Shame Breakers Is Back! [Archive]

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 09:32 AM

You're OK Stu, unless you're planning a trip to Oz with me next year, then we could get some serious nakedness in, couldn't we?

If you were inviting me for a couple of tinnies of the amber nectar, Pete, that would sound great - but anything that involves taking my drawers off is a definite no-no. But thanks for the offer, Cobba! I hope you have a great time.

Comicsfan2001

The arguments that compare attitudes to nudity with those of race or sexuality don't hold up in my book because the former is a state dress determined by preference, whereas the others relate to factors which are immutable. The prohibitions are on nudity, whether it is nudists or non-nudists who are naked - and people can instantaneously choose to dress. As people don't choose their race, and can't change their skin colour, the comparison fails. So far as same sex couples holding hands and kissing in public is concerned, while I am generally supportive of homosexuals having rights comparible to heterosexuals, I do not consider public demonstrations of affection are either appropriate or should be acceptable.

Walter

I think we have to draw the line somewhere and the question of where is always negotiable - consequently, I don't want to be too prescriptive. What may be appropriate for a beach occupied almost exclusively by stylish adults (such as certain beaches in the South of France) may be inappropriate on a more family orientated beach. That would apply to thongs and other swimwear. For women, I believe that on the most popular family beaches, no part of the female nipple and aerioli should be visible.

While they are often unsightly, or even grotesque, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that either body-piercings or tattoos give rise to actual offence. Accordingly, I see no reason why these should be restricted unless, for example, that a particular tattoo image was sexually explicit or displayed obscene language etc.

Stu

Bobx23456

07-13-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Dario Western:
Hi,

Good news: the Shame Breakers Yahoo! group is back again, with a new moderator. This group is about the liberalisation of public nudity for places outside segregated nudist clubs and beaches.
Looking forward to seeing some of you guys and gals post on there!
Dario Western

That is good news Dario. Liberation of public area is a big need. The default position ought to be freedom to do whate you want rather than government control of everyone.

Blessings

Bob

Bobx23456

07-13-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This group is about the liberalisation of public nudity for places places outside segregated nudist clubs and beaches.

I hope that means doing so responsibly and with due consideration for non-nudists rather than foisting the sight of nudity onto those who don't want to see it.
Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, Stu, your position on nakedness and human bodies is offensive to me.

a) It implies that my body is somehow ugly or harmful to other people. That even the sight of me would hurt others. I find that position to be very insulting and offensive.

b) It claims authority to contorl and dominate me, to force me to do what you tell me to do, where and when you want. Perhaps you could tell us where it is written that you should have dominance over me, Dario, and the rest of us freedom loving people?

Instead of forcing your views on your neighbors, perhaps you and your kind should establish retreats, resorts, hidden away behind fences where you can do your peculier guilt and body shame trip without the sight of actual human beings.

Blessings

Bob

walter05

07-13-2007, 10:18 AM

Stu;

There are naturist resorts that do prohibit many body piercings and tattoos. It is interesting that your views on this topic are more liberal than theirs.

I think we now can see where you and I diverge in our views. You view display of the body as grotesque and potentially offensive. I view degradation of the body as grotesque and offensive.

To display parts of the body in an obviously sexually provocative way in a public setting is objectionable to me. Likewise, covering the body in shame from view of my wife or me is objectionable to me.

I would prefer a beach where males and females are completely nude to a beach where males and females selectively display parts of the body for sensationalism. Therefore, you are more comfortable with the sensational display on what you claim is not a family oriented beach.

As you say there is a lot of intersection and agreement in effect of our views. However, the rationale is quite different. Your positions are illuminated by your view of shame towards the body, and particularly the genitals as well as sexuality. My views are illuminated by my view of the holiness, beauty, and magnificence of the body and this includes the genitals and sexuality.

Unlike Bob, I am not offended at your view. I do feel sorry for you though. You will not even look at your body privately in a mirror. It must be tough living with all of those negative views towards your own body.

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 10:43 AM

Bob

If you shared a house with 3 other people, you could reasonably expect there to be certain "house rules" as to what was, and was not, acceptable behaviour. While you could do pretty much as you like in your own bedroom, what you do in the common areas of the house has to be such that it doesn't upset the other users. It's pretty much the same for public places.

You see, it's not a question of me trying to control you - it's a question of sharing public spaces in such a way that we can all use them without getting upset, alarmed or distressed at what we see, hear, smell etc. Because public spaces belong to all of us, there has to be certain regulation of these places. Some people may not object to obscene language while others do. Some people may be fine if others openly indulge in sex whereas plenty of people would consider that offensive. So there are rules, sometimes written and at other times socially enforced which are designed to make public spaces as user friendly as possible for as many people as possible - while having regard for immutable personal characteristics such as race or disability.

Walter

To display parts of the body in an obviously sexually provocative way in a public setting is objectionable to me.

Really? Gosh, Walter, I think "sexually provocative" is absolutely fine - so long as it doesn't involve nudity. Sexual provocation is all around us - it's in what we wear, what perfume we have on, our facial expressions and what we say. People do flirt because we can't entirely divorce our personalities from our sexual identities. But this sort of "sex" exists entirely in the head. Physical sex, on the other hand, lives (or should live) within the context of a monogomous and committed relationship.

Likewise, covering the body in shame from view of my wife or me is objectionable to me.

The term "shame" is nudists' jargon for non-nudists dislike of disrobing in front of others - but it bears little rememblance to the normal concept of "shame". I am NOT ashamed of my body or any part of my body. But I do regard certain parts of it as deeply private and I don't want other people to see them any more than I would want people to be able to read my thoughts or see my medical records. It's a privacy thing, not a shame thing. Unlike you, I don't regard those private parts as aesthetically "beautiful" or "magnificent" to look at any more than I would regard certain other organs as beautiful etc. My brain is very useful: I like using it and I like other people admiring what I can do with it in just the same way that I appreciate my sexual equipment. And in the same way, I don't regard either organ to be beautiful to look at and so I prefer to keep both of them out of sight.

Stu

walter05

07-13-2007, 10:54 AM

Stu;

First of all, there is nothing wrong with being sexually attractive and in fact this is wonderful.

Being sexually provocative of sensational is different. This is what I believe should not be in public. There is a difference between a young woman having her hair and makeup done to attact, but not in excess, and her wearing a thong with her buttocks showing.

As far as you claim to have no body issues, in the Simpsons thread, you said, "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." You are not even willing to be naked where you can see all of you in your own bathroom alone and to look at yourself. That is not the behavior of someone who is not ashamed of his body.

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 11:46 AM

you said, "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." You are not even willing to be naked where you can see all of you in your own bathroom alone and to look at yourself. That is not the behavior of someone who is not ashamed of his body.

Walter - Somehow you have misunderstood me. In my main bathroom I have a shower situated over my bathtub. The adjacent wall has a huge rectangular mirror fitted measuring about six feet in length and about four feet in height. When I step out of the shower every morning, I can see all of myself except from about my mid-thighs downwards. I don't stop and take a good look because I'm not really that interested - it's not that I'm ashamed - what I see in that mirror doesn't bother me. I dry off, put on a bathrobe and I'm out of there.

Stu

soundman

07-13-2007, 11:55 AM

Stu2630 said:
...what I see in that mirror doesn't bother me.
That is a good start to being cured.

TigerTeam

07-13-2007, 12:39 PM

Fellas! Peace!

Personally, I feel that nudity should not be attached to the suspension of other customs. Let's not equate clothesfreedom with freedom from rules. Just because we advocate freedom from clothes, it should end there. We should still have standards about what is acceptable dress. Better to make the argument for nudity based on keeping rules than the lack thereof.

walter05

07-13-2007, 12:59 PM

Stu;

If you have a full lenght mirror, then I suggest looking for a few moments. Learn to admire your own body privately.

If you do, I think you will like yourself more.

TigerTeam;

I never called for any regulation. The fact is that people do things that I don't agree with but that does not mean I want regulation. I would simply choose not to do them and avoid seeing them.

Bobx23456

07-13-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Bob

If you shared a house with 3 other people, you could reasonably expect there to be certain "house rules" as to what was, and was not, acceptable behaviour. While you could do pretty much as you like in your own bedroom, what you do in the common areas of the house has to be such that it doesn't upset the other users. It's pretty much the same for public places.

You see, it's not a question of me trying to control you - it's a question of sharing public spaces in such a way that we can all use them without getting upset, alarmed or distressed at what we see, hear, smell etc. Because public spaces belong to all of us, there has to be certain regulation of these places. Some people may not object to obscene language while others do. Some people may be fine if others openly indulge in sex whereas plenty of people would consider that offensive. So there are rules, sometimes written and at other times socially enforced which are designed to make public spaces as user friendly as possible for as many people as possible - while having regard for immutable personal characteristics such as race or disability. Stu

Stu, If I CHOOSE to live with roommates I would negotiate the rules and live somewhere else if I didn't like them. And, in fact, I live with people who are comfortable about bodies.

Legal enforcement of anti-nudity laws is people like you depriving me of my free choice. It is EXACTLY a question of people forcing their opinions down everyone elses throats, and forcing their specified behavior with armed thugs and prisons.

The sight of an actual human has never harmed anyone. If you don't want to see humans it would be better if you established resorts, colonies, and textile required places behind fences. Forcing your shame, guilt, and body fear onto everyone else by force of law is very offensive.
Blessings
Bob

nimrod

07-13-2007, 02:06 PM

Lately I have been more open about being a nudist, and even though there is alot of pregudice against nudity, most of which is the nudity=sex therefore it must be wrong mentality, a close second is the "don't look at me I'm ugly" mentality, there are those that are not concered with nudity but are not nudist themselves. Only one that I have talked to is horrorfied at the idea of a nude body, they are the true minority when it comes to nudity, from my experience, but theirs seem to be the loudest voices against nudism, and everyone that buys into the nudity=sex mentality backs them up without knowing the truth. I think that we need more groups out there to break down the nudity barriers.

A bigit is a bigit. You can say you are not because your prejugdice is against a belief instead of a race or religion, but you are still practicing segregation. It is O.K. for you to be black as long as you do it only in these certain areas. It is O.K. for you to be Hindu as long as you do it only in these certain areas. It is O.K. for you to be a nudist so long as you do it only in these certain areas. Even though we cannot choose the color of our skin, we can choose what we believe in, be it religion, being a nudist, or being a vegatarian, and we should not be dicriminated against because of our beliefs.

MrTruth

07-13-2007, 02:42 PM

I hope that means doing so responsibly and with due consideration for non-nudists rather than foisting the sight of nudity onto those who don't want to see it.

This is a ridiculous statement to make. The world that we live in is primarily a textile world. The few nudists out in the world are generally confined to a very few places that are restrictive. For anyone to make this kind of statement (who might know anything about the nudist world) means that this person is anti nudist and wants to ban nudists and nudism through out the world.

Given that the majority of the world is textile, and this majority wants to limit and control nudists and nudism (or downright eliminate it altogether), I think it is far more honest to say "let the textile world lighten up and start being more considerate and tolerant of nudists." If a person does not want to see nude people, then DO NOT go to the extremely few places where you might encounter a nude person. Case closed!

MrTruth

07-13-2007, 02:49 PM

But I do regard certain parts of it as deeply private and I don't want other people to see them any more than I would want people to be able to read my thoughts or see my medical records.

You have a right to remain clothed at all times and not show anything. You even have a right to have a sex change and start wearing a burka so that you can hide everything. You certainly can share opinions but your opinion is just one of many and does not represent our main stream society which tends to offer more tolerance and acceptance. Those on the fridges of society always tend to display extreme examples of behavior. Since society is overwhelmingly a textile society, you don't have to be concerned about encountering a nude person unless you intentionally seek such a person out. If you do so, then that is YOUR problem and not the problem of the nude person. You know very well that since society is by far a textile society, your concerns are unfounded because you also know very well that you will not encounter nude people unless you seek them out.

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 03:09 PM

Personally, I feel that nudity should not be attached to the suspension of other customs.... Better to make the argument for nudity based on keeping rules than the lack thereof.

TigerTeam - My point exactly. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

The fact is that people do things that I don't agree with but that does not mean I want regulation. I would simply choose not to do them and avoid seeing them.

Walter - a reasonable view to take. But places of public resort do need regulation if they are to be pleasant for all. That's why we have prohibitions on obscene language and displays, racist or anti-semitic language and so on. And we have to remember that people are sensitive about what their children see and hear and we shouldn't fear taking them into public places.

Bob23456

Stu, If I CHOOSE to live with roommates I would negotiate the rules and live somewhere else if I didn't like them.

In a way, that's what already happens in society. The "house rules" are our laws and you can have influence on these through your elected representatives both by communicating your wishes to them directly and by voting for whoever most closely represents your views. If you still can't accept the outcome, then there are possibilities to live in a different community, or even a different country (I am a living example of that).

And, in fact, I live with people who are comfortable about bodies.

That's good. I live in a society in which nudity is still generally regarded as something private and not something which you normally see in the public domain and I believe most people want to keep things that way. What I would not like is for a minority group to try to change my society by overt or subtle social engineering to bring us all around to their way of thinking. That's why this topic about "shame breakers" disturbs me. It implies that certain nudists believe they have some mandate to force society to view the naked body in the same way that they do and they will achieve that by compelling them to confront nakedness. That's plainly wrong.

Nimrod

Lately I have been more open about being a nudist

I think it is good that you are open about being a nudist. It is nothing to be ashamed of and if you aree secretive about it people will suspect there is something unseemly about it.

I think that we need more groups out there to break down the nudity barriers.

From what I have seen as an outsider, nudists need to be better organised; they should squabble less among themselves and they should be more open and welcoming. I'm not sure what you mean by "nudity barriers". Everyone has a particular relationship both with their own naked bodies and those of others and the level of acceptance varies from extreme ease through various levels of discomfort right upto manic gymnophobia. But whatever their level is, it should be respected and neither nudists nor gymnophobes should try to interfere with the levels of others by "breaking down their barriers". That's what mutual respect is all about.

There is nothing wrong with segregation so long as what is being segregated is the behaviour and not the people. We segregate people who want to drink beer, smoke cigarettes and play pool from people who want to sing hymns and pray. We segregate people who want to play football from people who want to study books for their PhD. We know that certain behaviour may be OK in certain circumstances which is not OK in others. Nudists are free to use clothed beaches, parks and other facilities so long as they conform to the dress codes of non-nudists. If they want to go naked, they should do so at places designated for nakedness. Equally, non-nudists should be welcome at clothes-optional venues so long as they conform to whatever rules exist there.

That's not being a bigot - it's all about fairness and freedom of choice and mutual respect for each other.

Stu

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 03:20 PM

If a person does not want to see nude people, then DO NOT go to the extremely few places where you might encounter a nude person. Case closed!

MrTruth

I completely agree with what you are saying. I do not go to nude places - I avoid them - so I do not encounter nude people and consequently I have absolutely no problems with the millions of decent, responsible and considerate nudists in this world, of which I am sure you are one. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

The whole thrust of my point is that this thread is about a discussion board which seems to be advocating "breaking" other people's "shame" - I was simply expressing a hope that this doesn't involve "foisting" nudity on others by stripping off in non-nudist places.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-13-2007, 03:28 PM

But Stu, why should nudists be confined to very small areas, and beaches few and far between when there are acres of Forestry Commission woodland that could be declared CO and allow me to enjoy walking dressed the way I want, and still not bother the tiny minority that you fall into (See my post in 'Surprising Nude Statistics').

I know you think you are the voice of the majority, but you will have to face facts.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 03:44 PM

Pete.

I have said many times that nudists get a very raw deal and should get a far fairer allocation of public lands to enjoy. I would have no objection if, for example, they made a law which stipulated that 10% of beaches and other places of public recreation should be designated as 'clothes optional' - and that's ten times more than what you have now. I just want it to be properly signposted and segregated and that would assist people like me and help keep your places free from gawkers.

You see, I'm not some sort of 'anti-nudist' as people like to paint me - quite the reverse. I have spoken up for nudism among people I know and dispelled many myths and challenged bigotry. I strongly support responsible and considerate nudism (which most nudism is!) and would willingly assist in any campaign to improve your facilities. But please be kind enough to respect my position and sensibilities in return.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-13-2007, 04:03 PM

Positive words from Stu, that's very encouraging, thanks!

We'll get there eventually, but for every step we take forwards, Mrs Prude puts us back two with her minority complaint, that's the injustice we now seek to put to rights, and that is exactly Steve Gough's aim, it may be extreme but he is getting the message across, at great cost to himself of course, but that's his choice.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-13-2007, 04:23 PM

and that is exactly Steve Gough's aim, it may be extreme but he is getting the message across,

I know Steve Gough means well, Pete, but his methods are like a double-edged sword. His first walk brought with it a mixed reaction but probably with more positive than negative outcome. As time has gone on, people have begun to tire of him and the TV programme about him did him no favours because he came across as some sort of obsessive hippy with a dysfunctional personal life. He also really upset one or two people and that wasn't good for him. Now he's well out of the limelight and, for month after month, he has been rotting in a Scottish prison and nothing. The British public have forgotten him and he risks going down in history as some kind of eccentric who took on the Scottish legal system and lost.

Nudity does have the potential to stir emotions in people and, as such, should only occur in circumstances where it can reasonably be expected and is unlikely to offend. Nudists should use their considerable energies and talents to campaign for a fairer share of public facilities and they will win more friends by showing reasonableness and consideration than trying to force the wider public to confront whatever issues they have with the sight of the naked body.

Stu

kphoger

07-13-2007, 04:25 PM

For the record, Stu, I think you get a lot of undue flak on here, and am honestly surprised you didn't leave this site long ago. Thank you for keeping your posts civil and lucid, which is a very difficult thing to do on web forums.

Like ComicsFan, I too am weary of having to worry about upsetting somebody else just because of how I dress. In most situations, I can see the value of conforming to cultural codes, but why on God's grey Earth should I have to be dressed to go swimming? I could happily live in a world where nudity were forbidden in the general public, but where it were permitted in all beaches, pools, and parks. Especially beaches. When I first told my wife (not yet my wife then) that I was a nudist, I asked her why a nude beach was such a bad thing but being nude in a pool's changing room was just fine. Her answer was that nudity is expected in the changing room; I replied that nudity is expected at the nude beach too, and she saw the light. I'm now of the opinion that ALL beaches and pools should be places where nudity is expected. People the world over swam nude for time out of mind, so nudity should be expected where people swim. Don't want to see naked bodies? Then don't go to the beach.

As far as pushing the envelope goes, I don't think cordoning nudists off does anything to improve society's view of them. Separation begets ignorance, ignorance begets mistrust, mistrust begets fear, and fear begets more anti-nudist legislation. I don't think it's reasonable to acvocate both improved attitudes toward nudists and restricting them to their own little world.

People who want to smoke cigarettes, drink beer, and play pool are segregated from those who want to sing hymns and pray. But, don't you think I should be allowed to sing hymns and pray in a pool hall? Isn't that freedom of speech? I understand that freedom of speech isn't regarded as highly on the other side of the pond as it is here, but I shouldn't be prohibited from praying to God, writing anti-semitic messages, or criticizing those who do. People who want to play football are segregated from those who want to study for their PhD because a football game would interfere with studying. But, my free-hiking down a park trail doesn't interfere with your hike, just as your clothed hike doesn't interfere with my hike. My skinny-dipping at a beach doesn't interfere with anyone else swimming there, so why should I be prohibited?

Somehow we got the notion that everyone is entitled to the right not to be offended. Feminists are offended at the sight of a woman wearing a burqa or hijab, but that doesn't mean we should make them illegal or restrict where they can be worn (sorry, France); indeed, when the Shah was overthrown in Iran, women donned this "restrictive" clothing by the droves, as a demonstration of their new-found religious freedom. Many people are offended by homosexuality, but that doesn't mean a lesbian woman should be prohibited from holding her lover's hand while they walk along the street. So you're offended by the sight of the nude body, but that doesn't mean it should be criminalized.

MrTruth

07-13-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a person does not want to see nude people, then DO NOT go to the extremely few places where you might encounter a nude person. Case closed!

MrTruth

I completely agree with what you are saying. I do not go to nude places - I avoid them - so I do not encounter nude people and consequently I have absolutely no problems with the millions of decent, responsible and considerate nudists in this world, of which I am sure you are one. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

The whole thrust of my point is that this thread is about a discussion board which seems to be advocating "breaking" other people's "shame" - I was simply expressing a hope that this doesn't involve "foisting" nudity on others by stripping off in non-nudist places.

Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stu,

There is no need to break anyone's "shame" for what is one person's shame is another persons non shame. We are all different from each other and the only way to for us all to get along is with some sort of mutual respect and understanding. I am certainly considerate of non nudists who do not want to see a nude person. Most non nudists respond respectfully to such consideration. However, just as with a few nudists who provoke others, there are also non nudists who can not seem to tolerate nudism and will go out of their way to fight nudists and nudism in an effort to rid the planet from this so called scourge (their words).
In this particular case, nudism is just on example of a myriad number of human activities that can lead to offending others. We could be talking about any issue where a person or persons are totally inconsiderate of others and provoke others. There are so many other examples of disruptive human behaviour that is much more widespread in society (an example might be excessive noise to annoy neighbours on purpose) that nudism pales in comparison.

MJ_KC

07-13-2007, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by MrTruth:
There are so many other examples of disruptive human behaviour that is much more widespread in society (an example might be excessive noise to annoy neighbours on purpose) that nudism pales in comparison.
People allowing their large dogs to bark in a sub-division full of houses.

Bobx23456

07-13-2007, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
But Stu, why should nudists be confined to very small areas, and beaches few and far between when there are acres of Forestry Commission woodland that could be declared CO and allow me to enjoy walking dressed the way I want, and still not bother the tiny minority that you fall into (See my post in 'Surprising Nude Statistics').

I know you think you are the voice of the majority, but you will have to face facts.

Pete Knight

Indeed, why should the lowest form of prudishness become the law forced on everyone? Why shouldn't tolerance, diverstiy, and freedom be the law rather than puritanism and control.

Blessings
Bob

Bobx23456

07-13-2007, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by kphoger:
As far as pushing the envelope goes, I don't think cordoning nudists off does anything to improve society's view of them. Separation begets ignorance, ignorance begets mistrust, mistrust begets fear, and fear begets more anti-nudist legislation. I don't think it's reasonable to acvocate both improved attitudes toward nudists and restricting them to their own little world.

Right you are. The more nude people are seen in public places the more people become used to human bodies and the more acceptable we become. When something is unseen it becomes unseeable. When something is seen, it becomes fammiliar and therefore acceptable.

