How it used to be [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

missouriboy

08-14-2005, 04:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No protection by being obsessively clothed has seemed to actually result at all, quite the opposite. Personally, I don't think this is coincidental. When we abandon our innocence and instead see evil lurking around every corner, we tend to find that which we seek.

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm, yeah! And as a society in general, have we been conditioned to believe that donning the clothes we wear, fulfills our own responsibility to protect ourselves from those evils? In other words, do the children never learn to be wary of evils, because their mommas think those clothes are protecting them from the same?

(There must be something that causes more evil to befall children in church and scout camps than in nudist camps, hey?)

NudeAl

08-14-2005, 06:55 AM

You know this nude phobia has reach epidemic proportions. I wonder if anyone at any of the national nudist organizations are thinking of commissioning a study on our societies changing views over nudity? I mean we can look at the historical record and see that as a nation we used to be very accepting of same sex nudity in the context of skinny dipping. We have a national hsitory of accepting this going back to our founding fathers. So if someone were to hire one of those glitzy add companies to do some promotion stuff for our side I wonder how far it would go? For crying out loud they aren't even allowing kids to take showers after gym class anymore! How hygenic is that and what are we teaching them about proper hygene by doing this? I know my first social nude experience was probably the locker room. We were required to take showers after P.E. all through school starting around the 7th grade. I think this common experience laid the ground work for later accepting the idea of mixed sex nudity at least in my mind.

Sad, just very, very, sad we're teaching our young the wrong lessons here. Instead of teaching them to be confident in their own bodies we are teaching insecurity over perceived imperfections. sigh

Ben_m

08-14-2005, 09:07 PM

by Poolside<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What bothers me about this generation is all of the sexual contend in the music, clothes, films, TV and their everyday lives. This must have something to do with their need to hide their bodies. Everything is sex, sex, sex. It is thrown at them from every direction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I believe these things are DIRECTLY related.

Danee

08-15-2005, 01:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ben_m:
by Poolside<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What bothers me about this generation is all of the sexual contend in the music, clothes, films, TV and their everyday lives. This must have something to do with their need to hide their bodies. Everything is sex, sex, sex. It is thrown at them from every direction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I believe these things are DIRECTLY related. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see the relation. From reading and what I know, kids in the 60's were much more open about same sex nudity, and co-ed nudity then now but sexuality was much more open then now too. People in general had little hang-ups or issues back then.

I am firmly convinced, when discussing American situations, the current beliefs and insecurity are not sexual related, but rather are a result of the extremist right wing doctrine brought to the scene during the Reagan years, and continuing with the present, thru' pressure from the Religious Right Wingers and so called Family values contingent. I know kids who are not this way, but they are not common.
-Danee

missouriboy

08-15-2005, 02:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
I fail to see the relation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Danee, don't beat yourself up over this failure. It's only the difference in maturity level between you and those of us who actually lived through those times. Patience, you'll get there too. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am firmly convinced, when discussing American situations, the current beliefs and insecurity are not sexual related, but rather are a result of the extremist right wing doctrine brought to the scene during the Reagan years, and continuing with the present, thru' pressure from the Religious Right Wingers and so called Family values contingent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I used to post on a board where there was a young woman who blamed absolutely every ill in the whole wide world on Republicans and conservatives. She even said the entire National Debt existed because Republicans could not refrain from using their credit cards! Was that person you? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

KetchumMaine

08-15-2005, 05:52 AM

If nudity is inherant to the human being, then eventually, isn't it likely that people will rebel against the clothes obcession?

It would appear that we are born with the instinct to be nude, but as soon as we are born, we are placed in clothes. Consider the parental plight to keep a young child dressed.

My thought is that, since clothing compulsion goes against this human trait, eventually there will be a rebellion against it, just as there once was in the past when people decided that men didn't need to wear full body swimsuits (which, incidently is what some competitive swimmers are wearing instead of "speedo" minis).

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Swimsuit.htm

NudistGuy47

08-15-2005, 06:18 AM

I believe some of the paranoia exhibited by some of today's youth comes from the more conservative bent to our society in general. I also believe the press and other media, trying to fill the airwaves with 24 hour news, has brought more stories of child abductions and child abuse at the hands of pedophiles to the forefront. These stories need to be told, but the aftermath is that parnets drill into their children the evils of being in same sex situations where nudity is acceptable (lockerrooms, saunas, etc) and being nude.

One other thing that comes to mind is the idolification of the human body by some advertising. If one does not measure up physically, then one should not revel their body to anyone in a relatively public situation. AF and many other advertisiing reinforces this issue and presents a distorted image of who we are as humans.

Just some of my thoughts! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luvnaturism

08-15-2005, 06:20 AM

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

My thought is that, since clothing compulsion goes against this human trait, eventually there will be a rebellion against it, just as there once was in the past when people decided that men didn't need to wear full body swimsuits (which, incidently is what some competitive swimmers are wearing instead of "speedo" minis).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The full body skin suits that some competative swimmers wear today may be just a little different from the wool "swim attire" that men once wore. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

But remember that, during that era when those heavy suits were in vogue, the vast majority of men felt the need to wear them only in public places.

