Parents complain about Bart Simpson's frontly nudity in Simpsons Movie

[Davin]

A 10-minute clip from "The Simpsons Movie", the first time Homer, Marge, their family and friends have made it to the big screen, was shown in London late on Wednesday ahead of its release worldwide later in July.

Bart Simpson skateboards through town naked after being challenged to do so by Homer.

After a series of scenes where strategically-placed extras and props protect his modesty, the audience gets a full view of his private parts through a gap in a hedge.

Series creator Matt Groening, speaking to the audience after the clips were screened, said he expected complaints.

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal," he said. "It's to entertain people and also to annoy a certain segment of the audience as well."

What is the big deal over an animated penis shown for a only a few minutes?

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL0...e=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL0535428620070705?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true)

[DenitaLC]

Good for Matt! I'm glad to see him willing to be creative and not influenced by those that will complain about a 'cartoon character' nude.

We've been a loyal Simpson's family since its inception. We can't wait to see the movie!

Heck, I bought our 17 year old a box of Krusty-O's at the local 7-Eleven. We're going to drive up to Seattle to visit the store that they turned into a Qwik-E Mart too.

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

[FireProf]

Family of Simpson fans here also, but not quite as committed as Dee's family. We are also glad to see Matt's commitment to his project.

Ta hell with those complainers!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[james m]

We love the simpsons here and have no problem if Barts "manhhod" is shown on the screen. After all it is an animated cartoon. Even if it wasent its good to see that Matt saw no issues in makeing the movie with that seen.

[MJ_KC]

That is hilarious. The prudes will always find something to complain about. Way to go Matt.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Davin:
A 10-minute clip from "The Simpsons Movie", the first time Homer, Marge, their family and friends have made it to the big screen, was shown in London late on Wednesday ahead of its release worldwide later in July.

Bart Simpson skateboards through town naked after being challenged to do so by Homer.

After a series of scenes where strategically-placed extras and props protect his modesty, the audience gets a full view of his private parts through a gap in a hedge.

Series creator Matt Groening, speaking to the audience after the clips were screened, said he expected complaints.

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal," he said. "It's to entertain people and also to annoy a certain segment of the audience as well."

What is the big deal over an animated penis shown for a only a few minutes?

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL0...e=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL0535428620070705?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true)


This is great. In the near future we will have thousands of young peopel skateboarding naked through cities and towns in America and the UK. One youth will dare the other, as Homer dared Bart, and we will see thousands of naked skateboarders. The more that people get naked the more acceptable it will become. This movie does a service to nudism.

(the naked resort industry won't like it. If people can get naked in town there is no purpose to spend money at a naked resort.)

Blessings

Bob

[Stu2630]

I know some kids in my family who won't be going to see it.

Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial, and depicting people's genitals is anything but that. As the producer of this series has such contempt for the feelings of people like us, anything to do with The Simpsons is now banned in the Stu household.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial

The Simpson's was never made with kids in mind. It is a prime time cartoon for grownups.

-Mark

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Simsons and Family guy! Neither are for children. Flintstones never showed Wilma and Fred in the same bed, let alone running naked through town after being caught having relations in the windmill at the local putt putt golf.
I do not hide such things from my kids as I think it would raise their curiosity that much more. If they ask questions after a scene that should have gone over their heads...I am happy to explain it. Better me than on the street!

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I know some kids in my family who won't be going to see it.

Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial, and depicting people's genitals is anything but that. As the producer of this series has such contempt for the feelings of people like us, anything to do with The Simpsons is now banned in the Stu household. Stu


It is NEVER the kids who object or are offended by the sight of naked people. It is always the adults who use "the kids" as an excuse to be offended. Kids don't care one way or the other until their parents teach them to be offended, like the parents.

Is Stu a nudist? I thought that most nudists understand that nudist families, all the kids hanging around naked adults and seeing naked genitals, does not harm kids at all.

Blessings

Bob

[Stu2630]

It is NEVER the kids who object or are offended by the sight of naked people....

That's perfectly true, Bob. But kids never object to seeing anything - they wouldn't be 'offended' if we allowed them to watch hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them from it.

Is Stu a nudist?

Only an honorary nudist, Bob - that's the title some of my friends on here have kindly bestowed on me. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif In reality, I'm a (nudist-friendly) textile - I enjoy discussing nudist issues but the only nudists I ever encounter are here. I would never, for example, go to nude places etc because I'm not comfortable around nakedness.

Stu

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I know some kids in my family who won't be going to see it.

Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial, and depicting people's genitals is anything but that. As the producer of this series has such contempt for the feelings of people like us, anything to do with The Simpsons is now banned in the Stu household.

Stu
Not only will I be seeing it, I want the DVD when it comes out. This is a PG-13 animated movie, not some G rated cartoon for little kids. It was not made with little kids in mind because that is not the target audience.

[soundman]

... But kids never object to seeing anything - they wouldn't be 'offended' if we allowed them to watch hardcore porn, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them from it.
Wrong, porn offended me when I was young, but simple non threatening nudity was normal.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I know some kids in my family who won't be going to see it.

Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial, and depicting people's genitals is anything but that. As the producer of this series has such contempt for the feelings of people like us, anything to do with The Simpsons is now banned in the Stu household.

Stu

You're a bit of a control freak aren't you Stu, do you think its right to force your ideas on your children? In later years your child will seek out Simpsons shows and this film and may resent you for blocking, what is after all, caricatures of the human form. My children didn't see the things I saw, most of it is innuendo that older people understand but the innocent don't, and it doesn't take away the innocence, unlike some programmes on TV these days.

The 'Carry On' films (Movies to our colonial cousins.) had far more risqué scenes but was, on the whole, fine for children to watch as they didn't grasp the double entendre's as the grown ups do, the Simpsons are like an animated version of the all so innocent Carry On's.

What a lot of fuss over a drawing of a nude, and a brief glimpse at that!

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

It was not made with little kids in mind because that is not the target audience

MJ_KC

Thanks for putting me right on that. My youngest daughter is 11-years-old and she does watch The Simpsons shows on TV, but obviously this film is made for an older audience.

Soundman

You think most kids from non-nudist backgrounds draw a distinction between porn and non-sexual nudity? That's not my experience.

Pete

Every responsible parent filters material their children want to see and hear - that's not being a control freak, it's being a responsible parent. Don't forget that I also have older children - my eldest daughter qualifies as a doctor next year and she certainly doesn't resent me keeping what I considered to be inappropriate material from her.

When the Carry On films came out, most of them were the old "A" certificate, which meant children under 14 weren't allowed to see them. I certainly have no problem with innuendo - you get that in abundance in Shakespeare, and even in Mozart operas. As you say, the beauty of innuendo is that kids can enjoy it one one level and adults on another. The double entendre goes straight over the kids' heads. Showing a cartoon character's private parts, however, is a different proposition and that is something which shouldn't be shown to children unless their respective parents are comfortable with it. This is now somewhat irrelevant because MJ_KC has kindly informed me the Simpsons film is not intended for children, so I have no issues with it.

Regards

Stu

[jon71]

If the only "objectionable" thing in this is seeing a cartoon penis I'll let my seven year old see it. There is no reason we can't have full non-sexual nudity in a G film whether live action or cartoon. Now if there is sexuality, violence, adult language, etc. that's a different matter. I guarantee no child will be harmed by seeing Bart's penis.

[j m]

Originally posted by jon71:
...There is no reason we can't have full non-sexual nudity in a G film whether live action or cartoon..

I saw Pollyanna on the ABC Family channel and the opening shot was of a group of boys skinny dipping with their backsides visible. It was all presented rather matter-of-factly.

Can you imagine that happening today? In a Disney film?

[Big-Thinker]

Like Mark said, The Simpsons was not made with kids in mind, but that doesn't stop careless adults from putting their kids in front of it. I guess people think, "duh... cartoon... must be great for kids to watch!" Now, I don't think Bart's exposure is harmful though. I haven't seen it, but I can't imagine it being any different than seeing a neighborhood kid streak down the street. People need to get a life and find something else worthy of their hysteria.