Instead of hiding in secret little communities we should be out being seen by the public at every opportunity. That, and only that, will make naked people acceptable in public.

[Of course the nudist hiding place industry has a vested interest in continuing to offer hidden retreats, and opposes public nudity in general. ]

Blessings

Bob

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 06:46 AM

I do find some of the responses here to be not just disappointing, but positively sinister. The attitude seems to be coming across that prudes (for want of a better word) should have no rights, but nudists should have absolute freedom. If I find the sight of nudity on beaches offensive and unacceptable, then I should stay off all beaches. It implies that nudists have some mandate - some God-given right - to "re-programme" the rest of the human race about our attitude towards the naked human body. That is fundamentalism. It brooks no compromise. It is deeply intolerant and has no respect for other beliefs and perspectives. It is alien to the concepts of freedom and tolerance our common forefathers fought to establish and preserve. It's the philosophy of "we're right and you are wrong and we are going to force you to come around to our way of thinking". It is certainly not an ideology which is alien to the regimes of Iran and North Korea, nor to the Taliban.

If nudists want to be respected and have freedom to practise, they will not win it by threatening the values of the wider community. Once this attitude becomes apparent, all they will win is distrust, intransigence and hostility from the reasonable and tolerant majority - the very people who are presently well disposed towards them.

Stu

MoonShadow

07-14-2007, 07:00 AM

Stu, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Nudists are not going to take over the beaches. Textiles will always have the majority of the beach territory. There are infinitely more people anti-nudism due to various reasons; predominantly puritannical thinking.

This is a forum for nudists and yes, we think we should have the freedom as textiles do to be nude publicly if chosen. There isn't anything wrong with that.

Comparing our desires to enjoy nudity publicly in more areas is not an ideology one can compare to fundamentalism or comparable to the regimes of Iran, North Korea or the Taliban.

MrTruth

07-14-2007, 07:14 AM

If nudists want to be respected and have freedom to practise, they will not win it by threatening the values of the wider community. Once this attitude becomes apparent, all they will win is distrust, intransigence and hostility from the reasonable and tolerant majority - the very people who are presently well disposed towards them.

Stu,

I don't think that you understand that nudists are a very small minority group in society. They are not going to take over the world. Heck, they have a hard enough time trying to get a beach here and there designated as an official nudist beach. If you take a minute and try to see things from a nudist's perspective, you will find that it is generally the nudists who are dictated to and controlled by society. Where is the respect and tolerance that the textile world has for nudists? Is it not a two way street? Why are so many in the textile world so adamant about eliminating nudism altogether? It is not unreasonable to tell nudists that they can only be nude on certain designated nude beaches. The textile world, for the most part, will not even allow nudists to have those beaches. If there is an empty beach out of sight of people, then it is reasonable to allow someone to strip off and sunbathe nude if they so chose. The reality, in far too many cases, is that the values of the wider community are intolerant towards nudists and in so many cases the wider community abuses nudists. You can not reasonable expect nudists to sit back and take this abuse.

If the sight of a nude body is so traumatic to you, then I do strongly suggest ( and with respectful intentions ) that you seek professional counseling to determine what has caused this very strong reaction within you. It is not a normal reaction and I do sincerely hope that you can identify the causes of it and then deal with it. Your last post above shows a great deal of pure anger and hostility towards nudists and this is not normal. Even though the sight of a naked body may be offensive to some, it does not generate such angry reactions unless there are additional underlying reasons for such anger.

MoonShadow

07-14-2007, 07:19 AM

Very well said, MrTruth!

MJ_KC

07-14-2007, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
reasonable and tolerant majority
I didn't know that you were a comedian. That was good for a laugh.

Bobx23456

07-14-2007, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I do find some of the responses here to be not just disappointing, but positively sinister. The attitude seems to be coming across that prudes (for want of a better word) should have no rights, but nudists should have absolute freedom. If I find the sight of nudity on beaches offensive and unacceptable, then I should stay off all beaches. It implies that nudists have some mandate - some God-given right - to "re-programme" the rest of the human race about our attitude towards the naked human body. That is fundamentalism. It brooks no compromise. It is deeply intolerant and has no respect for other beliefs and perspectives. It is alien to the concepts of freedom and tolerance our common forefathers fought to establish and preserve. It's the philosophy of "we're right and you are wrong and we are going to force you to come around to our way of thinking". It is certainly not an ideology which is alien to the regimes of Iran and North Korea, nor to the Taliban.

If nudists want to be respected and have freedom to practise, they will not win it by threatening the values of the wider community. Once this attitude becomes apparent, all they will win is distrust, intransigence and hostility from the reasonable and tolerant majority - the very people who are presently well disposed towards them.
Stu

I do find some of the responses here to be not just disappointing, but positively sinister. The attitude seems to be coming across that nudes (for want of a better word) should have no rights, but clothing compulsive prudes should have absolute freedom. If I find the sight of textile draped prudes on beaches offensive and unacceptable, then I should stay off all beaches. It implies that textile compulsive prudes have some mandate - some God-given right - to "re-programme" the rest of the human race about our healthy attitude towards the naked human body. That is fundamentalism. It brooks no compromise. It is deeply intolerant and has no respect for other beliefs and perspectives. It is alien to the concepts of freedom and tolerance our common forefathers fought to establish and preserve. It's the philosophy of "we're right and you are wrong and we are going to force you to come around to our way of thinking". It is certainly not an ideology which is alien to the regimes of Iran and North Korea, nor to the Taliban.

If prudes want to be respected and have freedom to practise their clothing compusion, they will not win it by threatening the values of the naked healthy community. Once this attitude becomes apparent, all they will win is distrust, intransigence and hostility from the reasonable and tolerant majority - the very people who are presently well disposed towards them.

Real freedom is when BOTH people are free to do what they want, and neither is trying to force the other to comply with their views. It is plain here who is trying to force their beliefs on their neighbors.

Blessings

Bob

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 09:03 AM

MoonShadow

I think you have to distinguish between 'anti-nudist' and 'anti-nudity'. I really don't believe most people are anti-nudist - they just want to be able to use beaches and other facilities without the risk of encountering naked people. It is because nudists are such a small minority that it is encumbent upon them to negotiate venues, rather than trying to establish a right to be nude anywhere they please and telling me that, if I don't like nudity, I should avoid going to beaches.

Mr Truth

Why are so many in the textile world so adamant about eliminating nudism altogether?

Because there are extremists in non-nudism as well as in nudism. But the majority of people have no wish to eliminate nudism just as (I hope) most nudists are willing to reach a compromise and limit the places they practise in order to avoid offending people.

It is not unreasonable to tell nudists that they can only be nude on certain designated nude beaches.

It is not unreasonable if those beaches are likely to be occupied by non-nudists, just as it is not unreasonable to keep some beaches for the exclusive use of nudists. Obviously the former will massively outnumber the latter because, a you point out, nudists are a tiny minority.

The textile world, for the most part, will not even allow nudists to have those beaches.

I don't believe the majority of textiles have any desire to prevent nudists enjoying their places. I strongly support nudists being allocated more places with better facilities and that are easily accessible.

If there is an empty beach out of sight of people, then it is reasonable to allow someone to strip off and sunbathe nude if they so chose.

So long as nudists are considerate, I don't believe many people would deny anyone the pleasure of, for example, skinnydipping at some remote location.

Bob

As two other contributors to this thread have helpfully pointed out, nudists are a "tiny minority". In my country, nudists comprise a similar proportion of the population as Muslims. It is not unreasonable to expect the minority to be willing to negotiate with the majority to win rights and privileges. Here in the UK, we have a long-established school uniform policy which is well understood and accepted. Some Muslim girls (or perhaps their parents) want the right to be allowed to wear the hijab or even the full veil at school. Is it not reasonable for the wider community to expect the Muslims to negotiate? Is it so unreasonable to expect some give-and-take on both sides? Would the Muslims be within their rights to say, "We're wearing our traditional garb and if you don't like it, well that's your problem. If you see it often enough, you'll get used to it." Because that is a very close analogy to your position of forcing the majority of the population to accept what they find unacceptable.

Here in the UK, there are some Muslim schools where children can dress entirely according to their cultural tradition. Other Muslim children must negotiate with their own respective schools, and that means sometimes conforming to the same rules as all the other children. Similarly, nudists have their own beaches where they can be as naked as they like, but if they want to use other public places to be naked they will have to be respectful and considerate of the non-nudist majority.

Nudists have a legitimate battle to fight - that is to secure more venues that they are able to use and I support them 100% in that endeavour. But I suspect that most people in my society would not favour nudity becoming allowable in any public place, and if nudists try to force that issue, they'll face some serious opposition, and possibly lose some of the valuable public goodwill that generations of responsible nudism has earned them.

Stu

MrTruth

07-14-2007, 09:26 AM

It is not unreasonable if those beaches are likely to be occupied by non-nudists, just as it is not unreasonable to keep some beaches for the exclusive use of nudists.

The majority of the textile world does not understand nudism, like nudism, or is even willing to tolerate nudism. Laws in the USA currently reflect this attitude.

I don't believe the majority of textiles have any desire to prevent nudists enjoying their places.

The majority of the textile world DOES indeed wish to prevent nudists from enjoying their places. The majority of the textile world does not and will not allow nudists to have their own beaches (as can be readily understood by the few nudist beaches availible - many of which are NOT technically legal), and will not even consider sharing or partitioning a beach so that nudists can enjoy one side and non nudist another side.

So long as nudists are considerate, I don't believe many people would deny anyone the pleasure of, for example, skinnydipping at some remote location.

Even with extreme consideration on the part of nudists, the majority of the textile world does not tolerate nudism in any way, shape or form. As an example, we used to go to a very isolated and empty lake beach. Our small group bothered no one. Then, one Saturday afternoon, a boat decided to back into our little lake cove and set anchor. This was a family and they parked right in front of us. The following Saturday, there were two additional boats that anchored next to this first boat. We, the nudists, were using this beach first and were considerate. However, we lost the use of this beach because the textile users had the law on their side. This is just a typical example of how the textile world is INCONSIDERATE of nudists.

Nudists do NOT have equal rights. Laws are AGAINST them. MOST textiles are against them. The only factual issue is this: When will the textile world learn to accept nudists and start to accomodate them by allowing them to have a FEW legal nude beaches, and start to SHARE other beaches, parks, etc with nudists.

Bobx23456

07-14-2007, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
As two other contributors to this thread have helpfully pointed out, nudists are a "tiny minority". In my country, nudists comprise a similar proportion of the population as Muslims. It is not unreasonable to expect the minority to be willing to negotiate with the majority to win rights and privileges.
Stu

The essense of democracy is the ability to protect the miniority from the tyranny of the majority. Your version of "rights" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's not democracy, that's tyranny. You expect that you have a "right" to trample the rights of your neighbor, to force compliance with your bodily shame and compel my compliance with guns, clubs, and prisons. That's not "rights," its tyranny, and it's offensive.

As for "tiny minority" surveys have shown that only about 1% of the population agree with your sordid intolerant view about forced clothing. The majority are naked at home and would be naked a lot more if it wasn't so forced by the intollerant. The majority don't care if naked people are seen in most places, only a small ninority share your guilt and intolerance.

Blessings

Bob

MJ_KC

07-14-2007, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
The essense of democracy is the ability to protect the miniority from the tyranny of the majority. Your version of "rights" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's not democracy, that's tyranny. You expect that you have a "right" to trample the rights of your neighbor, to force compliance with your bodily shame and compel my compliance with guns, clubs, and prisons. That's not "rights," its tyranny, and it's offensive.
That is why we have laws to protect the rights of minority groups. It is a shame that instead of protecting us, the laws do exactly what you described above.

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 10:15 AM

Mr Truth

You are clearly speaking from a North American perspective whereas I am speaking from a European one. Maybe that's why our perceptions are so divergent. If your society is as intolerant as you say it is - and I'll take your word for it that it is - then you have my sympathy and I am fully on your when you ask for more and better facilities. That is a reasonable demand. However, it is not reasonable to demand a right to be naked anywhere and everywhere you choose regardless of the feelings of others.

Bob

The essense of democracy is the ability to protect the miniority from the tyranny of the majority.

That sounds good, Bob, but how far do you take that? Do you protect minorities like, say, paedophiles? Or Islamic extremists? Democracy should respect everyone and there should be no tyranny. What you seem to be advocating is a tyranny of a minority who have no respect for another section of society (prudes). You appear to be suggesting that people like myself should not be able to live free from the sight of something we find deeply unacceptable - the sight of naked strangers.

As for "tiny minority" surveys have shown that only about 1% of the population agree with your sordid intolerant view about forced clothing

Could you provide a reference to support that claim, Bob? Because I reckon you have misinterpreted either the survey or what I am advocating.

The majority are naked at home and would be naked a lot more if it wasn't so forced by the intollerant. The majority don't care if naked people are seen in most places, only a small ninority share your guilt and intolerance.

I don't buy that, either. And I don't think other nudists do. You see, that perception doesn't square with what MrTruth says, above:

The majority of the textile world DOES indeed wish to prevent nudists from enjoying their places. The majority of the textile world does not and will not allow nudists to have their own beaches...and will not even consider sharing or partitioning a beach so that nudists can enjoy one side and non nudist another side.

I have never claimed that most textiles share my particular level of discomfort with nudity - I know that they don't so I don't expect the laws to cater for my particular feelings about it. But I do believe - and others here also seem to believe - that most textiles have no desire to be naked themselves and simply don't want to be around naked people. They have that right and it should be protected.

Stu

MrTruth

07-14-2007, 11:03 AM

However, it is not reasonable to demand a right to be naked anywhere and everywhere you choose regardless of the feelings of others.

This is comon sense and the vast majority of nudists do not demand to be naked anywhere and everywhere on this planet.

Who is forcing their nudity on you and where are they forcing it upon you? Are there naked people standing by your front door? Your front garden? Your street, park, city centre, etc? If they are, then the laws are still on your side and you can prohibit that very easily.

It is very clear to most intelligent people that they do not have the right to be naked anywhere or everywhere. Why even bring up this point when it seems to apply to only a select few?

You are not surrounded by naked people unless you actively seek them out. You also have to be reasonable and understand the intent of nudism. For example, if your neighbour decides that he or she wants to sunbathe nude in their back garden, then you are entitled to have a civil conversation with your neighbour and state that you find nudism objectionable. Both you and your neighbour have rights. The obvious solution would be something more like a compromise where a wall or fence is erected to provide a place where your neighbour can sunbathe nude and provide you with a screen so that you do not have to look at it. Compromise is the solution.
You are very adament in your feelings against nudism. The real world works best with compromise. Take for example a beach. Since nudists are such a small minority in society, you may find, at best, perhaps 6 nudists using one small part of the beach on a sporadic basis. You can easily find many more textiles who will use this beach. Does common sense allow someone to designate this beach as a nudist or nude use beach when the majority of users are textile? Does the majority textile use of this beach always prohibit nude use of this beach? Is not the best use of this beach a compromise where the nude users have a small designated area that they can sunbathe nude without being arrested and the rest of the beach used for textiles. The nudists obviously must compromise? Can not the textiles also compromise a little bit and allow the nudists to use their portion of the beach? The sight of a nude sunbather might be offensive to some textiles but if this is the case, then the textiles need to go to a textile only beach (of which the vast majority are). The moral of the story is this: The vast majority of nudists and non nudists can compromise, get along, and share their beach. For those textiles who are so adament about being anti nudist, then perhaps the solution for these few individuals is to specifically designate a few textile only beaches and allow the vast majority of beaches to be dual use. Problem solved.

Bobx23456

07-14-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Bob
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The essense of democracy is the ability to protect the miniority from the tyranny of the majority.

That sounds good, Bob, but how far do you take that? Do you protect minorities like, say, paedophiles? Or Islamic extremists? Democracy should respect everyone and there should be no tyranny. What you seem to be advocating is a tyranny of a minority who have no respect for another section of society (prudes). You appear to be suggesting that people like myself should not be able to live free from the sight of something we find deeply unacceptable - the sight of naked strangers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds good, Stu, but how far do you take that? Do you protect minorities like, say, paedophiles? Or Islamic extremists? [Physically harming another is a valid and needed protection. Forced non-injurious behavior is not. Nudity neither breaks your arm or empties your purse.] Democracy should respect everyone and there should be no tyranny. What you seem to be advocating is a tyranny of a minority who have no respect for another section of society (nudes). You appear to be suggesting that people like myself should not be able to live free from oppression by clubs, chains, guns and cages. You appear to be suggsting that people like myself should notbe able to live free from sight of something we find deeply unacceptable - the sight of clothed strangers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for "tiny minority" surveys have shown that only about 1% of the population agree with your sordid intolerant view about forced clothing

Could you provide a reference to support that claim, Bob? Because I reckon you have misinterpreted either the survey or what I am advocating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surveys were posted on CFI forum yesterday.

Blessings

Bob

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 12:06 PM

MrTruth

You talk great sense. I find I can agree with you on virtually everything you are saying. Just a couple of points for clarification:

the vast majority of nudists do not demand to be naked anywhere and everywhere on this planet

I'm sure that's true. But please read the views of some of the nudists contributing to this thread and you will see that they think they have the right to be naked pretty much wherever they like.

Who is forcing their nudity on you and where are they forcing it upon you?

Some would like to do that. Look at what Bob said on the previous page:

Instead of hiding in secret little communities we should be out being seen by the public at every opportunity. That, and only that, will make naked people acceptable in public.

You talk of negotiation and compromise, and that's all I'm asking for. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Stu

MrTruth

07-14-2007, 12:21 PM

You talk of negotiation and compromise, and that's all I'm asking for.

Stu, It's great that you will accept compromise. The best compromise is to have a dual use and shared use beach policy for the vast majority of beaches. Such beaches would need laws and protections for nudists to prevent gawkers and other assorted textiles who wish to force their viewpoints upon the nudists. We also need a few nude only beaches where those nudists who are offended by the sight of textiles can come to be among other pure nudists. We should also have a few textile only beaches where those who are so offended by the sight of nude people can come to be among other textiles.

The problem in today's world is that the textiles have written the rules and laws and will not tolerate or allow (in most cases) nude only beaches or dual use beaches. The majority rule always seems to be creating new laws that protect society from nudists. Where is the compromise and fairness when few, if any laws, are created to even acknowledge (let alone protect) the rights of nudists?

If you think about this issue, overall, you will find that the vast majority of nudists don't even have a chance to have their voice heard and never get to a compromise level. The textiles have ensured this by creating a toxic environment (mostly through their own ignorance of what nudism is all about) and won't even listen to rational arguments from nudists.

Textiles have created the laws and nudists continue to be abused, gawked at, harassed, fined, and jailed by a majority anti nudist society.

As for your statements about individuals wanting public nudity anywhere and everywhere, you need not worry. This is not and will not even remotely be the case in the foreseable future.

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 12:26 PM

[Physically harming another is a valid and needed protection. Forced non-injurious behavior is not. Nudity neither breaks your arm or empties your purse.]

Bob - the fact that something you do does not physically injure someone else is not the yardstick we use to determine if a kind of behaviour is acceptable in public. Is it OK to, for example, erect a screen in your front garden and show pornographic films to passers-by? Is it OK to racially abuse black people waiting at a bus stop? Is it OK to shout obscenities in the street outside a kindergarden? These behaviours are not "physically injurious": none of them "breaks your arm or empties your purse", but they are not acceptable and in most cases they are illegal in your country and mine.

You appear to be suggsting that people like myself should notbe able to live free from sight of something we find deeply unacceptable - the sight of clothed strangers.

If you feel that strongly about the sight of clothed strangers, Bob, then you should be able to form your own colony where you can live with other, likeminded people. In such communities, you can make your own rules because you would be the majority.

Surveys were posted on CFI forum yesterday.

Do you mean the "fun" telephone survey conducted by a member of this forum? Hardly scientific, empirical evidence, is it? And the fact that people are more likely to be naked in their own homes is hardly an indicator of their level of acceptance of nudity in public by complete strangers.

And then there is the dodgy interpretation of statistics by Pete. He quotes:

"82% said it was right to make nudity legal on beaches."

No. It said SOME beaches - not, as Pete is trying to suggest, ALL beaches. "In the first survey attitudes to naturism, NOP Omnibus found 82 per cent of the GB population felt it right make nudity legal on some some beaches..

http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/news/detail.asp?article_ID=8

Nobody is suggesting that nudity shouldn't be allowed on some beaches - i.e those beaches which are designated for nudist use and segregated from the textile beaches.

Bob - I infer from your posts that you think I am in some way hostile towards nudism whereas the reverse is true. I actually admire and respect nudism and I support their efforts to gain better acceptance and more and better facilities. But I want you to enjoy them among like-minded nudists and allow me to enjoy my facilities among likeminded textiles. That's not tyranny, it's tolerance and reasonableness.

Stu

Bobx23456

07-14-2007, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Here in the UK, we have a long-established school uniform policy which is well understood and accepted. Some Muslim girls (or perhaps their parents) want the right to be allowed to wear the hijab or even the full veil at school. Is it not reasonable for the wider community to expect the Muslims to negotiate? Is it so unreasonable to expect some give-and-take on both sides? Would the Muslims be within their rights to say, "We're wearing our traditional garb and if you don't like it, well that's your problem. If you see it often enough, you'll get used to it." Because that is a very close analogy to your position of forcing the majority of the population to accept what they find unacceptable....Stu

How does it harm you if muslim's wear what they choose to wear? You seem to want to force muslims to wear the clothes that YOU think are appropriate. Its not about being nude or not nude, its about Stu's "right" to dictate clothing styles to everybody else. Stu thinks he's the majority, so what the majority chooses should be forced on everyone else. Its like two wolves and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner. Its the tyranny of the majority, and the antithisis of a free democracy.

Stu, I think its time to get off your high horse and start considering that your neighbor may have some "rights" too. He has as much right to dress or not as you do. He has as much right to tell you how to dress as you have to tell him. Unless you can show us some divine power to decide what is "right" for me then you my rights are equal to yours.

If you want to hide away in cloisters of clothed people at the far end of the beach, that is fine with me. But I see no divine right to demand full covering burkas or half covering shorts. It should be the a free choice for ALL.

Blessings

Bob

Stu2630

07-14-2007, 02:22 PM

Bob, I am saying that there should be plenty of decent beaches provided for nudists and in return you are offering people like me nothing. The textile world can not negotiate with people of your mindset because you refuse any kind of compromise - the majority must accept your terms and nothing less. If that attitude were to become the norm among the nudist minority in our society, it would serve only to alienate and antagonise the textile majority and that would set nudists up for a battle they could never win.

