Does or Should Nudity Have an Age Limit

[MikeJB]

I have been wondering about this because the textile society seems to have this biased opinion that i dont think they ever admit to of actually feeling that younger children are cuter and more acceptable than older ones and at a certain age this seems to turn from something cute and innocent into something wrong and disgusting. How is this possible and why should or shouldnt this be happening?

Also, why do nudists and nudists resorts/beaches/clubs in general say nudity is completely good and wholesome for children/teens but require them to be with an adult or have a parent's permission to go in just to see something that wont harm them????????? Doesnt that kind of counterdict what they say? Especially if the kid is old enough to be out doing stuff on his own and happens upon this place and clearly sees a sign that says there are nudists here and still decides to go in, wouldnt that then be his fault and shouldnt the parents blame the kid for going in when they knew the parents and didnt want him to and not the beach/club? I mean how are they supposed to know his parents said he wasnt supposed to be there and wasnt the kid supposed to know better anyways? Its like blaming a theater for a kid going in to see a r rated movie, knowing full well that his parents dont want him to go see such things. I just dont feel this is the responsibility of community places to deal with this sort of thing, but its the parents that need to deal with it and bring their kids up right and tell them what is right and wrong to do. I would love to hear your advice and I hope I dont get flamed too much for this.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Nudity should only be hidden when your bones turn to dust!

Naked ashes offend me!!

Just kidding.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

In reality, parents have the last word when it comes their children. Everyone else has to respect that.

Also, not allowing minors w/out a parent(s) is also covering their butts (as it were) at a legal standpoint.

[David77]

Mike states;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, why do nudists and nudists resorts/beaches/clubs in general say nudity is completely good and wholesome for children/teens but require them to be with an adult or have a parent's permission to go in just to see something that wont harm them????????? Doesnt that kind of counterdict what they say? Especially if the kid is old enough to be out doing stuff on his own and happens upon this place and clearly sees a sign that says there are nudists here and still decides to go in, wouldnt that then be his fault and shouldnt the parents blame the kid for going in when they knew the parents and didnt want him to and not the beach/club? I mean how are they supposed to know his parents said he wasnt supposed to be there and wasnt the kid supposed to know better anyways? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My observation is that some older children, to get to the beach, take the city bus (after school), or ride their bicycle or walk, and if they behave on the nude beach, the patrol has no objection to their enjoying the beach, also.

At nudist resorts and clubs, persons under 18 are not permitted without parents consent and without an adult, as the resort/club does not want to be legally liable and be sued.
(I have heard that in England the age is 16 instead of 18).

My nieces and nephews are all adults, but I have great-nieces and nephews. I can't take them to the resort without written permission from one of their parents. I can't take my own grandkids there without their parent's written permission--NOT verbal but WRITTEN. The resort owners want that written consent in case the parents decide later to complain.

That protects the nudist clubs and resorts from a lawsuit from an irate parent who didn't know (ortry to claim they didn't) that their brother or dad was going to take their kids to a nudist resort until the kids come home and say, "Guess where we went today!"

Minors cannot by law give their permission to do things that are illegal for them to do. Parents or guardians have to give that consent, and there are some things that even the parents can't consent to their kids doing--like sexual activity. A great-nephew of mine when he found out I was going to a nudist resort asked, "Can I go with you some time?" His dad, of course, said no, and so did I since I know he didn't want to go to enjoy being nude. He wanted to go to see naked women. His dad and I were both afraid that his inappropriate behavior and comments would get us kicked out. The boy at age 12 is now in trouble with the police because of trying to sexually molest a girl. So, was I right about him or what? However, what if I had taken him against his dad's wishes, and they had allowed him in without written consent? My nephew would have been very upset with me, and maybe could have sued the resort. The resort would retaliate by banning me from ever going there again.

[MikeJB]

In reality, parents have the last word when it comes their children. Everyone else has to respect that.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but why is it the resort's responsibility to enforce the parent's wishes? Shouldnt that be THEIR job? I think most kids would go to such a place would actually benefit from it and any parent would be rather foolish not to let their kid go to one. Theyre much safer than some of those textile places they let their kids go to and im sure alot more things can happen there than at a nudist resort. Yet we dont ban them from there now, do we? Why should it make any difference just because people who go to such places are nude?

-------------------------------------------------
Also, not allowing minors w/out a parent(s) is also covering their butts (as it were) at a legal standpoint.
-------------------------------------------------

Covering their butts from what? I thought it was legal to be nude in a private place designated for that purpose? Is there a law that specificly states that a child going to one of these places is illegal and does it even mention anything about a parent? I think by banning kids without parents is gonna give people the wrong idea about these places and make them think they are some raunchy club because they require parents to be with the kids. Its funny how textile clubs that parents may or may not want their kids going to let them in without the parent's consent or not and that seems ok, how would this be different? Considering it is generally safer than some inner city textile club full of gangster kids that do more picking on people than actually doing anything fun.