[jon71]

I watch anime so I know animated is not synonymous with "for kids" lol.

[DenitaLC]

This thread got me thinking waaay back to when our two were little. We used to make them cover their eyes during the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon clips on the Simpsons. That cartoon blood and gore was a lot more bothersome to me as a parent than animated nudity.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[NewAndNude]

You should have been around a few years back when "South Park" creators Trey & Matt put a stark-naked Eric Cartman on the air, penis included.

They did it for several reasons, but mostly to mock the prudish attitudes displayed by many after the Janet Jackson Superbowl fiasco. M&T even went so far as to blame Cartman's nudity on "a wardrobe malfunction."

It's funny that Western society gets so worked up about cartoon nudity when they're willing to embrace so much else. Sure, Bart can cause all the mayhem and trouble he wants, the series can kill off a character, throw nudity around on prime-time television, poke fun at everything from nuclear reactors to breakfast cereal, but put it on the big screen where kids could see it? What the hey do you think they've been watching for the past 18 years on Sunday nights and the rest of the week in syndication?

[Bob S.]

"In America there's someone willing to pretend to be offended by everything and so we annoy people and that's part of the appeal," he said. "It's to entertain people and also to annoy a certain segment of the audience as well."

I love that concept. The fact is that the Simpsons have had nudity in many episodes. Groening has not shied away from it in the past. The only difference now is that he is showing full frontal, and not for that long.

The pseudocontroversy is all about nothing. Those who are being the loudest have serious issues in their heads (Stu, you are on a totally different plateau than most and therefore, the following does not apply to you). People are uncomfortable about any kind of nudity, in particular where it concerns children. They feel that children should not see nudity as they want their kids not to be exposed to anything sexual.

And yes, this is how, I believe, most of the people who are against this animated nudity are viewing it--as a form of porn that their children must avoid. But I don't think too many people will fit into that mold when it comes to watching the movie. It will do good depending on how well its competition is doing--in particular Harry Potter and Transformers.

Will I see it? I haven't decided yet.

Bob S.

[Arnabas]

Sadly, people continue to believe that the sight of a penis is much more shocking and harmful than, say, exploding heads and murder.

I'm still hoping that society will one day grow up.

[Stu2630]

mostly to mock the prudish attitudes

That raises what, for me, is an interesting question. Is it really OK to mock prudishness? It it any more OK to mock a person for being a prude any more than it would be OK for non-nudists to mock someone among them who they discovered was a practising nudist?

If nudists deserve respect, don't prudes deserve respect for their values and beliefs too?

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

If nudists deserve respect, don't prudes deserve respect for their values and beliefs too?
Depends on how oppressive they are being.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
If nudists deserve respect, don't prudes deserve respect for their values and beliefs too?
They are free to remain as clothed as they choose. Prudes should not be permitted to impose their views on everyone else.

Prudishness can get to the extremes we see in some Muslim dominated nations. Please do not use the excuse that prudes would be offended by nudity. Nobody has the right to expect that they can go through life and never be offended.

It would never be possible for all 6+ billion of us to never do something that would offend someone else.

It is about the difference between repression and freedom. I will choose freedom from control.

[Stu2630]

Prudes should not be permitted to impose their views on everyone else.

Prudes are human beings, just like, for example, people who don't like to hear the "F" word being shouted in their presence (or the presence of their children) or people who are offended by pornographic imagery. Our society, and the law, have long recognised that public places should be as comfortable for as many people as possible. That means certain behaviours are at least discouraged and at worst outlawed. Some people may not be offended by hearing the "F" word in public, but the use of that word is both unnecessary and offensive to many, so it is not acceptable to shout it in the street or use it in a "family" movie. Similarly, pornography doesn't offend everyone, but display pornographic images in public or without fair warning and you are being inconsiderate and irresponsible. Nudists are, obviously, OK with nudity, but many of us aren't. We have rights to use public media and spaces too - just as people who are offended by obscene language and pornographic imagery.

I stongly support the rights of nudists to have an abundance of places where they can enjoy their recreation and lifestyle and I believe they get a raw deal in our present society because of ignorance and discrimination. But they are a minority and should have consideration for the feelings of others so that everyone can be aware of what they are likely to see in films and other media and can be comfortable in public places.

Thankfully, most nudists do have such consideration and I admire and respect them for that. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif .

Stu

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I stongly support the rights of nudists to have an abundance of places where they can enjoy their recreation and lifestyle and I believe they get a raw deal in our present society because of ignorance and discrimination. But they are a minority and should have consideration for the feelings of others so that everyone can be aware of what they are likely to see in films and other media and can be comfortable in public places.
Kind of sad that this was the same argument used to justify the Jim Crow laws that barred blacks from many places in the southern United States. Whites didn't feel comfortable shopping or eating with blacks in public places so signs were present on the doors to many places to keep blacks out.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Prudes should not be permitted to impose their views on everyone else.

Unfortunatly there seems to be a default toward the most restrictive prude. In some American cities now Islamic law now controlls what you may and may not take on a taxi. No pork chops coming home from the deli in your shopping bag. It would offend the Islamic cab driver.

Far too many people believe that "rights" means their right to dictate their views onto their neighbor.

Blessings

Bob

[Stu2630]

Kind of sad that this was the same argument used to justify the Jim Crow laws that barred blacks from many places in the southern United States. Whites didn't feel comfortable shopping or eating with blacks in public places so signs were present on the doors to many places to keep blacks out.

I'm not sure the analogy holds because there is a fundamental difference between skin colour and skin exposure. A black person is born black, will spend 24-hours of every day of their lives being black and will die black. There isn't much they can do about being black even if they wanted to (unless they're Michael Jackson http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif) .

A nudist, on the other hand, chooses to be nude. Most nudists own as many clothes as non-nudists and usually spend the majority of their lives clothed.

Being black is a permanent, unchangeable state whereas being naked is a preferred state.

In some American cities now Islamic law now controlls what you may and may not take on a taxi. No pork chops coming home from the deli in your shopping bag. It would offend the Islamic cab driver.

Really, Bob? I didn't realise you had that many Muslims in the US. We have districts and even cities in the UK where you are the exception if you aren't a Muslim - it's interesting that you are experiencing the same phenomenon.

There may be parallels between Islam in a western country and nude activism (note, I didn't say nudism). Muslims are tolerated and even accepted so long as they don't try to impose their ways on the wider, majority community.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

Unfortunatly there seems to be a default toward the most restrictive prude. In some American cities now Islamic law now controlls what you may and may not take on a taxi. No pork chops coming home from the deli in your shopping bag. It would offend the Islamic cab driver.

Name one.

No Islamic Law in Minnesota, for Now (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4058)

Islamic Law Won’t Protect Muslim Cab Drivers (http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/04/islamic_law_wont_protect_musli.html)

Muslim Taxi Drivers Religious Issues Apparently "Concocted" (http://tammybruce.com/2007/01/somali_muslim_taxi.php)

[Dick Springer]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I know some kids in my family who won't be going to see it.

As the producer of this series has such contempt for the feelings of people like us, anything to do with The Simpsons is now banned in the Stu household.

Stu

It is not our contempt for the feelings of people like you but the fact that we object to people like you who try to arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to the rest of us what we may say and show and view.

[BinCo]

I plan on seeing it!!

Here is the best cartoon about the whole Stupid Bowl/Janet Jackson crap.

[Dick Springer]

Every responsible parent filters material their children want to see and hear - that's not being a control freak, it's being a responsible parent.
Stu

I did not filter material my son wanted to see and I have ample evidence in his character (he is now 42 and I am 77) that I was a responsible parent. What I did do was maintain a relationship in which I could and did discuss what he saw and evaluate it with him. By doing so I enabled him to develop the means to make intelligent decisions and good values in preperation for what is required of adults. After all, children grow up and we should keep our eyes on the results of what we are doing to them. Few things are more destructive to their being good adults than over-protection.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
A black person is born black

A nudist, on the other hand, chooses to be nude
I was born nude. I didn't choose that.