Of course nudists should be respected, but so should the feelings of prudes- We don't want to be re-programmed by a small number of nudists intent upon "breaking" our "shame".

Stu

kphoger

07-14-2007, 03:06 PM

Would the Muslims be within their rights to say, "We're wearing our traditional garb and if you don't like it, well that's your problem. If you see it often enough, you'll get used to it." Because that is a very close analogy to your position of forcing the majority of the population to accept what they find unacceptable.

wow, is it really illegal to wear the hijab in the u.k.? because that's what it sounds like to me. i had college classmates who dressed in traditional muslim garb, and i can imagine the outcry if they weren't allowed to.

i respect the right of a private business or other entity to enact a dress code. i still don't like it that i have to wear shoes at the milk store, and it really ticked me off when the lady in wal-mart told me to put my shirt on when there was no sign on the door, but i respect their right to private enterprise. i also think it's not too reasonable to expect to be able to walk down the street with no clothes on - although, to be honest with you, i often wish i had that freedom. i'm simply saying that there are places where it makes sense to expect some people to be nude, especially at the beach. people with a severe aversion to the nude body can simply stay away from these places, people who don't care one way or the other can go and not be bothered much (especially if the nudists stay to one end), and nudists can go without fear of prosecution.

some people are offended by bikinis - take pentecostal christians, for example, who represent 30 million of the american population. surely you agree it would be silly to outlaw the bikini because 30 million people (and that's not counting everybody else who's offended, such as muslims and others) find the sight of it morally objectionable, right? it's simply understood that those people can simply avoid going to the beach. do you see that this is just one step away from what we're talking about?

Bobx23456

07-14-2007, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Of course nudists should be respected, but so should the feelings of prudes- We don't want to be re-programmed by a small number of nudists intent upon "breaking" our "shame".
Stu

Stu: Of course textiles should be respected, but so should the feelings of nudes- We don't want to be re-programmed by a small number of textiles intent upon "hiding" our "shame".

Blessings

Bob

Arnabas

07-15-2007, 12:00 AM

I find that the more this discussion draws out, the more respect I am having for Stu and his ability to keep his cool. I am also somewhat disappointed in Bob, whose method of debate seems to be to copy and paste then switch a few words. I understand his intent-- to show that arguments can be made both ways, but from the tone of the posts so far, I am finding Stu to be tolerant and Bob to be somewhat aggressive.

To be sure, I don't know either of you and have no idea as to your real personalities, but this is how the posts seem to be playing out.

Both sides deserve respect and consideration. If someone is uncomfortable with the sight of me being nude, then I should not be nude in front of them. If, however, that person comes into a place where nudists congregate, he loses the right to complain, as he has chosen to go someplace where he should expect to see the thing he deems objectionable.

I do not like cigarette smoke (for various reasons, including the fact that smoking killed my mother), so I avoided places (bars, etc) where it was reasonable to expect people to be smoking. If I went to a bar on a rare occasion, I did not feel my rights to a smoke-free environment were being infringed, since I was the one who chose to be there.

Yes, nudists need more places for themselves. Yes they need more rights under the law. But even without laws, basic human courtesy and consideration should require us to respect those who do not wish to see nudity.

Stu does not want to have to see me naked. Fair enough. I shouldn't be naked in front of him. I also shouldn't be a little kid and say "oh yeah? Well I don't want to see you clothed! Your jeans and t-shirt offend me!" Gaining rights for nudists does not require taking rights away from textiles. One does not find balance by going from one extreme to another.

We all have to share this earth. Some of us wish to be nude, others do not. There is room for us all. I do think nudists need to spread the word and educate people about the joys of nudism and correct any misconceptions about it, but we don't have to smack people over the head with our exposed penises and say "accept this!"

:P

Stu2630

07-15-2007, 05:46 AM

is it really illegal to wear the hijab in the u.k.?

No, it's not illegal. But many European schools have strict uniform policies and they require all children to conform to these during school hours. There are plenty of options for Muslims - they can choose to go to a Muslim school if there is one in their area; they can attend a school which does not have a uniform at all or has a relaxed uniform policy; or they can negotiate with the particular school they wish to attend (e.g. a school may agree to allow a headscarf but not a full veil). Because of this, in the vast majority of cases, it's not a problem.

i'm simply saying that there are places where it makes sense to expect some people to be nude, especially at the beach. people with a severe aversion to the nude body can simply stay away from these places

Hmm. What you are saying is that people who don't feel comfortable around naked strangers should be denied effectively denied the use of all beaches. That would affect a heck of a lot of people and simply isn't reasonable. That's why the status quo of some nude-only beaches, some clothes-optional beaches and some textile beaches should be preserved. Only that way can we all have the right to enjoy ourselves on the beach in the way that we prefer.

some people are offended by bikinis - take pentecostal christians, for example, who represent 30 million of the american population. surely you agree it would be silly to outlaw the bikini because 30 million people (and that's not counting everybody else who's offended, such as muslims and others) find the sight of it morally objectionable, right?

Again, these still amount to a fairly small minority (in a country of 300 million) whereas I would argue that most women want to have the option of wearing a bikini. But it's a substantial minority and perhaps we should cater for them as we do for the nudist minority and allow them to have some bikini-free beaches. As Arnabus eloquently puts it: "We all have to share this earth. Some of us wish to be nude, others do not. There is room for us all."

Stu

soundman

07-15-2007, 12:10 PM

Stu2630 said:
Hmm. What you are saying is that people who don't feel comfortable around naked strangers should be denied effectively denied the use of all beaches.
What are you saying? People who do feel comfortable with nudism should be denied to practice it at ALL beaches?

Stu2630

07-15-2007, 12:20 PM

What are you saying? People who do feel comfortable with nudism should be denied to practice it at ALL beaches?

Of course.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Nude-only beaches - you must be nude.
Clothing-optional beaches - and beaches where you are out of sight of others - wear as little or as much as you like.
Textile beaches - you keep your backside and crotch areas covered up. [/list]

Does that really sound unreasonable?

Stu

soundman

07-15-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What are you saying? People who do feel comfortable with nudism should be denied to practice it at ALL beaches?

Of course.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Nude-only beaches - you must be nude.
Clothing-optional beaches - and beaches where you are out of sight of others - wear as little or as much as you like.
Textile beaches - you keep your backside and crotch areas covered up. [/list]

Does that really sound unreasonable?

Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your first said ALL beaches. As long as there are a few nudes beaches, that is very fair.

MoonShadow

07-15-2007, 01:11 PM

Soundman, if Stu has his druthers, there would no nudity at all. He says he is for parts of beaches, secluded ones, to be for nudists, but that is not exactly what he means. He doesn't want ANY nudity anywhere he is. Since he goes to beaches, he truly doesn't want "part" of the beach to be for nudists. His preference is no nudity at all, anywhere.

Stu2630

07-15-2007, 01:25 PM

As long as there are a few nudes beaches, that is very fair.

Soundman. I agree. The number of nudes beaches should be roughly proportionate to the number of people who want to bathe nude.

His preference is no nudity at all, anywhere.

MoonShadow

I'm puzzled why you say that because it's plainly the opposite of what I am saying. I am perfectly happy for there to be nude and c/o beaches - in fact, I have said repeatedly that I think there should be more such beaches. Obviously I won't be using them because I like to avoid any chance of encountering naked people.

Stu

MoonShadow

07-15-2007, 04:15 PM

Stu, I don't understand why you are puzzled. I have read your threads with their inconsistencies thanks to a pm I got from a former forum member. The gist is you do not approve of nudity at all, don't want it around you and in between the lines you don't want it around period for anyone.

You state in some posts you agree there should be places for nudists, then a few posts later, there have to be stipulations as to where they are and how "hidden" they must be. In a post on July 14th, I believe, you were showing almost anger, then your next post you tempered it down.

Your postings have the same basic theme .... anti-nudity, anti-nudism.....and you "politely" (a good strategy to use) argue with anyone about rights and non-rights.

Stu2630

07-15-2007, 04:43 PM

MoonShadow

Ah, you got a PM! Some people here don't take me on because they're not eloquent enough to debate with me and all they can do is try to discourage others from doing so by sending them PMs (which of course I have no sight of so can not defend myself from). Why don't you judge me on what you see yourself? Let's look at what you accuse me of:

The gist is you do not approve of nudity at all

I don't know where you get that "gist" from. Nudity is simply a state of undress - one that I adopt every morning when taking a shower. If some people want to be nude in private, or at nudist venues - that's absolutely fine - I thoroughly approve of it and support their right to indulge in that form of recreation.

don't want it around you

That's quite true. I don't like nudity myself.

and in between the lines you don't want it around period for anyone.

Don't "read between the lines" because you are reading what isn't there and that's unfair to me. Take me for what I actually say and please don't try to assign some non-existent subtext. I'll say what I think - no more, no less.

You state in some posts you agree there should be places for nudists, then a few posts later, there have to be stipulations as to where they are and how "hidden" they must be.

"Hidden" is your word. I make no secret of the fact that I believe nudity should only be visible to those who could reasonably be expected to be comfortable with seeing it. If that means erecting a fence or a hedge, or just having a reasonable distance between nudists and non-nudists, then that's fine by me.

In a post on July 14th, I believe, you were showing almost anger, then your next post you tempered it down.

What makes me angry here is when people start to ascribe to me things that I haven't said and beliefs that I do not hold. If I believe something, I'll say it - if I don't believe something I won't.

What also irritates me is when nudists (rightly) demand things like tolerance, their fair share of public space and so on, and then in the next breath suggest that people who are not comfortable with and around nudity have no rights and should be shown no consideration. And then they have the brass necks to call me a bigot!

There are a lot of people here that I like and even admire, MoonShadow. Some of them I have corresponded with privately - and one or two I have even invited to visit me - and one I expect to do so either next year or the year after as my house guest(so long as he keeps his kit on - which he has promised to do!)

When you first engaged me in discussion, I enjoyed our exchanges and thought you were fair-minded and would accept that there are two sides to every argument. Was I wrong about that?

Stu

Bob S.

07-15-2007, 08:41 PM

Stu:"What also irritates me is when nudists (rightly) demand things like tolerance, their fair share of public space and so on, and then in the next breath suggest that people who are not comfortable with and around nudity have no rights and should be shown no consideration. And then they have the brass necks to call me a bigot!"

The problem, Stu, as you know from our illustrious past, is that nudists are persecuted way too often. People view us as potential child abusers, exhibitionists, freaks, and a host of other labels. In some places, simply skinny-dipping in a private area, urinating behind a tree at night away from the public, and other harmless, innocent nudity can put us on the sex-offender's registry. Lewd conduct is not necessary to get on that registry, just the showing of the penis, vagina, or buttock.

People and governments also try to shut down certain places where we go such as beaches and parks, other govts deny us the very existence of nudist parks.

There is so much going on in terms of disrespecting us at every turn that sometimes, we just feel the need to lash out. You understand that, don't you? A lack of tolerance is mainly focused one way--against us. We actually tolerate a lot of bigoted comments by textiles and prudes. Once in a while, they need to be told that they are bigoted. Of course, I am not calling you so, Stu, and I would not accept anyone calling you so.

Bob S.

Dario Western

07-15-2007, 08:53 PM

Wow! I didn't expect this thread to go in the direction it did. You guys should really be posting your debates on the Yahoo! group as mentioned in my first post instead of here.

Stu, I don't know who you are, but if you don't like nudity or nudism then why are you on this forum?

The purpose of shame breakers is to create a world whereby nudists can integrate with the rest of society and eventually become the majority.

I for one find segregation of nudists because people like you find the human body offensive to be well and truly disgusting.

Dario Western

MrTruth

07-15-2007, 09:23 PM

Stu,

I am still wondering why you are interested in this forum? You have proclaimed that you have very strong feelings against seeing nude people. In a forum such as this, most people have some positive feelings or connection to nudism. There is even a daily nude photo when someone first signs into this forum. When I think of you coming to this forum, I associate this with the act of someone who loves to drink going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting to talk to those who are trying to quit drinking and tell them what they are missing out on. In other words, your beliefs are the exact opposite of what most people believe in this forum. I would think that this forum would only serve to rub salt into your wounds of nude abhorrance. I would also think that at a subconscious level, you also would have ill feelings towards nudists. This is natural and supports you conscious feelings of fear or anger of seeing a nude person. You must also realize that what brings most of us together here is our enjoyment of nude recreation. We all believe in varying degrees of nudism ie some are happy with a few nude beaches and others want to be nude everywhere. However, in spite of such minor differences, we all still support nudism in one way or another. You must also realize that by speaking out in a manner that restricts nudism, you will not be the most popular person here. What interests you so much about this forum? Afterall, it is a forum of people who practice a lifestyle that you find repulsive and hence why torture yourself by communicating with people who practice something that you not only reject for yourself, but you adamently are repulsed by?

Bobx23456

07-15-2007, 09:40 PM

Stu, I don't know who you are, but if you don't like nudity or nudism then why are you on this forum?

The purpose of shame breakers is to create a world whereby nudists can integrate with the rest of society and eventually become the majority.
Dario Western

I have wondered that about Stu myself. He seems to be here as a troll, to disrupt and object to the purpose of the forum. He opposes and objects to nudity, claims that he has a right never to see naked people at beaches, or anywhere else. Its the same old power arguments, his "right" to force clothes on everyone else.

Blessings

Bob

Stu2630

07-16-2007, 09:45 AM

BobS

There is so much going on in terms of disrespecting us at every turn that sometimes, we just feel the need to lash out.

Of course I understand. There are ignoramuses out there who entirely misunderstand nudism and associate it with all manner of stuff including paedophilia, orgies and who knows what else. These imbeciles annoy me because I regard responsible nudists (i.e. most nudists) as an asset to our world and they are entitled to understanding, respect and consideration. They should not have to put up with such ill-informed abuse and I am not surprised that nudists lash out. You've known me for a long time, Bob, and you can confirm I'm not anti-nudist - quite the reverse. There are some people here who are trying to paint me that way.

Dario

I don't like nudity, but I do like discussing these issues with nudists. I genuinely find the subject interesting.

We are not going to agree on your main point. I am wholeheartedly in favour of nudists having places to practise, but only on the understanding that they are segregated from the rest of us. I am happy to meet nudists and even have nudist friends, but I do not to be anywhere near you when you choose to be naked. I consider that I have a right to avoid encountering naked strangers and I will do whatever I can to preserve and uphold that right. So you know where I stand.

MrTruth

You have an odd perception of my interest - let's see if I can make it a bit clearer. Firstly, I do find the topic of nudism to be fascinating. At this time, nudism has no impact upon my life because I never see it: I don't find nudism "repulsive" and I certainly don't find nudists repulsive - I just don't like to be around people when they are naked. Big difference! I actually think I have a great deal in common with nudists. I regard myself as a non-conformist and I like to do my own thing often in contravention of society's norms. So I really enjoy coming here and have also made some friends here. Many nudists I talk to actually agree with virtually everything I say. They are perfectly content practising in segregated places among likeminded nudists and have no desire to "push the envelope". The reason I am singled out is because I am saying these things from the perspective of a non-nudist. Dario introduced this thread which is about foisting the sight of nakedness onto other people who have not consented to it and regardless of their feelings. He, and those who share his views, appear to think they have the right to "re-programme" the textile mind in how it relates to nakedness. I profoundly disagree and I believe it is disrespectful to, and intolerant of, the millions of people who are quite happy with their existing mind-set of nudity.

Bob23456

I'm not disrupting anything - I'm discussing the issues on a discussion board. A troll is someone who simply comes to throw in a verbal hand-grenade and then stands back to watch the fireworks. It should be obvious to anyone that's not what I'm about. I have a genuine interest in this topic and believe passionately in what I say. In most cases, I will support and speak up for nudism and nudists as a friend who is, and will no doubt remain, firmly "on the outside" of nudism. But if I think my nudist friends are pursuing an unreasonable aim, I'll tell you - and I'll explain why I think that.

Stu

nimrod

07-16-2007, 02:06 PM

I never called anyone in particular a bigot, if anyone was offended by my comments maybe they have a problem with their own views or behavoirs. I was just trying to point out that forced segregation is a form of bigotry.

As nudist we are the minority, but that is because of the prejugdices against us. The general public has been told that nudity is wrong and most believe it without being told the other side of things. Breaking the nudity barrier is telling our side of the story, letting people know that we are being discriminated against, that we are being segregated to few, and growing fewer, places where it is safe and acceptable to be nude.

Forcing nudity on the general public is a way of showing that nudity is not the evil that most people believe it to be, but I do not believe that it is the best way of going about it, because of the attitudes that people have against nudity, and people should not be forced into changing their beliefs. Baby steps, people, baby steps.

It is the few(the people who are truly horrorfied by nudity) that are leading the majority(the people that were taught that nudity is wrong) in anti-nudity laws, we need to sway the opinion towards us.

Bobx23456

07-16-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by nimrod:
I never called anyone in particular a bigot, if anyone was offended by my comments maybe they have a problem with their own views or behavoirs. I was just trying to point out that forced segregation is a form of bigotry.

As nudist we are the minority, but that is because of the prejugdices against us. The general public has been told that nudity is wrong and most believe it without being told the other side of things. Breaking the nudity barrier is telling our side of the story, letting people know that we are being discriminated against, that we are being segregated to few, and growing fewer, places where it is safe and exceptable to be nude.

Forcing nudity on the general public is a way of showing that nudity is not the evil that most people believe it to be, but I do not believe that it is the best way of going about it, because of the attitudes that people have against nudity, and people should not be forced into changing their beliefs. Baby steps, people, baby steps.

It is the few(the people who are truly horrorfied by nudity) that are leading the majority(the people that were taught that nudity is wrong) in anti-nudity laws, we need to sway the opinion towards us.

Good rant. Senting naked people to the back of the bus, or refusing to allow them to eat at the same lunch counter, is bigotry.

Blessings
Bob

walter05

07-16-2007, 03:00 PM

Stu;

In the case of the Muslims attending the public school, I think you are narrow. Unless the mode of dress poses a security or other concern, if it is required by their religion to dress a certain way, I think it should be accommodated.

However, I would rephrase your point this way. Jewish people who keep Kosher should not expect that all restaurants keep Kosher so that a Jewish person can eat anywhere. It should be a free choice. We should not force others to eat only Kosher.

When it makes sense, free people in a free market economy provide Kosher establishments. Those that want them can then enjoy them. Those that don't can go elsewhere.

There are many instances where some Muslims in the U.S. have objected to pork and other items being served in school cafeterias and other establishments. They have attempted to force their religious practices on others. This is wrong and intolerant.

Neither the majority nor minority should force practices or views on the other. However, the more common practices should be expected in general. This would mean that most eating establishments in the U.S. would not be Kosher and serve pork if they wish. That should be fine as long as someone not wishing to eat it is not forced to do so.

No one should force anything on anyone. I am certain that if nudism becomes something forced on society, society will react to restrict it more.

There should be more accommodation of nudism. I also wish for there to be more places for nude recreation. It should be more common at beaches, etc. Stu has also agreed with this.

If we start on what we all agree on and attempt to accomplish that in a non-threatening way, we may find that the public will be more accepting of other nudist activities.

Stu2630

07-16-2007, 04:22 PM

I was just trying to point out that forced segregation is a form of bigotry.

Nimrod. Forcing segregation of people on the basis of their inherent immutable characteristics is bigotry - it is apartheid. Segregating people who, at the material time, wish to behave in a way that could offend others is not bigotry - it is reasonable and common sense.

The general public has been told that nudity is wrong and most believe it without being told the other side of things.

No they haven't. Everyone encounters their own and others' nudity and they have their own particular relationship with these states of undress. They don't need telling how to react. What is "wrong" is the confrontational attitude of what I believe is that of a minority of nudists which says "this is my penis - you're going to see it, your wife and kids are going to see it, so get used to it".

Forcing nudity on the general public is a way of showing that nudity is not the evil that most people believe it to be,

You don't have the right to "force" nudity on anyone.

Bob

Senting naked people to the back of the bus, or refusing to allow them to eat at the same lunch counter, is bigotry.

It's the behaviour - the chosen state of undress - which is segregated, not the people. If you really want to share my space, put some pants on. If you choose not to - fine - use your nudist beaches. I promise that I won't bother you on those.

Walter - religion is always a question of interpretation. There is nothing in Islam which prescribes the headscarf and many Muslim women don't wear them. Many of those who do are content not to wear them if their school adopts a strict uniform policy.

You say:
No one should force anything on anyone. I am certain that if nudism becomes something forced on society, society will react to restrict it more...
There should be more accommodation of nudism. I also wish for there to be more places for nude recreation.....If we start on what we all agree on and attempt to accomplish that in a non-threatening way, we may find that the public will be more accepting of other nudist activities.

These are wise words and I agree with you 100% http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Stu

nimrod

07-16-2007, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was just trying to point out that forced segregation is a form of bigotry.

Nimrod. Forcing segregation of people on the basis of their inherent immutable characteristics is bigotry - it is apartheid. Segregating people who, at the material time, wish to behave in a way that could offend others is not bigotry - it is reasonable and common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nudism is more than just a behavior, it is a belief and a life style, just as a religion is a belief and a life style. The behavior comes from how one believes, not conversly. You bring up the same invalid arguement that if it is offensive to some it is premisable to segregate.

The general public has been told that nudity is wrong and most believe it without being told the other side of things.

No they haven't. Everyone encounters their own and others' nudity and they have their own particular relationship with these states of undress. They don't need telling how to react. What is "wrong" is the confrontational attitude of what I believe is that of a minority of nudists which says "this is my penis - you're going to see it, your wife and kids are going to see it, so get used to it".

I do believe that I am correct in saying that reactions can be learned, from parents, peers, the media, etc.. There was a scientist that did experiments with dogs that proved this. I was taught by my parents reactions to nudity that it was wrong. A schoolmate was having a birthday party at the movie theater, my father asked the boys father to remove me from the movie if there was nudity. As I grew older I saw that theirs was a learned reaction to what they were taught. I used to react to nudity in a negitive way until I unlearned that behavior. I remember once seeing in a news story a woman who had lost a family member due to an attack, posibly terrorist, she was on hers knees pleading and crying, she reached over to her young son and pulled him down to his knees and he started pleading and crying. She just taught him how to react to death. The boy was fine before her actions taught him how to react in a very negitive way to death.