------------------------------------------------
My observation is that some older children, to get to the beach, take the city bus (after school), or ride their bicycle or walk, and if they behave on the nude beach, the patrol has no objection to their enjoying the beach, also.
------------------------------------------------

Sounds good to me and beaches are bigger and harder to manage than a nudist club/resort so youd think itd be hard to keep every unattended kid off even if they tried. I think its funny though how they think that a kid can come there without their parents consent but somehow going to a club or resort is bad in some way. Both have nude people.

------------------------------------------------
At nudist resorts and clubs, persons under 18 are not permitted without parents consent and without an adult, as the resort/club does not want to be legally liable and be sued.
(I have heard that in England the age is 16 instead of 18).
-------------------------------------------------

Sounds like some movie theater for some R rated movie *no one under 17 permitted because of sexuality, violence, etc*. these clubs are very safe and almost completely lack stuff like that and these people treat them like they are more dangerous for the kid to be alone. At least all you need at the movie theater is an adult with you if youre under 17. I think that should suffice for a nudist club or resort because usually if youve got an adult with you its a family member or trusted friend and usually they would only do something the parents would trust their kid to do and the kid is usually the adult's present responsibility for the child while its in their care, so 1) nothing should happen to them because the adult is around and 2) youd think that adult would get the blame because he/she was the one who let the kid in and they were the ones who probably honestly thought it was ok with the parents or ok for the kid in some other way. I really honestly think that if the kid is with an adult, chances are the parents approve and its safe for them to go in and even if they dont have an adult, youd think a written note in their signature would indicate their permission to let the person in. Anyways I wouldnt have to worry about such things because im 18 and ive got a state id and I could prove im an adult.


------------------------------------------------
I can't take my own grandkids there without their parent's written permission--NOT verbal but WRITTEN. The resort owners want that written consent in case the parents decide later to complain.
------------------------------------------------

That seems rather wrong to me. Youd think theyd let you in if you could prove that they are part of your family. I mean thats the way it goes at most places that are textile. Besides I thought some of those nudists places are "family" oreinted so not allowing a grandpa in to take his grandkids for a day at the nudist resort just goes to show how un family oreinted they are. Youd think theyd at least be lenient enough to allow close family members to take their kids there.


------------------------------------------------
Minors cannot by law give their permission to do things that are illegal for them to do.
------------------------------------------------

Its illegal for them to be nude at a private place like a club or a resort? I thought nudity *without sexual implications* wasnt illegal in private. So youd think that kid would have every right to be there. The very idea that somehow having a minor at a nudist club or resort on his own free will is illegal just boggles my mind. I guess theyd rather those kids go to those textile clubs where the kids are rude and half the equipment there is half running and everything is unclean. I mean which one would you chose?


------------------------------------------------
His dad, of course, said no, and so did I since I know he didn't want to go to enjoy being nude. He wanted to go to see naked women.
------------------------------------------------

I guess in that sense youd be right, although I dont see how wanting to just "see" naked women there would be bad, as long as he didnt gawk at them or make any rude gestures.


-------------------------------------------------
His dad and I were both afraid that his inappropriate behavior and comments would get us kicked out.
-------------------------------------------------

I think it wouldve been better to teach him what nudity and sex was really about and teach him that these resorts were not created for such things. I think if you just took him and kept him under control then he wouldnt found out how different it was and im sure he wouldve found out quickly that his sort of behavior is not welcomed there.


------------------------------------------------
The boy at age 12 is now in trouble with the police because of trying to sexually molest a girl. So, was I right about him or what?
------------------------------------------------

Maybe, but maybe taking him to the nudist resort and teaching him the true nature of the nudists and about what women's bodies and sex are really for then maybe he wouldnt have been prone to do what he did later on. That mightve had to do with his misunderstanding about women.

-----------------------------------------------
However, what if I had taken him against his dad's wishes, and they had allowed him in without written consent?
-----------------------------------------------

As long as he didnt burn the place down and as long as he didnt rat on you when he got home then youd be in the clear mostly. Besides if you had taken him before his dad said no, then you couldve just told him if his son got in trouble that you just wanted to take him to a nudist resort to have some fun and that you werent aware of his rules, which wouldve been honest and he probably wouldve just given you the benefit of the doubt. Also if his kid did go and nothing bad happened and you guys had a good time and he actually did learn alot of things about women and the difference between nudity and sex then if his dad found out you could just prove to him all the benefits of him going to the resort and how its helped to turn him around and you could also state that you didnt know ahout his feelings on the issue and you felt since your part of his family that itd be ok to take him. Some of my family members have taken me places where my parents might object, they might even object to the person I was going with but I think they still sort of knew about it and none of these places were illegal and nothing happened that endangered me anyways so all in all it was good and maybe not a suitable comparison to this but just generally I think most parents would trust their family members with their kid than they would say an adult who was their friend, unless it was a very good or lifelong friend.