Putting on clothes would be something that I would have to choose because I sure didn't start out that way. Being nude is the natural condition, while being clothed isn't. Being clothed is something we have to be taught.

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Is it really OK to mock prudishness? It it any more OK to mock a person for being a prude any more than it would be OK for non-nudists to mock someone among them who they discovered was a practising nudist?"

As Mark stated, it depends on the extent of the prudishness or nudist activities. When it comes to the Simpons nudity on the big screen, yes, we nudists, and a lot more people, will mock the prudes. Believe me, prudishness gets to the extreme when it comes to such things.

A mother became upset when she spotted a woman's nipple in a Where's Waldo book. In case you don't know, those books have a very busy picture with hundreds of people drawn and you have to find Waldo as well as other items.

Another mother became upset when she read a picture book, "Draw Me a Star" by Eric Carle to her children and came to the part where they drew Adam and Eve. Eric Carle is known for his basic art drawings and the Adam and Eve were not even close to being anatomically correct. Just a basic man/woman body in the correct color. Go to a library or bookstore and see the picture.

So yes, it is reasonable to mock prudishness.

Some people can go too far in their nudity proclivities and can also be mocked. I am sure Steve Gough is mocked over in England. I would not mind at all. And nudism is mocked all the time in the media.

Stu:"If nudists deserve respect, don't prudes deserve respect for their values and beliefs too?"

And to that familiar statement, I will give my familiar response: Nudists give out 90% of the respect. Prudes do not respect nudists for the most part. Usually, they are trying to get rid of us.

Bob S.

[Sacramento Jesse]

Originally posted by DenitaLC:
Good for Matt! I'm glad to see him willing to be creative and not influenced by those that will complain about a 'cartoon character' nude.

We've been a loyal Simpson's family since its inception. We can't wait to see the movie!

Heck, I bought our 17 year old a box of Krusty-O's at the local 7-Eleven. We're going to drive up to Seattle to visit the store that they turned into a Qwik-E Mart too.

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

Denital, is this the kwik-e-mart you're speaking of? All they need is an authentic Apu behind the counter with a statue of Ganesha.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/26571/

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Dick Springer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Every responsible parent filters material their children want to see and hear - that's not being a control freak, it's being a responsible parent.
Stu

I did not filter material my son wanted to see and I have ample evidence in his character (he is now 42 and I am 77) that I was a responsible parent. What I did do was maintain a relationship in which I could and did discuss what he saw and evaluate it with him. By doing so I enabled him to develop the means to make intelligent decisions and good values in preperation for what is required of adults. After all, children grow up and we should keep our eyes on the results of what we are doing to them. Few things are more destructive to their being good adults than over-protection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my philosophy, I believe that hiding the world from enquiring minds does them no good at all, whereas experiencing life and having a parent able to discuss what they see is far more beneficial, of course this varies with age, as they row older the type of things they should or should not see change. My son at 9 years of age saw the 9/11 events splashed all over the TV and in the newspapers, there was no way that I could censor that event, but it shock him so much he was in tears and fearful for his future, a reassuring word from his father helped him understand that not everyone in the world is that evil.

If you hide things from them they may come to resent you for it later in life, after all they have to go out there alone one day, and to discover something that their friends already knew is probably more shocking than that from which you seek to 'protect' them.

Pete Knight

[nacktman]

This 'entire ballyhoo' is only to sell more tickets.

Mocking prudes is perfectly fine, in fact it is required of any and all reasonable persons.

If the sight of an anatomical depiction bothers someone then they have serious mental issues, especially when said depiction is by no means anatomically correct.

Charactures are supposed to be thought provoking so get a grip.

[nudebushwalker]

Bring it on - millions of people will go to see this movie; a few dozen [plus Stu..] who will never actually see it will complain; and life will go on...

I have a brother and sister-in-law who are "born-agains", and their children attend a fundamentalist Christian school, yet those kids - and many of their friends - watch the Simpsons on TV. Just shows the moral minority complainers [plus Stu..] are yet another type of whacko again.

As for Stu 2630 - he really is off on another planet, isn't he? As if banning the Simpsons in his house will have any effect on anyone else...
I seem to recall him claiming previously to have grown sons - so unless his stories keep changing - I would have to guess that he was trying to control what his grandchildren were watching ?

Silly old git.

[simonsebs]

I say that if people have a problem with the movie than don't go see it. That's 15 bucks (or however much movie tickets cost now)that you can keep in your pocket. Let those that want to see the movie go see it. There are times when we need to complain about certain things, this is not one of them.

[walter05]

Pete;

I agree with DenitalC and Stu. As a parent, I do have a responsibility to filter what my children see. I also have a responsibility to help them understand things they see that I don't expect.

Stu2630;

I think that NaturistMark's response is the best. It is when people attempt to impose their opinions on others that I object.

Your statement drawing a distinction between being black and choosing to be nude bothers me. For years, I have heard a distinction between racism and anti-Semitism. It was said that someone does not choose to be black but I could choose not to be Jewish. Whether or not there is a choice involved should be irrelevant.

Stu2630;

In my house, there are quite a few books on health from Harvard that are excellent. There are descriptions of nudity and sexuality as well as explicit pictures. However, they are displayed in a way that is intended to help us understand how to be healthier.

Most of my children have seen them. I am sure of that because of the questions I have received. They have seen the pages on nudity and sexuality. I have found this kind of exposure to be helpful for them. I am glad I have had the opportunity to answer their questions.

For everyone else;

If the nudity in the Simpsons is for a cheap thrill, headline, etc. I would not want to see it myself much less have my children see it. It sounds like it may be. However, if you want to see it, I have no problem with that.

Naturist Mark said that oppressive prudishness is the problem. I believe that any time someone attempts to impose their views or values on others that is a problem. We should be able to respect others' values. This is most important when they are different from ours.

This is the American way. Other societies have religion and national identity inter-mixed. America has a separation. Someone can be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem, agnostic, atheistic, etc. and still be American. Learning to respect and even admire someone's different perspectives is one of the things that have made America so special.

[Stu2630]

MJ_KC

Being nude is the natural condition, while being clothed isn't.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate or complete perspective. Human beings have moved a long way since we were simple bipedal mammals both geographically and in terms of our intellect, culture and perception of the world. Being nude is natural for an animal in its natural environment, but most of mankind no longer lives on the African plains. We talk, we use tools, we go to the toilet, we marry, we cook our food, we have religious, moral and political beliefs and values – and we make and wear clothes. None of these things are ‘natural’ strictly speaking; none are pertinent to our mammalian cousins - but we are highly advanced primates, not beasts of the forest.

Bob

The mothers you describe are bringing up their own children as they think is right. You have a different outlook and because of that you think they are being overly sensitive. You are entitled to take that view – but surely not to consider them fair game for mockery? If, as you say, nudism is mocked in the media – then I say that is wrong. You have never seen me mocking nudism and you never will. But two wrongs don’t make a right and we should all try to set an example by demonstrating mutual respect.

Pete

If I were a new parent with small children then I may be persuaded by your point about my kids resenting me in later life. But I’m not in that situation. My eldest daughter is nearly 23 – and qualifies as a doctor next May (hopefully). My son is almost 20, is studying to be an electrical engineer and lives with his girlfriend. Do they resent me? No way! They have both separately volunteered that they would bring up their own children with the values very close to those we instilled into them. We do have a younger daughter, aged 11, and she is still in her formative years but we seem to have a winning formula when it comes to childrearing and so I see no reason to alter it.