Forcing nudity on the general public is a way of showing that nudity is not the evil that most people believe it to be,

You don't have the right to "force" nudity on anyone.

You are right, I had basically said that. All I said is that it is a way.

Bushnud2

07-16-2007, 07:31 PM

If you were inviting me for a couple of tinnies of the amber nectar, Pete, that would sound great - but anything that involves taking my drawers off is a definite no-no. But thanks for the offer, Cobba! I hope you have a great time.

Pete is not a true Cobber, only an honorary one. However, he IS a full-blooded Pommie.

Bushnud2

07-16-2007, 07:50 PM

Stu, I don't know who you are, but if you don't like nudity or nudism then why are you on this forum?

Dario, dont worry about Stu. He is well known to nakedwalk.org and the Naked Rambler as an agitator. Your question is very valid and has been asked many times in nakedwalk.org forum.

barenaked1

07-16-2007, 10:03 PM

Stu is back? Thought he was gone. well won't get involved in his spin on things. Apparently, the Moderators have decided to let him vent his views that really are slanted toward his 'side' of things' ,thought our forums were to preserve and advance the cause, not let someone downgrade it. 'Nuff said. I've said my piece about Stu and why he was here. Maybe others will wake up to his want to conquer & divide.

stu, no sense responding to this as any response from you as before will be taken as hostile. Some may not see that, but you know what you do.

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Stu:"What also irritates me is when nudists (rightly) demand things like tolerance, their fair share of public space and so on, and then in the next breath suggest that people who are not comfortable with and around nudity have no rights and should be shown no consideration. And then they have the brass necks to call me a bigot!"

The problem, Stu, as you know from our illustrious past, is that nudists are persecuted way too often. People view us as potential child abusers, exhibitionists, freaks, and a host of other labels. In some places, simply skinny-dipping in a private area, urinating behind a tree at night away from the public, and other harmless, innocent nudity can put us on the sex-offender's registry. Lewd conduct is not necessary to get on that registry, just the showing of the penis, vagina, or buttock.

People and governments also try to shut down certain places where we go such as beaches and parks, other govts deny us the very existence of nudist parks.

There is so much going on in terms of disrespecting us at every turn that sometimes, we just feel the need to lash out. You understand that, don't you? A lack of tolerance is mainly focused one way--against us. We actually tolerate a lot of bigoted comments by textiles and prudes. Once in a while, they need to be told that they are bigoted. Of course, I am not calling you so, Stu, and I would not accept anyone calling you so.

Bob S.

MoonShadow

07-17-2007, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
MoonShadow

[QUOTE]The gist is you do not approve of nudity at all

I don't know where you get that "gist" from. Nudity is simply a state of undress - one that I adopt every morning when taking a shower. If some people want to be nude in private, or at nudist venues - that's absolutely fine - I thoroughly approve of it and support their right to indulge in that form of recreation."
______________________________________________
Read your own posts, Stu. Yes, you are anti-nudism.

and in between the lines you don't want it around period for anyone.

Don't "read between the lines" because you are reading what isn't there and that's unfair to me. Take me for what I actually say and please don't try to assign some non-existent subtext. I'll say what I think - no more, no less."
______________________________________________
I have taken you for what you are ... again, you are anti-nudism.

You state in some posts you agree there should be places for nudists, then a few posts later, there have to be stipulations as to where they are and how "hidden" they must be.

"Hidden" is your word. I make no secret of the fact that I believe nudity should only be visible to those who could reasonably be expected to be comfortable with seeing it. If that means erecting a fence or a hedge, or just having a reasonable distance between nudists and non-nudists, then that's fine by me."
_____________________________________________
Stu, erecting fences, hedges is HIDING. I stand by the use of the word, "hidden".

In a post on July 14th, I believe, you were showing almost anger, then your next post you tempered it down.

What makes me angry here is when people start to ascribe to me things that I haven't said and beliefs that I do not hold. If I believe something, I'll say it - if I don't believe something I won't.

What also irritates me is when nudists (rightly) demand things like tolerance, their fair share of public space and so on, and then in the next breath suggest that people who are not comfortable with and around nudity have no rights and should be shown no consideration. And then they have the brass necks to call me a bigot!"
_______________________________________________
Forcing clothing only in public places on those who are not comfortable with clothing is not right either.

Your sly "polite" and "nice" style of writing may win over many but not for those of us who know what lies under that politeness and niceness. I have been in the trenches for a long time and know when someone is cleverly being a smooth operator in debate. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

MrTruth

07-17-2007, 08:19 AM

MrTruth

You have an odd perception of my interest - let's see if I can make it a bit clearer. Firstly, I do find the topic of nudism to be fascinating. At this time, nudism has no impact upon my life because I never see it: I don't find nudism "repulsive" and I certainly don't find nudists repulsive - I just don't like to be around people when they are naked. Big difference! I actually think I have a great deal in common with nudists. I regard myself as a non-conformist and I like to do my own thing often in contravention of society's norms. So I really enjoy coming here and have also made some friends here. Many nudists I talk to actually agree with virtually everything I say. They are perfectly content practising in segregated places among likeminded nudists and have no desire to "push the envelope". The reason I am singled out is because I am saying these things from the perspective of a non-nudist. Dario introduced this thread which is about foisting the sight of nakedness onto other people who have not consented to it and regardless of their feelings. He, and those who share his views, appear to think they have the right to "re-programme" the textile mind in how it relates to nakedness. I profoundly disagree and I believe it is disrespectful to, and intolerant of, the millions of people who are quite happy with their existing mind-set of nudity.

Stu,

We need to clarify your situation. You have said that you not ONLY do NOT practice nudism (ie are involved with any form of nudism yourself) but that you do NOT want to see a nude person. Now you are trying to say that you have nothing against nudists, per sey, and actually share things in common with nudists. However you wish to phrase it, you are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is that you do NOT like nudism AND do NOT wish to have anything to do with it OR to even see it. There are many different acceptance levels of nudism. For example, for many people, being personally nude may not be acceptable to them. However, they might not care if they see others who are nude on a beach. You have clearly stated that you not only do not wish to be nude yourself, AND that you ALSO do NOT wish to be able to see or view other people who are nude. You clearly do NOT accept the nude lifestyle. You do NOT have anything in common with nudists (concerning the topic of nudism) for nudists accept the nude lifestyle for themselves. This is what a nudist is. You do not and are not a nudist. There is nothing in common here (concerning the nudist lifestyle). (You may share other things in common with people but these things have nothing to do with nudism.)

Your opinion about segregating nudists is an extreme position that not everyone in society (non nudists included) will share. Many experienced people who understand (to some extent) what nudism is all about will be perfectly happy to share a beach with nudists. They do not require that nudists be hidden behind some fence or wall.

You also keep bringing up this issue of people who wish to force nudism onto the general population by being nude everywhere. This is a non issue and will not be an issue in the near future for (as you already know) society will not tolerate this. It is a hypothetical argument at best to keep bringing up something that is legally not allowed to occur and will not be allowed to occur.

In your personal life, the laws are on your side and you do not and are not surrounded or being chased by roaming hoards of nudists who are intent on forcing nudism upon you.

You also know that nudists are a small monority group that do not have equal protection (or any protection in most cases) under the law.

Your opinions are fine for you but they are clearly contrary to what a real nudist believes concerning personally living and experiencing the nudist lifestyle. My perceptions remain valid and stand as is.

walter05

07-17-2007, 08:39 AM

Stu;

Recently, Pope Benedict made a statement that the only complete salvation comes through the Catholic Church.

There are many posts elsewhere on this forum from non-Catholics claiming that they are just as Christian as anyone else.

I always thought that the idea of religion is to make a connection between a human being and our creator. That connection should be between the human being and the creator.

If a Baptist, Anglican, etc. believes he or she is a Christian, then it is up to his or her creator to determine if that is true and no one else.

If a Moslem woman believes she needs to dress in a way that promotes her relationship with her creator, that is between her and her creator.

If the Pope believes that being Catholic is the best way, that is between him and his creator. If other Catholics believe that the Pope is the one to define that relationship for them, that is between them and their creator.

I see no reason to impose my beliefs and practices on anyone. I don't believe it is correct to impinge on others beliefs or practices. I respect other human beings and their beliefs and practices even when they are different from mine.

There seems to be a common thread behind your approach. If someone wants to be nude, or wear the Burqha, you find the practice incorrect and believe it should be restricted in public.

It is easy to respect others, their beliefs, and what they do when we agree with them. It is more important to learn to respect others' beliefs and practices when we don't.

Moonshadow;

I believe you have misunderstood Stu.

Stu does not confuse nudity and sexuality. We know that because his wife and him have not seen each other nude when having sex in over 30 years of marriage.

Stu has a morbid view of the nude human body. He also seems unable to accept practices in front of him that he disagrees with. This is why he believes he has the right to tell a Moslem woman what she should believe and how to be a good Moslem. His objections to any public nudity stem from that morbid fear of the body and lack of respect for practices he disagrees with.

Stu2630

07-17-2007, 01:58 PM

MoonShadow

There is a small group of people here who persist in misunderstanding me, misrepresenting what I say, make assumptions about me that are way off the mark and then attribute the sum of these falsehoods to me being a hater of nudists. You even read malevolence into my polite and respectful manner. Some people need hate figures in their lives and for you and a few others I am and forever will be the evil one - the "Anti-Nudist". You remind me of a Jihadist I once met who told me that all westerners hate all Muslims and if they were ever nice to Muslims it was because they were being sly. Anything that you said to him which didn't fit his own world view of westerners was either twisted out of all recognition, or ignored. I do not wish to be unkind, but nothing I can say to you is going to change your mind, so it's obviously futile trying to discuss any issues with you.

MrTruth

OK. Some clarification. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

You have said that you not ONLY do NOT practice nudism (ie are involved with any form of nudism yourself) but that you do NOT want to see a nude person.

True.

Now you are trying to say that you have nothing against nudists, per sey, and actually share things in common with nudists. However you wish to phrase it, you are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is that you do NOT like nudism AND do NOT wish to have anything to do with it OR to even see it.

Correct.

There are many different acceptance levels of nudism. For example, for many people, being personally nude may not be acceptable to them. However, they might not care if they see others who are nude on a beach.

Yes, there are some people who feel that way. I am not one of them.

You have clearly stated that you not only do not wish to be nude yourself, AND that you ALSO do NOT wish to be able to see or view other people who are nude. You clearly do NOT accept the nude lifestyle.

That doesn't follow. I fully accept the "nude lifestyle" so long as I am given the opportunity of avoiding encountering people while they are pursuing that lifestyle.

You do NOT have anything in common with nudists (concerning the topic of nudism) for nudists accept the nude lifestyle for themselves....There is nothing in common here (concerning the nudist lifestyle). (You may share other things in common with people but these things have nothing to do with nudism.)

That's one take on it - but I do like to find common ground with people. I do respect and even admire certain qualities of nudists, mainly their willingness to disregard society's conventions in pursuit of their own fulfilment. I do that, too, but not by getting naked.

Your opinion about segregating nudists is an extreme position that not everyone in society (non nudists included) will share. Many experienced people who understand (to some extent) what nudism is all about will be perfectly happy to share a beach with nudists. They do not require that nudists be hidden behind some fence or wall.

I really don't agree with you there. Most of the people I know would avoid clothing-optional beaches because they are clothing optional. They don't want to be around naked people, and they don't want their kids to see naked adult strangers. If you doubt that, try and get naked on a really popular family beach on a warm day and you'll soon discover that a lot more people object to it than you think. Besides, it's not a simple question of comparing the number of people who are not bothered with the number of people who are offended. People who are not bothered can be discounted simply because they are not bothered. The fair comparison is between the number of people who actually want to get naked (and anyone who actively wants to see others getting naked) compared to those who object to it, are offended by it etc. And that's no contest!

In your personal life, the laws are on your side and you do not and are not surrounded or being chased by roaming hoards of nudists who are intent on forcing nudism upon you.

This is true. It is, to a large extent, an academic point.

You also know that nudists are a small monority group that do not have equal protection (or any protection in most cases) under the law.

Nudists should have the full protection of the law to use nudist places free from harassment and so on. I believe that in my country at least they do have that protection.

Your opinions are fine for you but they are clearly contrary to what a real nudist believes concerning personally living and experiencing the nudist lifestyle.

Hmm. You are using your own definition of what constitutes a real nudist. I talk to others who consider themselves real nudists but who are content to have their own, segregated spaces. In some ways, they prefer them because they are easier to police. Nudists need to be clear about what they want from the textile majority. If they want more and better facilities, that's a winnable case and one they should be putting forward as strongly as they can. If they want some general right to be accepted naked pretty much wherever they like, that is, in my view, unreasonable and as you have indicated it's not going to happen any time soon.

Stu

Stu2630

07-17-2007, 02:11 PM

Walter

I don't believe that I personally have the right to tell a Muslim woman what to wear or not to wear. Personally, I couldn't care less - I am not a Muslim, I am not a woman and I don't go to school. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

All I am supporting is the fact that the UK has a long-established and highly successful school uniform policy that works to the benefit of the school, the students and their families and is extremely popular with the public. I therefore support the right of each school to determine its own uniform rules and I think it is healthy that different schools adopt different levels of rigidity in how those rules are enforced. If a Muslim student doesn't like the rules of one school, she has many choices ranging from going to a Muslim-only school to going to a school which doesn't have uniforms, to trying to negotiate a compromise with her first-choice school.

His objections to any public nudity stem from that morbid fear of the body and lack of respect for practices he disagrees with.

Some truth in that. I could of course get myself accustomed to the sight of the nude body. I could go for hypnotherapy. Or I could simply start gradually making myself see nudity in the flesh by getting closer and closer to a nudist beach until all the shock value had dissipated. But I'm happy with my attitude to nudity and I have no wish to change it. The only "practices" I would disagree with are nudity in places where it is not reasonably expected to be, or where I could not reasonably be expected to avoid it. Nudity should be a consensual act - the consent should be present both of the naked person, and the person seeing them naked.

Stu

MoonShadow

07-17-2007, 04:27 PM

Stu, changing your mind is not my point with discussions with you. I am just pointing out what you post. And I don't think I am misrepresenting what you are saying. You are not the evil one, you are just anti-nudist and nudism. Is comparing me to a Jihadist another "polite and nice" attempt to show your slyness? I am being neither polite or kind, just straight up. You are correct any further discussions between us on nudism is futile.

Stu2630

07-17-2007, 04:45 PM

You are not the evil one, you are just anti-nudist and nudism.

There are some real anti-nudists out there. These are people who believe that nudism is wrong - I don't. They believe it should be banned - I don't. They don't think you should be given any public places to practise nudism whereas I think you should be given far more such places. They claim nudism is some form of sexual activity when I know it is non-sexual. Can't you see just how far off the mark you are when you call me anti-nudist? Yes, I am anti-nudity when that nudity is around me - or threatens to be around me. But the reality is that I don't put myself in that position and so long as I am able to go into towns and visit (non-nudist) parks and beaches confident in the knowledge that I'm not going to encounter naked people, then I'm happy and I have no issues with nudists or nudity.

Is comparing me to a Jihadist another "polite and nice" attempt to show your slyness? I am being neither polite or kind, just straight up. You are correct any further discussions between us on nudism is futile.

But you are unfairly calling me anti-nudist - and when I think of anti-nudists I tend to think of extremist and intolerant religious bigots - something I'm not. It's not nice being compared to such people, is it?

Mature, intelligent debate means discussing the issues at hand and not simply attaching discrediting labels to people (you know, like "troll" or "anti" something) so that you can instantly dismiss anything they say without having to analyse and evaluate it and maybe even concede a point or two.

Stu

MrTruth

07-17-2007, 05:59 PM

If they want more and better facilities, that's a winnable case and one they should be putting forward as strongly as they can. If they want some general right to be accepted naked pretty much wherever they like, that is, in my view, unreasonable and as you have indicated it's not going to happen any time soon.

Stu,

The problem with your above statement is this. In my experience, nudists have wanted more and better facilities for ages and have demonstrated consideration, politeness, and have been very reasonable in their requests. Unfortuantely, the textile community, in far too many cases has refused to even acknowledge nudism. The majority of the textile community, in their ignorance, has decided that nudism is some kind of weird perversion that is related to sex. The textile community, based upon their superior understanding and application of moral religious principles ( I say this with tongue in cheek), has also decided that nudism is immoral and in direct violation of scriptures. Therefore, the textile community will not even acknowledge nudism let alone entertain the notion of allowing either dual use clothing optional beaches or a few nudist beaches.

For specific example, on the Eastern Coast of the USA, there are a grand total of about 3 or 4 (major - yes there are a few more but very few and generally less tolerant of nudity) clothing optional beaches. There is the beach in Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Gunnison on Sandy Hook in New Jersey, Playalinda east of Orlando in Florida, and of course Haulover near Miami in Florida. Out of all of these beaches, Haulover is perhaps the most accepting of nudism. Gunnison Beach, on Sandy Hook, is part of the Gateway National Recreation Park System ie under Federal Government control. If this park was under New Jersey State control, then it would be closed to nudism immediately. Gunnison is not an advertised clothig optional beach and nudity is not protected at this beach by any law. Nudity is officially tolerated and this is done on purpose to allow the state or federal governments to quickly change the status of the beach and close it to nudism if they so desire.

The whole purpose of what I have posted above is to demonstrate that there are very few beaches in the USA that even tolerate nudity. Nudists have fought the battles over the years to designate more beaches but the battles in many cases have been futile. At some beaches, such as Playalinda in Florida, sheriffs have even occassionaly come to the beach to harass the nude beach goers with tickets, hefty fines, and possible criminal records.

The system clearly is still very much against nudists and it can be easily understood why some nudists become very militant in their approach to expanding nudism. Some have tried in a very civil and respectful manner to work within the system by requesting additional beach areas but have been ignored, abused, and harassed by the textile community.

MJ_KC

07-17-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by MrTruth:
At some beaches, such as Playalinda in Florida, sheriffs have even occassionaly come to the beach to harass the nude beach goers with tickets, hefty fines, and possible criminal records.
I used to vacation in Titusville and go to Playalinda beach every year. That was before the locals started causing trouble for beach goers. I haven't been there in well over 10 years because of their ill mannered behavior.

This has directly cost the local hotels and restaurants a lot of money that I no longer spend there. It has also cost the local Chevy dealer, who also runs an after market store for Corvette parts and accessories. I was ready to spend thousands of dollars there before the trouble started. I had even stopped by and gotten a catalog so I could start placing orders. I instead bought all of my parts from a company in central Illinois. It is my policy to not spend any money in an area where I feel unwelcome or singled out for harassment.

The moral of this story is that the prudes who want to cause trouble for us nudists need to understand that their actions do not occur in a vacuum. We have money to spend and will take it elsewhere if we are mistreated. This is particularly bad when an area has traditionally been open to nude use.

barenaked1

07-17-2007, 08:04 PM

Once again, why is stu here, exept to agitate?

I think the moderators need to question his 'motives'

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

You have an odd perception of my interest - let's see if I can make it a bit clearer. Firstly, I do find the topic of nudism to be fascinating. At this time, nudism has no impact upon my life because I never see it: I don't find nudism "repulsive" and I certainly don't find nudists repulsive - I just don't like to be around people when they are naked. Big difference! I actually think I have a great deal in common with nudists. I regard myself as a non-conformist and I like to do my own thing often in contravention of society's norms. So I really enjoy coming here and have also made some friends here. Many nudists I talk to actually agree with virtually everything I say. They are perfectly content practising in segregated places among likeminded nudists and have no desire to "push the envelope". The reason I am singled out is because I am saying these things from the perspective of a non-nudist. Dario introduced this thread which is about foisting the sight of nakedness onto other people who have not consented to it and regardless of their feelings. He, and those who share his views, appear to think they have the right to "re-programme" the textile mind in how it relates to nakedness. I profoundly disagree and I believe it is disrespectful to, and intolerant of, the millions of people who are quite happy with their existing mind-set of nudity.

Stu,

We need to clarify your situation. You have said that you not ONLY do NOT practice nudism (ie are involved with any form of nudism yourself) but that you do NOT want to see a nude person. Now you are trying to say that you have nothing against nudists, per sey, and actually share things in common with nudists. However you wish to phrase it, you are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is that you do NOT like nudism AND do NOT wish to have anything to do with it OR to even see it. There are many different acceptance levels of nudism. For example, for many people, being personally nude may not be acceptable to them. However, they might not care if they see others who are nude on a beach. You have clearly stated that you not only do not wish to be nude yourself, AND that you ALSO do NOT wish to be able to see or view other people who are nude. You clearly do NOT accept the nude lifestyle. You do NOT have anything in common with nudists (concerning the topic of nudism) for nudists accept the nude lifestyle for themselves. This is what a nudist is. You do not and are not a nudist. There is nothing in common here (concerning the nudist lifestyle). (You may share other things in common with people but these things have nothing to do with nudism.)

Your opinion about segregating nudists is an extreme position that not everyone in society (non nudists included) will share. Many experienced people who understand (to some extent) what nudism is all about will be perfectly happy to share a beach with nudists. They do not require that nudists be hidden behind some fence or wall.

You also keep bringing up this issue of people who wish to force nudism onto the general population by being nude everywhere. This is a non issue and will not be an issue in the near future for (as you already know) society will not tolerate this. It is a hypothetical argument at best to keep bringing up something that is legally not allowed to occur and will not be allowed to occur.

In your personal life, the laws are on your side and you do not and are not surrounded or being chased by roaming hoards of nudists who are intent on forcing nudism upon you.

You also know that nudists are a small monority group that do not have equal protection (or any protection in most cases) under the law.

Your opinions are fine for you but they are clearly contrary to what a real nudist believes concerning personally living and experiencing the nudist lifestyle. My perceptions remain valid and stand as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nacktman

07-17-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Some people here don't take me on because they're not eloquent enough to debate with me ...

Actually "they" don't take you on because they are far more than eloquent enough to debate, but with you it has proven to be naught save an endless prattle of drivel coming from you not a debate of any stripe.

Debasing themselves and their intellect to the level you consistently display is analogous to arguing with a post, it is just not worth the time and effort. It is better to take out one's ax and cut down said post and make it correct sized for the fireplace, at least then it would be worth the time and effort.

Moonshadow has not 'accused' you of being anything. She has stated what you are, at least in part; a anti-nudity, anti-nudist, self-hater who tries - as we say in the states 'put the ol'Shineola on and over those who would swallow such hogwash' - to deny those that think other than you the freedom to do so. We have a term we use for those who think and do like you, on the political front we call them ... Neo-Cons. They want all the 'freedom' for themselves and like minded others, just as you do. No matter your protestations to the contrary.

