------------------------

If it was just left up to me, I wouldve never bothered wearing any to school at all. Im proud of my body and I dont need some icky white underwear or some big baggy old fart boxers just to fit in. I would be proud of the fact that I wouldnt need such things to be who I was and if anyone said anything it wouldnt really bother me because id just consider those people worthless and not deserving of my time or energy. Besides itd be one less thing I gotta get on in the morning.

What a difference a little time makes (Isn't there an old song with those words?). All through elementary, junior high and high school, we had gym class. Everyone (at least the boys. I can't speak for the girls.) was required to shower. I was very shy about undressing in front of the other boys, but that was because my stupid dad didn't think boys needed underwear until puberty. I got my first underwear at age 13. I was so used to not wearing any that I only wore them to school and would take them off when I got home, and now I don't wear any. I can't remember if I was ever teased about not having any underwear (although I was VERY self-conscious about it), but boys being nude around one another was taken for granted. Nudity was more natural than it is today, and there wasn't the comparing of bodies that we see today. Of course, that's MY experience. Someone else's may have been different. There wasn't the body shame that there is today. I wasn't teased about my little penis by the more generously endowed ones.

Of course, boys' sexual awareness in the 50's and 60's wasn't as acute as it is now. They have a lot more on TV and other means to arouse their sexual awareness a lot sooner--as well as porn that even kids can get that shows that "normal" is being well endowed; anything else is lacking. We're raising a generation of sexually stimulated but insecure young people.

[MikeJB]

Yeah and somehow Stu think that the textile society is normal law abiding and peaceful this way???? Somehow he thinks nudists would be worse in public????? I think youre examples just go to show how much is really wrong with our society. Maybe if more people were nude, the sex and porn would not be as popular anymore and all the big industries that center themselves on that would take a huge hit if not go bankrupt all together, although im sure theyd stay function to at least provide clothing for comfort and for those who chose not to be naked, but they would have to change their whole image to attract customers.

[MikeJB]

Yeah I would try to go commando myself but if I didnt wear underwear and my dad found out, hed probably start spouting his attitude that "christians dont do that...." and hed try to find some verse in the bible to back him up, even though itd be harder to do that than it even would be for nudity. Although why is it his business what I wear under my clothes anyways?, im 19 and its my body. I dont think hed see it that way though.

[Spaat]

At gym in highschool we were not allowed to wear undies under gymshorts. For hygienical reason we were told. We didnt make any problem about that and the same with the mandatory showering.
I liked and like the "freeballing" with (gym)shorts, so i do at my gym and at camps.

[cdg-fr]

Going to high school in the late 70's we did not seem to have all of these issues about gang showers, choices to go commando or not, swimwear (speedos vs baggy shorts and remember this was the era of jantzen tight shorts). I knew buddies that went commando some time, all of the time or never. We did not give thought to it or tease. Sure- we noticed if someone went commando because it was not the norm - but I do think some of us seeing a buddy commando decided to give it a try.

And Mike - thought you might be interested - one of the first to be commando that I remember in about grade 9 or 10 was the local baptist preacher's son - he was into freeballing in a big way in jeans and cutoff jean shorts. He was also known to be comfortable with skinny dippping - guess that means he was raised in a house to enjoy the suit the good Lord gave him!

[MikeJB]

I guess that goes to show you what happens when you let prudish coservatives run the show. Also when you let things like MTV become the big media monster that it has and warped so many people's minds. I just think if these people were so open minded and enjoyed nudity so much they would done something to make sure these prudes didnt barge in on our lifestyles.

Mike said:

"I liked the way it sounded in the past where the schools FORCED students to take showers and YES some of them probably were shy but im sure thats just something they had to deal with and learn from"

So this is what it's come to, has it? Let's FORCE people to accept nudity.

We'll FORCE our kids not only to see other kids but also to expose themselves to others whether they like it or not. We'll FORCE non-naturists using beaches to encounter nudists. And we'll support Steve Gough who wants to FORCE people to see his genitals.

Please don't tell me again that naturism is about freedom of choice. It may be that for some people here, for others it's about FORCE.

But there is reason for hope. Jon-Mars said:
"Nudity was more natural than it is today", and Mike mentioned that they are now installing stalls into High Schools to replace single-sex communal showers. That's great news! It shows that society is moving away fron nudity - at least for our young people. When they are old enough they can choose whether to be nudists or not. By the way things are going I would guess that most will choose not to be.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Mike said:

"I liked the way it sounded in the past where the schools FORCED students to take showers and YES some of them probably were shy but im sure thats just something they had to deal with and learn from"
-------------------------------------------------

Hell it worked back then and alot of people still grew up to be decent functional people so I dont see what the big deal is. Now basically just no one cares and you got these gang banger types running around in pants 2 times their size hanging off their asses letting their boxers show, walking around with all these stupid peircings and clothes with vulgar images and language on it, kids dont even take showers at school anymore sometimes, instead just covering up their stench with equally nasty colognes and use profanity and have total disrespect for people, now if that isnt a reason to teach half these lowlifes what theyre parents learned back then then I dont know what is. The idea of showers with stalls just appauls me that the school would have to waste so much money and time because you have these bunch of little punks that are shameful of their bodies and theyre parents dont even teach them to be proud of their bodies and im NOT just talking about genitals here, this situation, as far as younger people is is nuts and I dont think a little force would be something all that bad, their parents had to endure it, so why shouldnt they?

------------------------------------------------
So this is what it's come to, has it? Let's FORCE people to accept nudity.
------------------------------------------------

Why? You textile people FORCE them to wear clothes, so why cant us nudists who seem to have our whole feelings about bodies and ourselves right FORCE people to learn about and accept nudity, being nude and being open and proud of your body isnt a bad thing. Besides nudists keep trying to do it the simple and easy way and some people just wont accept even other nudists to see each other naked. Im not expecting everyone to just strip and live with it. What im saying though is that people need to be exposed to nudity and those who want to strip should be able to and people need to accept it.

-----------------------------------------------
We'll FORCE our kids not only to see other kids but also to expose themselves to others whether they like it or not. We'll FORCE non-naturists using beaches to encounter nudists. And we'll support Steve Gough who wants to FORCE people to see his genitals.
------------------------------------------------

Okay. Can you honestly prove that nudity actually has any negative effects on people just by being exposed to it in a peaceful nonviolent way? I mean you spout all these things about how bad it is but have there actually been alot of people who were actually harmed by it *im not talking about being offended here* im talking about seriously physically or mentally harmed. Has this happened on a large scale of people who have been exposed to it for a long time or is this just people who dont understand it and are upset with it because they think its something sexual and its gonna ruin their society or something? If you say there is such a minority of nudists then why not just let the few of us strip, go about our lifestyles and ignore us and youll find that alot of us wont even give the textile world any flack. We generally stay away from them as it is, mostly cuz they dont accept our nudity and thats just sad. Stu, I think youre confused, there is a difference between forcing someone to DO something or participate in something as to just ACCEPTING something. We dont want the public to get nude, we want them to accept us nude. I dont think that thats a really big request, because our society is certain capable of it given a push in the right direction. Besides the public seeing nudity and high school kids seeing nudity are different, in high school, kids are still underage and really have no choice as far as taking a shower and doing that sort of thing and many of them dont like it but thats just something you gotta go through as part of being a kid, youre exposed to and have to experience alot of things you dont like or are shameful or shy about. The only difference is as an adult in public, you have the choice to wear basically what you want, but you cant go telling others what they wear *businesses, restaurants, etc, are different* and so people should be able to be nude and those who wanna be nude can be nude and those who wanna stay clothed can stay clothed. Its just all about live and let live. Now dont get into the whole crime thing "well if I could do that, then I could go rob a bank too" because thats just a bunch of bs and has nothing to do with nudity and you know it. I just think as far as our bodies go, we own them and we should be able to put whatever on them we want and if we chose to not wear anything then there shouldnt be a damn thing society can do about it. Same as us not making textiles take off their clothes, so long as they let us take ours off, we wouldnt make them take theirs off, plain and simple.

------------------------------------------------
Please don't tell me again that naturism is about freedom of choice. It may be that for some people here, for others it's about FORCE.
------------------------------------------------

Its freedom for us and our bodies, because we own them, not society and there is NOTHING bad or indecent about them and society needs despereately to know this and accept it. Otherwise our society is gonna be filled by the same rude inner city gang punks that it is these days. I think the whole situation gets really bad when they sell condoms in school but ban any religious messages, now does that sound like something that is good about the textile society and does it show what direction its headed?

------------------------------------------------
But there is reason for hope. Jon-Mars said:
"Nudity was more natural than it is today", and Mike mentioned that they are now installing stalls into High Schools to replace single-sex communal showers. That's great news! It shows that society is moving away fron nudity - at least for our young people. When they are old enough they can choose whether to be nudists or not. By the way things are going I would guess that most will choose not to be.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah and we have alot of prudish people who barged into our congress and a few unsigtly presidents and screwed with our whole society and its outlook. I mean it seems in the 60's and 70's people enjoyed being nude, now that we have these tightwad conservatives in control, we have all these idiotic regulations with things. I mean we are so bent up on this terrorist thing now, how can people in the government waste time enforcing something as simple as nudity, why not just let us be free and get back to their business? I mean just imagine if most people were nude, where would the terrorists hide the bombs or the guns on themselves?????????

[Suntied]

MikeJB,
You have a good attitude. Of, course, that is just my opinion and wouldn't matter to others (wonder who), but I read what you wrote and it was a sureen coinsidence that you said "Live and Let Live" when I had just posted the same thing (on another topic) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif before I read this one... hmmmmm.... maybe the voices have gotten to you too?

Anyway, /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif trying to change others opinions about nudity doesn't work when their upbringing and surrounding culture have lead them to the opinions they have... You could get alot more of a resonable response to nudity from a _______ (fill in the blank). /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[MikeJB]

MikeJB,
You have a good attitude. Of, course, that is just my opinion and wouldn't matter to others (wonder who), but I read what you wrote and it was a sureen coinsidence that you said "Live and Let Live" when I had just posted the same thing (on another topic) before I read this one... hmmmmm.... maybe the voices have gotten to you too?

Anyway, trying to change others opinions about nudity doesn't work when their upbringing and surrounding culture have lead them to the opinions they have... You could get alot more of a resonable response to nudity from a _______ (fill in the blank).
-------------------------------------------------

Thanks. That means alot. Personally I just want people to accept my nudity. I dont really care about their opinion on it. Agree, disagree or in different, I just want them to accept me and just treat me like any other person. Thus I would do the same for them. How hard is that? I bet ___ could answer that one *fill in blank* /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Suntied]

Well,
You can want in one hand and ____ in the other when it comes to getting society to except change... I get it, /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif you get it, /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif many others on this forum get it... but society keeps wanting everything to be the same when we are all different... /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif just doesn't make sence (or everyone is trying to be something they are not). /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[MikeJB]

I just think its lame and a bit unconstitutional that we should have to get society's permission to be nude. I mean its OUR bodies, they belong to US, so we should be able to do with them what we want.

[NewAndNude]

I liked the way it sounded in the past where the schools FORCED students to take showers and YES some of them probably were shy but im sure thats just something they had to deal with and learn from. Hell now, being shy is just the norm and everyone says its ok and gives ya a nice pat on the back for it and no one even tries to get ya to appreciate your body for what it is.


Well I think it depends on the context and the circumstances, really. One of my first experiences of this was when I went on a trip with my youth group in July 1992 when I was sixteen. We joined other church groups from around the country to repair and restore homes for the eldery or poor people around a city in Tennnessee. This was July and it was hot as hell (no pun intended). Our group was assigned to this elderly woman's house, her garage was falling apart and her house was in bad shape physically. We gave her a new roof and it was so hot that we had to work in shifts on the roof due to the possible exposure to heat exhaustion.

Obviously we all needed it having worked on-site with construction materials in the July heat. Well the church we were staying at was adjacent to a football field and so the guys used the locker room building there that was right behind the church. The ladies used a locker room building that was behind the field. They all had cubicle showers with curtains. I know this because on the first day when I was exploring the area I went inside to look around.

The men and boys, however, had the other building that had no cubicle showers -- we had the set up of four shower heads set into a single metal post going from floor to ceiling, with the shower heads being at diagonal angles from each other. Imagine my surprise when I spoke with one of our youth group chaperones after I informed him of what I'd found earlier in the day at the ladies' shower and he responded with "ours is basically where you just have to stand around and look at each other."

It was an interesting experience. I had forgotten a washcloth and soap and was basically provided these, taken down to the showers on the first day by one of our other church chaperones who had come along and forced to take a shower. Before I went one of the executives helping to oversee the conference actually overheard my protests and took me aside telling me "you can leave your underwear on if you want to."