------------------------------------------------
My nephew would have been very upset with me, and maybe could have sued the resort. The resort would retaliate by banning me from ever going there again.
------------------------------------------------

You couldve just denied you knew about his wishes and thought honestly that what you were doing was right and since you were the one watching over him, you were gonna make sure that he didnt do anything questionable or unsafe. So im sure it wouldnt have bothered him too much, he mightve been a little upset but im sure he wouldnt understood if you were the kid's grandpa after all. Besides think of it this way, taking him there mightve actually been beneficial for him thus helping you if he found out later on because you could prove that it was a good idea to take him there.

My whole idea is that nudity shouldnt be considered bad because it isnt and these places should be open for everyone to enjoy and not stereotype so much as to who gets in.

[TXK NUDE]

Should nudity have an age limit? YES! No one over the age of 165 should be allowed to be naked in front of others! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif That's just SCARY! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[MikeJB]

Then I guess almost all nudists would be screwed because it seems most of them, at least the ones that frequent clubs and resorts are in the 30+ crowd. Besides if we want body acceptance, we need to accept people for who and what they are, theyre age should be irrelevant. I just wanted to know others thoughts on this.

Not only should their age not be a factor but their marital status, gender, hetero or homo, or race should not matter either.

Unfortunately they all seem to matter way too often. So much for acceptance.

[TXK NUDE]

Cyndiann, I know we don't often agree, but in this case, we do. Weird, huh? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As long as nudity is clean and familiy oriented, then all should be accepted...even homos and Jews and people who have little "thingies"!

[Trailscout]

If a child wants to go to a water park and their parents cannot go, isn't it common for a neighbor or relative to take them in the parent's stead?

Does a water park require a letter from the parents?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Cyndiann, I know we don't often agree, but in this case, we do. Weird, huh? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As long as nudity is clean and familiy oriented, then all should be accepted...even homos and Jews and people who have little "thingies"! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you and happy holidays!

[MikeJB]

If a child wants to go to a water park and their parents cannot go, isn't it common for a neighbor or relative to take them in the parent's stead?

Does a water park require a letter from the parents?
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah it just boggles my mind. I mean people that go to water parks are usually about 95%-97% naked and if you just take a few breif and unnoticed garments away then hey you have your nudist resort, well besides the fact that there is alot of fricken water but I mean it seems dumb how just with a few stiches of clothing, taking a kid to a water park turns into some big deal. Sometimes I wonder why they even bother wearing swimsuits to the water park anymore, they areint hiding anything and besides if they did, the water parks are more leniant than the resorts are, so it works out great to me. Yeah why cant the nudists resorts just say its against their rules to deny certain people the right to come in and that nudism is a good and wholesome experience for everyone????? I wonder how many of these places actually started with this rule and how many just added it after getting numerous complaints???

It seems that people who are addicted to clothes and controlled by body shame have no problem with 95% of the body. It's just the butt, breasts and a small area between the legs that they want covered. In my case, very small. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In water parks they wear shorts or whatever, and everything the public has a problem with is covered. However, non-nudist parents don't generally want their children taken to a nudist resort because of the common belief that child molestation happens there. Plus, they don't want their child to be exposed to the nude body for fear that it might "tramatize" them. Resort owners are afraid of lawsuits if someone brings a child there without the consent of the parents, and the parents scream bloody murder over it, and there's the fear of bad publicity. Children are natural-born nudists. They are taught body shame because it doesn't come naturally.

[MikeJB]

Yeah its funny how parents worry about their kids being traumatized by the nude body and Id bet 10/1 that its the parents fault for them being that way for teaching them body shame. Also about the molestation thing, if parents are uneasy about their kids being safe there, why dont they just call up the resort/club and order a brachure? Im sure theyd find out that way that those places are safe. Besides kids can get raped at water parks too, so i still dont see what the big deal is. Its stupid to wear swimming suits to a water park anyways, they should be able to go nude, clothing and water dont mix well.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the textile society seems to have this biased opinion that i dont think they ever admit to of actually feeling that younger children are cuter and more acceptable than older ones and at a certain age this seems to turn from something cute and innocent into something wrong and disgusting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think they hesitate to admit it in the slightest. In fact I had the very discussion with a girl I was dating in high school. In her case she said that boys in high school were "gross" while boys before junior high were still "cute". Junior high could go either way. I didn't bother to ask her how she'd seen enough nude boys of various age ranges to come to this conclusion but she was pretty adamant. She thought that signs of sexual maturity in boys were both unaesthetic and (perhaps the real reason?) threatening.