In the US we owe a lot to England and its Victorian Era. If England is lucky, that will be a debt that we never repay. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luvnaturism

08-15-2005, 06:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Danee:
From reading and what I know, kids in the 60's were much more open about same sex nudity, and co-ed nudity then now but sexuality was much more open then now too. People in general had little hang-ups or issues back then. -Danee </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but those of us who lived through the 60s know that this isn't a true statement.

The rise of the Hippie movement, with its emphasis on uncomplicated sex, got a lot of publicity, but had little immediate effect on 99% of the population. It's no doubt true that the seeds of the "sexual revolution" of the '70s were sown in the '60s, but it took some time before a significant part of the culture was affected—and now we're seeing research suggesting that the sexual revolution didn't change all that much anyway.

Moreover it was exactly during the time that there was so much publicity about sex, including the emergence of the militant gay movement, that same-sex nudity in locker rooms and swimming pools largely went away.

I agree with others who see a direct connection between the emergence of a culture in which sex is relentlessly exploited to sell stuff and attitudes about the body that are perhaps more prudish than ever before in US history.

Nudony

08-15-2005, 07:24 AM

I'm with NudistGuy. I don't think right wing political/religious zealots were primarily responsible for the probable eradication of "how it used to be." Rather, I look at social/moral changes over the past 20-30 years. What happened, as I was growing up, was that behavior which had previously been often "swept under the carpet", such as child abuse, homosexuality and pedophilia, were tossed in the limelight by the medical profession, social services and the media. These behavior patterns were then exposed, studied, dissected. And that's when fear started settling in the minds of the masses. When I was a teenager, boys skinny-dipping together suddenly had homosexual undertones. Parents who "made" their kids go nude had child abuse undertones. Nudist adults playing and socializing with children started having pedophilic undertones. Over time, this lead to a change in morality, basically rooted in fear. What the "right wing zealots" did was feed that fear and "amplify" it, so to speak, to push their political/religious conservative agenda. It seems they have succeeded.

Buzzer

08-15-2005, 08:22 AM

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifSkinnydipping was one of the highlights of camping at Scout camp when I was a youngster. We all enjoyed it, but really didn't know why. No snide remarks were made about anybody's body. It was just accepteptable and enjoyed by all.

roadrambler2

08-15-2005, 12:52 PM

Growing up on a dairy farm and being exposed to life at an early age, some of my fondest memories are after a hard days work in a hot field stacking hay bales was to peel off the sweaty clothes and jump in the river for a few precious moments. We never thought twice about getting a swim suit,look back on how beautiful lfe was at a time when you just did it.
Run Well and Smooth-----Roadrambler

Orangexcalibare

08-15-2005, 07:43 PM

I am firmly convinced, when discussing American situations, the current beliefs and insecurity are not sexual related, but rather are a result of the extremist right wing doctrine brought to the scene during the Reagan years, and continuing with the present, thru' pressure from the Religious Right Wingers and so called Family values contingent. I know kids who are not this way, but they are not common.
-Danee

Danee, you give an extremely accurate description of the neoconservative ethic that is dominating the majority of mainstream American politics, media, religion and thought.

Check it out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

Thanks for educating us!

Illinois07

08-15-2005, 09:51 PM

BS - nude swimming for boys stopped when Title 9 came in , a liberal program to make boys & girls sports programms coed.

Florida Cracker

08-16-2005, 03:55 AM

Exactly, Illinois! So many times the conservative right is blamed for changes created by well meaning liberal people. When programs were forced to become coed, nudity was discontinued. Plain and simple. I will admit that the problem has become much larger now, with the few remaining single sex programs following the social change down the drain and banning nudity.
Florida Cracker

Danee

08-16-2005, 04:36 AM

Oh gosh! What a way to start the day! What a cop-out and so typical of your like! thanks!

Love it!

http://www.ironhymen.com/images/pickleshome.jpg

08-16-2005, 05:42 AM

Here is a great example of what Danee was talking about.

Justice Sunday Reloaded

New York Times editorial
Tuesday, August 16,2005

As if the first Justice Sunday weren't disturbing enough, the extreme right produced an angry sequel last Sunday - another church-based rally railing against judges. It was offensive on many levels, from the inflammatory and inaccurate attacks on "activist" judges to the fact that it was held in a tax-exempt church. If the event's speakers ever got control of the legal system, the nation would be in real trouble.

Justice Sunday II was held in a Nashville church and was broadcast to other churches nationwide, as was the original Justice Sunday in April. In his remarks, James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical organization, demonized the judiciary as "unelected, unaccountable and arrogant." As usual, the speakers declared their disdain for "activist" judges.