I didn't undress in front of the chaperone; rather, I went into another room and came out in only a towel. He waited until the shower was running and then left. For me, it was both an embarrassing and enlightening experience, more embarrassing than anything else though as I almost immediately found myself with an erection. In fact every time I showered that week this happened, and I took only cold showers to help remove the problem. Since it was the middle of July this was also a necessity. But I would always go almost at the end of the day after everyone else had taken there -- at the time I couldn't even imagine the idea of standing there with other naked guys feet, if not inches away from me. It wasn't homphobia...I had just never had much experience with that before and was exceedingly shy in my body image.

The worst and most embarrassing part for me (then, not now as I look back) was when I was in there on my own and a man in his late 40s/early 50s came in to shower. I had a partial erection, almost full, and he gave me a questioning look but never said anything. At the time though he was the first person to see me undressed in all of several years so perhaps this was what left such an impression on me in that moment.

It wasn't horrible, it wasn't quite humbling but even if I never fully embrace the nudist movement it is something I will never forget. It is part of what eventually lead me to be more comfortable with my own body while both nude and clothed -- mostly nude -- and it was definitely an experience that I took back with me from the entire week. So per your post, I *have* had experience with being "forced" to shower and I didn't quite like it then. Nor do I quite like it now remembering it (I don't think anyone should be 'forced' to do anything) but I got over it. It was embarrassing, and left me feeling quite vulnerable, but I eventually got over it.

I've had a few other encounters where I've almost been 'forced' to shower but none as direct as that. If I had had a similar experience going up through the educational system as I did that summer in 1992 I'm not quite sure how I would have handled it...but probably the same way. The same way I got used to showering out in the open that whole week I would probably have gotten used to doing so in school, but I'm still glad I didn't have to do it.


**************
I just think all these activists and parents complained enough citing all thes rights that the school was breaking by making these poor innocent little students march into an open shower room *GASp!* and actually take a communal shower together for 5 minutes, I mean sheesh, cmon that isnt that much to ask and as for all the shy kids, maybe theyre shy because the parents are too lazy to teach them any self respect and dignity.
***************

That wasn't my reason for not wanting to shower. For me it was that I had been teased constantly growing up through elementary and middle school and at age 16 it was beginning to wane a bit but by that point my body image and self-esteem had pretty much been shattered. I didn't want to shower at that retreat because I was *afraid* to shower. Having been picked on for so much for so little while clothed, I could only imagine what it would be like when I was totally nude. That, and the whole 'erection' issue I already mentioned. And since nobody had seen me showering since I was 13 or nude since I was about 14, it had been awhile and I suppose part of it was I had gotten used to a little privacy. This was my first experience where privacy basically went flying out the window. It wasn't anything on my parents' part -- they didn't discourage nudism (by this point I was sleeping nude) but they didn't encourage it either. It wasn't frowned upon but if I'd done it I would have been told to get dressed as soon as possible. But I don't blame my parents for my attitude that summer, I blame my own sense of self-worth and body image having been torn down repeatedly for years.


**************
Its like they give em a nice pat on the back, hand them some cologne and say "its ok to be ashamed about your body, its normal" and then just let them trot their way to school.
**************

I wasn't ashamed of my body, I was just afraid of what would happen if I were to become erect while there. Growing up in the educational system the middle school I attended was the former high school and as a result the showers that were in the locker rooms were open-aired without cubicles at all. Same for the high school.

***********
the other excuse is the time thing and the only reason they make it so short is so that they'll get the kids to hurry up and get done so they can get to class cuz if the time was longer theyd just waste more in the locker rooms.
***********

maybe, but for the high school I attended it was more of a scheduling thing than anything else. Why would they want to have each period last ten minutes longer just to accomondate a single class of physical education? Too many students and not enough time in the eight hour day to handle such a schedule. We had homeroom, first period, second period, third period. Third period was divided into two sections, one ate for about 40 minutes then a bell rang sending them back to class for fourth period. About ten minutes later another bell rang signalling the remaining students who had yet to eat to go lunch as well. Then fourth period, fifth, and sixth. There was really no time in the day to extend the whole schedule just to accomodate a change in physical education class.
*****************

I say they oughta just lengthen the time a little bit, make everyone take a shower and just have some big bad ole coach in there making sure theyre doin what theyre supposed to be doing and if someone sees them WHO CARES!!!


In today's world that wouldn't work. Not only would the students worry about the coach seeing them undressed but the coach's possible sexual discrepencies as well. We've developed a culture that sees pedophilia and sexual indescrition around every corner, and that would be included. I remember being surprised in eleventh grade when the grafitti on the bathroom walls got so bad that the pricinpal sent a male teacher into the boy's room to stand at the entrance and make sure people came in, did their business, and left. And these were urinals without partitions too. Nothing he hadn't seen before, but an interesting occurance given the times we lived in -- and still do.


I mean there isnt anything wrong with the naked body and these people need to learn that plain and simple. I mean this whole body shame thing is annoying and it really needs to stop. [/QB][/QUOTE]\


****

I agree, in part. But it's going to take more than a few letters about showering sent to the school boards for that to occur. And one thing you don't want to do is be seen as a stubborn zealot of some kind in this matter. I think that body acceptance will gradually increase, but it's going to take a long, long time for it to happen. That's why I like Futurama... one thing that's changed in the future is that "gone are your primitive ideas of modesty." There's more nudity in Futurama than in most mens' magazines. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NewAndNude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spaat:
At gym in highschool we were not allowed to wear undies under gymshorts. For hygienical reason we were told. We didnt make any problem about that and the same with the mandatory showering.
I liked and like the "freeballing" with (gym)shorts, so i do at my gym and at camps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>***************
I've actually heard of this happening but only from reading about it on the Internet. For awhile I thought it was something to be left in pornographic or sexually laced stories but then reading a few other sites I found this was real. Fortunately we never had such a rule; I'm sure if we had then the girls would have definitely made some remarks about it. Did that ever happen with you, and if so how did you as guys handle it? Sounds like it would have been fairly embarrassing, especially if you became erect during this. That was one of the problems I (and I'm sure others) encountered in middle school when we were given madantory p.e. shorts and shirts to wear -- if you became erect in the shorts not much was left to the imagination even with underwear on. The shorts were pretty skimpy. That's why when we entered junior high and high school I was glad we could wear whatever we brought, so long as they were shorts and shirt.

I still failed p.e. in ninth grade though as I was just too uncomfortable changing in front of my peers. The shower area was off to the side in another room and at one point I had a classmate tell me that I could change in there and nobody would care but it would be eleventh grade before I could finally screw up the courage to change into p.e. uniform enough times not to fail the class.

[RIVERRAT]

a post is a breef, not a book, no body wants spend half there night reading a book, if thats all you have to to do get published. The Rat

[Bob S.]

An advantage to not wearing underwear at school: no wedgies. I can't remember when I started to not wear underwear, but it was sometime in high school or junior high.

"So this is what it's come to, has it? Let's FORCE people to accept nudity."

No stu, what he is talking about is making students take showers for hygenic reasons. They could also explain to them the reasons for taking a shower after vigorous exercise. And have a teacher in the back to monitor the behaviour of the students. The main reason why it stopped is because the kids came whining to theri parents who complained that their poor child was being humiliated by being forced to take a shower at school. In generations past, the parents would have told their children to deal with it.

What is happening is that the pedophilia hysteria is in full force and anything that could even be a hint at sexual, including locker room nudity, is being phased out. Forcing a child to be naked seems to be equated with sexual abuse. Talking to them about the naked body is bad. Society is going downhill and you, stu, are enjoying the ride. We see it as an out of control sled that is going to take other things with it.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

No stu, what he is talking about is making students take showers for hygenic reasons. They could also explain to them the reasons for taking a shower after vigorous exercise. And have a teacher in the back to monitor the behaviour of the students. The main reason why it stopped is because the kids came whining to theri parents who complained that their poor child was being humiliated by being forced to take a shower at school. In generations past, the parents would have told their children to deal with it.

What is happening is that the pedophilia hysteria is in full force and anything that could even be a hint at sexual, including locker room nudity, is being phased out. Forcing a child to be naked seems to be equated with sexual abuse. Talking to them about the naked body is bad. Society is going downhill and you, stu, are enjoying the ride. We see it as an out of control sled that is going to take other things with it.

Bob S.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah thats basically what I was trying to say. I think that they need that required showering time and they need the gang showers again and they need to tell these kids that they have to shower NAKED. Its healthier that way anyways because then you clean off everything including the genitals and by doing this naked and in mixed company it helps other kids get used to nudity of all kinds and helps to releive some of the shame they have about their own bodies.

I don't think it was ever a matter of being "forced" to shower, although there really was no choice in the matter. In my school days showering after sweating in gym class was required. It was simply a natural part of gym class that everyone took for granted. Yes , there were always those who were shy about being seen nude, but they undressed and showered because that's simply the way it was. No one was tramatized by it.

There was nothing sexual about it. I don't remember seeing any boy with an erection, or experiencing any myself at any time. We had gym class; we undressed; we showered, and we went to our next class unless gym was the last class as it sometimes was.

Bob

"No stu, what he is talking about is making students take showers for hygenic reasons".

I don't have a problem with that But if that was all he was talking about why does he not like the idea of stalls?

"They could also explain to them the reasons for taking a shower after vigorous exercise".

I always take a shower after exercise - but never within the view of others.

"The main reason why it stopped is because the kids came whining to theri parents who complained that their poor child was being humiliated by being forced to take a shower at school. In generations past, the parents would have told their children to deal with it."

That's hardly considerate, is it? If they find the whole thing unpleasant or embarrassing why should they be FORCED to do it?

"Forcing a child to be naked seems to be equated with sexual abuse".

It IS abuse - It's not sexual abuse but forcing anyone to be naked in the view of others and against their will is abuse - short and simple.

"Society is going downhill and you, stu, are enjoying the ride. We see it as an out of control sled that is going to take other things with it."

That's not my interpretation, Bob. Public attitudes towards nudity are changing under forces pulling in different directions. It's just that you are I are pulling from opposite sides.

Stu

"I think that they need that required showering time and they need the gang showers again and they need to tell these kids that they have to shower NAKED".

Why do they need "gang" showers? They can get just as clean in individual cubicles without having to suffer the experience of others seeing them naked or having to endure seeing others naked.

"...and helps to releive some of the shame they have about their own bodies".

You call it "shame" but, whatever you call it, there are many people who have no desire to change their own attitude towards nudity. Don't they have rights too - to bring up their own children with their own values?

Jon-Marc

"I don't think it was ever a matter of being "forced" to shower, although there really was no choice in the matter."

That's a bit oxymoronic isn't it, Jon-Marc? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not being forced but had no choice???? LOL

"Yes , there were always those who were shy about being seen nude, but they undressed and showered because that's simply the way it was. No one was tramatized by it."

But nowadays there are individual cubicles so there is no problem. Even the shyest child can take a shower. When I was a kid I was NEVER required to shower with the other girls. I was allowed to strip wash in a lockable 'closet' and I was so pleased that was the case.

"There was nothing sexual about it. I don't remember seeing any boy with an erection, or experiencing any myself at any time. We had gym class; we undressed; we showered, and we went to our next class unless gym was the last class as it sometimes was."

I am sure that was the case. These days, however, there is an alternative - showers with privacy!.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"But if that was all he was talking about why does he not like the idea of stalls?"

He wants everyone to get used to nudity, at least in the locker room. And really, gang showers allow for more shower heads while stalls require more space. And if the idea is to get the most kids washed in the shortest amount of time, then gang showers are the best answer.

"If they find the whole thing unpleasant or embarrassing why should they be FORCED to do it?"

Because it is a part of school. What if a child was just no good in school? Should he not be forced to go to school even if he finds himself embarrassed by getting bad grades or having unpleasant experiences while there? Should children be FORCED to learn about sex education? If you look at this as another learning experience, then they should be "FORCED" to do it as a school policy.

"It IS abuse - It's not sexual abuse but forcing anyone to be naked in the view of others and against their will is abuse - short and simple."

No it is not. Not in the context of the whole educational experience. And why was it fine in the past for the kids to be made to take a shower or even swim naked? Were they being abused as well? How about making showering a part of their overall grade? That way, they do not have to shower, but not doing so will be detrimental to their overall grade.

"When I was a kid I was NEVER required to shower with the other girls."

Yet another piece of the puzzle. So you were not allowed to change in the boys' locker room?

Bob S.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"If they find the whole thing unpleasant or embarrassing why should they be FORCED to do it?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is nothing about school that is not "forced". The government does put a gun to your head to make you give your children some kind of schooling.

Acturally a more accurate adverb for describing the nude shower is "required". You can always refuse to follow the requirements (it's called civil disobedience) and work out a compromise with the powers-that-be. Or maybe you'll just fail PE. Just as you'd fail English if you found reading in front of class "unpleasant or embarrassing".