When I was a lad in rural Michigan, I didn't bother to hide my skinnydipping in the local lakes and rivers. I noticed a definite coolness developed towards me as I got older.

For many people, nudity = sex, but prior to the development of a sex drive, breasts and pubic hair, nudity = cute and innocent. And of course there is a transition period in early puberty where different people draw the "innocence line" differently. Most states' indecent exposure laws include an age, usually 10 to 12, below which the law doesn't apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also, why do nudists and nudists resorts/beaches/clubs in general say nudity is completely good and wholesome for children/teens but require them to be with an adult or have a parent's permission to go in just to see something that wont harm them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A minor needs parental permission to do just about ANY organized activity that is not under the direct control of his parents. (Even if it weren't legally so, it would be required for insurance purposes.) Boy Scouts going on a hike? Need a permission slip. Daughter's class going on a field trip? Need a permission slip. Sending a child to a clothed summer camp for a week? Need a stack of permission slips and certifications and releases a foot thick to cover everything they might do or that could possibly happen.

Now an unorganized activity like some kid strolling down to the nude beach or going to the mall with friends needs no permission slip. The exception to this would be after curfew or during school hours.

The theatre that knowingly let a 16 year old in without an accompanying adult to an R movie could be sued by the parents and have its membership in the MPAA pulled. (Deliberate deception by the minor is an allowed defense in court.) Then they wouldn't be allowed to show any movies rated by the MPAA, a death sentence to any theatre. In reality, it never happens but in theory it could.

[MikeJB]

Yeah but what does needed parent permission for a nudist resort and needed it for a camp have in common? My question was, is why do they say that nudity is ok, but treat it in such a bad way, by requiring all these adults n such. How come they cant just let everyone in and if something happens, use their beleifs in their defense, stating that nudity isnt bad and stating all the good things about it and how safe and fun their place is. That would just seem to show them in a better light.

[Bob S.]

"at a certain age this seems to turn from something cute and innocent into something wrong"

Yes, society seems to think that puberty is the defining line between cute and wrong. In fact, nudity at that stage in life seems to be the worst thing for us. When I think of all of the nude scenes in movies, the majority of them are either adult or young child, it is rare to see pubescent nudity. And photographers who take pubescent nudes are seen as pornographers.

"why do nudists and nudists resorts/beaches/clubs in general say nudity is completely good and wholesome for children/teens but require them to be with an adult or have a parent's permission to go in just to see something that wont harm them?"

If someone took my child someplace where I have said he couldn't go, I would be unbelievable p***ed off. And that includes a nudist park. Parents have the ultimate right to decide if, when, and where their children go. This is not an issue of harm befalling them, but of parental rights. In those instances, the person could be arrested for kidnapping. They brought a child somewhere without their parent's permission, and especially if the place was somewhere that the parents have forbidden the child from going.

"wouldnt that then be his fault and shouldnt the parents blame the kid for going in when they knew the parents and didnt want him to and not the beach/club?"

In talking about a beach, there is no one a parent can blame except the child if he goes there on his own. It is public property (although I wonder what would happen if a minor willingly went to Hippie Hollow without any parental or adult supervision?) As for a park, they have the right to deny anyone entrance to the park. And they will deny a child alone for a number of reasons, first is the legal issue. They do not want to be known for allowing unaccompanied children into their park. That would be detrimental to their standing in the community. Second, unaccompanied children are not allowed to roam the park anyway. They need to be supervised by a parent or guardian to assure that they are not going to cause trouble, as some children do when they are without parental oversight.

"Yeah but why is it the resort's responsibility to enforce the parent's wishes?"

Because parental wishes are protected by law (when the wishes are reasonable). And controlling where their children go is very reasonable.

"Besides I thought some of those nudists places are "family" oreinted"

They are. They do not allow children to come in without their parents or another adult with parental permission. Isn't respecting parental rights as family oriented as you can get?

"but maybe taking him to the nudist resort and teaching him the true nature of the nudists and about what women's bodies and sex are really for then maybe he wouldnt have been prone to do what he did later on."

I doubt it. Molesting a child is not something that can be averted just by one visit to a nudist park. It may have even heightened his want to touch a girl and he may have committed the crime earlier.

"How come they cant just let everyone in and if something happens, use their beleifs in their defense, stating that nudity isnt bad and stating all the good things about it and how safe and fun their place is."