Attacking judicial activism may be good politics, but it is a phony issue. In a recent Op-Ed article in The Times, Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder showed that the most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, voted to invalidate laws passed by Congress - a good measure of judicial activism - far more often than the justices considered most liberal. What the Justice Sunday II speakers object to is not activist judges, but judges who disagree with them.

The rally's speakers had some scary, and ludicrous, proposals. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, questioned the Supreme Court's power to strike down laws passed by Congress if they are not constitutional, a practice that dates to the early days of the Republic. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, argued that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a Congressional enactment only by a unanimous vote. That is a terrible idea, one that would undo the system of checks and balances designed by the founders.

The organizers of the two Justice Sundays seem intent on turning the nation's churches into political staging grounds. Americans may tell pollsters that they favor more morality in public life, but we doubt that this is what they have in mind.

It is unfortunate that Mr. DeLay attended Justice Sunday II, but the more interesting news is that Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, did not.

Mr. Frist addressed the first Justice Sunday. But organizers say he was not invited this time because of his recent support for stem cell research. Mr. Frist has spent much of his time as majority leader cozying up to the religious right. The fact that he was deemed too moderate to participate this time is encouraging evidence that Justice Sunday II is a long way from representing the nation's mainstream.

naturalmanwa

08-16-2005, 06:32 AM

I'm with luvnaturism--I lived in the 60's and was skinnydipping with freinds who had a farm in a creek near their property, sisters included. Nothing was thought about it, it was just what we did because it wasn't in the public eye like a park or lake. Things changed in the mid to late 60's when the "hippie" movement came along.

zuma

08-16-2005, 07:46 AM

I hate to respond to the political potshots, but I didn't introduce it so I'll keep it brief. Reagan was conservative and right-wing only in his belief in limited government and foriegn policy.

Being a republican, as republicans were wont to do at the time, they paid lip-service to the religious right. It was an alliance of convenience.

Reagan is probably spinning in his grave at what the republican party has become. The god of Conservatives, Barry Goldwater, started spinning before he made it to his grave.

That said, there are outposts of sanity... There are more beaches in my area that are nude than there ever were in the 80s, and they probably outnumber clothed beaches.

Sammyboy

08-16-2005, 08:34 AM

It seems to me that if everyone is hiding in the toilet cubicles to change anyway, there's really no need for segregated changing rooms!

I have to say that I have friends in the States, in Carolina, who are definitely not nudists, but who are in the habit of skinny dipping when it's just them at their pool, or even if others are there, if it's after dark. Again, the feeling is "why would we NEED swimsuits". Here in the UK, of course, no one has a pool, so it's a little different.

David77

08-16-2005, 09:21 AM

Here is an archival photo of Nude Swimming at the YMCA (http://community.webtv.net/RespectNature/NUDEYMCASWIMMING)

I do not know which YMCA outdoor pool is pictured, nor the year, but was probably before my time, as the Ys I attended were modern.

I swam nude at the YMCA for years, took life guard training at the Y nude, and then was a life guard at the Y in the nude.

luvnaturism

08-16-2005, 11:16 AM

David77 - The picture does look quite old, probably before my time even. But it illustrates a more profound difference in attitude even than that nude swimming was accepted. In the time when this picture was no doubt taken (my guess is not later than the early '40s, but more likely in the '30s) the YMCA was an evangelistic Christian organization—yet they were willing to have a whole group pose for a nude photo.

And what do I think the public reaction would have been to such a picture? Zero. Zip. Nada.

luvnaturism

08-16-2005, 11:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sammyboy:
I have to say that I have friends in the States, in Carolina, who are definitely not nudists, but who are in the habit of skinny dipping when it's just them at their pool, or even if others are there, if it's after dark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A friend who runs a clothing optional establishment pointed something out to me which I probably wouldn't have figured out on my own. There is a large group of people who enjoy skinnydipping, perhaps for swimming or for soaking in a hot spring, who do not think of themselves as nudists or naturists. That's not part of their self-identify.

Arne

08-16-2005, 11:26 AM

For Jason Lee who asked if anyone was swimming nude at the lake. The lake was at a state park in Maryland. No nude swimming. I fully understand caution with children in public changing rooms; but several people used the word phobia to describe the attitude about pubic changing rooms.
In the same weekend, my wife an I attended the music festival at Avalon Resort in West Virginia. There must have been 300 nude people there listening great music and swimming, sunning, eating, and socializing. Quite a contrast. Aren

afzilla

08-16-2005, 01:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Illinois07:
BS - nude swimming for boys stopped when Title 9 came in , a liberal program to make boys & girls sports programms coed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS - Title IX requires equality of funding, not necessarily mixed-sex programs. Time to find a new boogeyman.

luvnaturism

08-16-2005, 03:08 PM

Personally I think several people here are trying to trace a complicated social process back to just one single source. That doesn't seem realistic.

Right-wing conservatism? The big changes in attitude about nudity took place starting in the '60s and '70s. During that era we had both parties in power at various times, and neo-conservatism hadn't yet been invented.

