When is Breaking the Law Good... [Archive]

aunaturelone

10-16-2003, 09:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>what makes breaking one a good thing, and breaking the other a bad thing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given that neither behavior is inherently harmful to the viewer, breaking either law is no big deal in a moral sense. The question is one of how much the behavior departs from the socially acceptable. Since most people will react very much more negatively to public sex than to simple nudity, obviously the former will cause much more offense than the latter.

There is zero chance that parks beaches will be set aside for public sexual activity. In fact it has only been VERY recently that laws against most private sexual activity have been overturned. The Texas law against private sodomy between consenting adults was struck down by the Supreme Court as an unacceptable infringeent on privacy. ("Sodomy" was defined as any sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse!)

It would require a vastly greater paradigm shift than any country has ever experienced. Not the most liberal country in Europe would even consider such a thing. Because of this, civil disobedience in the form of public sexual activity would be a futile effort and probably counterproductive. There just isn't the population base to create a successful political movement.

OTOH public nudity is just on the ragged edge of acceptance. Europe has scads of public beaches and some other public areas where nudity is accepted as a matter of fact. Nonsexual nudity on the public airwaves is comparatively common. The penalties for public nudity are fairly trivial.

Here in the US there are fewer acceptable areas and television nudity is almost nonexistant except on the "pay" channels. Yet there are a few legal beaches, occaisional nonsexual nudity in the popular media and even the rare public event where nudity is accepted which gives one some hope that there could be more. State laws preventing top freedom have been challenged and overturned. Civil disobedience has a role to play here, just as it has in every other civil rights movement.

The civil disobedience I recommend is to engage in public nudity in those places where there is a tradition of it despite the illegality. If there is more apparent demand for nude beaches, there will be more pressure to designate them as such. IMHO, laws should be directly challenged with disobedience in those places where there is a reasonable chance of having them overturned. The challengers should have their defense already thought out and and provided for in advance so as to maximise their chances of success.

Mind you, I won't be pursuing free sex in the streets myself. I don't advocate it as a desirable end state. But at least I'm honest enough to recognize that my personal inhibitions are not a valid basis for public policy. Part of being an adult is to understand that other people have a right to do things which one finds personally offensive and that the legal system ought not to be used to inflict an unesccessary degree of conformity to my ideals on other people. Nudity and sexuality are far from the only areas where this is true.

On edit:

Another thought is that people who would advocate a position counter to existing law can reasonably violate that law if enforcement of the law is unlikely. An example is nudity on the trail in the backcountry. If you take care to avoid the heavily used trails and times, it is rare to meet anyone. When you do, as long as you take care to remain courteous and unagressive, you'll almost always get a neutral to positive response and nobody will be interested in enforcing the law.

10-16-2003, 10:34 AM

aunaturelone

"Civil disobedience has a role to play here, just as it has in every other civil rights movement."

So would you agree that, if you DO commit an act of civil disobedience against a law you disagree with, the state is entitled to punish you?

Stu

aunaturelone

10-16-2003, 11:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So would you agree that, if you DO commit an act of civil disobedience against a law you disagree with, the state is entitled to punish you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Civil disobedience may have more than one objective. You may be planning to overturn the law by court challenge. You may be counting on a conviction and planning to use jail time as yet another means of protest. Oftentimes imprisonment enhances the stature and credibility of a civil rights protester. Martin Luther King emerged a much more powerfrul figure and the civil rights movement was much stronger after his stay in the Birminghan jail.

If you thought the state was correct in arresting you, you wouldn't be violating the law to start with. If you fail to succeed in overturning the law, there are other ways to eliminate or neutralize the actions of the state. As pointed out before, the state may drop prosecution for various reasons, the jury may nullify the law, the judge may throw the case out for various reasons or suspend the sentence. You may lose the trial but win on appeal.

Failing all this, you'll likely have been found guilty and sentenced. It's a risk you have to accept and no whining is allowed. The state often does things that are wrong and it is the protestor's job to challenge them on it.

I suggest you read Henry David Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience. It is a seminal document of American political philosophy.

Resistance to Civil Government or Civil Disobedience (http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html)

aunaturelone

10-16-2003, 11:39 AM

Here's a little blurb on Jury Nullification of a Law in case anyone is interested:

Jury Nullification (http://freedomlaw.com/JryMarke.html)

10-16-2003, 02:02 PM

"Failing all this, you'll likely have been found guilty and sentenced. It's a risk you have to accept and no whining is allowed. The state often does things that are wrong and it is the protestor's job to challenge them on it."

So who decided what is right and what is wrong? Well, that has to be the individual's decision. And how many "individuals" are there in your country?

How many people think the taxation laws are wrong? So anyone who disagrees with the taxation laws has every right, nay has a duty, to disobey them?

"I suggest you read Henry David Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience. It is a seminal document of American political philosophy."

I have read it - all three parts. Interesting, but it is a piece for its time. It may have some relevance where you are faced with a government that has no mandate from all the people, or for slaves or an otherwise oppressed people, but our government does have a mandate. When you break our laws you are breaking laws made by the elected representatives of the people - you are breaking the people's laws. From what I could see, Thoreau didn't envisage a government that held office having been mandated by ALL the people.

But, as you say, if you break the law and you are found guilty and punished you shouldn't whine. That's one thing we do agree on.

Stu

Rocket

10-16-2003, 02:18 PM

This guy is comparing nudity to civil rights? Geez............... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Naturist Mark

10-16-2003, 05:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
So would you agree that, if you DO commit an act of civil disobedience against a law you disagree with, the state is entitled to punish you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite. You do have to acknowledge the possibility. But no state is 'entitled' to enforce unjust laws.

Should the authorities be so daft as to actually prosecute a civil disobedience activist they are very likely to lose more than they gain. During the civil rights era in the US most arrested protestors were released without charge, the arrest and brief detention were considered punishment (or harassment) enough, and the state would not have to justify its enforcement of unjust law before a court.

Today most cases of nudist civil disobedience are plead out with a fine or have charges dropped.

To actually prosecute risks nullification of the law as has happened with respect to topfreedom in New York, Ohio, and Washington DC. In Canada it has resulted in the anti-nudity law being gutted.

In addition prosecution risks exposing the authorities to public disdain and disapproval when the persecution and punishment far exceeds the harm caused by the civil disobedience. That is what the Scottish authorities are facing with respect to Steve Gough's case. By subjecting Mr. Gough to punishment far out of proportion to the annoyance he has caused, the Scottish authorities are promoting his cause far more than he could have if he had completed his walk unaccosted.

-Mark

aunaturelone

10-16-2003, 05:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>This guy is comparing nudity to civil rights? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course. And you don't...? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Geez!

Rocket

10-16-2003, 06:01 PM

I wouldn't say asking people to be clothed in public is unjust..

It's just common sense..

Mr Gough has willingly disobeyed court order, and that is why he is in prison. What happens to him when he comes up for trial? Don't know..but I am hoping he simply pleads guilty and is given a conditional discharge. I do believe though, that if he chooses to disobey that..a sentance of approx 2 years is reasonable.

You have to remember, the Court didn't put Mr Gough in jail..HE PUT HIMSELF there..by his actions when he knew there would be consequences would/could be /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aunaturelone

10-16-2003, 06:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So who decided what is right and what is wrong? Well, that has to be the individual's decision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup. It can never be anyone else's. "Just obeying the law" and "just following orders" have no bearing on whether your actions are right or wrong or how history will judge you. You do not get to outsource for your morality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>And how many "individuals" are there in your country? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>About 300 million.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>How many people think the taxation laws are wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not many, else the tax system wouldn't work. There are challenges in the courts to this or that section of the law and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. People (perhaps hundreds of thousands) fight every year with IRS auditors over whether this is allowed or that is not. But overall, people accept that some taxes must be paid to secure the benefits government has to offer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So anyone who disagrees with the taxation laws has every right, nay has a duty, to disobey them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All morality is individual and unique. If they believe strongly enough, they have a moral obligation to disobey. If the moral question is important enough to them, they have a moral duty to disobey even unto their own death.

We have a right to challenge the law in the courts, not neccessarily a right to win. Often the ONLY way to get that day in court is to break the law in a very public way. Whether the government recognizes the 'right' to disobey a tax law depends on the outcome of the ensuing struggle. As long as the courts adhere to the principles underlying the federal and the several state constitutions in rendering the verdict, most people accept the court's decision as disposative. Those who don't will try in the future to get the precedent overturned.

It doesn't mean convicted people ought to sit idly by in jail doing pennance. The legal battle ought be carried forth on all fronts to free them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I have read it - all three parts. Interesting, but it is a piece for its time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There we differ. Most Americans would argue today that it is a piece for all time. Beginning in the 60s it has become a template upon which all our great social movements have been based, whether the civil rights movement for racial minorities, for women, for gays, even the environmental movement. Every one of them has recognized the validity of civil disobedience and used it as a tool in the struggle.

Civil disobedience to tax laws was a bit more common here a little over 200 years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But, as you say, if you break the law and you are found guilty and punished you shouldn't whine. That's one thing we do agree on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. And here is an example of a great man who did not whine:

Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://members.aol.com/klove01/jailltr.htm)

freehiker

10-16-2003, 08:54 PM

One is a misdemeanor the other a felony. I am willing to suffer the consequences of the former but not the later. That is how I make my decision to go nude in a public place, but no more.