Nudebushwalker

Why are you being rude to me? Firstly, I am not proposing banning The Simpsons or anything else. I am reliably informed that it is aimed at an older audience rather than at small children - fine - I won’t be allowing my younger daughter, or my two great-nieces (who spend a lot of time at my home) to watch that particular show because it contains something I consider unsuitable. Secondly, if you look at my response to Pete, you will see the ages of my children. Thirdly, you calling me a “silly old git” is meaningless abuse and says more about you than it does about me. I will talk to you and everyone else here with politeness and respect – if you want to engage with my points surely you could reciprocate that respect.

Stu

[soundman]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
You think most kids from non-nudist backgrounds draw a distinction between porn and non-sexual nudity? That's not my experience.
That is because your probably made nudity a bad thing by shamefully running for cover, etc. in front of your kids.

[Stu2630]

Walter

You have made some interesting and thought-provoking points http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif .

Being Jewish is not really akin to being a nudist. A Jewish person is simply a person who holds a set of beliefs, the same as Muslim or a Buddhist or a Christian. Within those beliefs are practices which do not generally impinge upon the beliefs of people who hold different beliefs, nor the functioning of society. But there are exceptions. If a Muslim woman tried to enter the USA but refused to remove her veil when she arrived at Immigration Control, then her religiously-inspired behaviour would be at odds with the general good of your nation, and the law would have to prevail. That would not be the same if the woman tried to enter Saudi Arabia or Iran because they have different laws. Religions sometimes have to make compromises with the society in which they must co-exist, and the smaller they are as a proportion of the population, the more they have to compromise.

Nudism is entirely different: it is a preferred state of dress (or rather undress) adopted mainly recreationally by a small minority of people. There are places where it is permitted and indeed facilitated, both private places and public ones. It is surely not unreasonable, therefore, to expect nudists to make similar compromises with the wider society. Furthermore, virtually all nudists spend a proportion of their lives clothed, just as virtually all non-nudists are naked sometimes. This is very different to being Jewish or Muslim because these are things you either are 24/7, or else you are not. The rules governing nudity, both formal (as in the law) and informal (as in societal acceptance), do not address nudists, but the state of nudity – something that affects us all to some degree.

I agree with Naturist Mark that oppressive prudishness is the problem – oppression exists because of an absence of respect for others’ views and values. And I agree with you that attempting to impose views or values on others also shows a lack of respect. Where I differ with some nudists is that they believe that they have a right to be nude when and where they like and that those who find nudity unacceptable have no rights in this regard. I believe that those of us who wish to have an environment which is nudity-free should be able to do that just as nudists should have their places where they can be comfortable. Sometimes mutual respect involves segregation and I see nothing wrong with that.

Best wishes

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

F.Y.I. if a man or woman is going to be patted down by U.S. Immigration or TSA, one can request that this be done by a same sex person. If the woman is a Moslem or other modest woman and her hair must be uncovered, this is done by a female agent in a private area. The U.S. government does respect and make allowances for the Moslem woman, as it should.

The issue that has come about involves photo IDs such as driver's licenses and passports. In those cases, a covering is not permitted. This is because it is hard to look at the photo and match it to the person. The U.S. government is looking into biometric alternatives in those cases to enable a Moslem woman to validate on a fingerprint or an iris scan.

The problem with your behavior at the time argument is simple. Suppose someone were to see me saying a Hebrew prayer, eating kosher food, wearing a yamulka, etc. Sinse the U.S. is a majority non-Jewish society; an objection is raised about not conforming to standards. This would mean that they don't object to Judaism but to Jewish actions publicly that don't conform to the community standards.

In France, there is a ban on head coverings in school. This is intended to be an inconvenience for Moslems but is also a problem for Jews. There are various laws in many European countries outlawing kosher meat, etc. All of these are attempts to act on specific actions. The result is to make it virtually impossible to be Jewish in many European countries.

This morning, missionaries came to my house AGAIN to attempt to save us. I find that very offensive. No one should knock on my door to attempt to push his or her religion on my family and me. We would not push it on anyone else.

(P.S. Annoying and offending people is a very ineffective sales technique.)

I would not be offended if there was much more common nudity in natural settings. I think there should be many more beaches, wilderness areas, etc. where clothing should be optional. I understand the concept of wanting to feel at one with nature and how being nude in these settings can be helpful.

I also have no problem with private places with signs at the door where nudity can be expected. If someone does not want it, they can stay out.

However, forms of dress or undress that sensationalize the body or parts are different. I find many forms of dress that seem acceptable in society to be far more offensive than nudity. But I don't want my views imposed on anyone. If it happens and I am offended, I will exercise my right to leave or look another way.

[Stu2630]

Walter

On the whole, I think there are more things we agree on than we disagree on. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

I don't know how familiar you are with European societies, but France and the UK are markedly different. While both have accepted many immigrants from varied cultures, France is a country which regards itself as mono-cultural: you come to live in France, you integrate 100% and become French. The UK, on the other hand, has embraced multiculturalism and encourages people to retain their foreign cultural identities. France believes Jewish and Muslim people should consider themselves French first and foremost, and to leave their religion at home when they go into public institutions, whether that is school or the Army or the civil service. To do that, people must be prepared to modify their behaviour and dress to some extent, and they may view that as an unacceptable compromise. I really don't believe that the French government is institutionally Islamophobic or anti-Semitic any more than the UK or even the US is.

Nudists aren't precluded from public nudity because people are anti-nudist: I don't believe most people are. What is regulated is nudity in public places because very many people find it shocking for a host of reasons - and that applies whether the person concerned is naked because they happen to be a nudist, or because they are a streaker or because they want to protest about something or just that their clothes are uncomfortable. My point here is that, in this respect, nudists aren't a victimised minority in the way that black people and others have been.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say: "I find many forms of dress that seem acceptable in society to be far more offensive than nudity." I do sometimes find the way people dress to be bizarre, but I have yet to find anyone's dress to be offensive, unless it is in some way obscene (e.g. a printed t-shirt with an explicit text or image on it).

You say: "I think there should be many more beaches, wilderness areas, etc. where clothing should be optional". I totally agree. The amount of public space allocated for "clothing optional" activities should be roughly proportionate to the number of people who want to practise these activities, and right now nudists are getting short changed. But these areas should be properly designated, signposted and kept clear of the view of the rest of the population who are going about their normal business. That's not so unreasonable, is it?

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

I will not argue over the anti-semitism with you hear since it is off topic.

If you want to send me PM, I will be happy to discuss it with you. I will tell you however, that there is a rising wave of anti-semitism in Europe and this is also true of the U.K. (In fact, I have sent you a PM inviting you to do so.)

The point I was making was that you attempt to object to public behavior that is against publicly accepted standards. I was pointing out that this is an argument often made in Europe today to practice various forms of bigotry that I believe you object to.

I would prefer to make an argument based on the idea that if the behavior may cause harm to others, then, and only then may there be a regulation. In that case, the government may protect others.

If I see a young female or male with much anal cleft showing, or wearing a thong, or a female wearing a brief bikini top, I find this to be sensational. It would be much more modest for them to be nude.

I think if there were more public nude places, young males and females would be less likely to be interested in sensationalism of the body.

[DenitaLC]

Originally posted by Sacramento Jesse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DenitaLC:
Good for Matt! I'm glad to see him willing to be creative and not influenced by those that will complain about a 'cartoon character' nude.

We've been a loyal Simpson's family since its inception. We can't wait to see the movie!

Heck, I bought our 17 year old a box of Krusty-O's at the local 7-Eleven. We're going to drive up to Seattle to visit the store that they turned into a Qwik-E Mart too.

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

Denital, is this the kwik-e-mart you're speaking of? All they need is an authentic Apu behind the counter with a statue of Ganesha.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/26571/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Jesse, that would be a similar one! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Stu2630]

Walter

The point I was making was that you attempt to object to public behavior that is against publicly accepted standards…this is an argument often made in Europe today to practice various forms of bigotry that I believe you object to.

Of course you are correct – but the misuse of an argument in one context does not invalidate it for all contexts. I don’t think many people would dispute that there should be such a thing as “publicly accepted standards”, it’s just a matter of where we draw the lines.