Title IX, that liberal legislation? It mandated equal opportunity, not mixed PE classes. However, it probably did create a situation in which some schools found it convenient and practical to put boys and girls together for some activities that used to be separate—-or perhaps not offered to girls at all.

Nude swimming at the YMCA? Somewhere around the early '60s the YMCAs and YWCAs found that they could no longer attract enough people to be economically viable unless they served the whole family.

No nude showers at school? My take on that is that the emergence of the militant gay rights movement created irrational fear on the part of some kids and some parents that gay teens might be waiting to jump on anyone took their clothes off—-or at least to leer at them sexually. During that same era there was also a huge emphasis on "sensitivity" and on doing what "feels good," so it was easy for Mom or Dad to argue that little Johnny should not have to do something that made him uncomfortable.

Civil rights? During the '70s and early '80s there were some court decisions that decreed that school kids had rights that had never before been recognized. Maybe it even started a bit sooner than that. Suddenly it became a lot harder legally for schools to compel kids to take their clothes off in order to practice the ordinary hygiene of showering after getting sweaty.

Ease of bathing? Up into the '50s at least lots and lots of homes had one bathroom and only a tub. No shower. This meant that there were more families for whom family nudity was an everyday occurance. It also meant that there were a lot of kids who couldn't conveniently bathe every day, so showers at school really made a lot of sense.

Opportunity? Once I was old enough that my folks knew I wasn't going to get lost, I could go anywhere I wanted as long as I was home for meals and before dark. A ten-minute ride on my bike would put me and my friends out in the country where there was no end of fields and woods where we could do pretty much whatever we wanted. If we wanted to shed our clothes—and we did sometimes—no one would know or care.

Those open spaces are gone now, and anyway liability issues make farmers leery of letting someone roam around their property. Much of the opportunity is gone now.

But there's even more to it. When I grew up parents felt safe letting their kids roam, and believed that it was excellent for those same kids to have unstructured time to develop their imaginations. That sense of safety has been lost now, and one result is that parents replaced unstructured time to go and play with a host of supervised sports and other activities. Free time to go off and skinnydip with friends is nearly non-existent for kids today, even if they had a place to go.

Ben_m

08-16-2005, 03:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nudony:
I'm with NudistGuy. I don't think right wing political/religious zealots were primarily responsible for the probable eradication of "how it used to be." Rather, I look at social/moral changes over the past 20-30 years. What happened, as I was growing up, was that behavior which had previously been often "swept under the carpet", such as child abuse, homosexuality and pedophilia, were tossed in the limelight by the medical profession, social services and the media. These behavior patterns were then exposed, studied, dissected. And that's when fear started settling in the minds of the masses. When I was a teenager, boys skinny-dipping together suddenly had homosexual undertones. Parents who "made" their kids go nude had child abuse undertones. Nudist adults playing and socializing with children started having pedophilic undertones. Over time, this lead to a change in morality, basically rooted in fear. What the "right wing zealots" did was feed that fear and "amplify" it, so to speak, to push their political/religious conservative agenda. It seems they have succeeded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Recognizing this is far from an uncomplicated issue, as others have suggested, I think you've done a good job of summarizing my own personal perspective of the matter.

Bob S.

08-16-2005, 07:23 PM

"No nude showers at school?"

luv, I will disagree that the gay aspect of sciety had that much to do with the lack of nude showers at school. You were more on track with the idea of the "me" generation where perents felt the their chidlren's sensitivity overruled teachers' and schools' policies.

It also had to do with the pedophilia society that was forming. Teachers no longer wanted to stay in the main locker room area while the students were changing due to reactions from parents and false accusations, which were prevalent in the 80s. This led to a lack of supervision and the locker room mentality where immature boys and girls would tease each other, making being naked a hard time for some kids.

That led to less students being naked and the showers being used less and less.

"When I grew up parents felt safe letting their kids roam,"

And there is the irony. Kids are so much safer today than ever before in history, yet parents are more worried than ever before. That is because of the 24/7 media and intense focus on children who get abused and the abusers, who are todays' witches--the lepers of society.

Bob S.

David77

08-17-2005, 02:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"When I grew up parents felt safe letting their kids roam," </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very true for the years of my youth too.

However, I could not roam out to the countryside easily, because I lived in the middle of the big city of St. Louis and I did not have a bicycle. My parents thought a bicycle would be too dangerous for me to ride in the street, but we could walk the sidewalks and walk to the parks.
When I was a teenager, I could even roam the neighborhoods late at night with other teenagers. We were essentially good kids and did not get into trouble. People did not bother to lock their doors much (during the depression years).

Orangexcalibare

08-21-2005, 05:59 AM

Just to clarify, I was and am agreeing with Danee on this one. There was no sarcasm in my original posting whatsoever. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Illinois07

08-21-2005, 08:23 AM

BS - yes - the practical effect of Title9 was to make classes coed to save money - I should know I was there. Were you?