Rik

10-17-2003, 05:14 AM

10-17-2003, 08:11 AM

aunaturelone

"All morality is individual and unique. If they believe strongly enough, they have a moral obligation to disobey. If the moral question is important enough to them, they have a moral duty to disobey even unto their own death."

This is where we will never see eye-to-eye, perhaps because of differences in our history and culture. In the UK the law is afforded a legitimacy in the minds of the public because it is made by elected representatives of the public. If you agree with the concept of majority rule, then you take the rough with the smooth. You don't pick and choose which laws to obey and which laws to break. To break a law made by a democratically elected government is to behave in an undemocratic way - to decide (selfishly) that your wants are more important than the public good.

"Often the ONLY way to get that day in court is to break the law in a very public way."

Here you can challenge the legality of something without going as far as risking breaking that law - it's called "judicial review".

"There we differ. Most Americans would argue today that it is a piece for all time. Beginning in the 60s it has become a template upon which all our great social movements have been based, whether the civil rights movement for racial minorities, for women, for gays, even the environmental movement. Every one of them has recognized the validity of civil disobedience and used it as a tool in the struggle."

But that is the beginning of the road to anarchy! As have said, anyone can break any law they please and claim the moral high ground by saying they are challenging an "unjust law" and their criminality is a "tool in the struggle". Civil disobedience is merely terrorism without the violence.

freehiker

"One is a misdemeanor the other a felony. I am willing to suffer the consequences of the former but not the later. That is how I make my decision to go nude in a public place, but no more."

So you have no respect for the law made by representatives elected by the people of your country. You're just frightened to go to gaol. Well, that's honest.

Rik

"Just because you have no legal right to break a law doesn't take away your choice to decide whether or not you should."

Precisely. Virtually every inmate in our prisons - murderers, rapists, terrorists, Mr Gough, made a decision to break the law. We all have choices. But some people make the wrong ones - morally as well as legally.

Stu

Rik

10-17-2003, 01:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In the UK the law is afforded a legitimacy in the minds of the public because it is made by elected representatives of the public. If you agree with the concept of majority rule, then you take the rough with the smooth. You don't pick and choose which laws to obey and which laws to break. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've just driven 200 miles along the M6 and virtually all the way people were choosing whether or not to obey the speeding law which was made by elected representatives of the public. Mostly they chose not to although on one stretch, where the motorists were accompanied by a police car, all drivers suddenly appeared to agree with the concept of majority rule. What a strange old world we live in!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Virtually every inmate in our prisons - murderers, rapists, terrorists, Mr Gough, made a decision to break the law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting your use of the word 'virtually' which suggests that some inmates are not in prison because they chose to break the law. Perhaps you're referring to the numerous miscarriages of justice we hear so much about these days - hardly a rininging endorsement of British justice.

Rik

10-17-2003, 04:12 PM

Does Stu consider Steve's "crime" to be as bad as "murderers, rapists, terrorists"? Why is it a crime to disagree with an unjust law and try to do something about protesting it--even to the pojnt of "breaking the law"? I don't consider Steve to be a criminal even though he broke a law. We don't need laws against nudity--just against improper sexual behavior. Personally, I don't care to be arrested and put in jail with real criminals, but I applaud those who have the courage and are willing to make a sacrifice to protest unjust laws. I support them wholeheartedly in their endeavors.

Rocket

10-17-2003, 05:11 PM

Jon-Marc,

How is asking people to be clothed in public unjust? I think it's reasonable... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Naturist Mark

10-17-2003, 05:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
How is asking people to be clothed in public unjust? I think it's reasonable... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't recall ever being 'asked' and certainly don't recall ever giving consent.

The assumption that given a choice the public would choose restrictive laws against nudity just isn't born out. It didn't happen in Wilmington, Vermont. It didn't happen in Chico, California. There hasn't been any groundswell of opposition to topfreedom in Ontario, Ohio and New York.

Most people don't have any desire to be nude socially or in public, but they have also conspicuously failed to object to body freedom when given the chance. Why is that?

Could it be that body shame is not the natural order of things, and deep down the public knows it?

-Mark

aunaturelone

10-17-2003, 05:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>If you agree with the concept of majority rule... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? I think not. Governments need limits. Tight, restrictive, uncompromising limits that may not be exceeded except through extraordinary means, supermajorities piled upon supermajorities. Even that is no guarentee that 90% cannot be convinviced to decide that the remaining 10% are subhuman. (Gays, Jews, blacks, gypsies, Muslims, communists, Quakers, academics, rednecks, nudists. Pick your scapegoat du jour.)

Majority rule is not always a good thing. Hitler and the Nazis were swept into office by majority rule. The Jews and other targeted minorities were swept out of their dignity and their civil rights by majority rule.

Even so, majority rule itself is rarely ruled by the majority. Lets say we have a 3 party election. The party who gets 40% of the total vote will probably win a majority of the seats by a plurality of the vote. Within this party there will inevitably be factions. The faction that controls policy can easily be a mere 40% of the entire party membership. Since leadership often goes to the most intensely commited activists and the most intensely commited usually have more extreeme views than the average, the extremists within a party have power beyond their numbers would suggest. Even in this most modest of scenarios, "majority rule" consists of a mere 16% of the people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>To break a law made by a democratically elected government is to behave in an undemocratic way - to decide (selfishly) that your wants are more important than the public good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The elected government quite often decides its selfish wants ARE the public good. Laws are very often quietly passed to keep one important special interest group happy or an unimportant one oppressed. Nobody ever gets elected to high office unless the most important thing in his or her life is the ambition to acquire power. Public office is to a politician like a Ring of Power was to Sauron.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>it's called "judicial review". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the US, judicial review cannot take place until there is a law suit or a criminal case. If nobody challenges the law, it stands. It is very difficult to get standing to sue, there has to be a fundamental violation of a specific constitutional provision of very great import. Otherwise the court simply refuses to hear the suit. Because of this, civil liberties organizations spend a great deal of effort looking for criminal cases with which to fight unjust laws.

For example, the Texas legislature passed a law which made sodomy illegal. (In this case oral or anal sex between same sex couples. However 9 other states banned it beween heterosexual couples as well.) It is a perfect example of how small minorities can control legislative activity in order to suppress another minority. Most Texans didn't think sodomy should be illegal but, not being gay themslves, didn't consider it worth any effort to change the law.

Police barged in upon two males as they were engaging in sodomy under a warrant for a different crime. They were busted for the sodomy. The Lamda Society and the ACLU saw this as an opportunity to overturn the law. It went all the way to the Supreme Court where the law was finally struck down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives, the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the court's majority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And with that every sodomy law in the country has been nullified. The courts have recognized a constitutional right to privacy for a long time and finally got around to applying it to gays.

A law in NY that required women to wear tops was similarly struck down by its state Supreme Court as they felt it was unconstitutional to allow men top freedom but not women, a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But that is the beginning of the road to anarchy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are FAR from anarchy here in the States. Most Amerivcans would agree that we have entirely too much government control of our lives. We just can't agree on which controls to jettison. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As have said, anyone can break any law they please and claim the moral high ground by saying they are challenging an "unjust law" and their criminality is a "tool in the struggle". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Claiming it doesn't get you credibility. Gotta prove your case before the judge and the court of public opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Civil disobedience is merely terrorism without the violence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Terrorism is an attempt to influence policy through intimidation and fear (terror) using violence and threats of violence. Civil disobedience is an attempt to sway public opinion and change law through moral suasion. Nonviolent lawbreaking is just the way to produce a test case to bring before the legal system. Your comparison is ludicrous.

Rocket

10-17-2003, 05:49 PM

I think if it went the way Marc and Steve Gough seem to think it should be..ie one can be nude wherever they want..that wouldn't be the position. I dare say, that's not the position now..

I can't comment on those other areas you've spoke of..but here we do have a clothing-optional beach. It's been that way before I was born. The other week, it was reported someone was jogging nude in the neighborhood. What do you think happened? Police were dispatched, but they were unable to find the person. A description was given in the paper of him..and the public was asked to call police..

The Criminal Code is clear...we don't want nude people running around...

To let you know...I told a friend of mine about this board..and asked her if she thought it would be OK if her neighbor sunbathed or mowed the lawn in the nude. Her exclamation was "YUK!" and said she wouldn't stand for it.

If you want to be nude..fine..but just keep it out of public view. Pretty reasonable I think /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aunaturelone

10-17-2003, 06:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The Criminal Code is clear...we don't want nude people running around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The crimnal code WAS clear. The NY state legislature didn't want women to go topless. Now that section of the criminal code is nullified, unconstitutional. Pretty reasonable, I think.

The criminal code in CA is clear. Simple nudity is not illegal unless a community makes it so. And as we just saw in Chico, a medium sized farming community in central CA, not every community wants it so. (Actually, quite a few CA communities don't have nudity laws.)

Naturist Mark

10-17-2003, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
The Criminal Code is clear...we don't want nude people running around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary, as you well know the article of the Canadian Criminal Code pertaining to nudity has been all but nullified by the Canadian Supreme Court. There is no vast 'we' in Canada demanding the previous status quo be restored.