Quite a bit of lattitude is allowed in government schools for religious objections, since the Constitution requires it. And if your parents don't like the public school, there's always private school or home schooling.

**************

Never heard of required "freeballing" in PE class. Makes no sense. You don't wear a jock strap in PE because of modesty, you wear it for physical safety.

Bob

"He wants everyone to get used to nudity, at least in the locker room".

I know he does. But what about what the kids want? And what their parents want? Why should he have HIS way on this?

"Because it is a part of school".

When I was at school misbehaviour or even failing to hand in homework on time was punishable by caning. That was "part of school" too. Luckily such abuse is no longer carried out.

"Should he not be forced to go to school even if he finds himself embarrassed by getting bad grades or having unpleasant experiences while there?"

Yes. And if he does his best then no more can be asked of him. But there is a fairly widespread feeling of embarrassment on the part of children forced to be naked in the presence of others. These days, with the introduction of shower cubicles into schools, we can get rid of that from the school experience at a stroke. So why shouldn't we?

"Should children be FORCED to learn about sex education?"

That's up to their parents. It certainly is here in the UK.

"No it is not. Not in the context of the whole educational experience. And why was it fine in the past for the kids to be made to take a shower or even swim naked? Were they being abused as well?"

In a way they were - but we didn't know any better and it was all that was available. But times have moved on.

"How about making showering a part of their overall grade? That way, they do not have to shower, but not doing so will be detrimental to their overall grade."

Why penalise the prudish? Isn't that a kind of discrimination akin to racism?

"Yet another piece of the puzzle. So you were not allowed to change in the boys' locker room?"

Bob - when I was 11 years old I was, to all intents and purposes, a girl. OK, I suspected I was different to the other girls but I didn't think of myself as a boy. There was never any suggestion that I could get changed with the boys or play boys' sports! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif At that stage my parents still thought they had a daughter who would, at some stage, have to undergo corrective surgery prior to womanhood.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Bob

"No stu, what he is talking about is making students take showers for hygenic reasons".

I don't have a problem with that But if that was all he was talking about why does he not like the idea of stalls?
------------------------------------------------

Gang showers are more open, allow more space for more kids to take showers at once *which is useful in big classes* and is cheaper for the schools.


------------------------------------------------
"They could also explain to them the reasons for taking a shower after vigorous exercise".

I always take a shower after exercise - but never within the view of others.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but these kids are theyre teamates *if in a school sport* so they usually trust and rely on these people and have no reason to feel shy in front of them. They need to trust one another to do well and that goes for the body as well as the mind.


------------------------------------------------
"The main reason why it stopped is because the kids came whining to theri parents who complained that their poor child was being humiliated by being forced to take a shower at school. In generations past, the parents would have told their children to deal with it."

That's hardly considerate, is it? If they find the whole thing unpleasant or embarrassing why should they be FORCED to do it?
------------------------------------------------

Stu, I dont think that was really being inconsiderate. The required shower was just a way of life to them and many kids went through it just fine and if you understood this then it didnt bother you because you just learned that it was something you had to do. Theres lots of things in school kids have to do, should we stop doing them just because the kids dont like them?

------------------------------------------------
"Forcing a child to be naked seems to be equated with sexual abuse".

It IS abuse - It's not sexual abuse but forcing anyone to be naked in the view of others and against their will is abuse - short and simple.
------------------------------------------------

No, the school is just trying to make sure that these kids get clean and the best and efficent way to do this is to put em in a gang shower with lots of other kids, get em clean fast and dressed and out the door. It has more to do with efficiency than nudity, but the nudity aspect is present there.

------------------------------------------------
"Society is going downhill and you, stu, are enjoying the ride. We see it as an out of control sled that is going to take other things with it."

That's not my interpretation, Bob. Public attitudes towards nudity are changing under forces pulling in different directions. It's just that you are I are pulling from opposite sides.

Stu
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but really Stu, are alot of our attitudes changing for better or worse? Do you really think public nudity or at least the acceptance of it would have any real permanent harm on society, beyond the intial alarm and distress it might cause until people get used to it?

------------------------------------------------
"I think that they need that required showering time and they need the gang showers again and they need to tell these kids that they have to shower NAKED".

Why do they need "gang" showers? They can get just as clean in individual cubicles without having to suffer the experience of others seeing them naked or having to endure seeing others naked.
------------------------------------------------

These days with so many kids and so many of them being so shy and ashamed of their bodies and having so many issues with their bodies, YES, they do need gang showers. Mostly from a practical standpoint for efficiency and costs of the school paying for the showers and by making them bigger and more open alows for more shower heads, thus more people, thus they clear out the lockers faster and thus people get dressed faster and make you happier. Besides that though, people need to know that there are other body types out there than those perfectly slim curved britney spear types out there and they need to know that no matter what their bodies look it, they are good people and dont need to be ashmed of what they are, nudity, especially among peers helps with this. Why do you think those nudist youth camps are so sucessful?

-----------------------------------------------
"...and helps to releive some of the shame they have about their own bodies".

You call it "shame" but, whatever you call it, there are many people who have no desire to change their own attitude towards nudity. Don't they have rights too - to bring up their own children with their own values?
-------------------------------------------------

I think the way the kids feel has more to do with their own shame of their bodies than any attitudes they have about nudity. Even if some kids like nudity, they wouldnt want to be naked in front of others for the sole fact that they think the person would think they are gross or there is something wrong with them but actually would enjoy it if they knew that the person didnt care. I just think that alot of what these kids feel are just misconceptions about themselves and others and are not right but are so common that everyone mistakes them as being so.


Jon-Marc

"I don't think it was ever a matter of being "forced" to shower, although there really was no choice in the matter."

That's a bit oxymoronic isn't it, Jon-Marc? Not being forced but had no choice???? LOL
------------------------------------------------

He meant that going into the showers after PE was something that was routine and something everyone just did. The forced fact was that it was required and if you chose not to do it you got an F in the class, so really for many there was no choice and thus it felt like it was forced on them.

----------------------------------------------
"Yes , there were always those who were shy about being seen nude, but they undressed and showered because that's simply the way it was. No one was tramatized by it."

But nowadays there are individual cubicles so there is no problem. Even the shyest child can take a shower. When I was a kid I was NEVER required to shower with the other girls. I was allowed to strip wash in a lockable 'closet' and I was so pleased that was the case.
----------------------------------------------

Yeah but thats just costly and ineffective. I mean why waste time and money on all those stupid little cubicles when the school can just build one big shower wall or room and just have everyone go in together, shower real fast and be done with it. Why must we treat this like its a freckin bathroom?

-----------------------------------------------
"There was nothing sexual about it. I don't remember seeing any boy with an erection, or experiencing any myself at any time. We had gym class; we undressed; we showered, and we went to our next class unless gym was the last class as it sometimes was."

I am sure that was the case. These days, however, there is an alternative - showers with privacy!.

Stu
------------------------------------------------

Showers with shame is more like it stu, being shy and alone can be harmful and with nudity this is true too and I dont think that separating kids and making them feel like their bodies are obscene or bad for others to see is the answer. No child should feel that their body is that way.

[MikeJB]

Bob

"He wants everyone to get used to nudity, at least in the locker room".

I know he does. But what about what the kids want? And what their parents want? Why should he have HIS way on this?
------------------------------------------------

Im thinking about them. The kids need to learn to accept the naked body for what it is and the parents need to support this. Parents dont get to chose EVERYTHING that is best for their kids and kids dont always get to chose EVERYTHING that is best for themselves. Sometimes the school needs to do this for them and this is one of the cases where they are in the moral right to do so. This has nothing to do with my beleifs necessarily, the schools *before the prudish parents butted in* all felt the same way about this, most of the schools however are just trying to be accomodating and are just covering their asses from being sued for child/sexual abuse for making their kids be and see each other naked, so in a way the school feels like it has no choice in the matter, so now, who is forcing who to do what they want? Its the schools job to teach these kids the way they see fit *so long as its safe and against the law* and if they think gang showers are beneficial then thats their choice, not the parents. I mean sheesh if the parents dont like the way the school is teaching their damn kids then they need to stop wasting the school's time and teach them themselves. They send their kids to school to let the school teach them and then they question the way the school does it? I mean that just sounds absurd to me.

-----------------------------------------------
"Because it is a part of school".

When I was at school misbehaviour or even failing to hand in homework on time was punishable by caning. That was "part of school" too. Luckily such abuse is no longer carried out.
------------------------------------------------

Why shouldnt it be? Our schools are crammed as it is. We need good productive kids who want to learn and who will work, if they get lazy or slack off they have no business being there and thus are wasting the time of the teacher and a place in the class that could bettter fit a studen who would utilize it better. Schools are just getting soft.

-----------------------------------------------
"Should he not be forced to go to school even if he finds himself embarrassed by getting bad grades or having unpleasant experiences while there?"

Yes. And if he does his best then no more can be asked of him. But there is a fairly widespread feeling of embarrassment on the part of children forced to be naked in the presence of others. These days, with the introduction of shower cubicles into schools, we can get rid of that from the school experience at a stroke. So why shouldn't we?
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but if the kids accept the nudity or just simply avoid it to the best of their ability then thats the most you could ask of them too. If the kids wouldnt be staring at or talking about genitals so much then there wouldnt be a problem with kids not liking their bodies now would there? Showers stalls are just unecssary. Why pay for stalls when kids and parents can solve the problem for free? The school needs to spend money on education, not shame.

-----------------------------------------------
"Should children be FORCED to learn about sex education?"

That's up to their parents. It certainly is here in the UK.
-----------------------------------------------

I say they should, but I really do question the way that most schools do it, because they give kids a distored view of it. Id rather they do it in the manner they do it at the nude youth camos because thats much more effective. Also I dont think its wise that they sell condoms at school. Being "required" to learn about sex ensures that kids understand it by the time they become adults as many parents are unable or unwilling to or unable to teach it in such a way that the kid can get a good grasp on it or they teach it improperly. I do think that sex educators should do a better job of actually encouraging kids to wait until marriage before sex instead of just this "when you feel ready" crap because hell those kids could feel ready that night and go do it and ruin their lives and I dont think that these sex educators understand that there is a time and place for it and its not something thats just ok if youre using the right protection.


----------------------------------------------
"No it is not. Not in the context of the whole educational experience. And why was it fine in the past for the kids to be made to take a shower or even swim naked? Were they being abused as well?"

In a way they were - but we didn't know any better and it was all that was available. But times have moved on.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah but the point is, did it hurt anyone Stu?, no. So why do you say it will now?

-----------------------------------------------
"How about making showering a part of their overall grade? That way, they do not have to shower, but not doing so will be detrimental to their overall grade."

Why penalise the prudish? Isn't that a kind of discrimination akin to racism?
----------------------------------------------

Yeah but its still their choice. Thats what you want, you never said anything about any penalty. That would just be a way to get them to want to get clean. Only the ones who want to would do it and the other ones would just have to hope they do well in the rest of the class to make the grade otherwise just wash with everyone else and they have nothing to worry about.

----------------------------------------------
"Yet another piece of the puzzle. So you were not allowed to change in the boys' locker room?"

Bob - when I was 11 years old I was, to all intents and purposes, a girl. OK, I suspected I was different to the other girls but I didn't think of myself as a boy. There was never any suggestion that I could get changed with the boys or play boys' sports! At that stage my parents still thought they had a daughter who would, at some stage, have to undergo corrective surgery prior to womanhood.

Stu
------------------------------------------------

Maybe since your parents probably dressed you in girls clothing and since from what ive read you probably didnt have any guy parts yet and you didnt reach puberty, you just thought in all purposes that you were a girl and just went along with it. That still doesnt explain why you were so shameful about your body that you had to go change in a stall, unless you were really messed up down there and well maybe that would explain why you dont like being naked now.

[MikeJB]

When I was a kid I was NEVER required to shower with the other girls."

-------------------------------------------------

Did all the other girls shower together or in stalls? Were they required to shower and you were somehow exempt, because of the way you were?

[MikeJB]

He wants everyone to get used to nudity, at least in the locker room. And really, gang showers allow for more shower heads while stalls require more space. And if the idea is to get the most kids washed in the shortest amount of time, then gang showers are the best answer.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah more shower space and less expensive facilities is really why they need to keep them the way they are now, so really to a textile, it has nothing to do really with nudity, although nudity can be used as another reason.


-----------------------------------------------
Because it is a part of school. What if a child was just no good in school? Should he not be forced to go to school even if he finds himself embarrassed by getting bad grades or having unpleasant experiences while there? Should children be FORCED to learn about sex education? If you look at this as another learning experience, then they should be "FORCED" to do it as a school policy.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah same with nudity. I mean you shouldnt stop requiring kids to stop showering or showering together just because they dont like it, its something they gotta do and get used to, simple as that. The kids have no choice and freedom in that reguard. Yes sex education should be manditory, I know alot of parents would disagree but most of them do a sloppy job of teaching it, thats why half the kids have the mindset they do today, while the school system doesnt a crappy job of teaching it is well, its better to have them do it than the parents because they seem to have a better handle on it, although it really does need some serious reformatting. Sex education is something everyone needs plain and simple, like math, reading and writing. Most kids dont have any choice with those, sex and nudity shouldnt be any different.