Nudity isn't bad. People are bad. And allowing everyone in will not make it safer, will it? I understand that you want to defend nudism and nudity, but there must be respecting the parent's rights in some cases, especially on private property. Let's put it this way: what if you allowed a neighborhood child into your home without their her parent's permission and something happened to her in there? Would the parents have the right to sue you? Even if nothing happened to her, would they be happy? Now add that this girl is, let's say stu's daughter and you went naked while she was in there. You even allowed her to go naked as well. Would stu and his wife have a right to be upset with you? Do you think you would be in some legal trouble? Yes and yes. Even though nothing happened to her, there is still the parent's rights.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Yes, society seems to think that puberty is the defining line between cute and wrong. In fact, nudity at that stage in life seems to be the worst thing for us. When I think of all of the nude scenes in movies, the majority of them are either adult or young child, it is rare to see pubescent nudity. And photographers who take pubescent nudes are seen as pornographers.
------------------------------------------------

That seems rather sexist to me. Only showing people that they find attractive or healthy nude.


------------------------------------------------
If someone took my child someplace where I have said he couldn't go, I would be unbelievable p***ed off. And that includes a nudist park. Parents have the ultimate right to decide if, when, and where their children go. This is not an issue of harm befalling them, but of parental rights. In those instances, the person could be arrested for kidnapping. They brought a child somewhere without their parent's permission, and especially if the place was somewhere that the parents have forbidden the child from going.
-----------------------------------------------

Well I was talking about say like a family member and what if you told the kid they couldnt go there BUT they didnt tell their adult *the family member* that they couldnt go there because ur one of those parents that trusts your kid and doesnt bother to tell the other guy cuz u trust your kid to follow your rules, so what if he takes that kid to that place, would that still be wrong and who would be at fault? Would this be the same sort of thing if say that same person took the kid to the mall when he wasnt supposed to go?


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

In talking about a beach, there is no one a parent can blame except the child if he goes there on his own. It is public property (although I wonder what would happen if a minor willingly went to Hippie Hollow without any parental or adult supervision?) As for a park, they have the right to deny anyone entrance to the park. And they will deny a child alone for a number of reasons, first is the legal issue. They do not want to be known for allowing unaccompanied children into their park. That would be detrimental to their standing in the community. Second, unaccompanied children are not allowed to roam the park anyway. They need to be supervised by a parent or guardian to assure that they are not going to cause trouble, as some children do when they are without parental oversight.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah i get the whole private property thing and I know theyre just tryint to cover their butts. I was just basically talking about kids that are at that age that most parents let them do mostly what they want on their own *i.e teens*.

------------------------------------------------
Because parental wishes are protected by law (when the wishes are reasonable). And controlling where their children go is very reasonable.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but how is the nudist place supposed to know the kid isnt supposed to be there????


-----------------------------------------------
They are. They do not allow children to come in without their parents or another adult with parental permission. Isn't respecting parental rights as family oriented as you can get?
-----------------------------------------------

My big concern is most of those kids who are say 13 and up and most of their parents let them go almost anyplace they want by themselves and feel they are responsible. If some parent wanted their kid to be able to go to the nudist park but say couldnt go themselves but still thought it was ok for them to go, do you think they still should be denied to go just because they are by themselves? Mostly ive been thinking of the 13 and over crowd here.


-----------------------------------------------
I doubt it. Molesting a child is not something that can be averted just by one visit to a nudist park. It may have even heightened his want to touch a girl and he may have committed the crime earlier.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah but I thought nudist values that are taught there usually turn people around and get them to understand the lifestyle, besides if he did touch a girl, he wouldve been kicked out immediately anyways so I guess that wouldve solved that problem.


-----------------------------------------------
Nudity isn't bad. People are bad. And allowing everyone in will not make it safer, will it? I understand that you want to defend nudism and nudity, but there must be respecting the parent's rights in some cases, especially on private property. Let's put it this way: what if you allowed a neighborhood child into your home without their her parent's permission and something happened to her in there? Would the parents have the right to sue you? Even if nothing happened to her, would they be happy? Now add that this girl is, let's say stu's daughter and you went naked while she was in there. You even allowed her to go naked as well. Would stu and his wife have a right to be upset with you? Do you think you would be in some legal trouble? Yes and yes. Even though nothing happened to her, there is still the parent's rights.
-------------------------------------------------

Letting a kid into my house and letting a kid into a nudist park, club or resort to enjoy themselves are two different things. Nudist resorts are supposed to be for everyone. My house is for me and my family and any close friends I chose to let in. That situation with the girl wouldnt happen in my house for 3 reasons

A) I only let very close friends in and their parents would know me and would know they were coming, unless they were old enough to come on their own and I knew their parents didnt mind and theyd most likely know I was a nudist beforehand.