If there was anything approaching a social consensus in Canada demanding a return to strict enforcement of the previous anti-nudity law surely we would see some sign of it. Where are the anti-nudity advocates? Where are the anti-nudity referenda? Where are the public demands on elected officials to restore the law?

-Mark

10-18-2003, 01:13 AM

Since when have we EVER been "ASKED" to stay dressed? We are COMMANDED to be dressed "or else". The people who want nudists to ACT as ashamed of nudity as the textiles ARE have no idea WHY they dislike nudity except to say, "I don't like it." /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

10-18-2003, 03:05 AM

Rik,

"I've just driven 200 miles along the M6 and virtually all the way people were choosing whether or not to obey the speeding law which was made by elected representatives of the public."

That's just normal human hypocracy. Most of us agree with speed laws and their enforcement, but, for their own ends, often try to get away with breaking them. By speeding they aren't challenging a law they consider unjust.

"Interesting your use of the word 'virtually' which suggests that some inmates are not in prison because they chose to break the law. Perhaps you're referring to the numerous miscarriages of justice we hear so much about these days - hardly a rininging endorsement of British justice".

I withdraw my ill-chosen use of the words "virtually all" and replace it with "the vast majority of" - because I consider that miscarriages of justice are actually quite rare. I have persona knowledge that some of the high-profile so-called "misscarriages of justice" were actually almost certainly cases of guilty people working overtime to cast little elements of doubt onto prosecution cases in order that they would collapse. Professional ethics prevents me from expanding on this.

Jon-Marc

"Does Stu consider Steve's "crime" to be as bad as "murderers, rapists, terrorists"?"

Of course not. Throwing down litter in the street is a crime, but it is not as serious as murder. It's still a crime, though.

"Why is it a crime to disagree with an unjust law and try to do something about protesting it--even to the pojnt of "breaking the law"? I don't consider Steve to be a criminal even though he broke a law."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif If someone wilfully breaks the law they are, by definition, a criminal. I'm not suggesting that Mr Gough commits serious crime - buthe is a serial offender so it is fair to call him a criminal.

"We don't need laws against nudity--just against improper sexual behavior."

We need laws that enable ordinary people to go about their business using public places and public facilities without suffering alarm or offence. Public nudity causes people alarm and offence.

naturistmark1

"I don't recall ever being 'asked' and certainly don't recall ever giving consent."

If you were sunbathing nude at a very quiet beach and someone politely asked you to cover up, would you do it?

Being naked inappropriately causes offence, and the textile population expects naturists to know that. They may interpret unauthorised nudity as intentionally offensive and that can cause an (unnecessary) aggression.

"The assumption that given a choice the public would choose restrictive laws against nudity just isn't born out."

The public are tolerant of naturists having places to do what they do. They are not generally tolerant of nudity elsewhere - not in my experience.

"Most people don't have any desire to be nude socially or in public, but they have also conspicuously failed to object to body freedom when given the chance. Why is that?"

Get nude on almost any textile beach in the UK and you'll soon discover how strongly people object to "body freedom".

Could it be that body shame is not the natural order of things, and deep down the public knows it?

aunaturelone

"Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? I think not."

Extreme cases don't make precedents. Nobody is justifying, e.g. ethnic cleansing. Naturist activities are not only tolerated is specific places, they are actively catered for in others. They are not being denied the right to do what they do - it is just a matter of where they do it.

"Governments need limits. Tight, restrictive, uncompromising limits that may not be exceeded except through extraordinary means, supermajorities piled upon supermajorities. Even that is no guarentee that 90% cannot be convinviced to decide that the remaining 10% are subhuman. (Gays, Jews, blacks, gypsies, Muslims, communists, Quakers, academics, rednecks, nudists. Pick your scapegoat du jour.)"

Sorry, but you are being extreme again. Naturists are not a minority group at all, and certainly not an oppressed minority. For most naturists, naturism is merely a seasonal passtime, and naturists just want (rightly) more places made available to practice it. But public places are for everyone and any behaviour that offends the majority is, by definition, antisocial. Consequently it is outlawed.

"Even in this most modest of scenarios, "majority rule" consists of a mere 16% of the people."

I entirely agree with your point - democracy doesn't work very well for various reasons including the ones you alluded to. If you have a better system for deciding public policy, please share it.

"The elected government quite often decides its selfish wants ARE the public good. Laws are very often quietly passed to keep one important special interest group happy or an unimportant one oppressed. Nobody ever gets elected to high office unless the most important thing in his or her life is the ambition to acquire power."

So your alternative to democracy is....?

"Public office is to a politician like a Ring of Power was to Sauron."

Who? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"In the US, judicial review cannot take place until there is a law suit or a criminal case. If nobody challenges the law, it stands."

Here you can petition the High Court to make a decision without putting yourself in jeapoardy of prosecution. Perhaps that's something you can learn from us. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"They were busted for the sodomy. The Lamda Society and the ACLU saw this as an opportunity to overturn the law. It went all the way to the Supreme Court where the law was finally struck down."

That didn't happen here and yet we have very liberal laws concerning homosexuality. Our politicians, reflecting public opinion, has been easing up on the law i that respect now for three decades. Personally I believe they have now gone too far - but that's just my opinion. The main pieces of legislation here (beginning with the Sexual Offences Act 1967) weren't brought about as a result of law breaking.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives, the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the court's majority."

What homosexuals do in private between themselves is nobody's business but their own. What people do IN PUBLIC is everybody's business.

"A law in NY that required women to wear tops was similarly struck down by its state Supreme Court as they felt it was unconstitutional to allow men top freedom but not women, a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment."

OK. That was their decision under your constitution - I think it was a stupid decision based on misguided political correctness buy I don't live in your country.

"We just can't agree on which controls to jettison."

And the decision about which laws to jettison should be made by elected representatives having regard to public opinion.

"Gotta prove your case before the judge and the court of public opinion."

I am pleased that you recognise the validity of public opinion to public policy.

"Terrorism is an attempt to influence policy through intimidation and fear (terror) using violence and threats of violence. Civil disobedience is an attempt to sway public opinion and change law through moral suasion. Nonviolent lawbreaking is just the way to produce a test case to bring before the legal system. Your comparison is ludicrous."

Law breaking nearly always has victims. The terrorists law breaking results in death and injury, the anti-capitalists lawbreaking results in serious damage, Steve Gough's lawbreaking results in people being offended, a tying up of already stretched police resources (diverting them from helping other members of the public) and the costs of court and prison (etc). So the only difference is one of scale.

"And as we just saw in Chico, a medium sized farming community in central CA, not every community wants it so. (Actually, quite a few CA communities don't have nudity laws.)"

If it can be shown that the majority of people in a certain area don't want anti-nudity laws then those laws should be repealed. I would agree to that and abide by the wishes of the majority even though it is contrary to my own wishes. I hope you would feel the same way about areas where the majority of people want public nudity to continue to be an criminal offence. Or would you then start telling me about minority rights and wolves and sheep and Hitler and Jews again?

Jon-Marc

"Since when have we EVER been "ASKED" to stay dressed? We are COMMANDED to be dressed "or else".

Perhaps because people expect you to know that nudity in public is unacceptable and you are deliberately causing offence.

"The people who want nudists to ACT as ashamed of nudity as the textiles ARE have no idea WHY they dislike nudity except to say, "I don't like it."

OK. They don't like it because they don't like it. They don't have to say why they don't like it. Before someone can vote in an election do you force them to account for why they prefer candidate A over candidate B?

Stu

10-18-2003, 06:25 AM

Stu,

No one has yet to explain WHY nudity in public is unacceptable and WHY it should cause offense. Since we who are nudists don't consider the human body to be unacceptable or offensive, it's impossible for us to understand what is so wrong with the human body.

I keep reading things like, "I just don't like it", or "It's offensive", or "It's against the law", but the question is that no one is answering and seem to be ignoring because they CAN'T answer it is WHY. WHY is it offense? WHY is it unacceptable? WHY is it against the law? If it's against the law because people don't like it, or it's offensive, then I can name a lot of things that should be against the law, because there are people who don't like THEM, and find THEM offensive.

Rocket

10-18-2003, 07:27 AM

Lot's of things are offensive and public nudity is one of them. This culture has simply decided against public nudity...

Same argument of "why?" could be applied to public sex..and other things I won't get into...

People who don't agree can simply: (1) move to a culture where it is acceptable (2)practise their nudity outside of public view.

What guys like John-Marc and Steve Gough are trying, or would like to do, is change this culture to what they think is right and force others to accept it.

That's not going to happen...the public is simply never going to go for public nudity in this culture..because they don't want it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NudeAl

10-18-2003, 07:42 AM

I wouldn't be to sure about that rocket.

I do think it may take some time but I feel it will happen eventually. Just not quickly enough for some of us. The basic trend over the last hundred years or so is that more and more of the human body is able to be exposed with out fear of prosecution. I see this continuing to it's logical conclusion, nude.

Rocket

10-18-2003, 08:03 AM

NudeAl,

I doubt it..within our lifetime..but you never know..

I don't have a crystal ball.....