---------------------------------------------
No it is not. Not in the context of the whole educational experience. And why was it fine in the past for the kids to be made to take a shower or even swim naked? Were they being abused as well? How about making showering a part of their overall grade? That way, they do not have to shower, but not doing so will be detrimental to their overall grade.
-----------------------------------------------

That grade thing sounds great. I think these kids should be failed if they dont take a shower, it should just simply be something mandatory and something that you dont question, unless you have some sort of note from your doctor then the school would make certain deviations based on that but basically would just be very strict and firm and if they had to march them in there like a bunch of cattle and watch them strip and make sure they get dressed and leave quickly then thats what they gotta do. The teachers are the bosses at school, not the kids.

------------------------------------------------
Yet another piece of the puzzle. So you were not allowed to change in the boys' locker room?
------------------------------------------------

For all intents and purposes, Stu and everyone he related with, thought he was a girl. I think he needed some sort of corrective surgery that he got later on.

Mike

A few points. My two eldest children were brought up to use communal showers in school. It wasn't a problem for them. I asked them both if they would have preferred it had there been individual stalls or cubicles. Both said that, on balance, they would. My daughter said that it would have bee nice to have had some privacy but, on the minus side, it was nice to chat with your friends after playing hockey. My son said that, in his school, the communal showers didn't have sufficient shower heads for one per child so you were hanging about waiting. He also said that with the communal showers the floor got slippery and there were a few accidents from that, plus there were unkind comments directed at certain boys owing to their physical features. My son is now a player at a rugby club based at my local leisure centre (where I am on the members commitee). Oddly enough, there are individual stals there - this is unusual for a rugby or football club - and everyone prefers it! I must admit that even I was surprised when he told me that!!!!!!

With regard to my own circumstances, owing to my physiological situation, I was exempted from changing or showering with the other children throughout my school life. There was one very frightening episode when a teacher took over my class who was not aware of my condition and, in spite of my upset and protestations, tried to force me to change with the others. That would have been utterly traumatic for me! This may sound strange - contradictory even - but if the showering and changing had been mixed-sex from being very young, boys and girls together, and that had continued as I got older, I don't think there would have been a problem for me. I really can't explain why. But when you are a child and you don't really belong with the girls but you know you don't really belong with the boys either, what may seem like small issues to everyone else are enormously important to you. Taking a shower with other kids who are all the same and you are different would be such an issue.

Stu

[Kari P]

"This may sound strange - contradictory even - but if the showering and changing had been mixed-sex from being very young, boys and girls together, and that had continued as I got older, I don't think there would have been a problem for me."

This is exactly what I have been thinking about your childhood. If you had seen other kids naked, both girls and boys, you could have compared yourself to others and see that you have something common with both sexes. This would surely not have traumatized you, it only had let you know that you are something special (and you knew exactly what your specialty is) and you were prepared to probably later develop to one or another direction. And the others would similarly have seen that you are special. With proper handling and explanations given by their parents and teachers, you wouldn't have suffered of harassment by them.

I wonder how much you actually knew about your intersexuality - how much you were told about it by your parents and doctors? Sure they had to inspect you regularly, you being then necessarily naked. Did they explain the reasons for your inspections? If not, it is a good explanation to your obvious gymnophobia.

What comes to sex education, I really think that school children at certain young ages (say, below 12 years) should be exposed to mutual mixed-sex nudity. (Nudity doesn't mean sex, but you see the differences of the sexes in real. It is not the same thing as looking at pictures and illustrations.) Especially those children who don't have siblings of their opposite sex would benefit from it. I think this would not be a big deal in Finland, where the exposure could be done naturally in a school class sauna context, but I am sad to know and tell you that they don't do it this way here.

Kari P

[BunzFan]

You know, there are some things in life that people may be required to do, maybe that they are uncomfortable with at the time, maybe they would have said it was "forced", but it was beneficial in the long run, in some way. One example of being compelled to do something, that you would support, Stu, is forcing children to wear clothes.
Most little kids, as most people know, would quite happily and unashamedly play nude-- but their parents get uncomfortable and make them wear clothes from very early ages-- even though some kids plainly resist it, removing their clothes if they get a chance. I've seen this, and
you probably have, too.
When I was in my early teens and going to summer camps, I was in a stage of being uncomfortable about my nude body being seen by others. Many of us have gone thru that. The showers at camps often had partitions, but no doors. I used to shower in my swim trunks. But in retrospect, I did not look any worse or better nude than the other boys, on average. I REGRET that I was so shy and didn't be more open with the other boys, as it would have possibly helped bond deeper friendships! If I needed to take a shower, and the only available facility was a gang shower with several others present, I wouldn't hesitate to use it, now! I would consider it practical. A communal shower facility is less expensive to build and maintain than one with separate stalls.

Some one posted here earlier that required gang showering in phys-ed classes should be reinstated.
Yes, it should, and perhaps nude swims, as well.
A guy needs to get over some hang-ups about himself, and this could help with a few of them. Some nude experiences in my life helped me have more confidence and balance to see that I am no better/no worse than anyone else because of body self-image. Have I ever felt embarassed when I was voluntarily nude in front of others? SURE! Teased or giggled at? YES! But I got over it, even laughed about it myself. Do I deliberately, blatantly go nude in places where I would shock and disturb the public? NO! What is my point? That even in a customarily clothed society, and even individuals that choose to keep clothed by preference, such as Stu, should not need to live in fear and horror of their own nudity in a shower facility or change room. The person who might ridicule you (particularly for a body characteristic which you can do little or nothing about) is the one who should receive a good shaming by everyone else! If you were showering in the same communal facility as I, and I saw someone ridiculing you, I think I would speak up in your defense -- or feel ashamed if I failed to do so.

[Spaat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NewAndNude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spaat:
[qb] At gym in highschool we were not allowed to wear undies under gymshorts. For hygienical reason we were told. We didnt make any problem about that and the same with the mandatory showering.
I liked and like the "freeballing" with (gym)shorts, so i do at my gym and at camps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>***************


[QUOTE] I've actually heard of this happening but only from reading about it on the Internet. For awhile I thought it was something to be left in pornographic or sexually laced stories but then reading a few other sites I found this was real. Fortunately we never had such a rule; I'm sure if we had then the girls would have definitely made some remarks about it. Did that ever happen with you, and if so how did you as guys handle it [UNQUOTE]

We didn't dare to make remarks because we had a strict gymteacher and it was apparently the schoolrule to take showers after gym. So from the start the teacher told us that was the way. We had cubics in one gym but we walked nude from the lockerroom and back. The other gym was communalshowers.

[QUOTE] Sounds like it would have been fairly embarrassing, especially if you became erect during this. That was one of the problems I (and I'm sure others) encountered in middle school when we were given madantory p.e. shorts and shirts to wear -- if you became erect in the shorts not much was left to the imagination even with underwear on. The shorts were pretty skimpy. That's why when we entered junior high and high school I was glad we could wear whatever we brought, so long as they were shorts and shirt. [UNQUOTE]

I remember i had a real erection walking nude back from showering and some classmates made some comments about that. Teacher told us thats normal with us boys so after that teasing was over. Great teacher! But after few times you get used to it and hardly seen any erections after that, only few but we didn't care anymore about that.

I am glad we had to at that time because bodyshame was less an issue to me after those years.
At my local gym and the squashcenter it is the same: communal showers and in the squashlocker there is a small saunacabine so no modesty around. Even boys with their dads use the sauna.

[Trailscout]

It is better to use gentle social pressure to teach children to accept their nude bodies and those of their friends and classmates.

I was a shy kid, but repeated experience with nudity in summer camps and at school eventually helped me overcome that anxiety. If my parents had coddled me and accomodated my fears, I might never have outgrown those unreasonable fears.

I think mixed sex nudity is a great idea. Kids should learn about the bodies of the opposite sex beginning with childhood and on into the teen years. The goal is to prevent unnatural obsession with "hidden shameful parts" and normalize relations between the sexes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
It is better to use gentle social pressure to teach children to accept their nude bodies and those of their friends and classmates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, Trailscout, young children are taught at an early age to be ashamed of their bodies since everyone is a natural-born nudist. If they weren't taught body shame in the first place, then it wouldn't have to be untaught. Body shame and embarrassment over a nude body is unnatural.

[Trailscout]

Jon,

You are quite right. I was born a nudist and bathed with my female cousins without shame when I was a preschooler. About the time I was 11 years old I learned body shame from my schoolmates. (Dad was nearly a nudist in those days).

By the time I got to be 18, I had outgrown most of the shame and was comfortable in my skin.

[Bob S.]

"When I was at school misbehaviour or even failing to hand in homework on time was punishable by caning. That was "part of school" too."

And that was corporal punishment, aka physical abuse. Having someone take a shower is not harmful and cannot be considered abuse. And I would bet you that most of the British population agrees with that.

"In a way they were - but we didn't know any better and it was all that was available."

And how many of them came out of it fine? They were NOT being abused for taking showers or having nude swim classes. Many older people (no offense guys) here have described the enjoyment they received from that class.

And if I was "forced" to take a shower at school, I feel it could have helped me with my shyness which I still have. And in regard to the teasing that would go on in the locker room, like Spaat mentioned, that is where teachers come in, to stop it and use it as a teaching experience.

"Why penalise the prudish? Isn't that a kind of discrimination akin to racism?"

No. Racism is nowhere in that. Part of school ois to challenge the students to think on their own. And if you coddle them by playing on their fears or anxieties, you are doing them no good. Shouldn't schools help educate children that living by fears is a terrible way to live?

"Bob - when I was 11 years old I was, to all intents and purposes, a girl."

I thought it was just in your younger childhood. I didn't realize it lasted through adolescence.

So you learned from your children that the only real negative was a greater chance for accidents in the boys' locker room. But that could be easily remedied with shower shoes or adding extra shower mats on the floor.

"but if the showering and changing had been mixed-sex from being very young, boys and girls together, and that had continued as I got older, I don't think there would have been a problem for me."

So you are for mixed gender showering. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif So using this revelation, if more and more people got used to seeing public nudity, or nudity in general, then we could keep the windows uncovered. The reactions people have are because they are not uesd to seeing nudity. And if you had been around others naked when you were younger, you would not have had this anxiety over nudity. Now you ask what benefits come from coed nudity? And if anxiety and other uncomfortable feelings could be prevented with coed nudity, and gang shower nudity, then why shouldn't it be taught and required in schools?

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

It's interesting to note that the responses to keeping the windows uncovered are about 60% in favor.

Both reasons:
* hypocritical not to, and
* will encourage others to join in
have almost equal support.

I think that we nudists are making progress in coming out of the closet (wearing no clothes) and in taking a more activist stand in favour of public nudity.

Gary

Kari

"This would surely not have traumatized you,"

No, perhaps it wouldn't if I had undergone the experience when I was young enough.

"With proper handling and explanations given by their parents and teachers, you wouldn't have suffered of harassment by them.

My parents had, and still have, their faults but they couldn't have done a better job with regard to my intersexuality. The teachers, on the other hand, generally treated me like some sort of freak show!

"I wonder how much you actually knew about your intersexuality - how much you were told about it by your parents and doctors?"

My parents told me everything they knew - and were willing to research what they didn't know. Some doctors did explain things but most of them treated me as though I was a lump of meat or a farm animal - they didn't even bother to address me let alone explain things.

"Sure they had to inspect you regularly, you being then necessarily naked. Did they explain the reasons for your inspections?"

NO THEY DID NOT!

Bob

"Having someone take a shower is not harmful and cannot be considered abuse".

I was expected to shower but there wasn't a problem with that. But I'm talking about forcing someone to be naked against their will in front of others.

"And I would bet you that most of the British population agrees with that."

You may be right. And I would bet most Britons would like to see a return to corporal punishment in all schools.

"And how many of them came out of it fine?"

Lots. Including my own kids. But having said that most kids in my day experienced corporal punishment and they came out fine too.

"Part of school is to challenge the students to think on their own."

OK, so let them decide for themselves whether they want to shower with the other kids or not. I didn't ever shower with the other kids and I was actualy teased about that e.g. they'd s******: "What's she got to hide?" and when I was older "What's he got to hide?" They didn't know about my 'condition' and I certainly wasn't going to tell them!

"I thought it was just in your younger childhood. I didn't realize it lasted through adolescence."