B) We BOTH wouldnt be nude unless I knew she and her parents were ok with me or her being nude. Most likely id be nude though because thats my lifestyle but I wouldnt have her get nude so she wouldnt get into trouble.

C) I wouldnt do anything to cause a situation where I might get into trouble in the first place.

So yeah i think I covered all the bases, anyways I just think as far as the nudist resort goes is that they can be just as dangerous if you segregate them and only allow certain persons in than if you let everyone in. They oughta just let everyone in and have a certain maximum number of people there at any one time so they can keep an eye on and watch people to make sure they dont do anything illegal and if they do then the park needs to take the appropriate action against them. Most textile places let everyone in, why must our nudist places be any different?

[greensunshine]

Cyndiann, txk, I too agree with your statement, but knowing something about the court system and how easy it is for someone to be convicted on something as little as "Hearsay", I also am aware of how easy it is for the courts to take away the rights of the individual accused. Speaking from the experience of knowing someone who is currently serving time, and knowing the individual involved with why he is behind bars, most states if not all, will side on the side of the accuser even if the act did not occur (refering to a child being touched), the liability is not worth the end result...that being jail/prison time, not to mention the cost of defending oneself.

Paraphrasing a quote from another BB where the accuser was charged with doing something illegal, *Note, the person who was charged was able to prove his innocence but not without induring some hardship ultimately in the end, finacially. And while he was able to prove his innocence, he wasn't able to prevent having to defend himself without having to pay for legal and court cost that required him to do so. The same holds true when attempting to defend oneself against the state where the exposer occurs...ie, the resort, park, wherever...

Jon-Marc,

They are taught body shame because it doesn't come naturally.
--------------------------------------------------
I agree with you completely on this issue...and most of it has to do with the very organizations that attempt to protect our children...CPS (Child Protective Services). But then again this is one organization that while they have been forced into going overboard in trying to protect our families, also know that with all the legit cases of child/sexual molestings taking place in our nation all have to be treated equally, without making any distictions on what is right and wrong...

And Mike, if you know of anyone who has ever been watched, here is one for you and your generation who hasn't experienced CPS, try imagining being locked up for a long time without having any legal recourse...most of us who have endured CPS, will tell you, there is little difference in trying to protect oneself from these horrible people and the law...something that most who work in this profession consider themselves above.

--------------------------------------------------
aunaturelone

A minor needs parental permission to do just about ANY organized activity that is not under the direct control of his parents. (Even if it weren't legally so, it would be required for insurance purposes.) Boy Scouts going on a hike? Need a permission slip. Daughter's class going on a field trip? Need a permission slip. Sending a child to a clothed summer camp for a week? Need a stack of permission slips and certifications and releases a foot thick to cover everything they might do or that could possibly happen.

Naturalone,

I remember a time not that long ago when just giving ones word held value and protection. I for one must give blame to a specific profession for taking that right away from me as a parent...and that being all the underemployed attornies out there starving so they too can make a living, but then again as a society, we have allowed them to have that right. In this day and age, it isn't what one did to get sued, it sometimes boils down to how much money can we get by sueing someone over something as simple as "The Coffee was to Hot at Mickie D's" and thus only adding to the problem of where do we go next when our settlement suddenly runs out of money, oh, the fat cat who helped me get all this money suddenly needs some more, cause he too done spent all his.
--------------------------------------------------

Mike we live in a nation of people looking for a quick easy buck, and allowing people to sue over stupid things is definitely an easy way to make an easy buck... I once again remember when it was illegal to advertise for legal services on or in anything other than the phone book, now it is legal for people to advertize anywhere, including places they shouldn't like the Bathroom in businesses /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
--------------------------------------------------
And finally we live in a time of a lot of single parent families, where we always have to be on guard for fear that someone else out there will think we could be doing a better job of raising and protecting our children, thus adding additional pressure on us to do better, when in reality we already are doing the best we can considering the circumstances...

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW

[No Threads]

YES nudity has an age limit.. I was born naked and then they put cloths on me! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Ha now im naked again /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Trailscout]

I stand in awe of people who are so committed to nudism that they never put diapers on their babies! Does a couple spread newspapers on the floor during the first two years of their child's life? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Being taught body shame begins at birth. As soon as you're born, they wrap your body in cloth instead of presenting the nude baby to its mother.
When it comes time for mother and baby to go home, it's wrapped up in heavy, uncomfortable clothing. The process of being taught body shame has begun and continues until a person rebels and realizes that body shame is unnatural.

[Bob S.]

"That seems rather sexist to me. Only showing people that they find attractive or healthy nude."

That is not sexist as there was no mention of favoring one gender over another. Maybe ageist or beautyist.