Another has suggested seeking counseling and you should. This isn't the first time such suggestions have been made, and some by professionals in the field ... after the shear volume of number of those suggestions one would begin to think they might be on to something, wouldn't one?

I don't know who sent any PM's concerning you, but as you can surmise I am unafraid to call you to task. However I shall not 'debate' with you as I haven't the ability to debase myself that far. I will let you know some of the responses your posts have received from two of my patients (remember I am one of those Professionals I mentioned earlier),"Robert C." says you are "crazy" and "James H." says you are "stupid". It would pay to think on their comments as both are quite mentally ill and have IQ scores below 50, yet both can read and reason and both view you as beneath them, oh, and I forgot to mention both are severely addicted to crack cocaine.

There you have it folks when retarded mentally ill crack addicts name you for what you are then you best look into the mirror because that's it.

Dario Western

07-17-2007, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by barenaked1:
Once again, why is stu here, exept to agitate?

I think the moderators need to question his 'motives'

No matter how you look at him, in a nutshell Stu is just an eloquent troll. If he's not for us, then he's against us. Basically, I think he ought to be ousted from this community as it's obvious he doesn't want to convert to the nudist/naturist cause.

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

You have an odd perception of my interest - let's see if I can make it a bit clearer. Firstly, I do find the topic of nudism to be fascinating. At this time, nudism has no impact upon my life because I never see it: I don't find nudism "repulsive" and I certainly don't find nudists repulsive - I just don't like to be around people when they are naked.

Why is this, Stu? Did something happen to you when you were younger that you've got a fear of being around nude people today?

Big difference! I actually think I have a great deal in common with nudists. I regard myself as a non-conformist and I like to do my own thing often in contravention of society's norms.

[quote]The reason I am singled out is because I am saying these things from the perspective of a non-nudist. Dario introduced this thread which is about foisting the sight of nakedness onto other people who have not consented to it and regardless of their feelings. He, and those who share his views, appear to think they have the right to "re-programme" the textile mind in how it relates to nakedness. I profoundly disagree and I believe it is disrespectful to, and intolerant of, the millions of people who are quite happy with their existing mind-set of nudity.

I don't care what those people think, but they're wrong - just like white people who didn't like the sight of black skin in the past, or straight people who put down gays. These two subgroups of humans have become accepted and co-exist with the rest of society: why not us?

Your opinion about segregating nudists is an extreme position that not everyone in society (non nudists included) will share. Many experienced people who understand (to some extent) what nudism is all about will be perfectly happy to share a beach with nudists. They do not require that nudists be hidden behind some fence or wall.

Exactly. This is why I resurrected the group: for nudists and non-nudists to debate these issues. *ALL* beaches should be clothing optional IMHO and nudists shouldn't have to be shunted off to a deserted corner. That makes them easy prey for the deviants.

You also keep bringing up this issue of people who wish to force nudism onto the general population by being nude everywhere. This is a non issue and will not be an issue in the near future for (as you already know) society will not tolerate this.

Correction: this is an issue with the likes of Steven Gough and others before him like Terri Webb, Vincent Bethell, Russell Higgs, and Richard A. Collins. It's high time society learned to tolerate simple, non-sexual public nudity if it has learned to tolerate blacks, homo/bi-sexuals, the handicapped and other minorities.

In your personal life, the laws are on your side and you do not and are not surrounded or being chased by roaming hoards of nudists who are intent on forcing nudism upon you.

That would be most amusing if it was to happen.
Jesus also once said: "If you eye causes you offence, then tear it out and throw it away!" Public nudity was a lot more commonplace in his day.

You also know that nudists are a small monority group that do not have equal protection (or any protection in most cases) under the law.

Agreed. Where I live in Brisbane, there are no legal nude beaches and the few nudists places there are tend to be out on the never-never. Unfortunately, there are hardly any nudists in my neck of the woods who want to fight segregation.

Your opinions are fine for you but they are clearly contrary to what a real nudist believes concerning personally living and experiencing the nudist lifestyle. My perceptions remain valid and stand as is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I think Stu contributes nothing of value to this thread or to the forum. He really needs to get a life!

walter05

07-18-2007, 09:24 AM

I am very concerned about the tone that several of you are taking.

One of the purposes of this forum is to engage in conversation that promotes nudism. It also promotes the free exercise of nudism.

In order for conversation to be convincing, someone needs convincing.

Stu has acknowledged a morbid fear of the nude body, even seeing his own. He has however stated that he supports nudism as long as he does not have to see it. It seems to me that despite his personal view, he is an advocate for having more places where nudism can be practiced legally.

I have had many disagreements with Stu. I think his views in general reflect a morbid lack of appreciation for the magnificent creation that is the naked human body. I also think he has difficulty seeing things that differ from his own practices. I hope to be able over time to convince him to reexamine those views. However, I can't if we can't have a conversation.

There are many on here that I have argued with. When the arguments have come down to name calling and refusal to read and understand my posts, I have ceased the argument. In order for there to be a conversation, two or more people must rationally express views and listen to each other.

I often don't agree with Stu. He has demonstrated a support for having more public places where nudism is legal and protected despite the fact that he does not want to practice or see nudism. He generally engages in rational, non-personal dialogue. I think he is exactly the sort of person this forum should engage in conversation.

Those of you that want to shut him off of the forum are as intollerant of reading views here that you disagree with as Stu is at seeing nudity.

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 09:57 AM

Walt me old mucker, you appear to have hit the nail on the head, we nudists are supposed to be the tolerant ones, but some among us appear to have let their halo's slip.

Stu does push things too far at times, but overall he is much nicer to get along with than a troll, a troll only wishes to sow discord, I don't see that trait in Stu.

Anyway, Stu will be long gone by the time those that desire the right to walk into town nude get their wish, and so will most people on this board if we face reality, but we have to keep pushing hard to gain each inch in the mile long quest for complete clothes freedom.

Pete Knight

MoonShadow

07-18-2007, 10:27 AM

Well, this nudist is not tolerant of people like Stu. If this makes me in the negative, then that is one's perspective and I have no problems with it.

I would love to know how one psychologically finds nudity disgusting and abhorrent can be "tolerant" of nudists and the lifestyle? Please note .... he will only tolerate as long as he cannot see it, be near it, or even aware of it. This is a strange form of "tolerance", don't you think?

MJ_KC

07-18-2007, 10:32 AM

nacktman

07-18-2007, 10:52 AM

Walter, Pete, neither of you have been on these forums long enough to remember Stu and to have experienced Stu as some have ... give it time, if your stomach can handle it and you will.

As to shutting him out of the forums that is not the case. Quite the contrary, we all laugh are arses off when reading his posts, but that doesn't mean we don't and/or won't call'em as it is.

He has been 'banned' by both the administrators/moderators and by his own volition so many times we have all lost count. Staying away for weeks if not months at a time then returning with the same old drivel and tripe when new forum members who do not know about him have begun posting in an attempt to foster a 'debate' on why he is right and you are wrong for believing other than he does ... and the new posters fall into that cesspool. Whereupon, we older posters illuminate the unlit candle to show him for what he truly is.

Feel free to 'debate' with him ... sometime a trip through fantasyland is a wonderful thing - just don't live there ... if you desire to. The rest of us could use the belly-laughs. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Well, this nudist is not tolerant of people like Stu. If this makes me in the negative, then that is one's perspective and I have no problems with it.

I would love to know how one psychologically finds nudity disgusting and abhorrent can be "tolerant" of nudists and the lifestyle? Please note .... he will only tolerate as long as he cannot see it, be near it, or even aware of it. This is a strange form of "tolerance", don't you think?

Stu's affliction, gymnophobia is medically accepted as are numerous other phobias, he has pointed out that there may be others like him, so should we not make allowances for him and people like him?

Would you force someone with a fear of confined spaces into a small cupboard?

I'm not suggesting for one moment that he is correct in all he writes, but I am able to tolerate his point of view, whereas you appear to be intolerant of some one else's affliction.

What Stu is unable to accept is that he should be confined to fenced in clubs for gymnophobic's, or have special beaches, he has to travel miles to, set aside for gymnophobic's, now that would be intolerable!!!!!

What Stu is also unable to accept is that there are more people able to cope with nudity than there are gymnophobe's, but he tries to claim that those who believe nudity is wrong are among his number, which is not the same as having an aversion to nudity.

I find Stu's arguments mildly amusing, I can't see why you get so upset about some one else's viewpoint differing from yours!

Pete Knight

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Walter, Pete, neither of you have been on these forums long enough to remember Stu and to have experienced Stu as some have ... give it time, if your stomach can handle it and you will.

I knew Stu as Brutus on the naked walk forum when I was a moderator there, he was a darned sight easier to cope with that the Psycho American anti nudist that plagued us with obscenities, threats and disgusting pictures of decapitated bodies, that man was truly sick, wasn't he Stu?

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-18-2007, 01:09 PM

No matter how you look at him, in a nutshell Stu is just an eloquent troll.

Dario - a "troll" intervenes simply to wind people up - to dangle some bait and then watch the fishies bite. Trolls don't engage in detailed philosophical discussion or debate. They don't voice support - even limited support - for the aims of the main contributors of a board. They don't engage with people from the boards privately (as I do), nor do they ever concede points.

If he's not for us, then he's against us.

An interesting turn of phrase. Did you know that was a mantra of the Hitler Youth Movement in the mid 1930s?

Basically, I think he ought to be ousted from this community as it's obvious he doesn't want to convert to the nudist/naturist cause.

Thanks for proving my point! I have already pointed out how some people adopt an approach to nudism which is more akin to religious fundamentalism than anything recognisable in a tolerant, liberal society, but your insistance that people here should only discuss nudism with those who are prepared to "convert" proves me right. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

I don't care what those people think, but they're wrong..

Yup. More fundamentalism. When are you going to declare a Holy Jihad against the infidel textiles?

Walter:

Stu has acknowledged a morbid fear of the nude body, even seeing his own. He has however stated that he supports nudism as long as he does not have to see it. It seems to me that despite his personal view, he is an advocate for having more places where nudism can be practiced legally.

Thank you!!!! You have understood my views and summarised them perfectly. I have always said I support nudism - but I want to be able to avoid being there when it's being practised. I can't stand jazz music, either, I don't like having to hear it but that doesn't mean I am hostile to that genre or the people who enjoy it. Somehow I can't seem to get this simple concept through to them. They seem incapable of grasping that it is perfectly possible to support nudists and the practice of nudism while at the same time having an aversion to seeing naked people!

Pete

Anyway, Stu will be long gone by the time those that desire the right to walk into town nude get their wish, and so will most people on this board if we face reality

Long gone? Do you mean long gone to sunny Denmark? Or to that other place where there's a guy with horns, a fork and a face like Tony Blair? Speaking of Denmark - We'll be moving there next August but if you're up for Roskilde 2009, my offer still stands, Pete. We should be settled our own place by then.

MoonShadow

Please note .... he will only tolerate as long as he cannot see it, be near it, or even aware of it. This is a strange form of "tolerance", don't you think?

This is exactly what I mean about you re-formulating what I say into what I haven't said and don't believe. Why do you do this? Do you really think I'll let you get away with it without challenging it?

"he will only tolerate as long as he cannot see it," - but I am prepared to go to places where I don't have to see it.

"be near it, or even aware of it." I have NEVER said any such thing. That is pure invention. Last year, as BobS and Pete will testify, I found myself staying at a resort which I later discovered was very close to a nudist beach. I had no objection whatsoever to that beach being there, even though it was a short walk from my holiday home. One one occasion, at the behest of BobS, I actually went to that beach - for a very short time - and when I came back I reported my experiences on here - and they weren't all negative. Don't believe me? Ask Bob.

MoonShadow - I have long stopped expecting fairness from you but please don't imagine that I'll ignore such blatent misrepresentation of what I say or believe. If there is a grain of fairness in you, why don't you stop - take a step back - and reflect upon how you are treating someone who actually supports 90% of what nudists are asking for.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 01:22 PM

Long gone? Do you mean long gone to sunny Denmark? Or to that other place where there's a guy with horns, a fork and a face like Tony Blair?
I meant we would all be 'pushing up daisies' by the time nudity was a common sight in the High Street.

Thanks for the offer Stu, if I find myself with the time I would love to spend more time seeing Denmark than the Queen allowed me.

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Stu, welcome back.

I remember your account of last year's vacation trip. It gave me much more respect for you.

The forum was a little dull during the last few months (in your absence).

Best wishes on your move to Denmark.

walter05

07-18-2007, 02:17 PM

Stu;

I should have known you would not have liked jazz either.

nimrod

07-18-2007, 02:18 PM

Should Stu be segregated to just one thread because there are those that find him or his views to be disturbing, and therefore others will be able to more easily aviod him. Even though I personally support free speech, and support Stu's right to be on the forum, would it not be easier for all to force him to stay in one area far away from everyone else just so that no one will accidently happen upon him and his offensive, to some, views. After all there is a time and place for a differance in opinion and behavior, as long as I personally do not have to see it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

nimrod

07-18-2007, 02:24 PM

On a more serious note and back to topic. How do we start to change the current views of non-nudist that the human body is not something to be ashamed of? I try to talk to people one on one, and though that helps, how do we reach more people?

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 02:39 PM

It would appear that most people are in our favour, its just that the vocal minority are the only ones who can be bothered to attend meetings or vote on nudity issues.

The people of battleboro were polled by MSNBC, these are the results:

Should have more of it 38%

No problem with it 25%

No offended, but should
not be nude down town 15%

Offended by all displays 5%

So what does this tell us, it tells us we should speak up more in our own defence, stand up and be counted.

The full NSNBC report can be viewed >>>HERE<<< (http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/fv.htm?http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm)

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-18-2007, 02:46 PM

I should have known you would not have liked jazz either.

Walter - I have tried to like Jazz - I have a very close friend who is keen on it and he has taken me to jazz concerts - but I just can't seem to 'get it'. I'll stick to opera and classical. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Nimrod

I know you were joking, but there is a serious aspect to what you say. Stating an opinion should never be treated in the same way as "behaviour" and so should never be confined. The law recognises this and it's why we have laws which expressly protect "free speech" yet we don't have corresponding laws for "free behaviour".

On your second point - why do you feel you have to perform some mission to "change the current views of non-nudist that the human body is not something to be ashamed of"? Isn't that a bit of a "fundamentalist" attitude to take thinking that the 90% of people who are textiles have got it all wrong and you have some devine mandate to change them? Why can't you simply enjoy your nudist places and allow textiles to enjoy theirs?

Stu

Stu2630

07-18-2007, 02:56 PM

Pete

It would appear that most people are in our favour, its just that the vocal minority are the only ones who can be bothered to attend meetings or vote on nudity issues.

That shows how strongly they feel about it.

The people of battleboro were polled by MSNBC, these are the results:

Yup. That was a phone-in poll on a TV news programme and they are never even remotely scientific. But even if only a minority were offended by it and the majority were indifferent, that doesn't mean it should be allowed. The correct measure of acceptability disregards the indifferent and should be the proportion who are offended versus the number of people who actually want to be naked or actually want openly naked people in their town. I reckon that would reveal a very different result!

Stu

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 03:08 PM

Oh Stu, you twist and turn like a twisty, turny thing, you massage the figures to represent your point of view, that's what is so annoying about you, that's why MoonShadow and Dario, among others, have had enough, it does become tiresome.

No matter how you twist the poll, it still shows a MAJORITY in favour, and it is only the anally retentive, uptight zealots who make all the noise.

Why don't you admit that you are in fact in a minority, a vociferous minority, but a minority none the less.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-18-2007, 03:25 PM

Pete

I'm an academic. I do research and I get research published - and I have done public opinion research, too. The figures are unscientific in their collation and so they can not possibly be said to "prove" anything. If I tried to pass off something which I claimed to be evidence of public opinion based upon a TV programme phone poll I'd be the laughing stock of my university. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif And if the truth becomes "tiresome" merely because it's unpalateable, then so be it.

No matter how you twist the poll, it still shows a MAJORITY in favour

No it doesn't. Even if we were to accept these figures (which really aren't worth a candle, as I have shown) they don't prove a majority "in favour" at all. The fact that a person reports they have "no problem" with something is very different to saying that they are positively "in favour" of it.

and it is only the anally retentive, uptight zealots who make all the noise.

Bit of a value judgement there, Pete? People who are not OK with public nudity can all be dismissed as "anally retentive, uptight zealots", so we can dismiss their opinions - is that it?

Why don't you admit that you are in fact in a minority, a vociferous minority, but a minority none the less

I admit that my particular level of abhorrrence of the naked body is at the far end of the scale. But I would equally argue that, if asked in a scientific survey, whether they personally consider open nudity in a non-nudist public place to be acceptable or unacceptable, a clear and substantial majority would plum for the second option.

The elected representatives of the people of Brattleboro seem to think that way, too.

Stu

oldbob

07-18-2007, 03:39 PM

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 MrTruth:
At some beaches, such as Playalinda in Florida, sheriffs have even occassionaly come to the beach to harass the nude beach goers with tickets, hefty fines, and possible criminal records.
I used to vacation in Titusville and go to Playalinda beach every year. That was before the locals started causing trouble for beach goers. I haven't been there in well over 10 years because of their ill mannered behavior.

This has directly cost the local hotels and restaurants a lot of money that I no longer spend there. It has also cost the local Chevy dealer, who also runs an after market store for Corvette parts and accessories. I was ready to spend thousands of dollars there before the trouble started. I had even stopped by and gotten a catalog so I could start placing orders. I instead bought all of my parts from a company in central Illinois. It is my policy to not spend any money in an area where I feel unwelcome or singled out for harassment.

The moral of this story is that the prudes who want to cause trouble for us nudists need to understand that their actions do not occur in a vacuum. We have money to spend and will take it elsewhere if we are mistreated. This is particularly bad when an area has traditionally been open to nude use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should give Playalinda another try. Things have changed since you were there last. I visited last summer and it was great.

Bob

Pete Knight

07-18-2007, 03:44 PM

I'll grant you one thing, you are very good at putting your case, but the fact still remains, and twist it how you want, the vast majority of poeple are not offended by nudity, most people say what they think they should be saying, and that applies especially to politicians who's only concern is the get re-elected.

Those people who complain about nudity are the same people who complain about phallic bollards and all manner of nonsense, they just like complaining. From personal experience of walking with Steve Gough and the wonderful reception we had as we walked through two Devon villages, no one got uptight, no one called the police, one lady with teenage daughters gave us lemonade, then had her photo taken with us.

When I took Mel up to a local pub to get a few beers for those of us camping (Including your old chum Dickie Collins.) we were greeted with open arms and offered drinks, no one had a bad word to say, most people thought it was a huge laugh.

I know I can never win with you, and I accept that you find nudity distasteful, but I can't accept you twisting the debate with your eloquent words, so I'll do what I usually do, I'll go and promote naturism, which is what this board is all about "Promoting positive naturist values. EveryBODY is good" as it says on the home page.

Pete Knight

nacktman

07-18-2007, 04:03 PM

I see all is as usual. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Hey, what about those Celtics? Do you think they can handle United this time?

And why do you insist on calling it a pitch when it is clearly a field?

*****

Just a thought here, mind you, but how about a real debate on something that actually matters ... the football scores! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

And leave the 'non-academic' to do 'his' research in the fantasy world he inhabits along with the shrub.

MJ_KC

07-18-2007, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Trolls don't engage in detailed philosophical discussion or debate. They don't voice support - even limited support - for the aims of the main contributors of a board. They don't engage with people from the boards privately (as I do), nor do they ever concede points.
You are just a very stealthy troll.

Bob S.

07-18-2007, 08:34 PM

Stu:"An interesting turn of phrase. Did you know that was a mantra of the Hitler Youth Movement in the mid 1930s?"

I guess all lengthy topics do eventually lead to Hitler, don't they? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

Stu:"One one occasion, at the behest of BobS, I actually went to that beach - for a very short time - and when I came back I reported my experiences on here - and they weren't all negative. Don't believe me? Ask Bob."

When was that? Maybe I can try to find it again in these forums. I do remember you reporting it, but it's been too long. Didn't you say you skinny-dipped? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Stu:"That was a phone-in poll on a TV news programme and they are never even remotely scientific."

I watched a story on MSNBC where the anchor talked on phone with a newsman or someone who knows the town well. He, the Battleboro resident (or expert), reiterated the results of the MSNBC poll, that most of the people in the town had no problem with the nudity.

The point is that if a populace has no problem with something that is legal, what right does the govt have to make it illegal? You yourself have stated that if a majority populace does not mind a behaviour, it should be legal.

Now realize this Battleboro emergency edict is for 30 days. More debate will probably take place after that.

Bob S.

barenaked1

07-18-2007, 08:50 PM

So true. As far as I can see, he serves no purpose here. I thought these forums were to promote nudism, not to serve as someone's personal vent as to why they don't like naked people.

Originally posted by nacktman:
Walter, Pete, neither of you have been on these forums long enough to remember Stu and to have experienced Stu as some have ... give it time, if your stomach can handle it and you will.

As to shutting him out of the forums that is not the case. Quite the contrary, we all laugh are arses off when reading his posts, but that doesn't mean we don't and/or won't call'em as it is.

He has been 'banned' by both the administrators/moderators and by his own volition so many times we have all lost count. Staying away for weeks if not months at a time then returning with the same old drivel and tripe when new forum members who do not know about him have begun posting in an attempt to foster a 'debate' on why he is right and you are wrong for believing other than he does ... and the new posters fall into that cesspool. Whereupon, we older posters illuminate the unlit candle to show him for what he truly is.

Feel free to 'debate' with him ... sometime a trip through fantasyland is a wonderful thing - just don't live there ... if you desire to. The rest of us could use the belly-laughs. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Bushnud2

07-19-2007, 01:59 AM

Oh why oh why do we have to put up with politically correct Forum Moderators - and Stu aka Brutus?

walter05

07-19-2007, 09:24 AM

Stu;

Others will think that I am crazy to ask you the following questions, but I think it mase sense. When one is attempting to expand something that has resistance in the general public, a critic may be able to help one find how to do so.

You state that you don't want to see nudity but think it is fine for people to be nude. You also say that you support there being places where nude recreation is permitted.

What expanded opportunities for nude activities do you support?

How would you recommend that nudists and their supporters go about attempting to achieve these?

nacktman

07-19-2007, 12:22 PM

Bob S., that mantra phrase that Stu cites is not only from the Nazi era it is from all of history. Any time narrow and dogmatic non-thinking rears its ugly heads that same phrase is used and in virtually the same words.