We had someone running down the street nude not that long ago..and the police were dispatched..and the next day an "all points bulletin" was published in the paper. If there were no nudity laws..now..that wouldn't have happened..would it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A nude swim was being had about 20 miles from where I live, and they made the mistake of having it publicized in the local paper there. There where so many calls against it, the facility cancelled the contract, and these nude swims are no more there.

Now..I don't agree with that. This was a PRIVATE swim..and everything was draped so one couldn't see in from the outside...so really..what did it hurt?

BTW...for those who think the nudity laws won't be upheld in Canada..just try to walk to the nearest 7-11 and back without clothes..and see what happens..

In Chico...I am betting if you go to the Mall without clothes..you will be arrested as well.

10-18-2003, 08:14 AM

So there we have it! "This culture has simply decided against public nudity." That explains everything. Now I see the light! Halleluiah! Oh, sorry. I got carried away with my sarcasm.

Rocket, I assume by "John-Marc" that you mean me, JON-Marc. Since you don't know me, you can't accuse me of wanting to "force others to accept it." I don't want to force anyone to accept anything, any more than I would want anyone to try to force me to return to the body shame I once had when I thought there was something about my body to be ashamed of it. Now I know that there isn't.

What I would like is for others to lose their body shame and fear of being seen nude. I would like people to get over being disgusted with and offended by simple non-sexual nudity. I would like people to stop thinking of a nude body as unacceptable and indecent. I would like all laws against simple non-sexual nudity to be abolished, and for there to only be laws against public SEXUAL behavior in view of others. I would like people to realize that there is a BIG difference between a simple nude body and "indecent exposure". To a true nudist, which you, Rocket, apparently aren't, being nude in public isn't indecent. A clothed man standing in front of a school masturbating IS indecent, and he should be arrested. A nude man sunning himself in his back yard is NOT indecent as long as he's just lying there enjoying the sun. If he starts to fondle himself when he sees the lady or children next door in their back yard, THEN it becomes indecent.

Public nudity is only offensive to people who have a hang-up about their body and the bodies of others. However, there is absolutely NO reason why it SHOULD be offensive. I'm still waiting for someone to actually come up with a good reason WHY it is offensive. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Rocket

10-18-2003, 08:27 AM

Jon-Marc,

Why would a man sunbathing and fondling himself in public view in his own backyard be indecent? Afterall, nudity is ok..it's HIS OWN yard..and masturbation is a normal activity..

Why do you think THIS is indecent?

You see..and this really gets to the point..the public views public nudity as INDECENT...and so it is banned..because it's an afront to others..

Now, I agree with you..I think this is indecent..because it disrupts the lives of others around who live in the communal area if seen in public.

But..is it indecent in PRIVATE? No....

Is it indecent if him, his friends, get together and do this is private? Again..no..because it's not affecting others..

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NudeAl

10-18-2003, 08:32 AM

Rocket,

I suspect the reason the cops were called out is because they have to investigate everything that could be associated with sexually devient behavior. Many of our society still don't see the difference between simple nudity and lewd behavior. That is unfortunate.

The supreme court of Califorina does though. That is why there is no state law here preventing it just local city or county ordinances and some places have no law on the books to prevent it like Chico.

I think that the nude jogger, or streaker, was unwise to do what he did. However his actions would be more tolerated had he chosen to do this activity in a less populated setting. I know a few folks who simply love to run naked. They generally choose sites where they are not likely to see anyone. Streakers on the other hand do it for the thrill of being seen. That is their whole reason for doing it and I don't associate them with naturism.

10-18-2003, 09:34 AM

Nude Al,

"I do think it may take some time but I feel it will happen eventually. Just not quickly enough for some of us."

Oddly enough there was a nudist movement here in the UK and other European countries in the 1920s - 80 years ago. I seem to think that Adolf Hitler was a keen supporter of it. No doubt the followers of that movemen made the same prediction.

"The basic trend over the last hundred years or so is that more and more of the human body is able to be exposed with out fear of prosecution. I see this continuing to it's logical conclusion, nude."

I think it more or less reached its logical conclusion in the 1930s when men were able to swim wearing nothing more than swimming trunks and ladies could wear a quite brief costume. The only blips in this have been the bikini and the thong, but these are just fashion fads that come and go. Even topless sunbathing is now waning (as reported in August by the Danish press!). There was probably more flesh exposed on most European beaches and parks in the 1960s than there is now.

Rocket

"A nude swim was being had about 20 miles from where I live, and they made the mistake of having it publicized in the local paper there. There where so many calls against it, the facility cancelled the contract, and these nude swims are no more there."

So much for the public being ready for nudity. Clearly this is far from the case in most places.

Jon-Marc

"I don't want to force anyone to accept anything, any more than I would want anyone to try to force me to return to the body shame I once had when I thought there was something about my body to be ashamed of it. Now I know that there isn't."

The only thing anyone is asking you to do is to keep a very small area of your body out of view when in public places because others who do not share your perceptions of nudity find it offensive. No-one is forcing you to return to body shame, or even practising naturism - just keep it away from places where it could cause offence.

"What I would like is for others to lose their body shame and fear of being seen nude. I would like people to get over being disgusted with and offended by simple non-sexual nudity. I would like people to stop thinking of a nude body as unacceptable and indecent."

OK, that's what YOU would like. But people are as they are and not necessarily how you would like them to be. Has it ever occurred to you that people might actually LIKE what you call their "body shame"? You can express an opinion of course - but to inflict nudity on others who don't want it is unacceptable.

"I would like all laws against simple non-sexual nudity to be abolished, and for there to only be laws against public SEXUAL behavior in view of others."

That's not going to happen in most places because, although YOU would like it, most people wouldn't.

"I would like people to realize that there is a BIG difference between a simple nude body and "indecent exposure"."

They already know that. They see nudity at home, in the showers at work or the gym or swimming pool. They already know that not every act of nudity is either sexual or indecen. But that doesn't mean they find it acceptable out of those contexts.

"To a true nudist, which you, Rocket, apparently aren't, being nude in public isn't indecent."

So you are saying that to be a "true nudist", a person has to share your opinions about the right to be naked in public? My dictionary doesn't say anything about that in its definition of "nudist".

"Public nudity is only offensive to people who have a hang-up about their body and the bodies of others."

OK, you can call them "hang-ups", I call them sensibilities. People should be able to use the public places and facilities the pay for without their sensibilities being assaulted by a selfish minority trying to force its own standards on others.

"However, there is absolutely NO reason why it SHOULD be offensive. I'm still waiting for someone to actually come up with a good reason WHY it is offensive."

There is no reason why public sex is offensive etc. Equally it's not logical to greive when your dog dies because you can go out and buy another dog. But we are human beings, not robots. We don't just rationalise, we feel. Feelings should be respected regardless of their underlying causes.

NudeAl

I think you'll ind that the vast majority of police officers across the entire world will act against nudity regardless of whether or not there is a sexual element. And of course the public know the difference between simple nudity and sexual indecency - but you get naked in my street and the cops will rightly start from the premise that your intentions are indecent.

"The supreme court of Califorina does though. That is why there is no state law here preventing it just local city or county ordinances and some places have no law on the books to prevent it like Chico."

My wife has a cousin who lives in California. She has lived in a number of countries around the world in her time. She and her husband jokingly call California "Crazyville". That state is hardly representative of world opinion, let alone the little town of Chico!

Stu

NudeAl

10-18-2003, 10:05 AM

While you may consider it crazyville it is where I live. I don't mean to infer it is representative of the entire world but it is a part of it.

For the record Adoph Hitler was opposed to the nudist movement. More in your camp that ours. I resent the implication.

My point was that police here and in many other places can diferenciate between mere nudity and indecent behavior. Nude is not lewd as the saying goes. I have encountered the police while nude once on the streets of San Francisco as part of the Bay to Breakers race. They understand there is a time and place for everything. What you may not realize is that our society is constantly evolving and what you may think are the popular views of nudity in society may not be the case.

On this site you will see a refence to a, "Roper poll," that was done a few years ago. It shows that in the states at least most of the population is not opposed to nude beaches and have participated in some sort of nude activity at one time in their lives at least.

Rocket

10-18-2003, 10:31 AM

I love how some of these people think I am not a "true nudist."

What's a "true nudist" anyway?

Apparently, I should support Mr Gough on his unauthorized walk across the UK in the nude..

I should support nudity everywhere..and without regard to the feelings of the general public..

I should have no problem with my neighbor(s) going nude in their backyards if they choose too..

All public swims should be clothing optional...

I think the conclusion we have NOW..is the final conclusion. People can go nude as long as it doesn't affront others..

I don't think we have ALL the facts on Chico..because I am VERY sure if one chose to be nude in their yard or at a public park it wouldn't be tolerated..

And it shouldn't...... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu..btw..I read your post..and agree with EVERYTHING as usual. Unfortunatley, this board has a group of extremely selfish people on it who either can't see, or respect the views of the vast majority..

Rocket

10-18-2003, 10:49 AM

Almost forgot..

That place with the nude swim that was cancelled..

The Nudist Club has tried repeatedly to have the nude swim re-established...

So far...absolutely no progress has been made..