I would prefer to make an argument based on the idea that if the behavior may cause harm to others, then, and only then may there be a regulation.

Then you have to ask the question as to how we define “harm”. Personally, I would include any behaviour that was on the one hand unnecessary and avoidable, and on the other was likely to cause serious offence to any typical user of that place. Mental angst is, after all, every bit as unpleasant as physical damage. And also, if you only mean “physical harm”, then you are opening the door to people displaying pornography, or directing racial abuse at minority groups, or shouting obscene language outside a nursery school. I also believe you also have to take a broader, environmental perspective on this. A person urinating down a grate in the street is not, ostensibly at least, harming anyone else, but we take a view that such behaviour is not conducive to the public environment, so we don’t allow it. Somebody somewhere has to decide which kinds of behaviour are acceptable in public and which are not. I consider nudity to be unacceptable in the places I go to – but I am prepared to facilitate nudist places and then I will avoid them.

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

I agree that there can be mental harm just as there can be physical harm.

I also agree that defining harm may be an art. There needs to be a foundation of respect and understanding that we should not impose on others.

Urinating where the urine will not be treated or disposed of can harm others. The odor may be offensive and there may be health consequences.

Why do you find the nudity in public offensive? What harm is done?

[Stu2630]

Urinating where the urine will not be treated or disposed of can harm others. The odor may be offensive and there may be health consequences.

Urine is generally harmless, Walter. It is virtually sterile when it leaves the body, unless the person concerned is unfortunate enough to have a urinary tract infection. And if they have, you would be more likely to contract that by visiting a gents' urinal than walking near a grate in the open air.

Why do you find the nudity in public offensive? What harm is done?

My response to nudity is that I find it shocking and grotesque - the same feelings I get when I see obscene words displayed. That probably comes about through social conditioning etc, but I think that applies to many, if not most, non-nudists. I'm not suggesting it is logical, but human responses aren't generally grounded in Spok-like logic. That's why I can publicly display the work "luck" on a billboard, but not the word which rhymes with it and begins with the letter "f". I don't want to be de-programmed either to accept nudity or the word I have just described. I'd prefer it if people who wanted to display either nakedness or certain words did so out of my view.

I am puzzled why you ask me that question, Walter, because I didn't think you were an advocate of laissez faire public nudity, but rather someone who wanted more places designated as clothing-optional - something we can all support.

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

The odor of the urine could be considered harmful since it is unpleasant. If it is common for urine to be about, the volume would be very unpleasant. This would amount to a harm.

You said that you find nudity shocking and disgusting. This is where we have a significant disagreement. The human body is extremely beautiful. Nudity when it adds to the dignity of the human being is fine.

The "F" word as you put it is offensive for a good reason. A married couple, naked, and making love, are experiencing a sublime and holy form of communication and sharing. It is a disgrace to it to use the "F" word to degrade it. That is why the "F" word is offensive.

I am not an advocate of a laissez faire public sensationalism of the body. This is more of a concern to me with very sexually provocative dress. I am also not an advocate for public nudity in general. However, my reasons are not because I believe that nudity is shocking and grotesque.

Most non-nudists go to art museums where nude bodies are on display. Most non-nudists enjoy being nude with their spouses. Most non-nudists do not find the nude body grotesque.

There is a difference between why you find public nudity to be a problem, and why I or most non-nudists do.

I understand your own issues with your body. I will assure you that your own body is beautiful and sacred. You participated in the creation of life with your naked body. Your naked body is extremely holy and beautiful. I think you are attemptind to deal with your own issues with pushing them off on others.

Instead, I think you would benefit from learning to love admire your own nude body. You may still object to public nudity. However, it will be due to a healthy attitude and not a morbid one.

[KNude]

HOw can you be offended by simple nudity if you have seen your own body? Is it shocking each time you get undressed?

[Pete Knight]

My response to nudity is that I find it shocking and grotesque - the same feelings I get when I see obscene words displayed. That probably comes about through social conditioning etc, but I think that applies to many, if not most, non-nudists.
Now there you're talking out of your arse, what experience do you have of encounters between non-nudists and nudists, I have plenty and not one of them was overcome or needed hospital treatment, the reactions ranged from amused to supportive, I personally have never been insulted by textiles I encounter. Some time ago I read a post on another forum from a guy who was on Studland Beach, the most well known naturist beach in all of the UK, he was there enjoying his nude moment when a guy, walking along a nudist beach remember, called the nudist a pervert, a head case or what, but at least he was still able to walk away, no ambulance required that time.

When you make statements like that you alienate yourself from the people for whom this forum is provided, you try to pass your phobia off as being the consensus, get real Stu.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Walter

Thanks for your response - as always, it gives food for thought. I knew you were more a dove than a hawk when it comes to public nudity. You don't want to foist it on people who aren't comfortable with encountering it, but you do want more places where you can enjoy your form of relaxation. I can appreciate and respect that.

Just one small point. You say that I "participated in the creation of life with your naked body". Actually, I didn't. My wife and I have a normal married relationship but it doesn't involve nakedness - and it never has. It is possible - indeed quite common - for a person to procreate without actually being naked or seeing their partner naked. I should know.

KNude

Is it shocking each time you get undressed?

The only way I can explain it is to compare it to bodily excretions. I can just about tolerate my own, but I'm not too keen on other people's.

Pete

Walk naked through my town on Saturday afternoon and you will get a mixture of reactions ranging from amusement to ridicule, and from shock to fury. You may not actually know what's going through their minds because they are so stunned they would think they were seeing things. It's only afterwards when the reaction comes out and what you won't get much of is bland acceptance. I reckon that most people would regard such behaviour as unacceptable, and that's why people rarely get naked on our main beaches.

I see you still have a talent for taking me out of context. I was asked a question by Walter as to why I find public nudity offensive - so I wanted to explain to Walter what my feelings would be if I encountered it so he could understand my issue. I did not say that the naked body is "grotesque" etc, because I know it's not: I was simply reporting my own involuntary response to it. I do wish people would look at what I actually say rather than putting their own spin on it.

So far as the guy who made the comment on Studland is concerned, he was obviously a complete jerk for going to a nudist beach and then abusing nudists. I wouldn't have blamed the nudists if they had actually decked the idiot.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Did I miss something here? Stu, you say you pro-created without nakedness? Were your sexual trysts in the back of an SUV or something? And that there has not been any nakedness between you and your wife? Are you saying you and your wife are never naked together even when in sexual enjoyment?

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Stu2630:


Pete

Walk naked through my town on Saturday afternoon and you will get a mixture of reactions ranging from amusement to ridicule, and from shock to fury. You may not actually know what's going through their minds because they are so stunned they would think they were seeing things. It's only afterwards when the reaction comes out and what you won't get much of is bland acceptance. I reckon that most people would regard such behaviour as unacceptable, and that's why people rarely get naked on our main beaches.

I have never waked through a town naked, I never suggested walking through a town naked, now who is taking things out of context? The point you choose to ignore is that it is only YOU that has such a severe case of Gymnophobia but you try to make out that its widespread, and it is this comment of yours that I was referring to "that applies to many, if not most, non-nudists" well I beg to differ!!



I see you still have a talent for taking me out of context. I was asked a question by Walter as to why I find public nudity offensive - so I wanted to explain to Walter what my feelings would be if I encountered it so he could understand my issue. I did not say that the naked body is "grotesque" etc, because I know it's not: I was simply reporting my own involuntary response to it. I do wish people would look at what I actually say rather than putting their own spin on it.

Stu

Yes, report your response to it but please don't try to kid us that you are amongst a majority, I was pointing out that in my experience no non-nudists I have encountered have been shocked or harmed in any way, most were amused, at least we brought a smile to their faces!!
My recent experience at Nudefest where we gathered at a textile camp site for a weekend and mixed with textiles, some with children, and they had no problems with hundreds of naked people walking around. I go to Abbey House Gardens regularly, there we mix with textiles, its a C/O event, they mix with us nudists quite happily, I've had conversations with some of them, they actually were interested to know why we like to be naked.