As you know it is a favorite mantra of the cabal right now.

*****

Yes, Walter some have concerns about your grip on sanity when you address straightforward questions to Stu. But as said afore a trip through fantasyland is a good thing once in a while.

walter05

07-19-2007, 01:17 PM

Nacktman;

When Bill Clinton was president, he suffered a stinging defeat in 1994. The Democrats lost control of both houses of congress for the first time in decades.

Bill Clinton hired republican strategists to meet with him and help him understand the defeat and how to turn it around.

This is rational and sane.

P.S. I have no doubts about the status of your sanity.

Stu2630

07-19-2007, 01:22 PM

Walter

What expanded opportunities for nude activities do you support?

Firstly, you need more beaches. And I'm not talking about a few rocks at the extreme end of a proper beach, nor some place that's a 2-mile hike from the road. You should be provided with beaches that have proper facilities, car parks, toilets, eating places and so on. Then, you should be allocated places set aside in some of the larger parks, screened off by trees, hedges or fences to give you the privacy you want and to prevent accidental viewing by others. Along with that, you should have a series of carefully designed country walks - again chosen so that you could maintain privacy. Lastly, and this is already happening, you should be allocate "nudist days" at various recreational places such as theme parks, public gardens and so on.

How would you recommend that nudists and their supporters go about attempting to achieve these?

The four 'F's.

Fraternity: one organisation representing thousands, if not millions, of nudists that is united - speaks with one voice; strength in numbers and can't be ignored.

Funds: money talks and your parent organisation needs to be well financed. The mere fact that it is a wealthy body will enhance its influence and reputation and will suggest there are wealthy backers behind nudism.

Fight: you need to pester people - keep at them like hounds. I'm talking about people like elected representatives, public servants, private corporations, the media and so on. Don't let them forget that you exist until you get what you want.

Friends: you need friends and supporters who are NOT NUDISTS, yet who sympathize with you. Such people can carry a lot of weight with those who hold power because they can appear to represent the greater public. You need to win such friends and keep them and absolutely NEVER try to "convert" them.

Those are my thoughts, Walter.

Stu

walter05

07-19-2007, 01:34 PM

Stu;

If find your suggestions to be reasonable and helpful.

You are right non-nudist supporters are needed. They help show that the larger public is supportive. When the religious zealots attempt to stop all public nudity, it is this larger public that will respond.

You mention fighting. How would you do this so as to not antagonize people but enlist their assistance.

Stu2630

07-19-2007, 01:39 PM

When was that? Maybe I can try to find it again in these forums. I do remember you reporting it, but it's been too long. Didn't you say you skinny-dipped?

It would have been July or August last year, Bob. And no, I didn't go skinnydipping. I would rather be beheaded than go skinnydipping.

I watched a story on MSNBC where the anchor talked on phone with a newsman or someone who knows the town well. He, the Battleboro resident (or expert), reiterated the results of the MSNBC poll, that most of the people in the town had no problem with the nudity.

Bob - the bottom line is that it's a TV poll. They are a very long way from being reliable. The resident can't speak for the whole town. Speaking of polls, I recall some years ago that Sky News did a poll in which it asked the BRITISH public (i.e. people who are hugely less religious than Americans) whether they thought the world was created by God in 6 days, or by nature in four billion years. The result was 92% thought it was created in 6 days by the Almighty. So Sussex University carried out a similar poll using scientific methods, and they found that a far more credible 12% of people thought the earth was created in 6 days. That means, if you believe the university's findings as I do, that the Sky poll was 80% wrong!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

The point is that if a populace has no problem with something that is legal, what right does the govt have to make it illegal? You yourself have stated that if a majority populace does not mind a behaviour, it should be legal.

That's not quite what I said, Bob. It is not logical to include in such polls people who don't "mind" something. Statisticians will tell you such people are effectively opting out of the decision-making processes because they also presumably don't "mind" if that same something is banned. The correct comparison is the proportion of people who actively want the right to do something against the proportion who want to live in a community free of that same something. On that calculation, I guess the prudes of Brattleboro would represent the higher proportion

Now realize this Battleboro emergency edict is for 30 days. More debate will probably take place after that.

True. Any guesses as to which way it'll go after the 30 days? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

Stu

Pete Knight

07-19-2007, 01:44 PM

Positive input, thanks Stu!!!!

Free advice has three great features:
- It doesn't cost anything
- You don't have to take it
- It's frequently worth exactly what you paid for it.

What you endorse is, in theory, quite right and not new or startling but you missed out the 5th 'F' which AANF, CCBN, ANF and many other national organisations have a plenty, the f**k factor, this comes in the guise of internal politics, we can't agree within our own organisations on a course of action.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Until the inner turmoil is sorted, new members recruited, and the funds built up we can't even begin to campaign for greater freedom, and if the other organisations are anything like CCBN the emphasis is on clubs not more beaches, parks and country walks.

Stu
Are you aware of the political upheaval within CCBN? I thought your chum Dickie Collins may have enlightened you about his view of organised naturism within the Untied Kingdom.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-19-2007, 01:51 PM

You mention fighting. How would you do this so as to not antagonize people but enlist their assistance.

Walter

Pester power. You need to learn to make a nuisance of yourselves. Write to all-and-sundry who may be able to help you and ask for a meeting. If they don't respond, write again. And again. Then phone. And phone again. And keep on until they meet you. Send somebody to the meeting with brilliant people skills - someone who is charming, disarming and, most important, someone who looks like a perfectly normal person in all respects. Make them understand that you are every bit as concerned with not upsetting or offending people as they are. Have a ready answer to all their concerns. Be prepared to compromise - even if that is a wholly unreasonable compromise and you are not getting anything much. Once you get your foot in the door and they can see you are straight and they aren't having any problems with you, they'll relax and you'll get more out of them.

If you encounter complete intransigence, get as many non-nudists on-side as possible. Use the media to win friends. Stage some charity events - a nudist "fun run" to raise cash for some little girl who has cancer or for a new hospice. Apart from helping someone else, it shows that you are an integral part of the community, well-motivated and thoroughly decent people. Get publicity for such activities. That way, it will be harder to ignore you because you are now a respected minority and you will have won friends and with that some influence.

Public nudity stunts don't win you friends - they either get you ridiculed as eccentrics or else they get people into legal difficulties, bad publicity, hostility from church groups and so on.

Stu

Stu2630

07-19-2007, 01:56 PM

Are you aware of the political upheaval within CCBN? I thought your chum Dickie Collins may have enlightened you about his view of organised naturism within the Untied Kingdom.

Pete

No, I wasn't aware, but I kind of expected it. Minority interest groups are usually in turmoil with internal conflict and these are extremely destructive. People are expending their energies and talents in fighting internal battles rather than focusing on furthering their main objectives. If you're not speaking with one voice - forget it! And that's really sad. There are some fantastic people in nudism and they deserve better.

Stu

nacktman

07-19-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by walter05:
Nacktman;

When Bill Clinton was president, he suffered a stinging defeat in 1994. The Democrats lost control of both houses of congress for the first time in decades.

Bill Clinton hired republican strategists to meet with him and help him understand the defeat and how to turn it around.

This is rational and sane.

P.S. I have no doubts about the status of your sanity.

walter, it doth appear droll humor doth elude thee this day. Mayhap the exclusion of this http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif smiley t'was what clouded your senses.

walter05

07-19-2007, 02:07 PM

Nactman;

It appears that my lack of doubts have been affirmed.

P.S. Do you like jazz?

walter05

07-19-2007, 02:12 PM

Stu;

I think I would add a suggestion to yours. Pick elections that can be won and run nudist friendly candidates or support nudist friendly candidates. These may be for town councils, city councils, state legislatures, etc.

You are right, we need to build up a grass roots strength that has external support and does not antagonize. This way politicians will not be afraid to support our efforts.

I agree with you on the nudist stunts. Most people view the ones who commit them as nuts or worst. It only reinforces all of the reasons they oppose public nudity.

nimrod

07-19-2007, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Nimrod

I know you were joking, but there is a serious aspect to what you say. Stating an opinion should never be treated in the same way as "behaviour" and so should never be confined. The law recognises this and it's why we have laws which expressly protect "free speech" yet we don't have corresponding laws for "free behaviour".
Why not? The laws actually recognises both, to a point. You will not be arrested for dancing in a public area, like a park or sidewalk, a behaviour that may be shocking, disruptive, and even disturbing to some,(dancing leads to sex if you did not know http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif), but there are no laws against it. An opinion usually reflects ones behaviour. In the above example, the dancers opinion is that dancing in a public area is acceptable, which reflects the behaviour of dancing on the sidewalk. There can be a problem with opinions though, and that is when you let them dictate your behaviour. My opinion is that I should be able to go outside nude, if I let that opinion dictate my behaviour I have a good chance of being arrested. Behaviours that cause real physical, or psycological harm to others should be stoped not just confined. I am refering to deliberate psycological torture, not incedental harm one can do do to phobias.

On your second point - why do you feel you have to perform some mission to "change the current views of non-nudist that the human body is not something to be ashamed of"? Isn't that a bit of a "fundamentalist" attitude to take thinking that the 90% of people who are textiles have got it all wrong and you have some devine mandate to change them? Why can't you simply enjoy your nudist places and allow textiles to enjoy theirs?

Stu
On a TV program that I had watched, some anthropologists found and studied a village that had almost no crime, there were no rapes ever, murder was very rare, and only an occational account of theft, usually that of a chicken, goat or cow. The villagers were nude and had no need of clothes. There was no need of money everything was bartering or shared. They left the village after their study then came back some years later. In their absence missionaries had found the same village and taught the "heathens" about the christian god and that they should cover their nakedness, and how to be ashamed of their bodies, and sex was only for making babies. When the anthropologist returned, crime was a big problem, there had been many rapes, when there was a theft it was usually settled by the elder(s), but now things escalated to violence, and the murder rate went up.

If wanting to change the attitude that the human body is something to be ashamed of will make the world a better place, call me a fundamentalist. I do not think that wanting a negetive attitude to change is having a fundamentalist attitude.

Bobx23456

07-19-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
The four 'F's.

Fraternity: one organisation representing thousands, if not millions, of nudists that is united - speaks with one voice; strength in numbers and can't be ignored.

Funds: money talks and your parent organisation needs to be well financed. The mere fact that it is a wealthy body will enhance its influence and reputation and will suggest there are wealthy backers behind nudism.

Fight: you need to pester people - keep at them like hounds. I'm talking about people like elected representatives, public servants, private corporations, the media and so on. Don't let them forget that you exist until you get what you want.

Friends: you need friends and supporters who are NOT NUDISTS, yet who sympathize with you. Such people can carry a lot of weight with those who hold power because they can appear to represent the greater public. You need to win such friends and keep them and absolutely NEVER try to "convert" them.
Stu

Fraternity: Much of current nudism is the hideaway resorts and retreats. Their future business is dependent on keeping public nudity illegal, forcing us to pay for private retreats to get naked. The AANR, the biggest nudist organization, is a creature of the nudist resort business, with a vested interest in keeping public nudity illegal.
The Naturist Society, on the other hand, was created by the "free beach" people. We find ourselves with a split between the "private" lets keep to our resort folks and the public nudity folks.

Funds: There is money in the resort industry, but their interests lie in keeping public nudity illegal. There is money in the textile industry, swim suits are a billion dollar a year industry alone. We who advocate public nude freedom need to have organizations to contribute to which will advocate and push for public nudity. The Body Freedom Collaborative, for example, promotes fee nudity. We need to support organizations like BFC or NAC.

Fight: We need to be persistant and outspoken all the time, wherever possible. For example, in the Seattle PI forum this week is a long discussion about the 3 who were arrested during the Naked Bike Ride. Several of us have confronted the anti-nudity perverts who want nudity arrested. They have been unable to find comfort and community without opposition, and even the police detective who joined the discussion has been shamed into leaving after complaints about illegal police arrests.

Friends: There are many who don't care one way or the other about nudity. They currently have no need to get naked, but don't care if someone else is naked. They are the people who stand and applaud as the naked bike riders in Seattle and elsewhere go by. We need to find more of them and encourage their support.

All of these need public action, confrontation, and persistence. The more naked people confront the government, the more the government will want to accepet it and not have to deal with it any more.

Bob

TigerTeam

07-19-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Bobx23456:

Fraternity: Much of current nudism is the hideaway resorts and retreats. Their future business is dependent on keeping public nudity illegal, forcing us to pay for private retreats to get naked. The AANR, the biggest nudist organization, is a creature of the nudist resort business, with a vested interest in keeping public nudity illegal.
Bob

While I would not applaud AANR's track record, their aim has been to keep illicit public nudity illegal. Now understand that AANR grew out of a culture where naked bike rides and bare buns runs were really not legal. So their focus on private clubs was more of a way to provide sanctuary for social nudity. And to avoid the perception that their nudity had any relationship with illicit public nudity. They were not "forcing people to pay for private retreats to get naked" but instead giving people the opportunity to free exercise their nudity under certain boundaries. Maybe that paradigm is obsolete now.

On the other hand, the NAC and TNS have gone to the other extreme by supporting illicit public nudity for fear that good public nudity might be affected if laws against strip clubs are passed. Talk about raw hypocricy, they have a vested interest in keeping illegal nudity public.

Someone has got to have the guts to say no to this 'cause if social nudity is really so positive as people think then everyone should be opposed to any form of illicit public nudity.

MJ_KC

07-19-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by TigerTeam:
On the other hand, the NAC and TNS have gone to the other extreme by supporting illicit public nudity for fear that good public nudity might be affected if laws against strip clubs are passed. Talk about raw hypocricy, they have a vested interest in keeping illegal nudity public.
Absolutely, positively wrong.

They are trying to make it so that many nude activities are no longer considered illicit or illegal. They are certainly not about condoning illegal activities. I can't even imagine where you got such an incorrect idea.

They want the laws changed to be less restrictive or to see that new laws aren't passed that further restrict nudist activities.

nacktman

07-19-2007, 06:22 PM

Yes Walter I like Jazz.

Stu2630

07-20-2007, 09:55 AM

Some anthropologists found and studied a village that had almost no crime, there were no rapes ever, murder was very rare, and only an occasional account of theft, usually that of a chicken, goat or cow. The villagers were nude and had no need of clothes.

Yes, we do pollute many more primitive cultures when we interfere with their traditional ways and try to "civilize" them. That's happened through history and there are countless examples of this. I don't see that giving them clothing was an important factor in the corrupting of these peoples, though, but rather our encouraging them to weaken their extended family ties and societal hierarchies, encouraging materialism, introducing them to alcohol and gambling and so on. I don't think a pair of shorts ever turned an honest native into a thief or a rapist.

If wanting to change the attitude that the human body is something to be ashamed of will make the world a better place, call me a fundamentalist.

"Wanting" is one thing, but "forcing" is something else. By forcing people to change their perspective to suit what you believe it should be disrespects their existing values and promotes your own at their expense. You can't do that while at the same time expecting those same people to respect your chosen beliefs and lifestyle.

Bob

Several of us have confronted the anti-nudity perverts who want nudity arrested.

Calling people "perverts" because they don't share your perceptions is no better than the Islamists who call westerners "infidels" - in fact, it's worse. I am not a "pervert" yet I would vehemently object to nudity in the public places I go to. That term is both offensive and unfair: I have never used it about any nudists - even the ones who behave in a way I find objectionable.

They are the people who stand and applaud as the naked bike riders in Seattle and elsewhere go by.

These are, for the most part, people who knew what was going to happen and are happy with it. It's only one day a year and people like me would stay well away, so it would appear that there was public support. But that support is only from a portion of the populace.

Stu

R.M.GREENMAN2

07-20-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Stu2630:

"Wanting" is one thing, but "forcing" is something else. By forcing people to change their perspective to suit what you believe it should be disrespects their existing values and promotes your own at their expense. You can't do that while at the same time expecting those same people to respect your chosen beliefs and lifestyle.

Stu

But history is full of this! Christianity has forced itself upon other cultures! Islam has done the same thing.
England did this during the reformation,
America has done this to the Native Americans,
Rome did this to the Gauls,
So on and so forth....obviously it does work!
Not to say it is right and I would not condone it!

nimrod

07-20-2007, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Yes, we do pollute many more primitive cultures when we interfere with their traditional ways and try to "civilize" them. That's happened through history and there are countless examples of this. I don't see that giving them clothing was an important factor in the corrupting of these peoples, though, but rather our encouraging them to weaken their extended family ties and societal hierarchies, encouraging materialism, introducing them to alcohol and gambling and so on. I don't think a pair of shorts ever turned an honest native into a thief or a rapist.

What you say is very true, but in the case I had described, they were missionaries, alcohol was not a factor, and it was that fact that they taught the villagers about body shame, not just gave them clothes to hide their nudity.

"Wanting" is one thing, but "forcing" is something else. By forcing people to change their perspective to suit what you believe it should be disrespects their existing values and promotes your own at their expense. You can't do that while at the same time expecting those same people to respect your chosen beliefs and lifestyle.

Stu

Another true statement. Unfortunatly it is the prevailing attitude of some non-nudist to force their views on nudist. Wanting something is not enough to make it happen, there has to be some action behind it to produce results.

Stu2630

07-20-2007, 02:05 PM

What you say is very true, but in the case I had described, they were missionaries, alcohol was not a factor, and it was that fact that they taught the villagers about body shame, not just gave them clothes to hide their nudity.

This may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you. Missionaries should not teach other cultures that nakedness within their own societies is "wrong" - it isn't because it is their traditional way of life. If these missionaries don't like nudity, they should keep away from naked tribes.

Unfortunatly it is the prevailing attitude of some non-nudist to force their views on nudist.

Where people's lifestyles and values conflict, it's best that there is some segregation so that each group can be accommodated. Some people want to live in a Muslim state, others don't - that's why there are Muslim states and non-Muslim states. Some people like living in free-and-easy communities whereas others prefer everything just-so and orderly - and there are communities to cater for both lifestyles. The same should apply to nudist places so that both nudists (like you) and prudes (like me) can all be accomodated.

Wanting something is not enough to make it happen, there has to be some action behind it to produce results.

Yes, you can "want" something, but you always have to bear in mind that other people may "want" the opposite, and that's why trying to impose your will isn't generally the right way to behave. Remember, there are some people who "want" all nudist places to be closed down completely and for the practice of nudism to be banned. They are profound wrong if they to try to force that through, but so are any nudists who try to force their own changes on an unwilling wider society.

That's why I see there being an unwritten contract between both communities:

1. It is the responsibility of the non-nudist majority to show respect and consideration for nudists by providing decent and plentiful places for them to practice, with good facilities, and to protect them while they are doing so from gawkers, intruders, trouble-makers and religious zealouts. Non-nudists must respect nudists.

2. It is the responsibility of the nudist minority to be considerate of the feelings of non-nudists and, so far as is reasonable, behave in ways that they know are unlikely to cause offence. This includes consideration for the prudish elements among them, and even though they may perceive their negativity to nakedness as being irrational. Nudists must respect non-nudists.

Fair?

Stu

Pete Knight

07-20-2007, 02:44 PM

Fair?
Absolutely, but we don't even have that at the moment!!!

Its OK for the multi million dollar pornographic industry to peddle its corruption, but the 99 cent naturist tourist industry is obstructed at every turn by misguided prudes.

Stu, I can see that you are a reasonable fellow, and its good that you are here to play devils advocate so that we don't get delusional and think that our thoughts are the only line of thought.

Nudism has a part to play in society and we must respect those that have issues with nudity (Such as yourself.), but I for one cannot accept the false modesty of the puritanical zealots.

Pete Knight

walter05

07-20-2007, 02:50 PM

Stu;

You said: "Where people's lifestyles and values conflict, it's best that there is some segregation so that each group can be accommodated. Some people want to live in a Muslim state, others don't - that's why there are Muslim states and non-Muslim states. Some people like living in free-and-easy communities whereas others prefer everything just-so and orderly - and there are communities to cater for both lifestyles. "

You have helped remind me why the U.S.A. is so special. In the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

I am Jewish, others are Catholic, others are Protestant, others are Muslims, others are Agnostic, etc. However, we can all be American. No one can abridge our rights to worship and believe as we wish.

I have friends who are Jewish. I also have a very special Catholic friend who has spent many a Sabbath meal at my house. I have wonderful Baptist and Methodist friends who have also spent Sabbath meals at my house. I also have wonderful friends who are agnostic and have spent Sabbath meals at my house. I value all of them as human beings and have learned that kind, respectful people are more important than their faiths.

As a result, we constantly see each other's practices that are different from our own and grow from them. I honor their traditions because of how they have made better human beings of them and they do the same with me.

You live in the U.K. where the queen, who is sovereign, is the head of the official state church. As much as there may be freedom, non-Anglican English are in an odd spot. They may swear their allegiance to the queen but not as the head of the church.

America is not perfect. America makes a lot of mistakes. However, America is a wonderful country that still has much to teach the world. America teaches that everyone does not have to agree with me. However, we should all be able to celebrate each other and our beliefs.

Segregation enables people to be misled. If you tell me what is wrong with the Catholics, I know better from knowing them. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants have killed numerous people while living in largely segregated communities.

Some Muslim clerics have preached the need to extend Sharia law even to the whole world. They refer to Christians as pigs and Jews as monkeys. Their followers, who do not have daily contact with flesh and blood Christians and Jews believe this. This misinformation has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Segregation in the American South was important for supporting discrimination against Black Americans. Since it has fallen away, even here in Georgia, White and Black Americans are living side by side. We are starting to see each other as people. If someone attempted to discriminate against Black people in the South, most White southerners would object.

I am not advocating forcing anything on anyone. However, I am an opponent of segregation. When human beings see each other as real human beings, we do better.

Stu2630

07-20-2007, 03:14 PM

but I for one cannot accept the false modesty of the puritanical zealots.

Same here, Pete. For all my faults, nobody could ever label me a puritan!

Walter

You live in the U.K. where the queen, who is sovereign, is the head of the a official state church. As much as there may be freedom, non-Anglican English are in an odd spot. They may swear their allegiance to the queen but not as the head of the church.

Wow! Have you midunderstood the UK! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif Here, fewer than 10% of the people are churchgoers. The vast majority only ever enter a church for a wedding or funeral (and many of those are now totally civil functions) or as a tourist (because a church is centuries old building). The reality is that religion in the UK is an irrelevance for all but a few. Similarly, people swear allegiance to the Queen when they join the armed services, the police, the judiciary or Parliament, but that includes many people who would much prefer if we ditched royalty altogether and became a republic. The Queen is simply a symbol - people like soldiers and judges really believe they serve the people, not the Queen.