From what I understand, from the Directors of the Facility..this topic is not open for discussion..

It's not going to happen..

Apparently, there was numerous calls to the police as well..asking it to be shut down..

I don't know about these other areas (Chico) but I strongly suspect most areas to be made clothing optional will be met with extremely strong resistance..and I suspect nudity won't be tolerated in these other areas as well..

Rik

10-18-2003, 11:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Oddly enough there was a nudist movement here in the UK and other European countries in the 1920s - 80 years ago. I seem to think that Adolf Hitler was a keen supporter of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the contrary was true. When Hitler came to power in 1933 many organisations which were not to do with National Socialism were banned and the naturist movement went underground at that time although it subsequently emerged as the strongest naturist movement in the world.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"To a true nudist, which you, Rocket, apparently aren't, being nude in public isn't indecent."

So you are saying that to be a "true nudist", a person has to share your opinions about the right to be naked in public? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think he means that Rocket is not any sort of nudist as, if I recall correctly, she's only ever described herself as a naturalist. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>There is no reason why public sex is offensive etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Glad we agree on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> We don't just rationalise, we feel. Feelings should be respected regardless of their underlying causes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But that shouldn't stop us examing our feelings which, especially in the context of a debate such as this, is entirely appropriate. You never know, if we start examining our irrational feelings we might begin to understand the underlying causes and, armed with greater insight into our own minds, we might find our feelings change.

Rik

10-18-2003, 12:40 PM

Rocket,

It isn't the fact that the man is nude in his back yard that is indecent, but that he is fondling himself (to put it politely) for the purpose of being seen. He could be fully dressed with only his genitals out and be indecent, not because of his genitals being exposed, but because he's fondling himself with the purpose of shocking someone. If he's just lying there nude and not fondling himself, then there's nothing indecnt about that. While masturbating is perfectly normal (despite what my dad tried to tell me), doing it for the purpose of being seen isn't.

Rocket

10-18-2003, 02:47 PM

Jon-Marc,

People have different ideas of what obscene is. Regarding public nudity..and this guy in the backyard..yes..it affects those around him..so it wouldn't be tolerated (by most).

BTW...imagine having a backyard barbecue with kids running around..and the neighbor next door is laying out there naked..it would affect the barbeque and the enjoyment of the backyard.

It seems to me..it is what YOU define as indecent should be. That's not the way it is for most..our society is very clear that public nudity isn't suitable..

If you want to be nude in your backyard..just build a high fence so you can't be seen or just move out an away. Then you can do what you want, and no one will be affected. Seems reasonable..at least a lot more reasonable than trying to enforce nudity on someone else /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Boreas

10-18-2003, 03:08 PM

Rocket could you please explain again why a man lying nude sunbathing would affect the neighbour's BBQ? As I see it nobody has to look and he is minding his own business after all.

I also want to comment about something you said a while back. I am not sure if it was in this thread or not. I for one am glad that Canada is more concerned about treating people (ie gay rights) well than allowing them to have guns. I would rather have a naked gay neighbour than a gun rights activist next door. I have no problem with gun ownership for the record. I live in northern BC where there are many firearms around.

Rocket

10-18-2003, 03:25 PM

Regarding the nude guy...it doesn't work that way of him minding his business because he IS intruding into the barbecue and the backyard. If you doubt, just have someone nude next door, and have kids around..and see what happens. It is simply not suitable PERIOD.

This type of conduct would never happen in my neighborhood, but if it did, I would probably just mention it to him..and ask him to get dressed. If he refused..then..I would complain to the police..and it will stop. One doesn't have the right to intrude on others.

Regarding firearms..I don't believe the firearm legistlation, which comes at an enormous cost, is any benefit. Towards gays..I have really no problem with gays, as long as they keep it out of my face. Sorry, that's how I feel. I suspect it's a genetic defect that we might be able to address. In saying that, it still doesn't justify homosexual behaviour, because people can control themselves..and it clearly is against nature.

Did you know that a lot of criminals have an extra X chromosone which makes them more aggessive? Well...they do..but still..that doesn't justify or excuse criminal behaviour. In Canada, gays want the right to legally marry..which I think is wrong. Incidently, they may well get this, as Cretian takes this country left of left. However, gay relationships won't be accepted (try walking hand-in-hand or kissing someone of the same sex in public) by the vast majority of the public.

Naturist Mark

10-18-2003, 03:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Did you know that a lot of criminals have an extra X chromosone which makes them more aggessive? Well...they do..but still..that doesn't justify or excuse criminal behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong.

An extra 'X' chromosome (Klinefelter Syndrome) causes males to be somewhat feminized, many exhibit gynecomastia (male breast enlargement), less muscle mass, a more rounded body, sparse beards and less body hair, and in a few cases language deficits. Testosterone supplementation is the usual therapy.

Perhaps Rocket was thinking of XYY Syndrome, where a male has an extra copy of the male "Y" chromosome. Earlier literature often linked XYY syndrome to 'supermales' and aggressive behavior due to the fact the XYY males normally have higher than normal testoterone levels. Chromosome studies of mentally retarded and criminal adults did find unexpected numbers of XYY males. What wasn't done was comparison studies of 'normal' males. XYY is seldom discovered because there is usually nothing out of the usual about XYY males, when it is discovered it is because doctors have a reason to be looking for something. It turns out that XYY is not all that rare (relatively speaking, they could comprise 1 out of 500 men or even more).

XYY males, even though they tend to be larger and have higher testosterone levels are not notably more likely to be criminals. Men subjected to violence and bigotry as children are extremely likely to be criminals as adults.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
However, gay relationships won't be accepted (try walking hand-in-hand or kissing someone of the same sex in public) by the vast majority of the public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> A Canadian poll June 10-12 found that 54% of respondents supported same-sex marriages while 44% were opposed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>USA Today Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-30-gaypoll-usat_x.htm) Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail poll and results (http://www.ipsos-reid.com/pdf/media/mr030808-1tb.pdf)

Why does Rocket always return to bigotry to support anti-nudist views?

Rocket

10-18-2003, 03:55 PM

I wouldn't get so high on a "poll" because they can be manipulated.

Here's some questions perhaps you can answer:

*How many questions were asked?

*What were the questions?

*Who did they talk to?

*How were they asked?

*Could they have a nuetral view?

I learned that in my Pyschology class..in other words..just don't assume from a "poll"..any poll..

If you think people are homosexual positive..what is their reaction when they see people walking hand-in-hand of the same sex? If you ask, they may say they are fine with it..but when they see..I promise you..it's another reaction.

BTW..my nudist views..which I feel are reasonable given the dynamics of society..aren't connected to my views on homosexuality. It's two seperate issues.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nudeM

10-18-2003, 03:56 PM

Rocket: What if the neighbors knew you were nude in your own yard any time of the day? What if you had gone out of your way to ask them, before getting caught? Would you still be intruding, even if you received their approval of being nude in your own yard? Just wondering. Worked for me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rocket

10-18-2003, 04:15 PM

NudeM,

In a word NO...

If your neighbors have given their consent, then no problem...I think though, that if they are going to have some sort of get-together it would not be unreasonable to ask you to be clothed..

That's not the issue here though..

What's suggested is someone can do whatever they want (in this case be nude)..and I have a barbeque with kids running around..and I am to tolerate it and tell these kids just to look the other way..

aunaturelone

10-18-2003, 04:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>A nude swim was being had about 20 miles from where I live, and they made the mistake of having it publicized in the local paper there. There where so many calls against it, the facility cancelled the contract, and these nude swims are no more there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is exactly what one would expect if a small but extremely vocal and activist group deluged a business with threats and objections. Sort of things happen all the time in conservative communities. Usually it's something completely benign, like private nudism, books that are on someone's hate list, "adult toy" stores, NC-17 rated movies, even the slightest hint of sex ed in the schools.

People who have serious problems with nudity are almost invariably followers of the rabid religious right. Fallwell, Robertson, Randall, et al. They are a small segment of society but their hyperactivity gives them power way out of proportion to their numbers.

Not every community knuckles under to these people. Chico, CA didn't. Neither has San Francisco.

aunaturelone

10-18-2003, 04:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I suspect the reason the cops were called out is because they have to investigate everything that could be associated with sexually devient behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!!! If as Rocket said, they put out an "all points bulletin" on a lone streaker, they must have been desparately in need of REAL crime to pursue. No break-ins, burglaries, robberies, rapes, spousal disputes, assaults, car thefts, drug deals or murders to tend to.

aunaturelone

10-18-2003, 04:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>That state is hardly representative of world opinion, let alone the little town of Chico! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>California is the trendsetter. California is the laboratory of America. Ideas are born here, grow until they reach a critical mass and then spread across the nation.

One wonders what new trends our new governor will send sweeping across the nation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

10-18-2003, 10:10 PM

Rocket, question for you: You keep talking about what someone can and cannot do in their backyard depending on the view. So what kind of fencing are you thinking about? Chain link? Wire? Wooden plank? In my backyard, there are 6-foot fences that unfortunately can be seen from second story windows in the townhouse complex. But seeing into someone else's yard from your own yard is hard unless you are right there at the fence.