Mosquito_Bait

08-21-2005, 12:41 PM

My 10 year-old niece stayed with us this weekend, so we were wearing swimsuits in the pool for the first time this summer. While in the pool with my niece and my wife, I made a remark about not wanting to stay in the sun too long so that I wouldn't ruin my all-over tan. My wife clarified to my niece that we usually don't wear swimsuits in the pool. My niece's reaction was something like, "Ewwww, that's nasty!". When we asked why she thought that it was "nasty" to swim without a swimsuit, she stated that people need to wear swimsuits so that they don't pee in the pool! The remarkable thing about this is that it marks a dramatic generational shift. My wife and her sister (my niece's mother) spent summer afternoons naked in the family pool together until they became adults and moved out of their parent's house.

Mosquito_Bait

08-22-2005, 07:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason Lee:
...did your niece eventually go nude in the swimming pool ?... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No! Absolutely not!

My wife and I would have considered it a violation of the trust that my niece's parents had placed in us to have discussed this any further with my niece. My niece's parents also have a backyard pool. I believe they must have made a conscious decision regarding the clothing etiquette for their own family. My wife and I would not want to undermine this.

oldbob

09-13-2005, 05:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No nude showers at school? My take on that is that the emergence of the militant gay rights movement created irrational fear on the part of some kids and some parents that gay teens might be waiting to jump on anyone took their clothes off—-or at least to leer at them sexually. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the reason my son gave for refusing to shower and eventually not even go to gym class when he was in middle school in the late 80's.

It seemed odd to me having grown up in a time when it was quite normal for boys to be naked together in the locker rooms and showers in gym class or when playing sports.

Buff Man in MI

09-13-2005, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oldbob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No nude showers at school? My take on that is that the emergence of the militant gay rights movement created irrational fear on the part of some kids and some parents that gay teens might be waiting to jump on anyone took their clothes off—-or at least to leer at them sexually. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the reason my son gave for refusing to shower and eventually not even go to gym class when he was in middle school in the late 80's.

It seemed odd to me having grown up in a time when it was quite normal for boys to be naked together in the locker rooms and showers in gym class or when playing sports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder what kids with this type of attitude are going to do when they go to work in the big wide world and work with homosexual folks. Especially if their job requires showering due to chemical exposures or just plain dirt and grime. Not to mention, using a urinal, standing next to a homosexual coworker. Are they just going to stop in the middle or hold it in until their coworker leaves?

I am not specifically singling out your son, just asking the question about todays youth in general.

It is an irrational fear, I wonder what approach can be used to help overcome it?

missouriboy

09-14-2005, 04:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is an irrational fear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But is it an irrational fear, really?

We've always had separate facilities for the opposite sexes. And, psychologically speaking, heterosexuals and homosexuals are opposite sexes. The situation manifested itself when the homosexuals came out of the closet and got militant. In the old days, the heterosexuals were unaware of the situation, only the homosexuals were aware, but they couldn't exploit it and at the same time stay closeted. The fear is indicative of the newly-found awareness of the heterosexuals.

Overcome it? Doubtful. For aware people to go back to unawareness would be like trying to unlearn how to ride a bicycle.

Edited by moderator. - UW

Vin

09-14-2005, 06:51 AM

Baron Lake

09-14-2005, 07:51 AM

Yes Vin, but it is a technique effective only against those who hold irrational ideas about nudity. A public educational system perpetuating irrational ideas is just what we don't need more of. I agree that students should not be forced to be nude but not because they might suffer "trauma", but for the simple reason that I believe in the right of an individual to chose their values for him or her self. Showers should be made available for those who want them at least.

Still hanging in there with the irrational biggotry eh Moboy? Well, even you have the right to your opinion, however uninformed.
b.l.

Vin

09-14-2005, 08:00 AM

I expect it's an effective technique, no matter what -- precisely because it violates the victim's right to decide what happens to his own person. And I cannot overstate how strongly I believe it is traumatic.

Not that it matters, anyway. Few public school systems are willing to risk the lawsuits (and court orders or insurance company pressure closing their showers) from one irate parent.

About everything else in your post, I agree. Showers should be offered to those who choose to use them. Students have a right to decide their own values, perhaps guided by their parents. And the last thing we need in the US is more schools teaching irrational ideas to our kids.

09-14-2005, 08:03 AM

Yes, I too agree that manditory showers should not be allowed.

Ro

missouriboy

09-14-2005, 08:15 AM

b.l. and Vin, I am not bigoted against homosexuals, nor am I a "homophobe." I'm merely trying to define the "irrational fear" as only being equal to the "irrational fear(?)" that has always dictated separate facilities for the opposite physical sexes. Why do people fear that? I'm saying the answer is the same for both situations, and if you find the answer for one, you've found the answer for the other.