Accept it, your reaction to the naked human form is in the extreme, the vast majority of people aren't at all bothered, let alone upset or even shocked by nudity.

Pete Knight

[nakedjohn]

For some parents, it won't matter, the other group will make a big fuzz about it.
For each, its own.
It does not bother me.

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

It is perfectly possible to have sex without being naked and it is also possible to have sex in the dark - whilst not being naked My wife and I never see each other naked. No need to. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif That may seem odd to you, but remember that throughout history, sex was generally performed while clothed!

Pete

You are missing my point. I'm simply reminding you - as if you need reminding - that like it or lump it nakedness in public places is not generally acceptable. I have never implied that every non-nudist has my level of discomfort with nudity because I readily accept that I'm not typical. People react in a host of different ways to the sight of nakedness ranging from acceptance to revulsion - but that's the whole point - some people are revolted or upset by it. If you can accept that, then we can agree on something.

In a way, I am among a majority in as much as I do not believe that public nakedness is generally acceptable and I reckon most people would agree with that. The fact that there are events (like Nudefest, Abbey House Gardens and possibly even the WNBR) where people know what to expect and those who don't like nudity will stay away - or leave.

If, as you say, "the vast majority of people aren't at all bothered, let alone upset or even shocked by nudity" then every beach and park and other place of public resort in the UK would effectively be clothing optional. But they're not - and I'm pretty sure they never will be, not in my lifetime, at least.

Stu

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
MoonShadow

It is perfectly possible to have sex without being naked and it is also possible to have sex in the dark - whilst not being naked My wife and I never see each other naked. No need to. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif That may seem odd to you, but remember that throughout history, sex was generally performed while clothed!
That goes way beyond odd, and crosses into the land of the bizarre.

[jon71]

The times they are a changing. Stu you say that public nudity is generally not accepted. That is true but it's less true every year. There is a slow but definite trend to allow more skin in public, and occasionally that means everything. To steal a second musical phrase, "the future's so bright I gotta wear shades".

[Stu2630]

MJ_KC

that goes way beyond odd, and crosses into the land of the bizarre.

I think you would be amazed at just how common that is. I have spoken to several other people who also never see their partners naked. Hey, we're all different, right?

Jon

Stu you say that public nudity is generally not accepted. That is true but it's less true every year.

I know what you mean, but it is a mixed picture. Just as there are new naked events taking place, in some European countries they are clamping down on toplessness and nudity even in places where it was once the norm (like East German and Polish beaches, and even the beaches in the Municipality of Paris!).

As I have said many times, I welcome the increase in possibilities for nudists to enjot what they are doing but I also want to preserve my own ability to avoid it. That's not unreasonable, is it?

Stu

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
It is perfectly possible to have sex without being naked and it is also possible to have sex in the dark - whilst not being naked My wife and I never see each other naked. No need to. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif That may seem odd to you, but remember that throughout history, sex was generally performed while clothed!
That goes way beyond odd, and crosses into the land of the bizarre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds bizzare to me. I've met people who never appear nude with their spouse. Its my understanding that some bizzare religious cults advocate sex only for reproduction and then through a hole in a sheet or other strange method.

But "throughout history" is nonsense. The Roman Empire practiced nude bathing all over its many lands and territories. Sexuality and nudity was public and common. Homes were often decorated with naked and sexual sceens.

Pagan europe generally went naked when weather permitted and sexuality was something that usually happened in small one-room homes with the whole family present. Nudity was nothing even to talk about.

Only the more recent religous movements have promoted clothing as a requirement, and put clothes on native people all across the globe. Throughout histroy native peoples on every continent didn't bother with clothing unless the weather required protection.

Blessings
Bob

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

If, as you say, "the vast majority of people aren't at all bothered, let alone upset or even shocked by nudity" then every beach and park and other place of public resort in the UK would effectively be clothing optional. But they're not - and I'm pretty sure they never will be, not in my lifetime, at least.

Stu

Stu

Your wording is sometimes provocative, you either do it to intimidate or you're not being very careful in your choice of words, that's why I took exception to that last statement, and yes we can agree on many of the issues you pointed out, but I must take issue with the above.

The vast majority of people are not bothered, most calls to the police are from people who THINK that nudity is illegal and therefore should be reported, even some police officers are unsure about the law and the application of the SOA, there are even references to the, now repealed 'Vagrancy Act' and even those that know about the SOA try to charge with some wholly unrelated act such as 'Breach of the Peace' which is wilful misuse of the powers bestowed upon them.

The general thrust of this is that people think that someone else may be offended, and as some police have found, the 'Crown Prosecution Service' will not take the case to court, as Steve Gough found out in Shropshire, what they should of course be doing is asking the person reporting nudity if the wish to make a formal complaint, but they rarely do!
Recently Chris Lamb (He was the unnamed librarian that walked with Steve and Mel in 2005.) organised a charity walk along the south coast, they were accompanied by numerous police officers who kept stopping textile walkers and asking them if they wanted to complain, none did!

Local newspaper report of the naturist charity walk. (http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1444798.mostviewed.police_patrol_p ath_as_naked_ramblers_pass.php)

The police helicopter was something of an exaggeration, we'll put that down to journalistic licence, but the rest is a fair reflection of the days events, the question now being raised is, 'if that many police were at the walk, who was protecting the citizens of Dorset'?

The reality Stu is that the vast majority of people are more concerned about criminal activity than a few naked walkers, and I speak from personal experience, how many naked walks have you been on and heard or seen the textile public's reaction?

Pete Knight

[walter05]

Stu;

You Said: "My response to nudity is that I find it shocking and grotesque - the same feelings I get when I see obscene words displayed. That probably comes about through social conditioning etc, but I think that applies to many, if not most, non-nudists. I'm not suggesting it is logical, but human responses aren't generally grounded in Spok-like logic. That's why I can publicly display the work "luck" on a billboard, but not the word which rhymes with it and begins with the letter "f"."

You compared nudity to the "f" word. You may think you were speaking about your reaction, however, that is because of what you found offensive.

For thousands of years, humans have had sex nude. Your statement that this is more common is not supported by the facts. Archaeologists studying Egyptian, Greek, Persian, Roman, etc. art will be able to show that they frequently depicted sex nude.

A Jewish man and woman are expected to be nude when he has sex with his wife. One of the reasons is so that she will know that he finds her attractive. How can your wife know that you find her attractive if you never gaze upon her beautiful naked body and have an erection? Your not having sex with her naked means there is a level of sharing between the two of you that you are missing.

Stu;

There really are four issues here:

The first issue is with the Simpsons. However, that movie is voluntarily rated at PG-13. This means it is advertised as inappropriate for small children. I am not interested in seeing it but see nothing wrong with this.

The second issue is with public nudity. We both agree that in legal areas where there is notice, it is not a problem.

The third is with nudity in general. You have an extreme revulsion to it. You will not even look at your wife's nude body and admire it.

The fourth is an obvious lack of appreciation for the wonder of the human body. You have talked about your issues with this. I think your problems with your own body are at the root of this.

I think you should learn to love and value your own nude body. Perhaps you could have a full-length mirror installed in your bathroom. When you come out of the shower, you could take a few moments to admire your own beautiful, naked body. I am not talking about any public nudity but private nudity. I think if you learn to really love your own body your views will evolve.

Pete, MoonShadow, and I share a concern. We think your disgust at the nude body is unhealthy. It is more than merely not being a nudist.

To your credit, I believe you deep down believe that. I believe there is a part of you that wants to come to grips with that. This is why I think you are attracted to this forum.

[Stu2630]

Bob

Firstly, I'm not a member of any religious group, organisation, church or cult. Secondly, it all depends what period in history you are talking about. I read that King Henry VIII, the guy who had sex wives, would probably have never seen any of them entirely naked, nor would they have seen him in the same condition.

Pete

"The vast majority of people are not bothered..."