" Rocket said, "A nude swim was being had about 20 miles from where I live, and they made the mistake of having it publicized in the local paper there. There where so many calls against it, the facility cancelled the contract, and these nude swims are no more there."

stu replied,
"So much for the public being ready for nudity. Clearly this is far from the case in most places."

Rocket, is your area conservative or liberal? And how does one example of this make the case for most places stu?

Bob S.

Nude in the North

10-19-2003, 12:05 AM

Ever notice how every Isolated incedent that supports Rockets point of view becomes "What a large majority" or "What Most people think"?

For instance the nude swim that got cancled. There are 100's of nude swims all over the country every year that go on without incident or complaint. But one time an event gets called off because of a few uninformed complainers and suddenly Most people don't want it.

Every time someone mentions a survey or poll that contradicts her opinion she says you can't believe them. Yet without any proof she expects us to believe her opinion is that of the "Large Majority" of people.

People "reporting" things to the police is not an indication of what the Majority wants. It's an indication that a few people live such boring lives that they have to pry into other peoples business.

And what if the neighbor was tanning nude in his backyard while you had a family cook out?
When the kids ask " mommy why is that man nude?" just tell them " because he likes to be nude ".
Most kids wouldn't give it a second thought and would be more interested in playing games and eating food.
How's that for an unsupported assumption?

10-19-2003, 12:25 AM

One thing I learned when I was married (besides the fact that I shouldn't have gotten married) is that young children generally look at nudity as no big deal.

As I mentioned before, my wife almost always had kids coming and going at our house, and I was almost always nude. Many boys and girls saw me nude, and not one of them ever said anything to their parents about it or acted as though it was a big problem. If any of them told their parents, we never heard anything about it. One 7-year-old girl was surprised that I wasn't embarrassed. When I told her I wasn't, she had no problem with it.

Despite what Rocket or Stu may think, those kids weren't tramatized by my nudity. They just went about their playing and ignored me as though being nude was natural. Oh, yes, that's right! It IS!

10-19-2003, 01:56 AM

Rik,

"No, the contrary was true. When Hitler came to power in 1933 many organisations which were not to do with National Socialism were banned and the naturist movement went underground at that time although it subsequently emerged as the strongest naturist movement in the world."

Yes, I accept that he did ban virtually every organisation that wasn't overtly supportive of National Socialism - BUT - he was a keen believer in what he regarded as "healthy" nudity and also that what he regarded as the beauty of the neked Aryan body should be exposed for all to see (read The Inverted Saint by Dr Sam Vaknin for an even greater insight into this). I'm not citing Hitler as a way of suggesting that the evil things he stool for are linked with naturism. Of course they're not. I mention Hitler merely to show that even as far back as the 1930s people were predicting that nudity would soon become normal and natural - it never happened.

"But that shouldn't stop us examing our feelings which, especially in the context of a debate such as this, is entirely appropriate. You never know, if we start examining our irrational feelings we might begin to understand the underlying causes and, armed with greater insight into our own minds, we might find our feelings change."

provided that such changes evolve naturally, then I have no problem with that. My objection is when other people try to force me to challenge my feelings.

Jon-Marc

"If he's just lying there nude and not fondling himself, then there's nothing indecnt about that."

That's a matter of opinion. In scientific terms, nothing is idecent because all behaviours are just that - human behaviours. Decency is a human construction and, as such, is subjective. What is indecent to me is not necessarily indecent to you.

"While masturbating is perfectly normal (despite what my dad tried to tell me), doing it for the purpose of being seen isn't."

The purpose of masturbation is, presumably, pleasure. Some people derive even greater pleasure if they know that others can see them doing it. So what is the defining ingredient that makes private masturbation normal but public masturbation abnormal? I read somewhere that in ancient Athens it was regarded as perfectly normal to masturbate and even have sex openly in front of others - and they even had their portraits painted whilst doing it.

Rocket,

"BTW...imagine having a backyard barbecue with kids running around..and the neighbor next door is laying out there naked..it would affect the barbeque and the enjoyment of the backyard."

Absolutely right. That would be intolerable to most people.

Boreas

"Rocket could you please explain again why a man lying nude sunbathing would affect the neighbour's BBQ? As I see it nobody has to look and he is minding his own business after all."

Simple - because people find it disgusting and unacceptable - so the chances are they would abandon the barbecue - or have to call the police. If what you do can be seen by your neighbours, then you have a responsibility. A former neighbour of mine was a muslim. How would you feel if your kids were playing in your back yard and a muslim neighbour began ritually slaughtering lambs in his back yard?

aunaturelone

"People who have serious problems with nudity are almost invariably followers of the rabid religious right."

"If as Rocket said, they put out an "all points bulletin" on a lone streaker, they must have been desparately in need of REAL crime to pursue. No break-ins, burglaries, robberies, rapes, spousal disputes, assaults, car thefts, drug deals or murders to tend to."

No police force can just decide only to concentrate on the most serious crimes and ignore the less serious ones otherwise petty criminals, shoplifters, disorderly people, litter louts and bad drivers would have free reign.

aunaturelone

"California is the trendsetter. California is the laboratory of America. Ideas are born here, grow until they reach a critical mass and then spread across the nation."

Ideas born in California also die in California.

Bob S.

"And how does one example of this make the case for most places stu?"

Single examples of either extreme tolerance or extreme conservatism don't make the case for the general picture, Bob. I'm glad you realise that - and that what happens in Chico is hardlyrepresentative of national or international thinking.

"Every time someone mentions a survey or poll that contradicts her opinion she says you can't believe them."

Show us these "polls and surveys" - show us who commissioned them, what questions were asked, and of whom. I have never seen a poll that suggests that the majority of people are ready to accept nudity in public. Not one!

"People "reporting" things to the police is not an indication of what the Majority wants."

It shows hat there is a substantial and strong feeling against what is being done.

"It's an indication that a few people live such boring lives that they have to pry into other peoples business."

Now that's just nonsense. Our behaviour isnt just our own business when if affects others.

"And what if the neighbor was tanning nude in his backyard while you had a family cook out?
When the kids ask " mommy why is that man nude?" just tell them " because he likes to be nude ".
Most kids wouldn't give it a second thought and would be more interested in playing games and eating food."

No because what he is doing is both inconsiderate and wholly unacceptable. If he did it where I live he'd find himself in court in quick time!

Stu

Nude in the North

10-19-2003, 04:17 AM

That's the problem Stu.

You won't accept anything that you havn't already decided to accept.

And why the Hell are you answering things directed at Rocket in the first place.

Maybe your don't know how to mind you own buisness.

10-19-2003, 06:06 AM

"As I mentioned before, my wife almost always had kids coming and going at our house, and I was almost always nude. Many boys and girls saw me nude, and not one of them ever said anything to their parents about it or acted as though it was a big problem."

No offence, but there would be no way I'd allow my kids into your house if you were walking about in the buff. I'm amazed that some of the other parents didn't call the police!

Nude in the North

"And why the Hell are you answering things directed at Rocket in the first place."

ROCKET!!! If you are reading this please tell me if you object to me answering points on your behalf. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously, though, any points made on a board like are an invitation to anyone with an interest to answer them. I make a point to Bob S and Rik responds. Oh sorry, I forgot, they're allowed to do that because their thinking follows the official line in here.

"Maybe your don't know how to mind you own buisness."

What happens in my neighbours' gardens within sight of my property and in the public places I pay for and have no choice but to us IS my business.

Stu

Ren

10-19-2003, 07:11 AM

I think we have to accept that there are opposite opinions to what the majority of us have here. Stu serves a good purpose and if we're going to attack his points, that's fine. But let's not attack Stu. Remember, if there were no people to challenge our beliefs, we would have no reason to hold beliefs. And I'd rather that this message board remain similar to a democracy, rather than a monopoly anyway.

Plus, arguing Stu's points could put those who care enough into a position to make coherent points to the lawmakers who prevent public nudity, etc., if one so wants. What interests me most is when the shift in mores happened in our society.

About sixty-odd years ago, my grandfather and his friends would swim in the local river nude. There were no restrictions and it was the accepted thing to do. And no one particularly cared or said that what they were doing was indecent.

So, was it the advent of media or suburbia that caused the tone to change? McCarthyism and the 50s - when conformity was key? Because then, in the 60s and 70s, nudity was used as a protest mechanism against the political leviathan in this country that was trying to control everything. Now we're in a place where we're all allowed to make choices regarding ourselves, but we'd better watch out if our neighbor doesn't like it.

We're in a less kind world, where everything is contentious. So, what happened?

Rocket

10-19-2003, 07:16 AM

Stu,

I love your points..pls refute anything directed my way!!! These "nudists" here are some of the most inconsiderate people walking on two legs!!!

***Personal attack deleted by admin***

Rocket

10-19-2003, 07:25 AM

Nude in the North,

I don't support that nude swim being cancelled..because it was private and no one could see in from the outside..there's was no intrusion to other's lives..