Vin, I don't share that fear because I know that homosexuals can and do control their sexual urges just as responsibly as anyone else. If they make a mistaken approach, I know all I have to do is say No Thanks. This doesn't bother me, and I have no fear of showering/changing in a room with a hundred other men.

b.l., if I led you to believe I'm a (so-called) "homophobe" then I can only apologize for my ineptitude in expressing my thoughts clearly. I am totally neutral toward the sexuality of others.

Baron Lake

09-14-2005, 08:30 AM

OK Moboy, I guess we can go with that. However, your professed "neutrality" is expressed in decidedly negative terms on a consistant basis. IMHO.
b.l.

Sanslines

09-14-2005, 09:05 AM

Just wondering why people can't get over their own personal hangups and just accept others for who they are. From my own personal experiences and discussions with others, why should anyone (whether they be heterosexual or homosexual) feel uncomfortable around someone else. Usually the problem stems from the persons own lack of self acceptance and being uncomfortable in their own skin rather then someone else being the 'problem'. If you are secure within yourself and someone approaches you in a sexual way, all that you have to do is say politely "no i am not intersted". In the nudist community we talk about body and self acceptance as well as acceptance of others and yet I find some (thank goodness so few) who are bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc. They need to look in the mirror and judge themselves before they start claiming that others are the problem. I need to clarify my thoughts here too. I am not directing this to any one person here as I don't think they pertain to anyone here. These are just a few shared thoughts and experiences..........

Vin

09-14-2005, 01:48 PM

Moboy,

I may owe an apology as well. For some reason, the "h-word" offends me almost as much as the "n-word." Given that, I may very well have misinterpreted your post.

You may be onto something about fears and finding solutions for them. Until then, as you say, a simple "No thanks" will do the trick.

Vin

09-14-2005, 02:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The situation manifested itself when the homos came out of the closet and got militant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody questions this statement? It's the gay peoples' fault for coming out? Do you really think calling them homos is neutral?

And what does "got militant" mean?

Naturist Mark

09-14-2005, 03:30 PM

Unwired

09-14-2005, 04:31 PM

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

b.l., if I led you to believe I'm a (so-called) "homophobe" then I can only apologize for my ineptitude in expressing my thoughts clearly. I am totally neutral toward the sexuality of others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Missouriboy,

I accept your explanation at face-value, so I took the liberty of editing your post. But FTR, it's best to put potentially offensive nomenclature like "homos" back in the closet, so to speak. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

UW

Illinois07

09-14-2005, 05:35 PM

Mandatory showers after PE class equals rape? ROFLMAO

Trailscout

09-14-2005, 05:56 PM

When I was growing up, post-gym class showers (nude of course) were optional but common.

In boy scouts, we indulged in some unsanctioned skinnydipping at the river. We were not scolded for being nude, but for swimming in chilly water. (Thought to be bad for our health).

We had a streaker on campus, too. Even though he wore a paper sack mask, half the girls knew who he was anyway. Hmmm, he must have been veeeery popular!

Somehow I thought that subsequent high school kids would be more relaxed about nudity than my class was.

Buff Man in MI

09-14-2005, 09:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is an irrational fear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But is it an irrational fear, really?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's just me, but I consider it an irrational fear.

I would consider the following to be examples of rational fears, which to my definition are things that have a high risk of death or great bodily injury:
. Getting hit by a car while standing in the middle of the street,
. Falling while standing on the edge of a cliff,
. Of guns (sort of depends on whether or not the person holding the gun knows what they are doing, and/or intend to harm someone).

These would be examples of irrational fears, they might be traumatic psychcologically, or carry a small risk of death of bodily injury:
. Of nudity (apparently a very large segment of the world to some degree),
. Of crowds (a friend),
. Of going outside the house,
. Of flying in an airplane (my mom),
. Of spiders, snakes, and other creepy crawlers,
. Of cats (my mom), or dogs (a neighbor),
. Of the number 13.

I'll mention an irrational fear that I had while growing up. I was afraid of worms, couldn't bait a fish hook without getting over that one, and it still to this day turns my stomach at times, though rarely. But I've overcome that fear 99.999%. Overcoming a fear simply means taking control of it, rather than letting the fear control you, it doesn't mean that a person loses all conciousness of it, nor that they don't relapse on occasion. (Guess what I did for a while, caught and sold worms for use as fishing bait.)

I don't think of homosexual men as the opposite sex from myself, nor lesbian women the opposite sex from female. The fear of using a restroom at the same time as the opposite sex is an irrational fear. I have no fear of using the restroom with females (strangers) and have on numerous occasions, as I am sure many married couples do. To give a couple of examples, when returning from Israel this summer, transferring planes at Amsterdam's airport, the only men's restroom at the departure gate had a female attendant, who must've witnessed about 100 men use the urinals while doing her job, just in the time we were waiting for our plane to board. At a number of nudist resorts, bathroom and shower facilities are shared by the sexes, and it is a non-issue. I actually like it, since there are no interruptions in a conversation, if I happen to be talking to someone of the opposite sex.