It wasn't that simple. My case was so unusual I had about thirty different doctors taking an interest in my case (some from the U.S too!). Many of them gave quite conflicting advice to my parents and consequently I didn't just make a clean transition. At home I was just myself - an intersexed kid with collar length hair who dressed androgynously most of the time but I had some girls' toys, clothes and other stuff too. But that wasn't acceptable at school - I had to be clearly defined as one thing of the other - so I was a girl. When I was about 13 and a half my parents moved home so I started a new school. Around the same time it was becoming clear both to my doctors and to myself that I was really a boy, and that's how I presented myself at my new school. A few months after that I started having three-weekly hormone injections and after that I started to develop amazing muscles, my voice deepened and my appetite went through the roof (as did my sex drive! Suddenly I started seeing girls in a whole new light). I also noticed my private parts expanding way beyond what I had expected and Dr Lister, a specialist paediatrician, said that was astonishing, but it would be impossible for me ever to father children and if I did I'd make medical history. He was wrong and history was, indeed, made! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

In an ideal world, where everyone was aware and understanding of intersexuality, it would be a blessing rather than a curse because you can have the best of both worlds. You can be assertive and even aggressive and people take notice - but you can express emotion and have a weepy moment too. One day you can lay a new driveway with the help of couple of chums and the next you can go shopping with the girls. But people insist on pidgeon-holing everyone into male and female. At least I had a choice to be what I am - for most people it's just pre-determined by nature.

"So you are for mixed gender showering".

No, I'm not. All I was saying is that, had I been forced to take a shower, it would have been far less traumatic for me had there been mixed-sex showering than single sex showering. The reason is probably that there would have been a far greater range of body (and genital) variation in the former so, in view of my peculiar situation, I would have been less self-conscious. But I'm not FOR it in principle.

"The reactions people have are because they are not uesd to seeing nudity".

I agree. Some people suffer trauma when seeing death and injury following a road accident whilst others don't. But that doesn't give the authorities the right to force people to come and witness such sights just so that they'll get used to them.

"And if you had been around others naked when you were younger, you would not have had this anxiety over nudity. Now you ask what benefits come from coed nudity?"

Sorry but I still don't see any benefits for me in adult life. OK, I had to shower alone when at school - but that was OK. Since then I don't generally encounter nudity. If I had a phobia about leopards I'd avoid the big cats house at the zoo and wouldn't go on safari. I dislike nudity so I avoid nudist venues. No problem.

"And if anxiety and other uncomfortable feelings could be prevented with coed nudity, and gang shower nudity, then why shouldn't it be taught and required in schools?"

Because others are, at least to some extent,like me. They have no wish nor need to accustom themselves to nudity. They don't generaly encounter it in unexpected situations so there's no problem.

Stu

[Rex]

Hi Stu,
I am a recent newcomer to this website.
I have read a few posts which have given me an insight into your background.
I feel for you in what you have had to overcome and come to terms with.
Most of us, including me, have no idea what it must have felt like and how we could have possibly handled it.
I commend you for overcoming your unimaginable difficulties and achieving a high level of academic success.
I also commend you for finding fulfillment as a husband and father.
And I respect and admire you for being able to discuss your situation in a public forum, particularly one like this, where most of us are likely to be in constant disagreement with you.
Having said that, whilst I can perhaps understand why you feel as you do about public nudity, I still do not agree with you on many points and will continue to vigorously debate those issues with you.

[Kari P]

Stu,

I would like to say all the same as Rex. Now we know quite a lot about you and understand you better, but this is not the same as to understand non-naturists in general.

So the bad people - those who could have done a significantly better job - in your story are your teachers and doctors. The doctors should have explained things to you in the first place, and to your parents in the second place. The teachers did right when they allowed you to shower in privacy, but they should have been also otherwise supportative. And I think they should have explained the reasons for your special rights to other children.

[Bob S.]

"The teachers, on the other hand, generally treated me like some sort of freak show!"

And why? Probably because they hadn't seen someone with your condition before and didn't know how to react or treat you. Sometimes, people just see a disease before the person. There has been a push here in the US to use people with diabilities rather than disabled people. The latter puts the disability first whereas the former puts the person first.

"Some doctors did explain things but most of them treated me as though I was a lump of meat or a farm animal - they didn't even bother to address me let alone explain things."

How many of your doctors were pediatric specialists, not just intersex specialists? Sometimes children can be forgotten when it comes to diagnoses and testing. Doctors and nurses tend to forget that the children are in need of explanations as much and more than their parents. I am sure those times were especially scary and unnerving.

And it sounds like you may have some leftover issues from those doctor visits. Otherwise, you would not have responded to Kari's post IN ALL CAPS.

"But I'm talking about forcing someone to be naked against their will in front of others."

Well, if you are literally tearing their clothes off them or making them be naked for no reason, then I would agree with you. But I am not talking about that; I am suggesting that showering should be mandatory or a part of the grade.

"But having said that most kids in my day experienced corporal punishment and they came out fine too."

stu, is there a comaprison between showeing and slapping a child? Heck, we could even make a few stalls at the end of the gang showers. That way, they could get used to the nudity and not be naked themselves. They may also start to use the gang showers.

"They didn't know about my 'condition' and I certainly wasn't going to tell them!"

You were an extreme case, stu.

"At least I had a choice to be what I am - for most people it's just pre-determined by nature."

Actually stu, from what I read, your parents wisely waited until nature decided when to show you which gender you were. "Around the same time it was becoming clear both to my doctors and to myself that I was really a boy." It is predetermined for everyone, just not always clear at birth.

"had I been forced to take a shower, it would have been far less traumatic for me had there been mixed-sex showering than single sex showering. The reason is probably that there would have been a far greater range of body (and genital) variation in the former so, in view of my peculiar situation, I would have been less self-conscious. But I'm not FOR it in principle."

And that is one of the basic arguments for naturism. That the more exposure people get to a wide range of differeing bodies, the better. If children from a young age showered together, there would be a lot less sexual curiosity, less wondering what is "up the skirt," and an easier job of sex education as the children have already seen the opposite gender naked and seen how bodies grow at different rates.

It may even prevent to a certain degree, the late-bloomer/early bloomer problems. Boys who are late bloomers have more anxiety than those who are early bloomers and for girls, it is vice versa.

"But that doesn't give the authorities the right to force people to come and witness such sights just so that they'll get used to them."

No one is suggesting the authorities bring people against theri will to nude beaches.

"Sorry but I still don't see any benefits for me in adult life."

Everything that affected you in childhood affects your adulthood. Your childhood is the foundation of your adulthood. If you had been born with normal genitals, none of the doctors' prodding and testing would have been done, your teachers would have treated you normally, you would have been able to change in the boys' locker room, and you would have had a normal "boyhood." Now, you don't see how that would have affected you as an adult? What if your parents decided to make you a girl like some of the doctors had said? That would also affect you as an adult.

"I dislike nudity so I avoid nudist venues."

No, you have a phobia (or an extreme anxiety) in regards to nudity. You cannoit see your wife naked, your children, or for a long time, yourself. That goes beyond a dislike. And because you refuse to accept this as a problem, you refuse to go see a doctor to help you get over it. While there, you could also uncover the truth about why you are so against seeing nudity.

"They have no wish nor need to accustom themselves to nudity."

This whole argument, as well as that comment, was regarding nudity in school showers. Children can learn to acclimate themselves to new situations more easily than adults. If they are told they must take a shower, most of them would. If they are told that they can take a shower, some of them will. If they are told they don't have to take a shower, most of them won't.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

No, I'm not. All I was saying is that, had I been forced to take a shower, it would have been far less traumatic for me had there been mixed-sex showering than single sex showering. The reason is probably that there would have been a far greater range of body (and genital) variation in the former so, in view of my peculiar situation, I would have been less self-conscious. But I'm not FOR it in principle.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah I would agree that co-ed showering with kids would be good if they did it at a young age. I think the whole idea of having a girls and boys locker rooms is just bull****. I mean im sure they do it for saftey issues and because they feel boys and girls are different but my feelings are is that itd be better and cheaper if they just had one big locker room, so everybody could interact with everyone and see girls and guys naked of all different types and just get used to the idea of being naked in mixed company and get a good handle on what the nude body really looks like. Besides every time I hear that phrase "you cant go in there, thats the BOYS locker room" I just feel like there is something wrong with that train of thought.

Rex

Firsly I'd like to thank you for your kind and supportive comments.

I am pleased that you will continue to debate the issues with me "vigorously". I would expect no less from you. The reason I come here is because I am interested in this issue and I enjoy the debates. If the day ever arrives when everybody here agrees with everything I say, then that will be the day I stop coming here because it will be boring. Somehow I can't se that happening! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kari P

"Now we know quite a lot about you and understand you better, but this is not the same as to understand non-naturists in general".

I don't think that my views are THAT different from those of non-naturists when it comes to public nudity, Kari.

I do feel badly let down by the medical profession in many ways, but I think my parents were left in a worse position. I think to a large extent they didn't know for sure how to treat me, or even whether to treat me, and in the end they mainly left nature to take its course.

My teachers just segregated me for any activity that involved me having to take my clothes off. Does that sound familiar? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob

"The latter puts the disability first whereas the former puts the person first".

That's very true, Bob, but when someone sems fit and well and is generally healthy, they don't attract sympathy or understanding. People can always point to others who are less fortunate in that they can't see or can't walk, and they are right. The human tendency to put people firmly into one of two highly distinct categories is immensely strong and when we met someone who isn't so clear-cut in that respect then it doesn't compute - people have trouble dealing with it.

"How many of your doctors were pediatric specialists, not just intersex specialists?"

My Dad reckoned there were thirty something doctors involved in my case from my birth onwards. Some were surgeons, some paediatricians, some were endocrinologists and one was even a child psychiatrist!

"Doctors and nurses tend to forget that the children are in need of explanations as much and more than their parents."

Definitely! One doctor who particularly stands out in my memory asked my mother about me in the following terms: "How old is IT now?" and "Does IT seem to play mainly with girls? Or with boys?" Can you imagine being referred to as "IT"? People even refer to their pet cats and dogs as "he" or "she" and I wouldn't have minded which gender had been used, but calling me "it" was just horrible. Yes, I do have some issues with doctors.

"I am suggesting that showering should be mandatory or a part of the grade."

Part of the grade for what? Personal hygeine? OK. But if they say they are prepared to shower, but in privacy, would you still deny them the grade? Or are you advicating penalising them by lowering their grade in PE, or in another subject? Would that be fair? And what if they were extremely prudish - perhaps genuinely gymnophobic? Would you damage their future academic or employment prospects merely because they couldn't face the prospect of being nude in the company of others?

"we could even make a few stalls at the end of the gang showers. That way, they could get used to the nudity and not be naked themselves. They may also start to use the gang showers."

Ah! A compromise! So why not have a gang shower area and a segregated stall area and allow the kids to choose for themselves and keep everyone happy. We have such an arrangement at my leisure centre for indoor sports.

"It is predetermined for everyone, just not always clear at birth".

That's true, Bob, but I'm told that there is even some uncertainty with regard to my 'Y' chromosome - and that's very unusual because the Y is very much smaller to the X and usually very different indeed. My GP says told me it would be interesting to see how my son develops because he will inherit my Y chomosome. Well, in spite of that, he's a perfectly normal teenage lad.

"If children from a young age showered together, there would be a lot less sexual curiosity,"

I agree with that. But would that necessarily be a good thing?

"less wondering what is "up the skirt,"

Hmm. That is an unfortunate turn of phrase to use to an intersexed man brought up as a girl. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"and an easier job of sex education as the children have already seen the opposite gender naked and seen how bodies grow at different rates."

Indeed, but there could be drawbacks too. And I don't think it's a realistic prospect in our present climate, do you?

"Now, you don't see how that would have affected you as an adult? What if your parents decided to make you a girl like some of the doctors had said? That would also affect you as an adult."

Of course it would, but surely it is possible for a reasonably intelligent person to select those aspects of their upbringing that they want to become part of their value system and those that they don't. My parents were (are) Christians - I'm not. I'm vehemently against public nudity but I support the rights of nudists to have plenty of good and accessible facilities. I recognise that naturists have a right to their fair share of such facilities but at the same time I don't recognise any right to display nakedness to others who are likely to find it offensive. That's cognitive reasoning and not founded upon formative influences or uncontrolled emotions.

"And because you refuse to accept this as a problem, you refuse to go see a doctor to help you get over it. While there, you could also uncover the truth about why you are so against seeing nudity."

The only place I see nudity is at my leisure centre. I am used to seeing it there and it causes me no anxiety. My wife and kids know I don't like to see them nude so they don't get nude in my presence. They are happy with that and so am I. So my 'problem' isn't really a problem. If society changes in such a way that I am forced to encounter inappropriate nudity then I'll have to change and maybe I'll need the doctor for that. But hopefully that won't ever be necessary.

"If they are told they don't have to take a shower, most of them won't".