You didn't need to finish that sentence - people in this country are apathetic about a heck of a lot worse things than nudity. A few months ago, a woman was savagely beaten up on a bus in my town in front of at least 20 people. In spite of police appeals, not a single person was prepared to come forward to make a statement. Yes, they were cowardly, but that can't be taken as evidence that people weren't upset by what they saw. Nudity is transient and yes, it is easier for people just to let it go than have to go to a police station and then, at a later date, spend a day in court giving evidence - possibly when you are a tourist and you live several hours drive away from that court. But that doesn't mean people are generally OK with public nudity because, in my experience, they're not.

So far as the law is concerned, you are quite correct that neither the SOA nor the old Common Law breach of the peace are appropriate for dealing with public nudity. The correct charge is under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, namely insulting or disorderly behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. I have actually discussed this very issue with the senior Crown Prosecutor in my district and he says that he would consider that an entirely appropriate response. Unfortunately, the standard of training of young police officers has fallen to such a degree that they could well end up arresting under the wrong provisions, or simply wringing their hands because of ignorance.

Fortunately, though, the police in Steve Gough's own town in Hampshire did know the correct law, arrested him and charged him under section 5 twice, got two convictions and then Mr Gough's subsequent appeals were struck out. He presently languishes in a Scottish prison for his persistent antisocial nudity and his appeals before the higher Scottish courts have failed. Mr G has spent most of the past two years behind bars, so where are the mass protests? Where are the howls of indignation from the great British opinion-formers, politicians, pundits, journalists and social commentators demanding this poor chap be released? They are silent because...well I think it's because they realise he has become a public nuisance and he's out of commission, at least for a while. If people REALLY believed public nudity was harmless and entirely acceptable, he would be a public hero by now. Public opinion would by now have forced the authorities to review his case, and probably change the law so he could go about his business unhindered.

But that's not happened. And it's not going to happen any time soon.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Walter

I admit that I was being somewhat parochial when I spoke of "history" - my mind was on north-western European history from medievel times upto the late Victorian times rather than going back to the ancient Romans or Egyptians. Historians will confirm that for most of the second millenium of British history, sex wasn't something you generally did naked - even though some men would, for example, swim in a river naked! Sex, to me, is not a multi-sense experience, it is a feelings experience. My wife is a tall, slim lady with naturally copper coloured hair and she is very attractive (and it's not just me who says so http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif !). But, frankly, I would find nudity a big turn-off for sex. It would be like eating a wonderful mean in a toilet whereas now I find it wonderfully sensuous because I can focus entirely upon the physical feelings involved.

I don't believe I have any issues with my own body. We do have a very large mirror in our main bathroom - not a full length one, but when I look in it I can see myself from my thighs up as I do every morning when I get out of the shower. I don't stop and stare, but I have a reasonable physique - I'm very fit; I used to be keen on bodybuilding and, while I would benefit from shedding about 10 pounds (I lost my 6-pack a while ago) I still have pecs, biceps, triceps and quads a lot of men my age would envy. My wife sees me in my underwear and vice-versa - it's the intimate parts we keep to ourselves and, to be honest, that adds to the fun and excitement.

I have no issues with The Simpsons because it was explained to me that it is not intended for children. If that's the case, they can put whatever they like in it.

If you want to know why I come here, it's because I do find the subject matter interesting - and I enjoy our little exchanges - I hope you enjoy them as much as I do and as I can learn from you, hopefully you will learn things from me. I can say, hand-on-heart, that I have no wish to change my perception of the naked body any more than you have because mine suits me just as yours suits you.

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

I will drop the subject then.

[simonsebs]

In the words of Bart Simpson, to everyone who has a problem with this movie.
"Don't have a cow man!"

[nacktman]

Originally posted by simonsebs:
In the words of Bart Simpson, to everyone who has a problem with this movie.
"Don't have a cow man!"

I'd have gone for Bart's immortal words ... "Eat my shorts!"

As for stu, he'll crawl back under that rock he broods under fairly quickly when we all begin to ignore him again.

[simonsebs]

Originally posted by nacktman:
I'd have gone for Bart's immortal words ... "Eat my shorts!"


Ya, but at the moment I'm not wearing shorts. So I can't tell people to eat them if they're not there.

[Buff Man in MI]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kind of sad that this was the same argument used to justify the Jim Crow laws that barred blacks from many places in the southern United States. Whites didn't feel comfortable shopping or eating with blacks in public places so signs were present on the doors to many places to keep blacks out.

I'm not sure the analogy holds because there is a fundamental difference between skin colour and skin exposure. A black person is born black, will spend 24-hours of every day of their lives being black and will die black. There isn't much they can do about being black even if they wanted to (unless they're Michael Jackson http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif) .

A nudist, on the other hand, chooses to be nude. Most nudists own as many clothes as non-nudists and usually spend the majority of their lives clothed.

Being black is a permanent, unchangeable state whereas being naked is a preferred state.

Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about anyone else, but I was born nude and except for the laws currently preventing it, would spend 24 hours every day nude and would like to die nude. I also don't own as many clothes as many of my friends, I just own a weeks worth, maybe 10 days. I also view being nude as an unchangeable AND preferred state since I do not consider clothes to be a part of my body but rather a cultural standard of the culture in which I currently live. If I lived in the amazonian rain forest, with a tribal group that considers nudity the cultural standard, then that would be the standard that I would follow.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Buff Man in MI:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was born nude ...

Except for a full head of hair I seem to remember being born in this old suit I am wearing right now - just as wrinkled and a deep butternut brown hue. It is by far and away my favorite suit, wash and wear, water repellent, self mending (for the most part) and alters itself to meet the current size of my ... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[simonsebs]

I just thought about something else. I wonder if all those parents who are complaining have ever watched an episode of the Simpsons. There has been nudity on the Simpsons almost from the very beginning. If they have watched it with their kids, why would they be cool with seeing Bart, Homer, and almost every male in Springfield's naked butt? Yet they see a penis and suddenly act like this is the first time nudity has been shown.

[NewAndNude]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
MoonShadow

It is perfectly possible to have sex without being naked and it is also possible to have sex in the dark - whilst not being naked My wife and I never see each other naked.


Ummmm wow. I'm a firm believer of allowing others to hold their own views and respecting those views that others hold...but that's just messed up, man. Really messed up. You know most couples who act like that usually don't end up together for very long, right? Or are you both prudes/Quakers/Catholics/etc? I sure as heck hope you have a religious excuse/reason for that, because if you don't then you and your wife need some serious help. Seriously.

[Arnabas]

quote:
Originally posted by Stu2630:
MoonShadow

It is perfectly possible to have sex without being naked and it is also possible to have sex in the dark - whilst not being naked My wife and I never see each other naked.



Ummmm wow. I'm a firm believer of allowing others to hold their own views and respecting those views that others hold...but that's just messed up, man. Really messed up. You know most couples who act like that usually don't end up together for very long, right? Or are you both prudes/Quakers/Catholics/etc? I sure as heck hope you have a religious excuse/reason for that, because if you don't then you and your wife need some serious help. Seriously.

Well, I haven't followed all of this (not going to read everything right now) but this caught my attention.

Stu, you seem to be quite respected here from what I have seen. I know you are a non-nudist, but I am curious why you cannot/ will not see your wife nude. I understand that public nudity is not for everyone, but not being able to enjoy being naked with you wife seems a bit odd to me. I love being nude with my wife, feeling each other's skin when we hug or cuddle. I love seeing her body and am totally comfortable with her seeing mine.

I'd be pretty sad if we weren't comfortable enough to be naked together.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Arnabas:
I'd be pretty sad if we weren't comfortable enough to be naked together.
It seems to me that it is a really sad situation when spouses won't even be nude with each other.

[Stu2630]

I'll just set the record straight. My wife and I will soon be celebrating our 30th wedding anniversary http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif . I am an atheist and my wife is an agnostic, so religion plays no part in our lives, although we do share an interest in non-theistic Buddhism. We are happily married and do enjoy normal physical relations from kissing and cuddling and everything beyond that. We have three children, though two are now adults.