For any fear, I would suggest at least learning something about that which is feared.

missouriboy

09-15-2005, 01:45 AM

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

I accept your explanation at face-value, so I took the liberty of editing your post. But FTR, it's best to put potentially offensive nomenclature like "homos" back in the closet, so to speak. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

UW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gee, is "heteros" a bad word, too? Didn't anyone notice that I used both homos and heteros in the EXACT SAME CONTEXT, as convenient shorthand, after establishing the full words earlier in the same paragraph? Guess we better not attempt to use "helos" in place of "helicopters," either!

missouriboy

09-15-2005, 01:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
And what does "got militant" mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, is this "jump on missouriboy" day?

It means I'm referring to a point in history already mentioned by someone else. My post was NOT the first in this thread to use that term!

missouriboy

09-15-2005, 01:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buff Man in MI:
...The fear of using a restroom at the same time as the opposite sex is an irrational fear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and my post was meant to point out that the fear of showering with homosexuals was equally irrational, as we can all see by now I hope.

Thanks for your long post. I don't disagree with any of it. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mountain Goat

09-15-2005, 03:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Gee, is "heteros" a bad word, too? Didn't anyone notice that I used both homos and heteros in the EXACT SAME CONTEXT, as convenient shorthand, after establishing the full words earlier in the same paragraph? Guess we better not attempt to use "helos" in place of "helicopters," either! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm. As an amateur linguist, I would say you are thinking just a little too simplistically.

'Heteros' is a very recent word, with very little baggage - and it is used as shorthand and (hardly?) ever used derogatively.

'Homos' however has a lot of baggage, loaded with negative connotations - it is usually said as if it were invective - I have never heard it in a positive context.

You may disagree, or think that because they are used together it is OK. Regardless of the fact they are constructed the same way, they are different words. Calling yourself a 'blanco', does not make calling other people 'negro's any less loaded, and potentially offensive to sensitive people.

But for the record, I don't think you were saying it as a slur. Feel free to disregard.

Mountain Goat

KSD

09-15-2005, 04:36 AM

It might be true that nude swimming and overall nudity in locker rooms has diminished due to the IRRATIONAL fear of straight people that gay people will look at them and/or hit on them. If we as nudist accept this as a rational reason to have ended same sex nude swimming and/or nudity in a locker room, then we must also accept those who feel like nude beaches are lewd and should be shut down for the sole reason that people of the opposite sex are looking at each other and there is the potential that someone might hit on someone of the opposite sex. I am a straight guy with several gay friends. I think homosexuals get a bad rap. Sure there are some who are sexual predators and deviants but there are far more heterosexuals who fall into those categories.

I think if more people were open to all people regardless or race, color, income level, sexual orientation, etc we wouldnt be having this problem. I always shower at the Y and would swim naked there everyday if I could and I couldnt care less who was there looking at me. There could be a gay pride parade marching through the pool and it wouldnt bother me! What are peple so afraid of? Have people really been raised to think that it is wrong for a homosexual to see you naked? Where do people learn this stuff?

I think the problem lies in the establishments that dont allow nudity. If the Y went back to allowing nude swimming, I dont think there membership would drop. Those who wanted to swim naked, would...those who didnt, wouldnt. I recently went to Cincinnati on a business trip and visited the Cincinnati Athletic Club which is a very old men's club downtown Cincy. They have always and continue to allow nudity in all aread except the weight room. While I was there people of all ages came into the pool area and swam naked. Lots of guys in the 20's there with their dads. People of all ages swam naked without ever wondering if anyone in the pool with them was gay. I am fairly certain there was at least one gay guy there but nobody seemed to care.

So we can ***** about this all day long but we either need to come together and do something about it (if anything can be done) or we need to accept the fact that nude swimming is gone except in a samll number of athletic clubs in America and move on.

missouriboy

09-15-2005, 04:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think you were saying it as a slur. Feel free to disregard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for recognizing that, MG. But since I do respectfully disagree with your post, I'll duly disregard it, except for the following comment: When I use the word Negro I capitalize it to denote the proper noun that it is, equal to the proper noun Caucasian. It's the honest name of a race of human beings whom I think should be just as proud of their true name as anyone else might be proud of theirs.

Vin

09-15-2005, 06:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Illinois07:
Mandatory showers after PE class equals rape? ROFLMAO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand.

Vin

09-15-2005, 06:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
We had a streaker on campus, too. Even though he wore a paper sack mask, half the girls knew who he was anyway. Hmmm, he must have been veeeery popular!

Somehow I thought that subsequent high school kids would be more relaxed about nudity than my class was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TS,

I hoped that the situation would be different now. But I also hoped that we would have long-established settlements on the moon and orbiting habitats by now, too. Looks like both may take a bit longer than we were led to believe in the 70s. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My campus had its fair share of streakers; one fraternity even celebrated the end of pledgeship with a naked run (no masks) and photo. Campus security usually had a heads-up and stationed an officer to stop traffic at the one cross street so they could pass safely.