Then don't force them to. But use this "social pressure" that you tell me would prevent most people from exploiting a right to go nude in public instead. Tell them they'll stink if they don't shower and people will talk about them. But if they want privacy when showering they should be given it.

MikeJB

"I think the whole idea of having a girls and boys locker rooms is just bull****."

I'm sure that a lot of young men your age would say the same - though perhaps not for the same reasons as you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But I'm equally certain that the vast majority of girls would see things very differently. In practical terms, mixed changing and showering is a non-starter - it isn't going to happen. Most girls, and very many boys, would balk at the idea. In my experience young teenagers are among the most prudish sections of the population.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

An analogy, which may or may not apply: In literature classes, it's precisely the assigned books that young people don't want to read and wind up not enjoying! Therefore I agree with Stu (gasp!) that mandatory showering is counterproductive to our cause--especially since adolescents are so notoriously peer-conscious and ashamed of their changing bodies. The only exception I can see is if a charismatic, well-liked coach insists on it.

And building private stalls might be a reasonable compromise--if you can stop teens from teasing anyone who uses it. But that seems utterly impossible. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Kari P]

Stu,

"My teachers just segregated me for any activity that involved me having to take my clothes off. Does that sound familiar?"

Segregation is a word that sounds familiar. You weren't a girl and you weren't a boy, and because sex segregation was a self-evident practice at school, you were segregated from both ordinary sexes as a representative of the third sex.

Adhering to sex segregation in principle, maybe your teachers during your first school year(s) could and should have given you a try to change and shower some time with the girls and some time with the boys, and then ask you which group you wanted to belong in permanently. Naturally this is a thing they had had to negotiate with you and your parents - did they? I guess "no".

Presumably you had a girl's name. When did you change it?

One of your doctors was a child psychiatrist. I don't see this as odd. He could have done valuable research with you as research object, but as a respected individual of course.

"One doctor who particularly stands out in my memory asked my mother about me in the following terms: "How old is IT now?" and "Does IT seem to play mainly with girls? Or with boys?" Can you imagine being referred to as "IT"?"

Certainly this way of speaking is not respectful. (One more evidence for the need of a neutral third person pronoun. Although we have it in Finnish, in spoken language we often use "it" instead of "he/she". But in a doctor's speak it wouldn't be appropriate.)

"I don't think it's a realistic prospect in our present climate, do you?"

Naturists talk for a change in the present climate, and we think a gradual change is not impossible. It's only a matter of time.

I was already thinking about writing a letter to the principal of the school of my two youngest children about mixed sauna as an option when a school class has an opportunity to it (perhaps once a year at a camp). An option only, and controlled by the wishes or written consent of the parents concerning their child individually! Is this OK with you, Stu?

This could be an interesting experiment on the attitudes towards mixed-sex school child nudity. I believe that most parents would allow it, but the mere thought of it hasn't come to the minds of teachers or parents. A Finnish naturist told in our own forum that it happened in his childhood - no one had objected. And with younger children in kindergarten it (still or already, how you view it) really happens.

Kari P

Jochanaan

"And building private stalls might be a reasonable compromise--if you can stop teens from teasing anyone who uses it. But that seems utterly impossible."

Yeah! Don't kids give kids a hard time!

Kari P

"Naturists talk for a change in the present climate, and we think a gradual change is not impossible. It's only a matter of time."

If it happens by evolution then so be it. There will be forces opposing such change (e.g. me) but we'll just have to see how things progress.

"I was already thinking about writing a letter to the principal of the school of my two youngest children about mixed sauna as an option when a school class has an opportunity to it (perhaps once a year at a camp)".

OK. Of course this would be totally unthinkable for any British school. The fact that you can suggest this in all seriousness just shows the extent of the differences between the UK and Finland with regard to our attitudes to nudity.

"An option only, and controlled by the wishes or written consent of the parents concerning their child individually! Is this OK with you, Stu?"

It is of course up to parents and their children. If it's OK with them it's OK with me. I wouldn't let my kids do it, though.

"I believe that most parents would allow it, but the mere thought of it hasn't come to the minds of teachers or parents".

Kari - suggest it and see what happens. Then let us know the reaction you get. Yes, I would be astounded if they thought that it was feasible because here even suggesting such a thing would cause consternation!

Stu

[Bob S.]

"Can you imagine being referred to as "IT"?...Yes, I do have some issues with doctors."

As well you should! Those doctors were highly unprofessional, rude, and offensive.

"Part of the grade for what?"

Gym, health (which is what it is where I live, health and PE are graded 50/50).

"And what if they were extremely prudish - perhaps genuinely gymnophobic? Would you damage their future academic or employment prospects merely because they couldn't face the prospect of being nude in the company of others?"

stu, you are acting like being gymnophobic is something fine. It is not. If they were gymnophobic, they should be treated for it. Gymnophobia is a mental problem. And being prudish can have many reasons and getting to the main issue can be helpful for many children. Just like with shyness. Should children learn to overcome their shyness or should they be allowed to hold onto it? Even if this shyness is preventing them from truly making friends?

"So why not have a gang shower area and a segregated stall area and allow the kids to choose for themselves and keep everyone happy."

Because of space. My suggestion was putting the stalls along one of the walls of the shower area. That way, they could choose that. And sometimes a little teasing is helpful. As long as it is not aggressive and lighthearted.

"But would that necessarily be a good thing?"

Less sexual curiosity a good thing?!? Of course. A lot of the teenage pregnancies are a result of too much sexual curiosity.

"That is an unfortunate turn of phrase to use to an intersexed man brought up as a girl."

Oh stu, no need for the long face. You know I was talking about the boys who want to know whayt a girl looks like. I didn't offend you, did I?

" And I don't think it's a realistic prospect in our present climate, do you?"

No.

"but surely it is possible for a reasonably intelligent person to select those aspects of their upbringing that they want to become part of their value system and those that they don't."

Yes it is not only possible, but also a fact of life. Some of us have rejected our parents' ideas regarding nudity. Others chose to accept it. But if your childhood was different, there would be so many differences in your life now that you don't know how you would have turned out.

How did Steve Gough and VIncent Bethell become who they are? What kind of childhood did they have and how did they come to their conclusions? How would Mother Theresa's life have been different if her childhood had been different? If I weren't so shy, I may already have been married. If I wasn't afraid of flying, I may have been in NYC on Sept. 11.

"So my 'problem' isn't really a problem."

It is a problem even if you don't encounter it often. You have made extrensive alterations in your life to avoid being seen naked and seeing women naked. You were even showering in shorts up until this past year. People who are afraid of germs wash their hands constantly. That is an alteration in their lives that they have made. I avoid doing anything that involves flying. But that means that I will probably never see my sister, cousin and his family, other cousin and her family, or a number of family friends unless they come over to see me or I take a cros-country trip that would last for about a week (my sister and male cousin live in San Diego, CA and my female cousin lives in Victoria, British Columbia. I live in Virginia Beach, VA, over 3,000 miles from either of them).

"But use this "social pressure" that you tell me would prevent most people from exploiting a right to go nude in public instead. Tell them they'll stink if they don't shower and people will talk about them. But if they want privacy when showering they should be given it."

That is the other aspect of it. The social pressure. As I said above, sometimes a little teasing can be very helpful.

Bob S.

[Kari P]

Stu,

"Kari - suggest it and see what happens. Then let us know the reaction you get."

You have to wait long because the whole thing becomes topical not until spring when they make trips and camps at school. I know I should allow time to the teachers to take in the idea and discuss it with themselves before asking the parents. This means the best time for a contact, I think, would be about Easter time.

Kari P

Kari - and anyone else who is interested - there is a discussion board that is just starting expressly for the furtherance of prude-rights:

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

There's not much on it yet but it's still very early. Now I wonder who started that! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Rik]

Stu,

Well here's a subject to get you started. There's an article in the Herald (that very Scottish newspaper) entitled "Bill gives mothers a right to breastfeed" and relates to a proposed new law in Scotland which would make it an offence to prohibit mothers from breatfeeding in public places. Outrageous or what? I can almost sense the steam coming out of your ears and you haven't even read the article yet. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/7309.html

Rik

[Rex]

The first thing I saw on the Prudes website was a link to "Sex and the City".
Maybe they're not such bad guys after all.

Rik,

Mildly irritating - but (a) it's hasn't been passed yet and may not be, and (b) it's in Scotland - I don't live in Scotland. Besides, I find that verbally abusing women who breastfeed in public works a treat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rex,

You are welcome to join if you like!!!

Stu

[magwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
Your club organizes a monthly clothing-optional nude swim at a public recreation center. One of the members has suggested that the club stop covering the windows that look into the pool area and the glass door that leads into the pool facility.

The member has two reasons for proposing this:
1. Hiding themselves from view is hypocritical and doesn't advance the cause of nudism.
2. If people can see nude & clothed people having fun together they may, at some point, decide to join in.

Do you agree that either is a good enough reason to support the proposal? Ignore what the pool management's position would be.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[magwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
Your club organizes a monthly clothing-optional nude swim at a public recreation center. One of the members has suggested that the club stop covering the windows that look into the pool area and the glass door that leads into the pool facility.

The member has two reasons for proposing this:
1. Hiding themselves from view is hypocritical and doesn't advance the cause of nudism.
2. If people can see nude & clothed people having fun together they may, at some point, decide to join in.

Do you agree that either is a good enough reason to support the proposal? Ignore what the pool management's position would be.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I voted yes to both on the poll, however I was wondering how to place a poll such as yours on this site... I posted the nude gym idea...
thx

[Rex]

I hope the "verbal abuse" bit was facetious, Stu.
Even if it was, it's a touchy subject to be facetious about.
My mother and her sisters were very well brought up women, but they and their friends were publicly breast feeding in the 1930s and 40s.
If you had crossed my mother on this, she would have very severely put you in your place.
When I met my second wife, she was well and truly past having children, but she had publicly breast fed her own babies. If you had dared to criticise Kathy on this, she would have given you a tongue lashing which would have blown you out the door.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
... and (b) it's in Scotland .. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So is Steve Gough but that doesn't stop you saying how wonderful the Scottish legal system is for locking him up!

Rik

[MikeJB]

Many people find the sight of inappropriate nudity to be a loathsome and disgusting thing. Of course, it is natural to be naked when bathing and even when changing. Essentially, nudity should be a private thing kept firmly away from, and out of sight of, public areas. It should also not be visible from private premises unless the people in those premises expressly consent to seeing it.

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

This is from the front page of the forum that Stu has set up and really just by reading this I just feel like there is something really wrong with this. I wonder how everyone else here feels about this and I wonder if they think this is a bit excessive. I think it is.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
..there is a discussion board that is just starting expressly for the furtherance of prude-rights:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Prudes/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see it's listed in Yahoo's "Ranting" section along with such inviting groups as:
- madashellclub
- afterdinnernipplesobsessives
- pissedoffandproudofit
- Brutality (is that one of yours too?)
- rantaholics
- Dykes_With_Issues
- Left_Shoe_Rebellion (dedicated to ridding the world of all Left Shoes)

Seems like you're in good company. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[MikeJB]

Many people find the sight of inappropriate nudity to be a loathsome and disgusting thing.
-------------------------------------------------

Nudity is loathsome and disgusting? Who thinks this besides you Stu? Most people dont find nudity in and of itself disgusting

-------------------------------------------------
Of course, it is natural to be naked when bathing and even when changing.
-------------------------------------------------

I think we all can agree with this. Nobody would be stupid enough to wear clothing while bathing and you cant be wearing clothes while changing your clothes, thats just stupid.


------------------------------------------------
Essentially, nudity should be a private thing kept firmly away from, and out of sight of, public areas.
------------------------------------------------

So youre basically for segregation of nudists huh? Whatever way you say it, thats what it boils down to and I think its pretty sad that you feel that good honest tax paying citizens should have to alter their lifestyles out in public just to meet the demands of selfish prudes who dont want to have to accept us as being normal and part of society.

------------------------------------------------
It should also not be visible from private premises unless the people in those premises expressly consent to seeing it.
------------------------------------------------

How can people on private premises control what is seen from the outside of their premises? I mean yes they can control what they see ON their premises but if someone is nude on THEIR private premises and you just happen to see it from yours then thats none of your business because thats their property and not yours.

------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately there is a band of vociferous and thoroughly antisocial campaigners out there
-------------------------------------------------

Vociferous and antisocial? That seems a bit harsh Stu, you make us sound like we are some sort of bad people who are out to ruin your life or cause some sort of damage. I mean besides the fact that we want to be nude, we areint doing anything that is selfish or uncaring or wrongdoing of any kind. We just want our rights and freedom, plain and simple and you prudes try to deny us this just so you dont have to learn to accept us.

------------------------------------------------
trying to change our society and laws in order to force the rest of us to have to put up with their vile behaviour.
------------------------------------------------

Put up with? I think the word is "accept" Stu, there is a difference between "putting up with" and "accepting" and if we were gonna make you put up with us then we would all just go out naked and shove our naked asses in your face and tell you to deal with it, now that obviously isnt the case and thus what we want is something different from what you think we want.