BobS,

Regarding your circumstance..if a high fence won't work..then..I am afraid you are just going to have to find another arrangement. Sorry..but you can't sunbathe nude in view of others unless they consent /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nudeM

10-19-2003, 07:29 AM

Rocket: Personally attacking Jon-Marc by stating, "it's no wonder you are not married", is not only hitting below the belt, it is something that shouldn't be tolerated in these forums. I personaly think you OWE him an apology. If you personaly attack anyone on these forums, then that's when the moderators get involved. Everyone knows you are an anti-nudist activist. It's one thing to point out your views, but to personally attack anyone should be grounds for your removal. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Rocket

10-19-2003, 07:44 AM

NudeM,

This guy was nude in front of a SEVEN year old child (grade 2) and sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with it!!!

That is detestable and far removed from acceptable conduct!!!

And then to say....that since this child thought it was ok..means there is no problem. That makes no sense as well!!! This child is SEVEN years old, and if his wife is going to have other kids in the house, the least he can do is get dressed.

nudeM

10-19-2003, 08:05 AM

Rocket: To avoid hijacking this post, I sent you a private message. I will no longer "debate" with you on this thread out in the open.

Boreas

10-19-2003, 08:09 AM

Stu, I am appalled at this statement.

"A former neighbour of mine was a muslim. How would you feel if your kids were playing in your back yard and a muslim neighbour began ritually slaughtering lambs in his back yard?"

I have no problem with you having a different opinion from those of the others on this board. I enjoy discussions and differing views. This statement shows a level of ignorance and bigotry that is unacceptable.

"These "nudists" here are some of the most inconsiderate people walking on two legs!!!" Rocket, why do you hang out on a "nudist" board/site if you find nudity so objectionable?

Rocket

10-19-2003, 09:21 AM

Boreas,

I haven't said I think nudism is bad..but has to be kept in context..

People here (and I think they compromise a real minority of nudists but they are vocal) don't want that. They think it should be fine to be nude in one's backyard if they choose; one should be nude around children if they choose; go for the mail.

And the feelings of the vast majority of public..well too bad!!!

That's why I think they are inconsiderate.

Nude in the North

10-19-2003, 09:23 AM

Stu & Rocket;

We are all familliar with your "Opinions" about nudity.
But just for the fun of it try to remember that they are only YOUR opinions. Stop saying "Most People" agree with you. Unless of course you can submit a list of signatures of some 4 Billion people.

Your both welcome to your opinions. But don't assume that the majority has given it's consent. Many laws get passed because of a Vocal Minority causing enough fuss to get the attention of the lawmakers.

Rocket,
The only place that there is anything wrong with being nude in front of a 7 year old, (or any child for that matter) is in your MIND.
It's thinking like yours that has made the world such an unfriendly , suspicious place.
The Human body is not some filthy , Perverted thing that needs to be kept covered to prevent bad things from happening. And people that think it is are the one's that need to see whats wrong with their thinking.
If the children and Parents had no problem with Jon-Marc being nude then you shouldn't either.
It's none of your business.

Steve

10-19-2003, 10:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nudeM:
Rocket: To avoid hijacking this post, I sent you a private message. I will no longer "debate" with you on this thread out in the open. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Probably because, if it's anything like the private message you sent me, it wouldn't stay on here long because it was so nasty. BTW, what do you mean by "highjacking a post"? Never heard of it.

10-19-2003, 10:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
NudeM,

This guy was nude in front of a SEVEN year old child (grade 2) and sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with it!!!

That is detestable and far removed from acceptable conduct!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Acceptable is in the eye of the beholder. What do you see wrong with it that we don't?

10-19-2003, 10:04 AM

Rocket and Stu, I was married; my wife was there when the kids were; I was never alone with them, so no one could say there was anything inappropriate going on despite you two believing that nudity is inappropriate.

As I said, it was my house and I was always nude which is my right in MY home. My wife was rather childish herself and preferred being around kids rather than adults, although she was especially fond of men. The kids didn't care about my nudity enough to say anything to their parents. I'm sure at least some of the parents wouldn't have liked it had they known about it, but they either didn't know or didn't care.

Rocket, I'm no longer married because I divorced my lying, thieving, cheating "wife" because of adultery. She was being screwed by every man she could get into bed, and that was a lot--including my sister's husband and some of my brothers. I had 6 half-brothers.

Gary Naturist

10-19-2003, 10:43 AM

Rocket said: This guy was nude in front of a SEVEN year old child (grade 2) and sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with it!!! That is detestable and far removed from acceptable conduct!!!

From my own experience and from what I've read, kids under the age of 8 are generally oblivious to nudity, unless they have been taught that there is something wrong with being naked.

I remember once I was sunbathing nude on a beach at Club Med Eleuthera, which has a Kiddies Club. One of the GO's led a group of about 30 kiddies, average age 5, single file, each holding on to a rope, past me on their way to somewhere down the beach. Not one of the kids gave me a second look. It was as if I was invisible.

As an aside, my son told me about one 12-year old boy he had met who walked the full length of the beach, making a detour on several occasions to where a topfree woman was sunbathing. He walked up to each woman and asked the time, getting a good closeup look at some boobies (his term) each time. The boy was quite pleased with his little subterfuge.

Rocket, I'm curious. Can you be more specific about what is DETESTABLE about a kid seeing an adult naked?

Gary

Frank R

10-19-2003, 11:14 AM

When is breaking the law good?

I can provide you with an excellent example from right here in Austin, TX. A woman had obtained a divorce from her husband while living in California and mover here with her two daughters. Later, a California court awarded custody of the two girls to the ex-husband living in California. The fact that the ex-husband had been convicted of sexual child abuse with a niece in California did not phase the California courts. When ordered by the courts to turn the children over to this convicted child abuser, she refused, hid her two girls and went to jail for almost a year for contempt of court. Our Texas Governor refused to turn the woman over to California authorities until ordered to do so by a Federal Court. The vast majority of Texans (I believe) supported the woman. This story does have a happy ending. This past week, a Texas Court awarded custody of the girls to the woman living here and she has been released.

Did this woman break the law? She sure did. I, for one, am glad she did.

10-19-2003, 11:27 AM

Boreas

"I have no problem with you having a different opinion from those of the others on this board. I enjoy discussions and differing views. This statement shows a level of ignorance and bigotry that is unacceptable."

I have news for you. The lamb-slaughtering case actually happened in Bradford (UK) three or four years ago and got into the national press. It's nothing to do with bigotry nor ignorance - it's fact.

Nude in the North said: "Your both welcome to your opinions. But don't assume that the majority has given it's consent." And then he said: "The Human body is not some filthy , Perverted thing that needs to be kept covered to prevent bad things from happening. And people that think it is are the one's that need to see whats wrong with their thinking."

You are as guilty as we are of stating your opinion as though it were fact! I have very little doubt that, should any survey be carried out in my area, the overwhelming majority of the population would state a view that public nudity (other than at designated naturist places) was unacceptable.

Jon-Marc

"I was never alone with them, so no one could say there was anything inappropriate going on despite you two believing that nudity is inappropriate."
I would NEVER suspect that you would do anything inappropriate. I am genuinely sorry about the way your wife behaved. That must have been very difficult for you.

Personally I don't think it was appropriate to be naked in front of other people's kids unless their parents made it clear to you beforehand that it was OK to do that. As a parent I would be devastated and mad as hell if I discovered that a grown man had been naked in the presence of my 8-year-old daughter.

Frank R

We can all imagine examples of when the outcome of breaking a law is better than the outcome of abiding by it. But extreme examples (like the one you cite) don't make for good precedents for more mundane matters. Let's say that a starving person steals food from a supermarket - eats the food and therefore survives starvation. Did he do the right thing? Yes of course - because of the extreme adverse consequences of not doing so. But that case does not justify changing the law of theft, does it?

Stu

namedun

10-19-2003, 11:33 AM

"Think of the Children!!!!"

Rocket

10-19-2003, 11:45 AM

I agree with everything Stu said..again..

Jon-Marc,

It does not matter that it is your house....there was a child present and you should have known better. It is totally inappropriate for a GROWN man to be naked in front of a 8 year old child..then have a conversation with her....and take her approval of your nudity as a way for you to validate your opinion.

If you can't understand why...there is no point trying to explain it to you.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ren

10-19-2003, 11:57 AM

Now I did just stick up for Stu, but it seems that something needs qualification. Stu and Rocket seem to be beating the same dead horse with each response.

Okay, I get it now. You think it's wrong to be nude in front of children. And then you provide no back-up except that it is wrong in your view. Add some substance to your argument, because you seem to state opinions as absolute facts.

There are no absolutes.

Rocket

10-19-2003, 01:07 PM

Did the parents of these children give their consent for Jon Marc to appear nude in front of them?

Apparently no...because he mentions that he asked this 8 yr old girl if it was ok..and used her approval as a way to justify his nudity. Then he mentions after, regarding the parents, that they never complained.

Sounds like they never knew, because most parents would be real upset with something like this going on...and you can be assured they aren't expecting it.

10-19-2003, 01:32 PM

In all of the cases where I was nude in front of children, I was ALREADY nude before they came into the house. I didn't undress while they were there, and I didn't undress in front of them. In all cases they saw me and ignored me. I was in the bathtub (we didn't have a shower) with the bathroom door open, when one girl came into the house. My wife allowed them to come and go as they pleased, and in those days we left the door unlocked, which I no longer do. I was standing nude at the sink one time, shaving, when I heard voices and looked up to see another girl, my wife and daughter just outside the bathroom door, which was open. The girl wasn't paying any attention to me.