Man, I hadn't thought of that in years.... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Vin

Buff Man in MI

09-15-2005, 06:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Thanks for your long post. I don't disagree with any of it. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are welcome! I thought it might be useful to give some examples of what I consider rational and irrational fears, in order limit any furher confusion.

As for the other folks jumping on you today. I guess you didn't get those memos, er memorandums. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ( http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry, I know BAD joke.)

Mountain Goat

09-15-2005, 10:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Thanks for recognizing that, MG. But since I do respectfully disagree with your post, I'll duly disregard it, except for the following comment: When I use the word Negro I capitalize it to denote the proper noun that it is, equal to the proper noun Caucasian. It's the honest name of a race of human beings whom I think should be just as proud of their true name as anyone else might be proud of theirs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Continuing this tangent, check the interesting usage note:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

As for being "their true name", well, that would be a hard sell. Let's also think about who named those of African-descent Negro/Negroid. How does this become the "true name" for which they can be proud?

The real question would be whether you choose to retain your nomenclature should it be felt to be offensive to the people whom you have labelled. If you find that someone was offended, would you change it or just berate them for their oversensitivity?

Linguistically, words are coloured by connotations and can assume additional meanings through usage.

Mongoloid, for example, has been rejected as a word for those who descend from the Far East. This probably wasn't helped by the fact that the Western scientific community for a period decided that someone with Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndome) was mongoloid.

I believed 'Negro' has been sullied by years of condescension. Perhaps I am assuming too much of what African-Americans feel about the term. Besides your traditional views towards the term, what do you think is the view of the majority of those whom you would call Negro? (which is their "true name")

Mountain Goat

Trailscout

09-16-2005, 04:16 AM

"Negro" has an innocent derivation, coming from the Spanish word for "black", and it was widely used by both blacks and whites here until the early 1970's as the preferred term, but a majority the Afro-American community has chosen to disavow the name because they wanted to make a break from the days of segregation and Jim Crow and felt that a new name for their ethnic group was needed.

"Black" was the name most folks agreed upon, but Afro-American seems to have at least partially supplanted it. Afro-American is not a very accurate term when describing black folks who have never set foot in America.

"People of sub-Saharan descent" has been used by sociologists for greater accuracy to distinguish black people from the Arabic and Hamitic peoples who now dominate the population of the Sahara and Mediterranean coast. The term is a bit long for everyday use. And aside from a somewhat dark skin color, there is tremendous genetic and cultural diversity among the peoples who are native to sub-Saharan Africa.

Asians were once called Mongoloid by anthropologists and Oriental by common folks, but for reasons mentioned in previous posts, "Mongoloid" fell out of favor. That the term "Oriental" became a problem for some is a bit puzzling however. It merely derives from the Latin word for "East". I suppose that if you regard China as the center of the world, you might take offense at being referred to as an Easterner, but otherwise, the name Oriental doesn't seem to be inherently offensive. Nonetheless, the Asian side of my family now uses "Asian" and I am respectful of their wishes.

Asia is a huge and diverse continent and it does seem ludicrous to lump Lebanese, Iranians, Indians, Malay, Siberians, etc.. as "Asians". People of the Phillipines are called Asians, but they do not literally inhabit the Asian continent, nor do many Indonesians. We do not call people of Guam "Asians". At some undetermined distance from Asia, we begin referring to the islanders of the Pacific as simply people of "Oceania" or as "Pacific Islanders" or of their various subgroups, such as Melanesians, Polynesians, etc..

The Dravidians of Southern India are more closely related to the Australian Aborigines than they are other Asians. Some ethnographers refer to this broader group as "Australoid".

Likewise some of the black peoples of the Andaman Islands, Malaysia, the Philippines are not ethnically Asian at all, but are probably part of some vast Melanesian group of non-African blacks. These peoples are traditionally called Negritos, but genetically they have little in common with Africans dispite their superficial resemblance.

Caucasian is a terrible misnomer as well. Most European natives live hundreds of miles from the Caucasus ranges. Calling them "white" may be accurate for the palest of them, but many Europeans are as dark as many Asian and Semitic peoples. Peoples of European descent? Well, some of the Syrians and Iranians could be described as Caucasian, but neither they nor their ancestors ever set foot in Europe, so we lose a great deal of accuracy there as well.

There has been some speculation that some Europeans have some Neanderthal genes. The Neanderthal is regarded as a different species of human being, now extinct, but there is an active debate as to whether a few Neanderthals mated with Homo Sapiens and if so, do a few genes from the Neanderthal race linger in the European population?

"Native American" is a welcome change from the misnomer "Indian" when used to describe the original peoples of North and South America. But the Eskimo or Inuit are descended from Asians who migrated to the New World much more recently and genetically they are identical to Asian Inuit who live in far eastern Siberia.

And if that weren't confusing enough, some of us decided to pick our ancestors from more than one branch of the human family.