As I told you, I have a very dear Jewish friend. My wife and I are also close friends who are Jordanian and very strict Muslims. I can get to know them, and I can even learn about their religion, but I don't have to watch them actually at prayer to understand them. In the same way, I have nudist friends - I know they are nudists and they are welcome in my life - from them I can learn about their nudist philosophy - but I don't have to see them naked and I certainly don't want to be around them when they are.

Stu

kphoger

07-20-2007, 04:43 PM

for the record, i like jazz. brubeck rocks my world.
and, i'm starting to like stu.
i never disliked him to begin with, of course, but i keep gaining more and more respect for him even as people hurl more and more insults at him. his thoughts are always clearly stated, he shows signs of forethought and logic (which are rare commodities on the web), and i think i can actually understand where he's coming from. i, for one, am very glad he participates in these forums - not just for the reasons i mentioned, but because the value of a forum is that it is, by definition, an *open* conversation, presenting the views of all sorts of people. stu is an eloquent representation of the "other side".

while i empathize and understand him fairly well, i realize there are a few fundamental differences between his beliefs and most of ours which pertain to the topic at hand (yeah, the topic, remember that?):

1.
stu believes he has the right not to be offended in public. i don't believe that; in my opinion, it's not really the "public" if we remove all risk of offense. i concede that certain behaviors which are arguably harmful to observers (for example, sex in front of a child) ought to be prohibited in the public sphere. but, you see, the difference is that public sex should be illegal not simply because it offends people, but because there is a good case to be made that it traumatizes children.

2.
stu categorizes nudism as behavior, whereas i see it simply as a state of being. just as i was born a white male, i was also born with this body of mine. in fact, if anything should be categorized as "behavior", it should be wearing clothes. after all, it is wearing clothes that requires resources and action, not being the way we were born.

3.
stu believes the government should enact laws based on what the majority population wants. he embodies the democratic ideal. i, however, ascribe some moral responsibility to the government: if what the people want is wrong, then the people should not get what they want. imagine a country whose government engages in genocide; if the people living there support the genocide, that doesn't make it OK. imagine a country where it's illegal to confess jesus as lord; if the people living there support such a law, that doesn't make it OK.

4.
stu asserts that the real question comes down to how many people really support the nudist cause, and how many people really oppose it - that those who don't much care one way or the other shouldn't be counted. this doesn't make sense to me. if you were to count how many people in america are homosexual, then count how many people never want to encounter them, then there's a good chance, by stu's reasoning, that gays shouldn't be allowed out in public. maybe that's a poor example, but it's the people who don't care one way or the other that make all the difference. when it comes to numbers, the default should be something being legal, only being prohibited if there is such strong numers in opposition to warrant such prohibition. if most of the people don't care, then what need have we of the law?

=

i thought of this whole discussion today. as i often do, i took my lunch break at the rend lake rest area on i-57. i went down to my little "secret" beach to shuck my clothes, eat my lunch, and take a dip in the lake. as i started eating, i noticed a fisherman not too far away on the shore. i didn't think he knew i was there, so i put my pants on and walked around a point so i would be out of view. i stripped again, finished my lunch, and got in for a dip. as i was swimming, he appeared at the point (fishermen are wont to keep looking for better fishing spots) and saw me swimming. i kept swimming, and he kept fishing. after a few minutes, it was time to get out, and fortunately i was out of his line of sight while getting out. not having a towel with me, i just stood near the bushes to air-dry, keeping the foliage between him and me. then i got dressed to walk back, and found out he had started making his way back the other direction. the man must have seen my pile of clothes on the sand and known i was skinny-dipping, but didn't seem to care, considering he didn't say anything and had stayed where he was for a few minutes. i wonder if he would have cared if he had come across me while i was eating lunch instead of swimming. would that have helped make nudity more commonplace, or would the risk of him complaining to the police not be worth it. and, then, the big question: do i really care? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

Stu2630

07-20-2007, 05:25 PM

kphoger

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope I can address them all in turn without being tiresome or repetitive (as I know I can be at times), but here goes:

the difference is that public sex should be illegal not simply because it offends people, but because there is a good case to be made that it traumatizes children..

I'm not sure it does "traumatize" children to see sex. In many more primitive cultures, people lived in single-roomed houses and children would have seen sex and I'm sure they weren't all traumatized. Besides, how do you think some elderly people would react to seeing, for the sake of argument, a gay orgy taking place near them on a beach? We ban swearing in public, but there is no evidence that hearing obscene language harms anyone. Public places should be innocuous, pleasant places for all - including those of us who are really not at ease with the sight of naked strangers.

stu categorizes nudism as behavior, whereas i see it simply as a state of being.

The state of being naked is just a state. But to be naked in public invariably involves a behaviour because you have either taken off your clothes in a public place (a behaviour) or entered a public place while naked (a behaviour). The only exception to that would be if someone was born in a public place and remained there - not very likely.

if what the people want is wrong, then the people should not get what they want. imagine a country whose government engages in genocide; if the people living there support the genocide, that doesn't make it OK.

If what people want is morally wrong, then yes, the government should be under no obligation to comply with it. But if people are expressing a preference which has no moral implication, such as that people using public places abide by certain expectations of conduct - including not saying certain words which are regarded as obscene (by many people) or exposing parts of their body which are regarded as indecent (by many people), then that is a perfectly justifiable regulation for the comfort of those who have to use such places and have to pay for their maintenance.

that those who don't much care one way or the other shouldn't be counted. this doesn't make sense to me.

When you are doing statistical research involving measuring public opinion, the "don't cares" are never counted. This is a well established practice. Example: "Do you want our city's fire appliances to be (a) painted blue, (b) re-painted red as they already are, or (c) it doesn't bother you what colour they are? If you got 30% saying one colour (doesn't matter which) and 15% saying the other colour, and the remaining 55% "not bothered", what colour would you paint them? Answer - you'd paint them the colour which achieved a 30% vote even though 70% didn't vote for that colour. It's the same with nude people in public. If people don't care - they don't care - you can no more count them as "in favour" of a relaxation than you can count them as being opposed to it.

The "gays in public" point has a moral dimension - i.e. people don't choose to be homosexual so it is morally wrong to discriminate against them. But nudists aren't being discriminated against - they are free to do exactly the same things as everyone else - and must abide by the same rules.

On another point altogether - I hope our friends across the Atlantic are having better weather than we are having here in the UK. Our summers are already pitifully brief but so far this year we have been deluged with rain and many of our towns are flooded out - homes ruined and so on. I've never known anything like it my life. Not much fun for any of us - nudist or otherwise!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Stu

Bob S.

07-20-2007, 08:51 PM

Stu:"I would rather be beheaded than go skinnydipping."

Stu, that is both disturbing and unbelievable. I think given that choice, you would go skinny-dipping. I don't believe anyone who says they would rather die than get naked. And those who are serious could be described as mentally disturbed, possibly insane.

Stu:"the bottom line is that it's a TV poll. They are a very long way from being reliable. The resident can't speak for the whole town."

I know that, but at the same time, I never intended to state that this man used the TV poll specifically. I don't think he actually stated where he got the facts, so it is also possible that he was just using observation. After all, this had happened a few times before with not many people concerned.

Stu:"The correct comparison is the proportion of people who actively want the right to do something against the proportion who want to live in a community free of that same something. On that calculation, I guess the prudes of Brattleboro would represent the higher proportion"

So you agree that a vocal minority should speak out for the silent majority? Your beliefs are that the majority should have their way. If the majority do not mind the status quo, why should the govt change it due to a small proportion of complaintants?

As to your four F's, those are true. The most important would be the middle two, Funds and Fight. Without moneys, we cannot make any inroads in anything. Without the fight, especially making friends in govts, usually with the former, nothing can get done. Friends are vital as well as long as they are as strong a presence and help usher in votes for nudism. Fraternity is important, especially in getting funds and organization.

Bob S.

nacktman

07-20-2007, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Stu:"I would rather be beheaded than go skinnydipping."

Stu, that is both disturbing and unbelievable. I think given that choice, you would go skinny-dipping. I don't believe anyone who says they would rather die than get naked. And those who are serious could be described as mentally disturbed, possibly insane.

Bob S.

Bob, I think he IS serious and I (along with quite a few others), feel he IS mentally disturbed and most likely insane.

Stu2630

07-21-2007, 03:28 AM

I think given that choice, you would go skinny-dipping.

You are possibly right, Bob. What I was expressing was a gut reaction. None of us can predict what we would actually do if the alternative was our immediate and gruesome death. But it does illustrate the extent of my revulsion of the idea.

After all, this had happened a few times before with not many people concerned.

Can we really know for sure just how many of the people who unexpectedly encountered this were concerned? And how many people were quietly disapproving but stayed away?

If the majority do not mind the status quo, why should the govt change it due to a small proportion of complaintants?

There are several assumptions going on here that I would take issue with. We don't know what the majority think at all (a) because people tend not to come forward to make complaints for a variety of reasons and (b) the only measure of public opinion is a very unscientific TV poll. Secondly, there is a world of difference between "not minding" something and positively welcoming it. They wanted to build a new Asda (Wal-Mart) store in my town. A minority of people made strong objections because of fears of increased traffic, delivery trucks, litter and so on. An even smaller minority welcomed the new store because it would save them time in travelling to a store further away. I was among the majority it didn't bother one way or the other - that's because I don't use Adsa and I can easily avoid the congested roads. The local administration set up a local consultation poll and those of us who had no feelings either way were discounted. This was entirely the correct approach because it was based on the well established utilitarian principle that has guided democratic decision-making in your country and mine for decades. A person stating they "don't mind" something is affirming their neutrality, not their support of it. One final point. The way a question is framed and the possible answers available are critical factors and can not be made "off the cuff", as has been done in this case. You can get any answer you want if you ask the right question in the right way. Unlike most nudists, most other people DO have limitations on their acceptance of nudity, even if they answer "I don't have a problem with it", but a poorly designed survey will fail to recognise that. People like to consider themselves to be open-minded and with a sophisticated outlook and they would regard the term "prude" as very negative. Very few are conscious of any issues around nudity and will answer accordingly in a straw poll. But imagine you were their teenage kids' teacher and you took them to the beach for the day, but the one you took them to was situated right next to, and in clear view of, a well-known nudist beach. You'd be out of a job the following day! These people who regarded themselves as "open-minded" would be hammering on the head teacher's door demanding your scalp - and you'd probably never work with kids again! Or worse, imagine a little girl in your kindergarten asked you how men and women were different. So you and a woman teacher got naked to show her - and all the other kids, nothing remotely sexual - you are simply enabling the children to appreciate the anatomical differences between the sexes. How would the majority (because we are talking about the majority here) of parents react? Yes, people are hypocrites. They think they are cool about stuff like nudity, but the reality is that there are limits to their acceptance of it that even they haven't explored and it's only when you overstep them that you find out.

Finally, I don't know why Nacktman bothers to interject as he does. He doesn't engage with the issues; he just sits on the sideline spitting venom in my direction.

Stu

nacktman

07-21-2007, 06:47 AM

When there are issues - real issues- I engage with intelligent persons to discuss them.

When there are non-issues (such as this), I observe bemused at the rantings of some.

Also, I will ever call idiocy to task and name a troll a troll on any 'issue'.

kphoger

07-21-2007, 07:10 AM

I'm not sure it does "traumatize" children to see sex. In many more primitive cultures, people lived in single-roomed houses and children would have seen sex and I'm sure they weren't all traumatized. Besides, how do you think some elderly people would react to seeing, for the sake of argument, a gay orgy taking place near them on a beach? We ban swearing in public, but there is no evidence that hearing obscene language harms anyone. Public places should be innocuous, pleasant places for all - including those of us who are really not at ease with the sight of naked strangers.

i knew i would get this response from somebody - that seeing sex isn't necessarily traumatizing. in part i agree, but also firmly believe that sex ed should start in the home, not by renting porn or taking your child to a dogging event. however, i must admit that i would still not want to see my neighbors having sex downtown, and that the reason is not an intellectual one but rather reflect your "innocuous, pleasant places for all" reasoning; for that i have no answer. so my analogy is flawed, and i knew it from the start. but it does represent a truism in this part of the world, which is that something should be legal as long as it's not hurting someone. this is not only the prevailing morality of the population, but is also how we view lawmaking. i think the majority of people don't have strong enough opinion about public nudity to make much of a fuss, but when push comes to shove would say "yes, but what about the children!" they personally don't mind nudity, but still believe that their children need to be protected from it - because they believe it would harm the children. if we could make the public understand that seeing nudity is not only not bad for children, but even has benefits, then i think the prevailing attitude might change to become "well, if it's not harmful, then why should it be illegal?".

The state of being naked is just a state. But to be naked in public invariably involves a behaviour because you have either taken off your clothes in a public place (a behaviour) or entered a public place while naked (a behaviour). The only exception to that would be if someone was born in a public place and remained there - not very likely.

i still disagree. this actually points back to why my sex analogy is flawed. wearing clothes invariably involves a behavior, because everyone is born without clothes. OTOH, a child born into a nudist family could conceivably go her entire first few years without a stitch of clothing save perhaps a diaper (assuming doctors still make house calls). to then enter a public place, as i see it, isn't really a behavior because the public is simply where people encounter one another, whether or not they're actually doing anything in particular. i see entering a store or any other private property or establishment as behavior, which is why i support the right of business owners and home owners to set dress codes, but the public is something different. maybe on this point we'll never actually see eye-to-eye.

If what people want is morally wrong, then yes, the government should be under no obligation to comply with it. But if people are expressing a preference which has no moral implication, such as that people using public places abide by certain expectations of conduct - including not saying certain words which are regarded as obscene (by many people) or exposing parts of their body which are regarded as indecent (by many people), then that is a perfectly justifiable regulation for the comfort of those who have to use such places and have to pay for their maintenance.

again, i don't see being the way we were created as behavior/conduct. swearing is behavior, but nude simply the human body's natural state of being. and, besides, i don't think swearing should be illegal. certain words should be excluded from public, such as "BOMB!", but that's because shouting such things is potentially harmful (here we are again). on philosophical grounds is it wrong for government to keep me separated from everyone else because of the color of my skin. on those same grounds is it wrong for government to keep me separated from everyone else for letting people see that skin. it's legal and acceptable to show 98% of the skin god gave us, so let's liberate the other 2%.

The "gays in public" point has a moral dimension - i.e. people don't choose to be homosexual so it is morally wrong to discriminate against them. But nudists aren't being discriminated against - they are free to do exactly the same things as everyone else - and must abide by the same rules.

1. nudists, by definition, do things in the nude.
2. the rules say people can't do certain things in the nude.
3. ergo, the rules say nudists can't do certain things.
4. ergo, nudists are being discriminated against.

and, by the way, i happen to believe people DO decide to be homosexual, because i view homosexuality as behavior, not a state of being (now we've switched spots). all people have sexual desires, feelings, urges, etc. some people's desires are heterosexual, some homosexual, and some both because it's not a black-and-white thing. but a person still has to make a conscious decision to have sex. i don't believe having feelings for another man would make me gay, but having sex with him would. along that vein of thought, you could make the argument that some people have the desire, the urge to be nude in public, but they still have to make a conscious decision to do so. that's probably, actually, a pretty good rewording of what you've said. but here's the difference:

gays are allowed in public as long as they don't have sex; nudists are allowed in public as long as they aren't nude. but you can keep sex behind closed doors and not affect the nature of their sexuality, whereas keeping our bodies behind clothing directly affects our nudism-ism-isity. as i've already said, nudism itself is not a specific behavior; rather, it is engaging in OTHER behaviors whilst nude. masturbating in my front lawn is illegal because masturbating in public is illegal. watering my lawn in the nude should be legal because watering my lawn is legal. what i wear is relavent because i am a nudist. i apologize that my thoughts are not well-organized.

as for the weather, it's been quite dry where i live, actually (which is still quite wet compared to where i grew up). in fact, the only reason i could visit that beach i mentioned is because of low water.

Stu2630

07-21-2007, 07:31 AM

When there are issues - real issues- I engage with intelligent persons to discuss them.

Look at the title of this thread . this "non-issue" as you call it wasn't raised by me. If you think it in non-controversial to force the sight of nudity on the general population, then you're living in some sort of nudist pixie land. Of course it's controversial - that's what all the fuss has been about at Brattleboro - in YOUR country!

I read on a thread here a long time ago about some religious nut who didn't approve of nudism and yet would go to nudist beaches, watch the nudists but would never actually discuss anything with them. The best he could do was occasionally to shout abuse at them - accusing them of being exhibitionists and perverts. You come onto the threads where I post; you have no intention of entering into the discussion, you just like to stand on the sidelines and shout "mental case" and "troll". This continual mindless sniping just makes you look like a petulant child. Many nudists here don't agree with your assessment of me as a troll and they enjoy discussion and debate with me. If you don't like to see people enjoying natural and uninhibited discussion, you can always look away.

Stu

Stu2630

07-21-2007, 08:14 AM

i think the majority of people don't have strong enough opinion about public nudity to make much of a fuss, but when push comes to shove would say "yes, but what about the children!" they personally don't mind nudity, but still believe that their children need to be protected from it - because they believe it would harm the children.

I see where you are coming from - but I see it slightly differently. Their rational minds know that seeing nudity is no more "harmful" to a child than witnessing a sex act or hearing obscene language. I think "harm" is the wrong word because it implies some sort of quantifiable damage. People have an instinct which tells them their children should not see or hear certain things until they reach a certain age that they feel is appropriate. The media is conscious of this, so they are careful what they put on kids programmes and it's why films have age certificates. Nudity is a bit different because while a few parents are fine with it in all circumstances, most would have concerns about their children seeing it - or at least not in particular and very narrow contexts. But people's children are their own children - it is for them to decide what it is appropriate for their offspring to see. While ever there is a significant number of people who don't want their kids exposed to nudity, they should be able to prevent them from doing so and the government, the law and the legal agencies should support them in that even if the nudist community think that protection is misplaced.

wearing clothes invariably involves a behavior, because everyone is born without clothes.

I think that the "born without clothes" point which nudists use a lot doesn't stand up to much scrutiny because our condition at birth has very little bearing on our adult selvs. Yes, we are born naked, but we are also born incontinent and we can't empty our bladders and bowels wherever we like. Unless you live in a nudist community, or a massively primitive one, and in a very warm climate, you have to wear clothes at least some of the time. So nudists do wear clothes, and that very reality means that to be nude in public must involve a behaviour of either stripping naked in public, or entering a public place while naked.

i see entering a store or any other private property or establishment as behavior, which is why i support the right of business owners and home owners to set dress codes, but the public is something different.

The only difference between a private place and a public place is who actually owns it. A private place is owned by an individual or collective who decide upon what behaviour is and is not permissible in that place. A public place is owned by everyone and it is the representatives who are elected by "everyone" who are empowered to decide that same issue.

swearing is behavior, but nude simply the human body's natural state of being. and, besides, i don't think swearing should be illegal.

Swearing comprises certain words which are arbitrarily determined as being offensive in their own right, usually because they have sexual associations. Certain parts of the body also have sexual associations and so exposing them may be perceived as offensive. As for whether either should be illegal - again I offer the utilitarian approach of saying that public places should be designed and regulated to provide the maximum comfort and convenience to the maximum number of people. Nudity may not physically hurt anyone, but neither does putting on a pair of shorts - so we have to weigh up the likely offence of permitting nudity with the inconvenience of wearing shorts when you prefer not to - and how many people in each group are likely to be affected. This is the formula which is generally used and it's precisely why there are laws and ordnances etc which restrict nudity in public.

on philosophical grounds is it wrong for government to keep me separated from everyone else because of the color of my skin. on those same grounds is it wrong for government to keep me separated from everyone else for letting people see that skin.

Skin colour is an immutable characteristic of a person. If someone is black, they were born black, and will be black 24/7 until the day they die. There is nothing they can do about that even if they wanted to. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with there existing racially exclusive communities per se: if an independent island wanted its existing 100% white population (or black population etc) to remain that way and so they prohibited other races joining their community - that's not a problem for me. The trouble is that racial exclusivity invariably has "victims" - it has an ugly history with things such as slavery, apartheid and the like whereby one race was viewed as inferior. Now that IS wrong! There are nudist communities, resorts etc in which nudity is compulsory and I fully support their right to exist and to regulate them as they see fit. On the other hand, I also support the right of the rest of us who prefer not to see nudity in public to be able to do so.

it's legal and acceptable to show 98% of the skin god gave us, so let's liberate the other 2%.

I'm afraid I don't really believe in God, and call be a miserable old fuddy-duddy, but I don't want people "liberating" their sex organs in my presence or my wife's presence or my kids' presence - and I'm prepared to support those who feel the need to "liberate" those parts of them in getting places where they may do so freely. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Stu

TheNorm

07-21-2007, 03:34 PM

...call be a miserable old fuddy-duddy, but I don't want people "liberating" their sex organs in my presence... Hence the need for gloves and veils. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif (just kidding)

Bob S.

07-21-2007, 08:58 PM

Stu:"The local administration set up a local consultation poll and those of us who had no feelings either way were discounted."

This did not seem to happen in Battleboro. This was emergency legislation that was enacted. No polls, no serious discussion, nothing. My point is that if there seems to be more or less a blase feeling for a certain issue, or a small minority of complaints are voiced, the status quo should rule.

They did nothing after a group of local teens were naked last fall (or the end of summer). This time, it was an older tourist. Ageism and looksism have been thrown around in this debate regarding the reasons for the legislation without much discussion.

Stu:"but we are also born incontinent and we can't empty our bladders and bowels wherever we like."

Actually, babies can empty our bladders and bowels whenever they like. The only thing is that time is whenever they have to go. The correct thing to say is that babies cannot use their muscles to hold off until they have reached the proper receptacle.

Stu:"Certain parts of the body also have sexual associations and so exposing them may be perceived as offensive."

Yes, and in some of the more extreme religious countries, covering up is so imperative that showing the head, arms, legs, etc. is punishable. Of course, those laws are patriarchal and apply mainly to women. Unfortunately, those religious laws still exist today with the female breast all over the world. It is not a sexual part of the body, but, due to religious laws, has retained its sexual nature.

Stu:"but I don't want people "liberating" their sex organs in my presence or my wife's presence or my kids' presence"

Remember, other than the skin, there is only one sex organ visible on the human body: the penis/scrotum. Women's sex organs are all internal while the breasts are maternal organs.