-------------------------------------------------
Such people refer to us disparagingly as "prudes". OK well it's high time for us prudes to get together and make our voices heard and stop these characters in their tracks! Let's have a voice - and be proud to be prudes. This can be our forum.
-------------------------------------------------

I really think its amazing how you treat us like we are criminals or try to say that somehow we are trying to disrupt your society. If we were naked out in public and people could learn to ACCEPT us then your society would run just fine. The only reason we call you prudes is because you seem to be very closed minded and try to cover up something that is natural and part of what we are just because you find it disgusting for reasons I cant possibly even imagine and I just think that such people really are not educated properly about our lifestyle and just basically only worry about you not seeing us naked and thus want to voice your opinion for the rest of society to follow without a shred of proof or facts that what we want is truly disgusting or harmful.

[MikeJB]

Originally posted by stu2630:
..there is a discussion board that is just starting expressly for the furtherance of prude-rights:

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

I see it's listed in Yahoo's "Ranting" section along with such inviting groups as:
- madashellclub
- afterdinnernipplesobsessives
- pissedoffandproudofit
- Brutality (is that one of yours too?)
- rantaholics
- Dykes_With_Issues
- Left_Shoe_Rebellion (dedicated to ridding the world of all Left Shoes)

Seems like you're in good company.

Rik

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah Stu, you found yourself a nice crowd to mingle with and im guessing you think all these people are great law abiding citizens while we are disgusting and vorciferous criminals? Besides youre just fueling yahoo's disgusting view of nudity, where they ban our wholesome nudist sites but turn a blind eye to porn and sex groups and sites, I mean if that isnt disgusting then I dont know what is.

Mike - CHILL!!!

My comments weren't aimed at the people here - they were directed at the crazy gang led by Vincent Bethell, Steve Gough and the rest of the fanatics. These people aren't nudists at all - hey tell us that themselves. They are fundamentalist extremists reminicent at least to me of the Taliban.

Besides - the home page of this site contains a rallying cry for naturists to work together to make the world more accommodating to and accepting of the nudist way of life. Why can't we prudes also band together and campaign? There can still be - and indeed should continue to be - a constructive dialogue between the opposing sides.

If I were a nudist then I'd campaign and fight for the rights of nudists with great vigour and energy. But I'm not and somehow I don't think I ever will be because I know that being nude and seeing others nude just isn't for me.

Mike - I regard many people on this site as Internet friends. I enjoy our banter. But you can't expect prudes to just sit on our hands whilst the militant nudes make all the running, organise campaigns, canvas politicians, petition, appeal to the media and the public etc and meekly sit back whilst a vociferous minority change our environment to suit their own ends regardless of our feelings.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

One thing you said disturbed me. You said in so many words that if you were a nudist, you would campaign for us to have the right to pursue our lifestyle.

Why not support our rights as a compassionate textile who believes that government should not interfere in matters of conscience?

The same British government that oppresses us, may someday turn its ugly head toward you and the things you cherish.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together," he said, "or, most assuredly,
we shall all hang separately."

[MikeJB]

Mike - I regard many people on this site as Internet friends. I enjoy our banter. But you can't expect prudes to just sit on our hands whilst the militant nudes make all the running, organise campaigns, canvas politicians, petition, appeal to the media and the public etc and meekly sit back whilst a vociferous minority change our environment to suit their own ends regardless of our feelings.
-------------------------------------------------

Stu, you said yourself that these people are not nudists, so why are you relating our cause for public nudity to be legal with their cause which is different? We want public nudity in a more orderly and respectful way and are willing to think of the feelings of others, these extremeists just want public nudity and dont really give a rip what the public thinks. Now I would probably have that attitude mostly because I beleive that nudity isnt bad and the public has no reason to be against it but that kind of attitude isnt going to get the public to accept nudity so im just trying to get it to be legalized but also make it so the textile population can be comfortable as well. I think that if we are compassionate to them that they will be more accepting of us and eventually we can be nude almost anywhere we want and still acheive our goal without being thoughtless and selfish.

[MikeJB]

Mike - CHILL!!!

My comments weren't aimed at the people here - they were directed at the crazy gang led by Vincent Bethell, Steve Gough and the rest of the fanatics. These people aren't nudists at all - hey tell us that themselves. They are fundamentalist extremists reminicent at least to me of the Taliban.
-------------------------------------------------

I think most of your comments are aimed at us as far as public nudity is concerned, because you dont want public nudity because you dont like it and dont want to be exposed to it and are using Mr Gough and Bethell *sorry if I spelled his name wrong* to say that public nudity is bad. I think you just need to realize that although we do want public nudity, we are very civil and organized about getting it and dont go to such lengths that Mr Gough does, but we still want the same objective but just have a different means of acheiving it. why cant we just have public nudity, so long as you dont have to be exposed to it?

Trailscout

"Why not support our rights as a compassionate textile who believes that government should not interfere in matters of conscience?"

I have said many times that I do support considerate naturists to enjoy their chosen method of relaxation.

"The same British government that oppresses us, may someday turn its ugly head toward you and the things you cherish."

I don't believe that the British government does oppress naturists. I don't think naturists get their fair quota of venues and facilities but that's not exactly oppression. I do, however, support government moves against inconsiderate and inappropriate public nudity - something few real naturists seem to want to do.

MikeJB

"so why are you relating our cause for public nudity to be legal with their cause which is different?"

There is a difference between the people here who harbour dreams that maybe some day there could be more acceptance of public nudity and the actions of Mr Gough etc who are trying to force the issue regardless of who is hurt by it or what problems they present to our overstretched public services (e.g. the police, prosecutors, courts and prisons).

"these extremeists just want public nudity and dont really give a rip what the public thinks".

Exactly!

"but that kind of attitude isnt going to get the public to accept nudity so im just trying to get it to be legalized but also make it so the textile population can be comfortable as well".

The only difference between us is that, whilst you want public nudity legalized, I want it to be made a specific criminal offence. I'm encouraged that you think it is essential that the textile population acept it as well. I just don't think they ever will - but keep on trying.

"I think most of your comments are aimed at us as far as public nudity is concerned, because you dont want public nudity because you dont like it and dont want to be exposed to it and are using Mr Gough and Bethell *sorry if I spelled his name wrong* to say that public nudity is bad".

My comments were to make clear my position regarding public nudity - the same position that I've outlined here many times. I do think public nudity is extremely bad - in my book it is no more acceptable than throwing down litter or painting grafitti or shouting obscene language. I would like to get a group together and have a dialogue with others who feel as I do about this just as naturists have a representative body. Is that so bad?

"I think you just need to realize that although we do want public nudity, we are very civil and organized about getting it and dont go to such lengths that Mr Gough does",

Mike - don't you think I know that?

"why cant we just have public nudity, so long as you dont have to be exposed to it?"

I don't understand what you mean by that. Either public nudity is permitted or it isn't. If it is then I'm in for some really serious pain and anguish whether I see it or not. I will be afraid to leave my own home! If it's not - and in practical terms it is illegal now in the UK - then I have nothing to fear.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

You are more tolerant of nudists than many Americans.

But I don't understand why you think we need a law against nudity in public. Don't you understand that social pressure will be sufficient to take care of this? In regions where nudity is frowned upon, the vast majority of people will be discreet. In places such as San Francisco at the Bay to Breakers footrace, local mores tolerate public nudity. There is no need for a law about such things.

What I am calling into question is your entire concept of the role of government in our everyday lives. You might as well pass laws against frowning in public.

I am not an anarchist. I simply believe that government has grown far too paternalistic, too all-encompassing. Well-meaning social engineers and bureaucrats want to manage our lives and we are trying to say "NO THANKS!" as politely as we know how.

[MikeJB]

Trailscout

"Why not support our rights as a compassionate textile who believes that government should not interfere in matters of conscience?"

I have said many times that I do support considerate naturists to enjoy their chosen method of relaxation.
------------------------------------------------

Yes, but just not in public, thats the difference. You support it in private like its some bad thing.

------------------------------------------------
"The same British government that oppresses us, may someday turn its ugly head toward you and the things you cherish."

I don't believe that the British government does oppress naturists. I don't think naturists get their fair quota of venues and facilities but that's not exactly oppression. I do, however, support government moves against inconsiderate and inappropriate public nudity - something few real naturists seem to want to do.
-------------------------------------------------

Well obviously the government isnt as good and noble as you think it is because if it was then we would get our fair quota of facilities for this. Of course it would be far more efficient and cheaper just to make public nudity legal and then you wouldnt have to have separate facilities for nudists.

-------------------------------------------------
"so why are you relating our cause for public nudity to be legal with their cause which is different?"

There is a difference between the people here who harbour dreams that maybe some day there could be more acceptance of public nudity and the actions of Mr Gough etc who are trying to force the issue regardless of who is hurt by it or what problems they present to our overstretched public services (e.g. the police, prosecutors, courts and prisons).
------------------------------------------------

Well I do think Mr Gough is harsh a bit in the way he does things but I think understand how he feels because he has tried to do things civily to get the government to allow public nudity and it has flat out rejected him so he just decided to go on a bit of a crusade. I think if most nudists decided to do this, theyd do it a bit differently.

-------------------------------------------------
"these extremeists just want public nudity and dont really give a rip what the public thinks".

Exactly!
-------------------------------------------------

We want public nudity as well but are a bit more civil in how we try to get it, but were not just gonna give up on it.

-------------------------------------------------
"but that kind of attitude isnt going to get the public to accept nudity so im just trying to get it to be legalized but also make it so the textile population can be comfortable as well".

The only difference between us is that, whilst you want public nudity legalized, I want it to be made a specific criminal offence. I'm encouraged that you think it is essential that the textile population acept it as well. I just don't think they ever will - but keep on trying.
-------------------------------------------------

I think it should be legalized and then in such areas where there is a large population that dont like it then they could still have local ordinances and such to ban it. I think like trailscout does that places such as San Fransico which has a large population that accepts nudity does not need public nudity to be banned but in places such as where you come from where they are largely against it then I think they should have rules that govern against it more. I think public nudity should be more of a state or local thing than a whole country wide thing because each state is different and the ones who want nudity should not be denied it by those who dont. I think that would be fair. Even though I would really like it to be legalized everywhere, I think for now this is a more logical approach.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think most of your comments are aimed at us as far as public nudity is concerned, because you dont want public nudity because you dont like it and dont want to be exposed to it and are using Mr Gough and Bethell *sorry if I spelled his name wrong* to say that public nudity is bad".

My comments were to make clear my position regarding public nudity - the same position that I've outlined here many times. I do think public nudity is extremely bad - in my book it is no more acceptable than throwing down litter or painting grafitti or shouting obscene language. I would like to get a group together and have a dialogue with others who feel as I do about this just as naturists have a representative body. Is that so bad?
------------------------------------------------

I think the way our society is now, creating such a body would do more harm to us than good, even for us PRIVATE nudists because people wouldnt know the difference between public and private nudity and would think that you mean that all nudity is bad and thus would work to ban it everywhere and then even us nudists who keep it hidden from you would be denied our lifestyle. I dont mind you having your opinion but I just find a group like you want to create to be a bad thing. I hope you understand what I mean. Anyways I dont really think littering and graffiti can be related to nudity because both have clear laws against them and there are clear negative aspects of them *i.e making our public places dirty and destruction of property*, these are inherently bad, while nudity isnt.


---------------------------------------------
"I think you just need to realize that although we do want public nudity, we are very civil and organized about getting it and dont go to such lengths that Mr Gough does",

Mike - don't you think I know that?
-------------------------------------------------

You have said some extreme things about us sometimes though and it sounds like you think of us in the same way that you do Mr Gough.

------------------------------------------------
"why cant we just have public nudity, so long as you dont have to be exposed to it?"

I don't understand what you mean by that. Either public nudity is permitted or it isn't. If it is then I'm in for some really serious pain and anguish whether I see it or not. I will be afraid to leave my own home! If it's not - and in practical terms it is illegal now in the UK - then I have nothing to fear.
-------------------------------------------------

Most of your posts you say you dont want public nudity because you yourself dont want to be exposed to it and you use the "I" word alot when you make your points and it just sounds like youre worried that if public nudity is legalized that youd be exposed to it personally. This most likely wouldnt happen for 2 reasons 1) most people where you live dont want public nudity and would have a law against it or if you couldnt, youd scare any nudists off before you could be exposed to them and 2) Most nudists wouldnt go there anyways because they would want to be somewhere where their nudity is accepted and they feel safe with it, so really Stu, I think the chances of you ever running across a nude man or woman out in public to be very slim if not nonexistant all together.

[Bob S.]

stu, I also do hope that your comment about "verbal abusing" nursing mothers was meant to be facetious.