"what if you told the kid they couldnt go there BUT they didnt tell their adult *the family member* that they couldnt go there"

Dude, I think you like hypotheticals about as much as I do. In that case, I would still want my family member to tell me where they were taking my child. I would like an itinerary of their travels before they leave.

"Yeah but how is the nudist place supposed to know the kid isnt supposed to be there?"

If he comes without documents or permission from his parents, then he isn't supposed to be there. If the person bringing him claims to be his parent, that is different.

"do you think they still should be denied to go just because they are by themselves?"

Yes. Unless they have a friend (or adult family member) inside the park and the parents of that friend are willing to watch him.

"Yeah but I thought nudist values that are taught there"

A nudist park is a place where peopel who enjoy being naked are free to exist without any problems. People live the nudist values, they do not teach them. And remember that it takes two people for learning to take place, the teacher and the student. And if the student doesn't want to learn, no education will take place.

"Letting a kid into my house and letting a kid into a nudist park, club or resort to enjoy themselves are two different things."

They are both private property. The only difference is that the nudist park has a larger yard and more living quarters.

"I only let very close friends in and their parents would know me and would know they were coming, unless they were old enough to come on their own and I knew their parents didnt mind and theyd most likely know I was a nudist beforehand."

That mostly describes nudist parks except for the close friends part. Replace that with members and visitors who have reserved a spot.

"I wouldnt do anything to cause a situation where I might get into trouble in the first place."

Neither do they.

Greenie, Remember what Shakespeare wrote, "First we kill all the lawyers."

Jon-Marc, that is not teaching body shame. The baby is not even fully cognizant of what is going on. I heard somewhere that babies aren't fully ready to be born until the 12th month, but they are born at the 9th month.

The body shame teaching doesn't begin until the child is potty trained. Before that, they have a legitimate reason to have the baby's bottom covered. Unless the parents follow their baby around with a pooper scooper and a roll of paper towels and cleaner. (Where the 'ick'smiley?)

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Being taught body shame begins at birth. As soon as you're born, they wrap your body in cloth instead of presenting the nude baby to its mother.
When it comes time for mother and baby to go home, it's wrapped up in heavy, uncomfortable clothing. The process of being taught body shame has begun and continues until a person rebels and realizes that body shame is unnatural.
-------------------------------------------------

I personally would not let them put a damn thing on my kid *if I had one* unless it was something needed to monitor their health and or keep them safe, something PRACTICAL. I wouldnt let them put one stitch of clothing on it *well maybe a diaper, but thats practical so there u go* because I beleive in the nudist lifestyle and im not gonna let some prudish textile nurse start my kid down that long road of shame that our society tries to create at a very young age. There is no reason to put clothes on a baby, those hospitals are warm enough where they can be nude just fine and if not they can find someplace to put it where it will be warm. Its bad enough they make you wear those silly garments when youre in the hospital when all you wanna do is be nude. I would expect that people having surgery or who are pregnant would feel much better naked, because 1. they wouldnt notice it that much because they are either in extreme pain or knocked out and dont know the difference and it just seems practical so that doctors and other people can get to the body parts easier and sometimes it helps the body to heal faster if it is nude and can completely use its own resources instead of being hindered by clothing. I just think they put clothing on babies in hospitals mostly because of shame and even if the baby doesnt notice it quite yet, it learns it fairly quickly and thats not something you wanna start. I think the parents themselves should be the ones to start their kids down that road and no one else.

[MikeJB]

Yeah ive always thought it was cool but ive always wondered how nudist families raise their babies completely nude *without diapers* ive heard of this happening but never seen it or heard how they acheive it. They probably watch their kids constantly or have their place modified in such a way that when the baby does its thing that it does little or no damage to whatever surface it does it on. Then they just scoop it up. Youd think if the baby was mostly confined to a small space and had some sort of plastic or smooth material that was easy to clean on the floor then having it be nude wouldnt be that hard since most babies ive seen have spent most of their time crawling on the floor and im sure when they sleep, their cribs have some sort of plastic bedsheets like they do for kids that wet their beds excessively. Unless I had the understanding like these nudists do though, id use some sense and at least have the baby wearing a diaper, even if it is a small one. That kind of clothing isnt bad because its practical.

[Trailscout]

Jon-Marc, a newborn probably is not going to poop right off the bat, so I think presenting a diapered newborn to her mother is done for the mother's "benefit". I think it would be better if the baby and mother had 100 percent skin to skin contact so they can bond with each other in those first moments together.

I am not opposed to a baby wearing diapers some of the time, but for far too many hours, the baby's skin is wrapped in a wet diaper and that is unhealthy.

One of my cousins had a persistent rash as an infant and the doctor told my aunt to let her daughter lie nude in the sun for a few minutes a day to help her bottom heal. It worked!