Bob S.

MrTruth

07-22-2007, 04:20 AM

The words "sex organs" keeps popping up in these discussions. It would be best to define exactly what are considered sex organs.

From Wikipedia:

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, as narrowly defined, is any of those anatomical parts of the body which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in a complex organism; namely:

Male: testicles, penis, prepuce, scrotum, prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, Cowper's glands

Female: ovaries, clitoris, vulva, labia, Skene's gland, Bartholin's glands, vagina, cervix, uterus, Fallopian tube.

***Notice how male or female breasts are NOT listed as sex organs and are therefore NOT considered to be sex organs***

The Latin term genitalia, sometimes anglicized as genitals and genital area, is used to describe the externally visible sex organs, known as primary genitalia or external genitalia: in males the penis and scrotum, in females the clitoris and vulva, including the genital cleft, labia majora, and external labia minora.

The other, hidden sex organs are referred to as the secondary genitalia or internal genitalia. The most important of these are the gonads a pair of sex organs, specifically the testes in the male or the ovaries in the female. Gonads are the true sex organs, generating reproductive gametes containing inheritable DNA. They also produce most of the primary hormones that affect sexual development, and regulate other sexual organs and sexually differentiated behaviors.

A more ambiguously defined term is erogenous zone, subjectively, any portion of the body that when stimulated produces erotic sensation, but always prominently including the genitalia.

nacktman

07-22-2007, 10:22 AM

Never been one to like wikipedia, but the 'definitions' posted above are decent but still not truly accurate.

The 'organs' listed are mainly gender specific 'organs' and have superficial connections to sex ... I know, wait and read the rest.

"Gonads are the true sex organs ..." is not all together true either. They are the production centers for the reproductive gametes and of the primary hormones that affect 'sexual development and regulate sex organs and differences', true however they are secondary.

The 'sex organs' listed are primarily gender specific, i.e., gender difference, not 'sex' organs. There is only ONE sex organ in the body and that is the BRAIN. Those other 'organs' are the mechanical means of reproduction used which is equated with sex but is in reality not the same thing.

One can engage in a physical joining of the genitalia and not have 'sex' if the brain is not fully into the 'scene' and by the same token one can have 'sex' without engaging in a physical joining of the genitalia if the brain is 'fully into the scene'.

What it all boils down to is that no one's "sexual organ(s)" are on display for another to see unless they happen to have the top of their skulls removed and the skin pulled back to expose their brain.

It is the perversion(s) in the mind of the one doing the 'seeing' that is on display.

Stu2630

07-22-2007, 01:13 PM

We have to be careful here not to get bogged down in semantics. A lexicologist may view a term like "sex organs" to mean one thing, an anatomist may think it means something slightly different and a lawyer, legislator or police officer may ascribe yet another meaning to it. Differences in meaning are even evident here in the posts by BobS, MrTruth and Nacktman - and they are all perfectly valid interpretations. So, as I first used the expression, I'll say what I meant.

To me, a person's "sex organs" are those which a non-nudist wouldn't normally expose to a member of the opposite "sex", or allow to be touched by a member of the opposite sex other than with special permission and usually as a precursor to sexual activity. Further, they are parts of the body which are regarded in English law as "intimate", so they would include the buttocks, anus, penis, vulva and groin area from below the upper most part of the pubic hair area. For females, they would also include the nipple and areola.

Stu

walter05

07-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Stu;

You said: "Wow! Have you midunderstood the UK! Here, fewer than 10% of the people are churchgoers. The vast majority only ever enter a church for a wedding or funeral (and many of those are now totally civil functions) or as a tourist (because a church is centuries old building). The reality is that religion in the UK is an irrelevance for all but a few. Similarly, people swear allegiance to the Queen when they join the armed services, the police, the judiciary or Parliament, but that includes many people who would much prefer if we ditched royalty altogether and became a republic. The Queen is simply a symbol - people like soldiers and judges really believe they serve the people, not the Queen.

As I told you, I have a very dear Jewish friend. My wife and I are also close friends who are Jordanian and very strict Muslims. I can get to know them, and I can even learn about their religion, but I don't have to watch them actually at prayer to understand them. In the same way, I have nudist friends - I know they are nudists and they are welcome in my life - from them I can learn about their nudist philosophy - but I don't have to see them naked and I certainly don't want to be around them when they are."

I am not arguing what may be seen today or not. However, historically, the Anglican Church and at least nominal acceptance have been part of what was meant to be English.

Also, I know as a fact that there are issues when someone is being Knighted and is not an Anglican. In the recent past, there have been some work arounds resolved. However, the default is still to swear fealty to the church.

You said: "As I told you, I have a very dear Jewish friend. My wife and I are also close friends who are Jordanian and very strict Muslims. I can get to know them, and I can even learn about their religion, but I don't have to watch them actually at prayer to understand them."

I never said anything about taking a non-Jewish person to a prayer service. We have rituals such as special meals. Admittedly, there may be prayers at those meals.

You seem to think anything is okay as long as you don't see anything that is different or you may disagree with. I believe as an American I am used to being able to look past that. You may be right that many in England have an American style openness to different practices and ides. However, you seem not to.

I am not just talking about nudity. You seem unable to respectfully see other practices that are different from yours. This combined with your morbid view of your body is a sad combination. It is very limiting and stunts your intellectual and personal growth.

MrTruth

07-23-2007, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by nacktman:
Never been one to like wikipedia, but the 'definitions' posted above are decent but still not truly accurate.

The 'organs' listed are mainly gender specific 'organs' and have superficial connections to sex ... I know, wait and read the rest.

"Gonads are the true sex organs ..." is not all together true either. They are the production centers for the reproductive gametes and of the primary hormones that affect 'sexual development and regulate sex organs and differences', true however they are secondary.

The 'sex organs' listed are primarily gender specific, i.e., gender difference, not 'sex' organs. There is only ONE sex organ in the body and that is the BRAIN. Those other 'organs' are the mechanical means of reproduction used which is equated with sex but is in reality not the same thing.

One can engage in a physical joining of the genitalia and not have 'sex' if the brain is not fully into the 'scene' and by the same token one can have 'sex' without engaging in a physical joining of the genitalia if the brain is 'fully into the scene'.

What it all boils down to is that no one's "sexual organ(s)" are on display for another to see unless they happen to have the top of their skulls removed and the skin pulled back to expose their brain.

It is the perversion(s) in the mind of the one doing the 'seeing' that is on display.

This brings up a very interesting point. In some Middle Eastern countries, the sight of a woman is considered sexually arousing and therefor women are required to wear a burka which completely covers them from head to toe. In such an environment, a woman's skin and appearance are the offending sexual organs that must be covered.

Perhaps the real sexual organ are the perceptions and beliefs found in a person's brain. Since there are many different definitions and perceptions of what constitutes a sexual organ, the real culprit may that which a person thinks is offensive.

Stu2630

07-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Walt

This was a very strange post. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

Also, I know as a fact that there are issues when someone is being Knighted and is not an Anglican. In the recent past, there have been some work arounds resolved. However, the default is still to swear fealty to the church.

There are now endless examples of people being knighted, made Lords and so on who are not even Christians, let alone Anglicans. Sir Iqbal Sacranie was knighted last year and he is a prominent Muslim. At the same time, the Chief Rabbi, Dr Sir Jonathan Sacks, was also knighted. There are a few constitutional remnants of King Henry VIII's Reformation, such as that neither the reigning Monarch nor the heir to the Throne can marry a Catholic, but they are few in number and, if they were ever seen to be obstructing some other intention, they would quickly be dispensed with. As I said to you before, Anglicanism is almost a spent force in modern British society - an irrelevance.

You seem to think anything is okay as long as you don't see anything that is different or you may disagree with. I believe as an American I am used to being able to look past that. You may be right that many in England have an American style openness to different practices and ides. However, you seem not to.

That's unfair, Walter. It's not a matter of seeing things that are different or that I disagree with - I don't "disagree" with nudism. It's seeing things I find shocking or offensive that I would object to, and they are my reactions to seeing nudity. A couple of weeks ago, we had a guest stay with us - he is the boyfriend of our eldest daughter and he is a strict and lifelong vegetarian. We know that he finds the smell and appearance of meat upsetting, so there was no animal flesh on our table for the duration of his stay. If you invited me to your home, I would be very happy to discuss your religion with you and your nudism. I would not be comfortable, and would have to leave, if you got naked in mine, my wife's and our child's presence: but you would already know that and so you wouldn't do it. But that's not because I "disagree" with the practice of nudism.

I believe that nudism should be like sex in as much as it should only take place between people who consent to it. We know couples and it's almost certain that they have sex - but they wouldn't expect us to be present when they were in the act of copulation.

I am not just talking about nudity. You seem unable to respectfully see other practices that are different from yours.

You know I have close friends from a variety of cultures and religions, and I am immensely respectful of their differences, so I really don't understand where you get that idea from, Walt. But if we can get back to the subject matter of this thread, do you consider it to be "respectful" for nudists to get naked among people regardless of their feelings about seeing nakedness?

This combined with your morbid view of your body is a sad combination. It is very limiting and stunts your intellectual and personal growth.

I don't like seeing the naked human form and so I avoid doing so. That aside, I am no different to anyone else here. I have been happily and faithfully married to the same lady for nearly 30 years. We have three children - two grown-up and left home - all perfectly normal and well-balanced people. I'm no slouch intellectually, as I would have thought you could tell. As for my "personal growth", I really don't understand what you mean by that.

Stu

walter05

07-23-2007, 01:47 PM

Stu;

According to http://www.mandysroyalty.org/Ceremonies.html, the sovereign is clearly the head of the Anglican Church.

The website which I believe is for the Anglican Church is at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/. It gives the name "The Church of England".

It is true that there are established workarounds. The workarounds were established when Lord Jacobavitz was knighted. I am sure they have been used more commonly.

However, it is still true, at least ceremoniously that The Church of England and the Sovereign of England have a tangled, common identity.

Over time, it does appear that the identity has weakened. However, it is still there and historically it was much stronger.

My point to you is that I am no longer concerned about your views on seeing nudity. I see that as a symptom. You have difficulty seeing things that are different from your views and a morbid dislike of seeing the nude body, including your own. Your views on seeing nude people are symptoms of those conditions.

You gave the example of a guest who is vegetarian. I agree that it would be appropriate when inviting that person to have what they are comfortable with. That is respectful and proper.

However, if that vegetarian were then to demand that McDonald's close because the vegetarian can't stand to walk down the street and see and smell meat, that would be unreasonable.

If the vegetarian were walking through the park, and see someone eating corned beef sandwich, and object, that is also unreasonable.

We agree that neither a textile view nor a nudist view should be imposed on anyone. We also agree that the textile view is predominant. The conditions are such that nudity in common, public places is not appropriate or wise.

We also agree that there should be more recognized, safe places where public nudity can be enjoyed.

However, I do believe that a morbid disgust at seeing a nude body, including your own is harmful. I also believe that one should be open to be exposed to practices that who does not agree with. The exception for me is the practice I find objectionable and as a result I avoid. For you the exception is the practice you accept and choose to be exposed to.

Stu2630

07-23-2007, 03:35 PM

We agree that neither a textile view nor a nudist view should be imposed on anyone. We also agree that the textile view is predominant. The conditions are such that nudity in common, public places is not appropriate or wise. We also agree that there should be more recognized, safe places where public nudity can be enjoyed.

Yep. Those are all things we agree on, Walter. I reckon most people - both in the nudist and non-nudist camps - would agree with those too. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

However, I do believe that a morbid disgust at seeing a nude body, including your own is harmful.

I don't recall ever telling you that I have a morbid disgust at seeing my own body, Walter. I confess that I did have a problem in that direction some years ago, but nowadays I am able to shower completely naked! I see my reflection in the mirror as I get out of the shower, and I don't recoil in disgust. And you know, I don't think my discomfort at seeing other people naked is actually "harmful" - a lot of nudists have tried to tell me it is yet they can never point to any "harm" it has actually done me. The nudity of others simply isn't in my life - I don't have to try very hard to avoid encountering it.

"I also believe that one should be open to be exposed to practices that who does not agree with."

I'm open to discussing practices I don't agree with, Walter, but I certainly can't see any reason why I should put myself through any unnecessary discomfort and angst just to prove how "open" I am. I wouldn't go and watch a public execution just because I was in Saudi Arabia or go and see a live sex show just because I was in Bangkok, so I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind. Last year, I had a holiday in Denmark, but I had unknowingly booked a summer house close to a major nudist beach. I discovered that fact before I departed and mentioned it on here. I was persuaded by others here to go as close to that beach as I could manage - and I did - I got quite close to real live nudists for the first time. How more "open" do you want me to be?

Stu

Boreas

07-23-2007, 04:41 PM

I was persuaded by others here to go as close to that beach as I could manage - and I did - I got quite close to real live nudists for the first time. How more "open" do you want me to be?

I remember that. You did very well. Perhaps when you move to Denmark, you will actually go to the nude beach as a bather....nude of course. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif You have come a long way. There is hope for you. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

Bushnud2

07-23-2007, 07:30 PM

Stu has presented his opening argument with great skill and knowledge.
However the Counsel for the Plaintiff seems unable to reach a conclusion in his summing up.
The final arguments of the Defendant (Dario) should be interesting.
This case is becoming of international importance involving England, America, Canada, Thailand, Denmark and Australia. Next thing APEC will be involved.
A Press Release from ClothesFree would be most appreciated at this stage of the Judicial Proceedings.

walter05

07-25-2007, 10:08 AM

Stu;

You said: "I don't recall ever telling you that I have a morbid disgust at seeing my own body, Walter.

On July 18, at 3:09 P.M. you posted a response that included: "Walter:

Quote from me in you post:
"Stu has acknowledged a morbid fear of the nude body, even seeing his own. He has however stated that he supports nudism as long as he does not have to see it. It seems to me that despite his personal view, he is an advocate for having more places where nudism can be practiced legally. "

You said: "Thank you!!!! You have understood my views and summarised them perfectly. I have always said I support nudism - but I want to be able to avoid being there when it's being practised. I can't stand jazz music, either, I don't like having to hear it but that doesn't mean I am hostile to that genre or the people who enjoy it. Somehow I can't seem to get this simple concept through to them. They seem incapable of grasping that it is perfectly possible to support nudists and the practice of nudism while at the same time having an aversion to seeing naked people!"

I said you had a morbid fear of the nude body and you said I summarized your view perfectly.

You also say: "I confess that I did have a problem in that direction some years ago, but nowadays I am able to shower completely naked! I see my reflection in the mirror as I get out of the shower, and I don't recoil in disgust. "

I believe this is real progress. I did not realize that you used to shower without being completely naked. I am glad you do now. You say you don't recoil in disgust. Do you realize how beautiful and amazing your body is?

If you were in a situation where nudity is expected by society such as a locker room, and the other nudes were also male, would you be in shock or disgust?

I want to restate an argument you make because I think your words are leading to confusion perhaps on my part also. This leads to arguing with a position you don't mean to take.

If I were to go to South Korea, I would be in a country where people eat dogs. Here in America we think of dogs as man's best friend. I would not want to see butchered dogs hanging in a store for consumers to buy and cook.

I acknowledge that a South Korean has as much right to butcher and eat dogs as an American does pigs. However, I would prefer not to see the butchered dog because I would find it disgusting.

You seem to be saying you acknowledge that if someone wants to practice nudism, you don't object. However, you view it similarly to my view of the butchered dog. I don't share your disgust, but I can understand this view.

In America, if a Korean wants to butcher and eat a dog, the Korean might be in violation of the law. At a minimum, it would have to be done quietly so as not to disgust most Americans. You are saying that a nudist wanting to be nude in public is similar.

Stu2630

07-25-2007, 04:19 PM

"Stu has acknowledged a morbid fear of the nude body, even seeing his own. He has however stated that he supports nudism as long as he does not have to see it. It seems to me that despite his personal view, he is an advocate for having more places where nudism can be practiced legally. "

When I said I agreed with the above statement, I confess I wasn't focusing on the "even seeing his own" bit. I don't worry about seeing my own body these days, although I don't stare at it for prolonged periods. I certainly don't regard the sight of any naked body to be a thing of beauty - that's just my aesthetic taste.

If you were in a situation where nudity is expected by society such as a locker room, and the other nudes were also male, would you be in shock or disgust?

I do find myself in that situation sometimes. I am a member of a gym and I sometimes use the men's changing room where other men are changing or even showering. Nudity is expected there and I prepare myself for it before I go in so it's not a problem. I'm in and out very quickly. Plus I don't have to worry about my wife or one of my daughters being there

Your Korean butchered dog example seems like an excellent comparison. As you say, most westerners would find the sight of that revolting and unacceptable in their own streets, although they wouldn't necessarily seek to ban the practice altogether if it were a cultural tradition and carried out discreetly and humanely.

Stu

Dario Western

09-16-2007, 12:51 AM

Stu,

If you have hangups with your wife and daughters seeing you nude, I think you need to go and see a shrink.

Your gymnophobic posts on here have failed to impress me and the others.

Go and get help, dude.

Stu2630

09-16-2007, 02:58 AM

If you have hangups with your wife and daughters seeing you nude, I think you need to go and see a shrink

What proportion of daughters see their fathers nude? I would suggest it's a minority. So does that mean most fathers are gymnophobic? I don't think so. Yes, it's more unusual these days for a wife not to see her husband nude, but it's hardly unique and if the marriage functions in other respects, then why is there any need for medical intervention?

You know, Dario, my eldest daughter is almost a doctor and her boyfriend, a man I have a great deal of fondness and respect for, happens to be a psychiatrist. I have discussed almost every topic under the sun with him, including my attitude towards nudity. His sage advice was that "it's only a problem if it's a problem" - in other words, if we're happy as we are, why change things?

Our preference for avoiding familial nudity is a lifestyle choice and you should respect that - but you don't. Similarly, our wish to be able to use public places without encountering the nakedness of strangers is about choosing the kind of environment we want to live in. But you don't respect that either. You choose to interpret these choices as "shame" and feel that justifies you shoving your own ideological views on nudity down people's throats by saying "We're going to make you see our genitals and if you don't like it - get over it!". That sort of zeal and disrespect for the feelings and values of others is usually only seen in religious or political fundamentalism.

Stu

walter05

09-16-2007, 11:11 AM

Stu;

First of all, my daughters don't see me nude either. You are correct that this is common.

You say your daughter's boyfriend is a psychiatrist. You also say you discuss almost everything with him. Please be careful. Despite his profession, always remember the prime relationship for him is with your daughter. Don't blur that line.

You don’t want to discuss things with him you would not discuss with any boyfriend of your daughter. It can lead to problems.

Stu2630

09-16-2007, 01:18 PM

Thanks for your thoughts on that, Walter. My daughter's boyfriend is a remarkable young man (he's just 28) - he works in a high security "secure hospital", which is actually a prison establishment, at the moment. His work is his life - he eats, breathes and sleeps it. He is unusual because, unlike most of his colleagues, he is a huge believer in Freud. He dislikes using drugs on his patients and prefers other forms of therapy, in particular cognitive therapy, and believes hypnosis should play a much greater clinical role than at present. One of his problems, which he freely admits, is that he can not help looking at everyone he knows through his Freudian psychiatrist eyes and analysing them. This was annoying and alarming at first because it makes you reticent and you are not as inclined to speak to him with the usual spontaneity. You counsel me not to blur the line and that is probably good advice. The difficulty with that is that in his case I really don't think there is a line to blur - he's never really "off duty".

Stu

David77

09-16-2007, 08:33 PM

walter05,
Stu had a very rough childhood surrounding medical problems with his genitals, so he probably still has severe emotional reactions to the genitals (being shown).

In fact when he was much younger and chanced seeing a nude woman on the road by a beach, he almost fainted from anxiety and had to be helped to the car. This would indicate that he had developed a phobia, - which, in his case, is severe anxiety under certain circumstances in seeing nude genitals.

He has indicated that he has seen a nude woman only twice in his lifetime, and certainly does not want to see another nude woman. He can now <u>tolerate</u> seeing men nude in his gym changing room, so that is progress, but it seems that he has no desire to change his anxiety about seeing a nude woman.

He calls it his "preference". I call it his "anxiety".

jon71

09-16-2007, 10:51 PM

A debilitating phobia is cause for counseling. I know that could sound mean and I only mean it as innocuously as possible. Still it seems like the best course of action at this point.

walter05

09-17-2007, 08:29 AM

Stu;

Your daughter's boyfriend sounds interesting. I just know of circumstances where relationships dissolved and then when the parents also had close relationships with the other person, it led to great pain and difficulty.

I am a believer in also using nutritional aids. It is amazing how many behavioral issues are aggravated of helped by nutrition.

I will send you a PM with a link to Harvard's School of Nutrition; y'all may find it very interesting. Your daughter's boyfriend may find nutritional support to be a good partner to his therapies.

David77;

I understand what you are saying based on earlier posts from Stu. That is why I usually shy away from pressuring him on nudity related issues.

However, I do attempt to help him see when his views are more morbid than healthy.

Stu2630

09-17-2007, 08:59 AM

I'm a bit puzzled as to why people keep going back to the matter of my childhood and own revulsion to nudity. I think we've covered that pretty well and I am grateful to those who have kindly offered advice.

The topic of this thread is something called "Shame Breakers", and I would rather discuss the rights and wrongs of one group of people taking it upon themselves to force another group of people to change their perceptions. Firstly, it is patronising to label any hostility to public nudity as "shame" - many people with fantastic bodies do not want to expose them to complete strangers, and many people who routinely see nakedness in their work choose not to go to places where they see public nudity. Shame doesn't enter into it. Secondly, it is presumptuous and deeply disrespectful for a minority to force their own values onto everyone else when they know that many people find it unacceptable or repugnant.

I would like to remind any self-appointed zealots who think it's OK to get naked in front of people who have not given express or implied consent to be confronted by nudity what it says on the CFI page on this site entitled "Why Nude Recreation". Entitled "Set a Good Example", it goes on to say:

On public lands that allow nudity, remember to stay in secluded areas. By being respectful of boundaries, no matter what we think of them, we might win over public favor. If you are in an area that technically doesn’t allow nudity, you should cover up or ask if you may continue on with your nude recreation should someone else arrive.

http://www.clothesfree.com/Why.html

That is a responsible nudist approach. It advocates being "respectful" and certainly doesn't incite nudists to be pro-active by going around trying to "break" people's "shame".

Stu