And thanks for the yahoo group. I have joined and will update this forum every once in a while. Not sure whether I am going to try to participate or not.

Bob S.

Bob

"I also do hope that your comment about "verbal abusing" nursing mothers was meant to be facetious."

Of course I was just joking when I talked about "verbal abuse". I am sure you know me better than that /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I have had a couple of experiences of asking women to cease breastfeeding openly. On the first occasion in a cafe in a shopping mall - which I confess I did rather overreact - I addressed her in what could be described as a rather Victorian manner. She didn't respond at all but made off rather hurriedly. I think she thought I was some sort of loony-toon.

The second occasion was in my dentist's waiting room. I saw her feeding the infant as soon as I walked in. As I was wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase she probably thought I was some sort of official. I grimaced in a lawyerly fashion in her direction and then politely pointed out that it might be better for her and everyone else if she would be kind enough to feed her child in a private part of the surgery and suggested the ladies rest room. She apologised to me and complied.

Generally speaking women who are breastfeeding would not feel comfortable doing so knowing that someone else - a man - was unhappy about it. Consequently I don't see any problem in putting them off and encouraging them to move out of sight, without resorting to abuse. A polite request would doubtless suffice on most occasions. If they become argumentative then you can make a scene without actually using abuse. Stress of any kind is not something they need when trying to breastfeed. This can be achieved subtly by glaring at them menacingly and muttering under your breath. Alternatively one can point and say in a loud voice "OH! MY GOD! LOOK AT THAT! HOW DISGUSTING! YUK! THAT'S REVOLTING!! URGHH!"

Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I have had a couple of experiences of asking women to cease breastfeeding openly. On the first occasion in a cafe in a shopping mall - which I confess I did rather overreact - I addressed her in what could be described as a rather Victorian manner. She didn't respond at all but made off rather hurriedly. I think she thought I was some sort of loony-toon.

The second occasion was in my dentist's waiting room. I saw her feeding the infant as soon as I walked in. As I was wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase she probably thought I was some sort of official. I grimaced in a lawyerly fashion in her direction and then politely pointed out that it might be better for her and everyone else if she would be kind enough to feed her child in a private part of the surgery and suggested the ladies rest room. She apologised to me and complied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In much of the US, what Stu did would be a criminal act. Several States and the Federal Government have laws protecting nursing mothers from harrassment or attempts to prevent them from feeding their children in public. These laws apply on all Federal property and in these States:

Arkansas (!)
California
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Nevada
New Hamphshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin

Public breastfeeding is legal everywhere in the US, and over half of the US population is legally protected from attempts to restrict it.

Summary of Laws (http://www.lalecheleague.org/Law/summary.html)

-Mark

But not here!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[MikeJB]

So Stu, you dont like seeing women breastfeeding their babies too? I think that asking a woman to go to a restroom just to feed her kid is disgusting. Nobody would ask you to go eat a burger in the restroom just because they thought u were doing something offensive so its the same thing with a woman, nobody goes into the restroom to eat, so why should a woman with a baby have to? The idea of that is just gross. Breastfeeding is quite natural and unlike genitals, breasts are not sexual organs and are not the least bit disgusting so I see no reason for you to be offended by such things. Was anyone else offended by the sight of that woman breastfeeding or just you? If it was just you, why couldnt you have just left the room or looked the other way instead of asking the woman to do something so digusting as taking her kid into the restroom to get fed?

[Bob S.]

And if a woman doesn't move after you politely ask her to excuse herself whilst breastfeeding, then what do you do stu?

"Stress of any kind is not something they need when trying to breastfeed."

So why ask them to move? Why not let them nurture their baby the way nature has provided them?

Bob S.

[NakedGary]

Two posts back "MikeJB" quotes:

"unlike genitals, breasts are not sexual organs and are not the least bit disgusting"

MikeJB, I dont think female or male genitals are disgusting at all, and you call yourself a nudist ? You and Stu talk alike.

NakedGary

Stu would probably call the police (or whatever they're called over there) on her. That is, after he woke up after passing out from the "shocking" sight. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NakedGary,

I don't think Mike was saying that male genitals are disgusting. He was saying that breasts are not genitals like the penis. He also meant that the breasts are not disgusting. He simply worded it in a way that might sound to some as though he was calling male genitals disgusting, which I don't believe he was.

Mike.

My apologies. I forgot that in the US the term "restroom" has an entirely different meaning to the UK. STUPID STU!!!! Here a "restroom" is just that - a room set aside with comfortable armchairs for resting. I happened to know the dental surgery has such a room for patients, for example, coming round after anaesthetic. I wasn't meaning the tiolet!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I suspect she would have been more comfortable in there than in a drafty public waiting room anyway.

Bob

"And if a woman doesn't move after you politely ask her to excuse herself whilst breastfeeding, then what do you do stu?"

I tell her again in a louder voice. She'll get the message.

"So why ask them to move? Why not let them nurture their baby the way nature has provided them?"

I the vast majority of cases it is possible to breastfeed a child out of view of others. That's all I'm asking them to do.

"Stu would probably call the police (or whatever they're called over there) on her. That is, after he woke up after passing out from the "shocking" sight."

They're called police - and no I wouldn't call them. I also wouldn't pass out at the sight nowadays.

Stu

[Rex]

Hi Stu,
How about if you were in the rest room, recovering from treatment, and the breast-feeding woman came in, maybe because someone had harassed her in the waiting room?
And I'll say it again, you would not have got away with that kind of harassment with either my mother, or my second wife.
My daughter is currently breast-feeding her baby and I don't think she would take it from you, either.
Incidently, your kind of attitude and response, and women going to the media about it, has precipitated changes to the laws in Australia, so that women can breast-feed in public. So the harassment backfired on the wowsers.

[shãybare]

Stu,
Why would you feel compelled to stare at the breastfeeding mom? Why couldn't you move? That would seem to be the more logical and easiest solution. Or do you feel that you are speaking on behalf of the others there? Why would you feel the need to become their spokesperson?

"How about if you were in the rest room, recovering from treatment, and the breast-feeding woman came in, maybe because someone had harassed her in the waiting room?"

Provided her chair was facing away from mine then there wouldn't be a problem. She had done what she could to avoid the public gaze and, so long as I couldn't see her breasts, no problem.

"And I'll say it again, you would not have got away with that kind of harassment with either my mother, or my second wife. My daughter is currently breast-feeding her baby and I don't think she would take it from you, either."

Maybe. But most women would think twice next time they get a breast out in public and perhaps conceal themselves a little better to avoid a scene.

"Incidently, your kind of attitude and response, and women going to the media about it, has precipitated changes to the laws in Australia, so that women can breast-feed in public. So the harassment backfired on the wowsers."

Then the "wowsers" in Australia ought to start making a scene, didn't they?

shaybare

"Why would you feel compelled to stare at the breastfeeding mom? Why couldn't you move?"

It depends on the circumstances, Shay. I'm really not as unreasonable as I appear. My sister breast fed both my nephew and my niece, but she did whatever she could to be discreet and never attracted so much as an adverse comment or stare. If a woman is doing her best to feed discreetly - and that can usually be achieved - then I won't say a thing. But if I am eating a mea in a restaurant and a woman comes in and starts openly breastfeeding near to where I am, then I'll tell her how I feel about it and poltely suggest that she finds a 'quieter spot'.

"Or do you feel that you are speaking on behalf of the others there? Why would you feel the need to become their spokesperson?"

There are others who feel as I do but, as far as I am concerned, I would be speaking for myself.

Stu

[Rex]

Stu, we've got common ground here, of course most women are discreet about breast-feeding, even when the law is on their side, but, maybe I've missed something, I don't recall the degree of discreetness being mentioned before.
And, just like getting changed in and out of swimwear, with a towel wrapped around you, different levels of discreetness satisfy different people, clumsiness, or accidents can reveal more than was intended and anyway, some people will complain, even if they saw nothing, just because they know whats going on, and they don't like the thought of it.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
...Well obviously the government isnt as good and noble as you think it is because if it was then we would get our fair quota of facilities for this... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I tend to agree with Trailscout that government intrudes too much into our lives. The problem with making laws is that it's very difficult to get them changed. And government agencies are self-perpetuating. Just try to eliminate a cabinet-level department or ministry! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Trailscout]

Jochanaan,

As much as I wished that states and municipalities should not have laws against nudity or even laws regulating nudity (except for health reasons for restaurant workers or for safety for workers on the job), it seems that we need an ammendment to the constitution that says, "No state or municipal government shall pass any laws regarding indecent body exposure. It shall perpetually be a matter of conscience within the heart of each citizen as to how much or how little he wears.

[Bob S.]

"I tell her again in a louder voice. She'll get the message."

Yeah, that someone near her is being highly rude and inconsiderate of her.

"so long as I couldn't see her breasts, no problem."

stu, the baby is covering the nipple. You wouldn't be able to see that.

"But most women would think twice next time they get a breast out in public and perhaps conceal themselves a little better to avoid a scene."

Do you realize how norrible that sounds to us? To the population as a whole? Heartless. I hope that the UK passes a law giving nursing mothers the same rights they have in most states here.

Bob S.

Bob,

"norrible"? Have you invented a new word? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I know what you meant, anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Rex]

Here's a photo beautiful enough to melt even Stu's heart, if he could only bring himself to give it half a chance.
http://home.drenik.net/mirkop/gallery/majka_i_dete.html

Stu would have a serious problem with that photo. Don't look, Stu; we don't want you passing out on us. By the way, I think it's a beautiful photo. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob

"Yeah, that someone near her is being highly rude and inconsiderate of her."

Consideration is a two-way street. As I told Rex, women can, and usually do, breastfeed discreetly.

"Do you realize how norrible that sounds to us? To the population as a whole? Heartless. I hope that the UK passes a law giving nursing mothers the same rights they have in most states here."

Expecting people to at least make an effort to do something discreetly that others find embarrassing is hardly "heartless", Bob. In the vast majority of cases all a nursing mother has to do is to turn and face away from where other people are. If she chooses not to then those of us who don't like it have a right of free speech. The UK government has no plans at present to introduce any laws about breastfeeding in public and even if they did it wouldn't stop people asking them to move out of sight.

Rex

"Here's a photo beautiful enough to melt even Stu's heart, if he could only bring himself to give it half a chance."

I think I'd better heed Jon-Marc's advice, Rex, and give it a miss. Discretion being the better part of valour and all that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Bob S.]

""norrible"? Have you invented a new word?"

Yes Jon-Marc. It is the same as horrible, but with more or less emphasis. I think I'll add a few more of my newfangled words here once in a while.

"Consideration is a two-way street."

Yes, but walking into a dentist's office and giving her that spiel was still rude unless the only place to sit was right next to her. And was there anyone else there? How were they acting about it?

"women can, and usually do, breastfeed discreetly."

And she wasn't being discrete about it? Did she just have her blouse open, bra off, and lazing back on her chair whilst her baby was breastfeeding?

"Bob. In the vast majority of cases all a nursing mother has to do is to turn and face away from where other people are."

Or others can find another place to sit. And yes, most mothers are discrete about it, careful not to show their nipple. You cannot see their nipples anyway as the baby is nursing on it. So why should they be told to go somewhere else when they are breastfeeding? Nothing is showing.

By the way, stu. It was a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child. The woman is naked, sitting with her baby nursing on one nipple while her arm is situated in such a way (naturally) to cover her other breast. The baby is partially lying, covering her crotch. The baby, thoush is naked as well and you can see his buttocks. Very cute!

Bob S.

[Rex]

I recall reading elsewhere in this forum that it appears likely that Scotland will soon have a law allowing public breast feeding.
Last time I checked, Scotland was still part of the UK.
You saw that too, Stu, you commented on it.
I agree that, once breast feeding in public is legalised, most women will still choose to be reasonably discreet, but that is a matter of degree, with different women having different attitudes.
And God help someone who dared to criticise a female version of Braveheart!
Years ago, after public breast feeding became legal in Western Australia, but whilst a woman being topless on the beach could still give rise to an occasional complaint, I had a letter published in a popular newspaper, suggesting the following scenario:
Two female friends are on a textile beach. One has a young baby. They both choose to remove their bikini tops. The mother is feeding her baby, when the beach inspector comes by, maybe, or maybe not, in reponse to a complaint.
In respect to the mother, is it logical to claim that the unoccupied breast is obscene and/or offensive, when the feeding breast legally isn't?
If he told her to cover the unoccupied breast and she did not, on the grounds, [real or imaginary], that she was about to put the baby on the other breast, what could he do?
And how about the other woman? How can her breasts being on view be legally unacceptable, when her friend's are legally OK, at least, alternately, one at a time.
It's 29 years since a conviction in WA for a woman beig topless on a beach, but, on the assumption that it still may be illegal in the UK, how would you, Stu, handle being prosecuting council in a case like this?