I have absolutely no criticism of people who like being naked, whether it's just with your partner or as a member of a nudist community and I know that gives people a lot of joy. But we don't have a "problem" because that implies dysfunction, yet we are both very happy with our own way of life and the fact that nakedness plays no part in that. I can understand that nudists may find our way difficult to comprehend, but please don't think it's some kind of "problem" that we need "help" for - if we're happy with this, and it has helped us to make a succesful marriage and raise a family, I don't understand why anyone should see it as something that is "sad" or problematic.

Nudists are right to remind the world that they are not weirdos: they have a valid way of life and should be respected for doing things in their own way. Don't we deserve the same consideration?

Stu

[simonsebs]

How did we go from talking about the Simpson's movie to public nudity and being nude with your spouse? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif Let's get back on topic please.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by simonsebs:
How did we go from talking about the Simpson's movie to public nudity and being nude with your spouse? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif Let's get back on topic please.

That's just the MO of the poster in question, alter the topic to praising clothing.

But on topic: the Simpson's movie should be great escapism for a couple of hours for everyone ... the kids will love the fact that it's animated and the adults will appreciate the humor and innuendo. Those in 'adult' bodies and have warped minds will be 'offended', 'appalled', 'frightened', etc., and that is a good thing ... they need to be, that and they need to get a life.

[MJ_KC]

I want to go see the new Simpson's movie opening weekend. Looks like a fun movie.

[walter05]

Simonsebs;

You are correct. That is why I don't allow my children to see the Simpsons.

All of my children have seen nudity. They have seen nude siblings. They have also seen health books with nudity and graphic descriptions. I have no objection with my children seeing nudity.

My objection is when the nudity is for a cheap thrill and degrading. I believe the way the Simpsons and other so called entertainment programs display the human body falls into that category.

I want my children to be proud of themselves. This includes their bodies. I want them to respect themselves and that includes their bodies.

I want them to learn to love, enjoy, and appreciate their sexuality as they grow older. I want them to appreciate how it can enable them to share the most sublime forms of communication and love.

I don't object to the Simpsons displaying a vulva, penis, or buttocks. However, I don't want to see them displayed for cheap gag and I don't want my kids to see that either.

[Arnabas]

Walter, I understand and can agree with your not wanting your kids to see nudity portrayed as something "just for laughs". I do think, though, that I'd rather have mine (only one so far-- a boy) see that than have it be hidden away as something shameful. Guess I have mixed feelings on that.

I think it's all a bit silly. It's a cartoon. I doubt that his penis will be correctly drawn. It'll probably look the same as a finger, with no scrotum visible. I imagine it will be on screen for all of 1.5 seconds.

I work in a pharmacy and in my store, the first thing you see upon entering is the cosmetics/ beauty section. There is a large, backlit display for advertisments (posters) that is right there in front of you as you come in. For about 2 months, there was an ad for an "anti-cellulite" product that showed a fully-nude woman. She was 3/4 to the camera, meaning that her bare bum was visible as well as most of the side of her breast, stopping just short of the nipple. In all that time, with men, women, young and old coming in, there was not a single complaint. Admittedly, if she was turned just a little more, revealing a nipple, there probably would have been a complaint, but I was quite happy that most people took it in stride and hardly even took a second glance.

Also, I just want to quickly reply to Stu and say that I am sorry if you took my comments to mean that your situation was "sad" or "strange". I *personally* would be sad in that situation, but if it works for you, then that's great. Given how few marriages seem to make it these days, I think anything you do that works is awesome. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif I don't understand, really, but then again, it's none of my business. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

[walter05]

Arnabas;

I said that I did not want to see the Simpsons either. This is not a matter of how young someone is to me. I believe that the body should be honored and admired. I don't believe in desecrating it for a cheap thrill.

I will tell you that one of my daughters did see a show at a friend's house. There was not nudity but lude and graphic talk. This was also for a cheap thrill. I am proud to say she asked my wife and me about it and we discussed it. She understands our views.

[Daveinct]

Last week a co-worker had the Wendy Williams Show playing on the radio. A man called the show to complain about the nudity in the Simpsons movie. Initially full of bluster, he asked Wendy if she would allow her children to see it. She said yes she would, and mentioned that in addition to taking part in sports (i.e., locker rooms), her son actually has a penis, so he has already seen a penis without being harmed. The caller was completely deflated and left speechless.

Dave

[jon71]

Good for her. I hope that got people thinking.

[Brendan]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stu2630:
Things made with kids in mind should be utterly uncontroversial

The Simpson's was never made with kids in mind. It is a prime time cartoon for grownups.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree that the Simpsons was not made for children. I do wish that places like Burger King would treat its merchandise and advertisement the same. Maybe the problem is that everyone makes it seem like the Simpsons is for kids, so some parents think it's okay.
I'm not saying they're right, but it's not an argument to be ignored.

[Kari P]

"The Simpsons Movie" is allowed in Finnish movie theatres to children at least 7 years old, or 5 years if they are with a parent. (Two versions available: the original with subtitles, and a dubbed one.)

I have seen no mention about nudity in the movie in the critics nor any parent's complaint, so it must be a non-issue here.

[Bob S.]

Apparently, most people didn't care. It made over 71 million dollars in its opening weekend, placing it fifth (I believe) for opening weekend moneymaking movies so far this year.

Bob S.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Apparently, most people didn't care. It made over 71 million dollars in its opening weekend, placing it fifth (I believe) for opening weekend moneymaking movies so far this year.

Bob S.
On a world-wide basis it took in about $168 million over its opening weekend. I would have to say that a lot of people really wanted to see this movie. I would like to go see it later this week.

[nimrod]

I see what the problem is, finally! It is overly sensitive people over-reacting to a small problem. Instead of using a negetive as a learning tool and having a open and frank conversation about it, they ban it, hide it, or just ignore it in the hopes that it will just go away.

[Nu]

I read a movie review that suggested Bart's
"frontly" nude appearance was three milleseconds in duration.
(a blink of an eye?)
The mention in the review was brief, no complaint from the reviewer.

The review was very positive, lots more laughs than the television show. I have not yet seen the movie, but I get lots of laughs from the television show, so the movie should put me ROF in laughter.

[DenitaLC]

The Simpsons Movie is very funny! Our family of four (42, 39, 17, and 14) loved it. My husband was almost laughing himself out of his seat......which just made me laugh harder!

It's very true to the TV series. If you stay for the credits, there are a few little things thrown in to catch during them.

[Rabid_Clam]

Again, here we have the subject doing nothing sexual or even remotely in that direction. Is just part of the movie, something every one of us do time to time regardless if we are nudists or textiled. Even the pope gets naked at some point !

[nudebushwalker]

Some of that nude scene was shown here on Aussie TV in the movie review - in prime time and uncensored (did anyone see if the US media "fuzzied" that clip for previews?).
My 'born-again' brother and sister-in-law took their kids along to see the movie, so I have to assume that that mothers' whinge group in the US is a very, very, extreme right-wing group, when even the more moderate evangelicals aren't supporting their stance..
And just how did that group find out about the nude scene in the first place - a couple of weeks before the trailer was released? Did the producers deliberately leak a clip - baiting them into providing some free controversy before they started their promotion in earnest?

[SpiderThug]

We like the Simpsons. We have not seen the movie and will not have trouble with any of the characters being naked.

In this household, we do not shield nudity from the children on tv. If a tv show suddenly has a sex scene, we do not shield them. Being on tv, it won't be graphic.

When they are teenagers, we won't forbid them from watching porn however, deliberately showing them scene is another thing all together.

[Illinois07]

I think the phrase "frontal nudity" is so funny. I remember a comment Dick Cavett made on TV years ago concerning this subject - he said "What's the opposite of frontal nudity??? Dorsal nudity???"ROFLMAO