Back to the subject of a diaperless baby: I don't see why the baby can't be nude for hours at a time in a warm crib or playpen, provided the baby is on top of things that can easily be washed clean or disposed of.

I don't know how Amazonian tribes manage without diapers on their babies, but in tropical heat, I can imagine the terrible rashes a diapered baby would get. Here in Georgia, our climate has near tropical heat and humidity for four full months of the year and babies bottoms suffer for it.

[Rex]

Hi Trailscout,
In regard to diaper or nappy-rash, it's probably candida, a fungus disease which I'm currently discussing with Stu.
If anyone would like to know more about this very prevalent and potentially problematic disease, have a look at the book The Yeast Syndrome ISBN 0-553-19495-X.

[David77]

Many children in our society are victims of divorced parents who are still viciously trying to "get even" with one another, and sadly one way to do this is to threaten the other parent that he/she will have the child take away from him/her because he/she has taken the child to a nudist camp. Thus some nudist resorts require that both parents give permission so that they will not be in the middle of family squabbles/law suit.

[shãybare]

I do not believe there should be an age limit to be a nudist. In this society, however, with so many sexual deviants, we must do what we can to protect our children. And yes, I do believe the sexual deviants are created as a result of our depressive society. In a utopian world we would be able to allow our children to go where they want pretty much without worry for their safety. This is not a utopian society. I know it isn't because they have lawyers here. We also have people here that will sue anyone, anytime, anyplace just for the hell of it. Sexual deviants and Lawyers. It's hard to tell which isl worse. Just joking, I know it's lawyers. HaHa Now where was I? Oh, yes. Because of the way our society is structured, an age limit must be set as to when children become adults and able to clearly make a reasoned choice about how they live their lives. Setting an certain age limit does not mean that maturity has been reached. Some three year olds seem more mature than some of the people I know. Thank Whoever they are not posters on this forum. You all know that maturity cannot be judged by age. But how can members of society tell? They can't give each person they meet a test of criteria before they deem them mature. Therefore, age, although not being perfect, is set so legal and moral dealings can be done with a somewhat assurance that each party is making a mature and responsible choice. Giving a ten or twelve year old the responsibility of paying the bills and making sure there is food on the table would not be wise.They would certainly be taken advantage of. What about a fifteen year old? Sixteen? Then figure in the fact that most all parents are pretty protective of their children by human nature. Some under protect and others over protect. My parents over protected me and my siblings so we had a lot of growing up to do when we hit eighteen. From my personal experience I do not recommend over protection. Our society has a long way to go to being anywhere close to Utopia so we have to do our best to protect our children. We all believe in freedom. That includes being able to raise our children the best way we deem appropiate. That means we should respect the decisions of our siblings and friends to rear their children in their beliefs whether we personnaly believe in them or not. Taking a child to a place while he/she is "underage" that the parents do not approve of is wrong. It is true that kids, teens especially, will go and do things their parents do not approve of but we as adults should not facillitate these actions. But then that's just me.

[florida-david]

i agree newborn babies should bond next to mama naked, but after that, the 'real' world of the air-conditioner is too cold for most babies. they have not developed sufficiently to go naked without some protection. i live in s. florida, and the first thing to do about diapers is DO NOT BUY PLASTIC DIAPERS - use cloth diapers; they do not cause the rashes that plastic disposable diapers do. yes, you will be washing more, yes you will need to change them often, but at least you are not supporting some large monster company (an industry almost as pushy as the formula companies, but not quite). we let our babies cruise around all day naked, but only when we lived in a house with wood floors which were easy to clean. once we had a private backyard, they were always naked outside. and we did the wash everyday to keep those diapers clean. but it was worth it...

[Bob S.]

Some hospitals actually do give the baby to the new mother naked.

And as for not diapering children, the best thing to do is to get your child on a schedule and figure out their general "elimination" schedule. You could figure out how much time you have between when you change a child's diaper and when he soils it again and keep them naked during that time. If you know that your baby can go an hour between changing and "soiling," then you know that they could have about 45 minutes of naked time.

Bob S.

[Rex]

Hi shaybare,
Yes, 99% of lawyers give all the others a bad name!

[shãybare]

I'm not disagreeing with you fla-david but Huggies, Pampers and other disposables do help out alot of busy moms and those that work out side of the home. These disposables today keep alot of the moisture away from the babies skin and mom isn't having to change, unlike cloth, the diaper every time the baby pees. They really come in handy for nighttime obiously giving the mom much needed rest. One more advantage of the dispable is they don't let the poop come through to spoil sofas, carpets, etal... While one may be able to have their home "baby proofed", the neighbors and friends don't "baby proof" their homes just because there is a new baby in town.

I know I said I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I think I've just convinced myself klthat I am disagreeing. Go figure.