There was never any warning that the kids were in the house until it was too late. You can be as indignant as you want, Rocket, but I did nothing wrong despite your opinion. A child seeing an adult nude is no big deal. No, I will NEVER understand why it is inappropriate for adults to be nude in fromt of children. I'm nude in front of them all the time at the resort. Of course, those are nudist children, but all children are nudists until they're taught to be ashamed of their bodies.

Rocket

10-19-2003, 02:32 PM

Jon-Marc,

Who's ashamed of their body? Why do you think this is the point?

What was inappropriate is that when you realized a child was there...you didn't cover up. You should have covered up..

I am sorry you don't understand, but your conduct..especially about talking to the child and asking if it was "ok" is simply not appropriate. If I was that parent's child, I would have suspected you like to show yourself nude to children. I am sorry, but that's what I would think..and I would not have been happy about it.

Bob S.

10-19-2003, 02:53 PM

"Regarding your circumstance..if a high fence won't work..then..I am afraid you are just going to have to find another arrangement. Sorry..but you can't sunbathe nude in view of others unless they consent"

Rocket, I didn't say that I wanted to sunbathe in the nude, which I don't. I don't tan, just burn. I was just wondering what type of fence would be adequate in your opinion to separate you from your neighbor who likes to sunbathe in the nude.

stu and Rocket, Jon-Marc has made it absolutely clear that he was naked before the children came in and in a lot of instances, did not have time to cover up.

"and I have a barbeque with kids running around..and I am to tolerate it and tell these kids just to look the other way..."

And to answer your question, it seems the children will not even look that way more than a short moment unless the parents make a big todo over it. That's how it happened with Jon-Marc. This reminds me of a story around here when a man brought his daughter to the oceanfront to look at the art displays. He passed by a piece of art depicting a naked man and was upset when his daughter asked about the anatomy of it. Upset! Instead of using this as a segue to talk with her about the difference between boys and girls, he was upset that his little girl was daring to ask him such grown up questions.

By the way, two things: one this is an extremely conservative city with Pat Robertson as one of its citizens. two: as far as I know, this was the only complaint I heard about that piece of art.

Bob S.

10-19-2003, 03:42 PM

I once read a story about a woman who was in her car with her 5-year-old boy. In front of them was a convertible. A nude woman in the car stood up and waved at someone. The child exclaimed to her mother, "Mommy, that lady isn't wearing a seatbelt!" The child noticed a lack of a seatbelt and not that she was nude.

As for covering up once I've been seen--why? They saw me and didn't even care, and neither did I. Their lack of interest in most cases showed that. In a few cases they just giggled and went and played. I saw no reason to act embarrassed, which I wasn't. Had the parents said something to me about it, I would have put something on in front of their child or children. Only ONE time was there a problem with the parents. We talked about it, and I agreed to stay dressed when she was in our house. Otherwise there were no problems.

Rocket, I couldn't care less what you think of me. If you want to believe the worst about me, then go right ahead--I DON'T CARE! Your asinine opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me. I have daughters who are nearly twice your age, and YOU'RE just a child to me, so what you say is of no consequence. I didn't run around with an erection in front of them, and I didn't play with myself while they watched. I didn't do anything to them since I've never been into that. I just love to be nude, and I hate wearing clothes. Anyone who doesn't like that can stay away and keep their kids away. I am no threat to anyone. I now live alone, the way I like it, and I can be nude all the time in my house. No kids ever come here since I got rid of the slut to whom I was married.

Who's ashamed of their bodies? Nearly everyone in comparison to the small number of nudists who are comfortable being nude with other people, men, women and children.

Rocket

10-19-2003, 03:59 PM

Jon-Marc,

I haven't said my opinion of you. I just said what people might think. I am sorry if it upsets you. I still think it was inappropriate to be nude around these kids. You also should have chastized your wife for bringing these kids into your house with you undressed, and the fact that this happened more than once..I am sorry..is just not acceptable. And..that you seem to justify your nudity by getting the "ok" from a 8 year old child doesn't make it right either..you are a GROWN man..you simply should know better.

As far as it being your house and doing what you want..yes..you can..but if you are going to have other's people children over..then you should use some descretion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BobS,

I burn too...and actually don't sunbathe because I know the health risks..

For a fence...one that doesn't allow one from one side to see the other will work fine.

10-19-2003, 04:47 PM

Rocket,

I wasn't the one who had the children over to my house. My wife was. I don't see why it's such a big deal to you. It wasn't a big deal to the kids. It might have been a big deal to the parents, but the kids apparently didn't consider it important enough to tell them. My wife wasn't concerned with my nudity and never warned me when she had kids in the house, and I'm sure she never warned them or their parents that I would probably be nude. I was always nude in our house when people weren't there, and she knew it. Children take their cue from adults. They will react to nudity the same way grownups do, because they don't know any better. My lack of reaction to being seen nude by them caused them to be nonchalant about seeing me. Yes, I asked one girl how she felt about seeing me nude since she appeared embarrassed, because she had ALREADY seen me nude by accident. I told her it didn't embarrass me, and she had no problem with it after that. If YOU have a problem with it, then it's YOUR problem and not mine.

You're not going to convince me that I was wrong any more than I will convince you that I didn't do anything wrong. I'm not trying to "justify" anything. The only person who needs to justify something he's done is someone who HAS done wrong and is trying to convince himself as well as others.

I'm just having a difficult time understanding why you consider nudity in front of children to be inappropriate. Anyway, it's been 30 years since my "wife" and I separated, and there are no more children in my home--thank--well, I won't say who I want to thank since it will only upset someone to mention His name.

10-19-2003, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Jon-Marc,

Who's ashamed of their body? Why do you think this is the point?

What was inappropriate is that when you realized a child was there...you didn't cover up. You should have covered up..

I am sorry you don't understand, but your conduct..especially about talking to the child and asking if it was "ok" is simply not appropriate. If I was that parent's child, I would have suspected you like to show yourself nude to children. I am sorry, but that's what I would think..and I would not have been happy about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Give legitimate reasons why it isn't appropriate and why he should have covered up. You've been asked to do this several times and keep ducking it. Why are you afraid to provide proof of your opinions?

10-19-2003, 05:18 PM

Rocket is like the old records we used to play on a turntable. Some of us will remember them. If they got a scratch on them, they would get stuck in that scratch and repeat the same phrase over and over. She's stuck in a scratch repeating "It's inappropriate" over and over without ever getting past it and explaining WHY it's inappropriate.

Buzzer

10-19-2003, 05:24 PM

One of the ways women in New York got the right to appear topless in public was by breaking that law. If it's an unjust law, people should have the right to break it and bring it up in all the courts involved.
I think the biggest hurdle we have to clear is that of allowing the courts to be lenient on rapists because of what the woman or women were or were not wearing.

Rocket

10-19-2003, 05:47 PM

Jon-Marc,

I think it is inappropriate because:

1) You did not have permission from this kid's parents to be nude in front of their child.

2) People might wonder things about you

3) It violates standards of decency.

I am trying to understand the scenario here:

You say you were nude..so obviously your wife, and daughter weren't...and this child as well. Then you ask this 8 year old child if it is ok for you to be nude..and then hang out nude with all 3 of them who have clothes on? Is that right? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

aunaturelone

10-19-2003, 06:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If it's an unjust law, people should have the right to break it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think maybe "right to break it" isn't the precise phrase we need. You have a right to challenge the validity of the law you broke in an effort to overturn it. You are attempting to expand the realm of legally recognized rights into new terrain. If the challenge fails, you've then got to deal with the consequences. In that way, civil disobedience requires great courage.

Bob S.

10-19-2003, 06:54 PM

"For a fence...one that doesn't allow one from one side to see the other will work fine."

OK Rocket, now what kind of fence do you have at your house? Would it be possible for you to have your barbecue while your next-door neighbor was ralaxing in his lawnchair naked?

"I think it is inappropriate because:

1) You did not have permission from this kid's parents to be nude in front of their child.

If he knew that they were coming over, he would probably have asked. They accidentally saw him naked. Just like a child walking in on his parents having sex, it happens sometimes. And he only had one complaint, which he complied with.

2) People might wonder things about you

Yeah, people like you. People who attack others.

3) It violates standards of decency.

So tell me the difference between what Jon-Marc did and being at a nudist park and stripping down amongst people of all ages, including 8-year-old children? When I go to the nudist park, am I violating standards of decency? When a father is naked around his daughter, is he violating a standard of decency?

Bob S.

10-19-2003, 07:14 PM

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over--at least for me. In Rocket's immature mind I was wrong, and nothing will change that belief. In my mind I did NOTHING wrong. They didn't have to remain in my house if my nudity had bothered them, which it apparently didn't do.

Decency by whose standards? People who for some unknown reason think there is something indecent about the human body? It's bad enough that these people make, pass and/or support the laws governing where and when we can be nude and claiming that nudity is "inappropriate" and must be hidden away (to protect the children), without them telling me I have to be dressed in my own home. I'm tired of arguing with a mind that's as closed as mine. Oh yes, I admit my mind is closed to the prattle of simple people who are so embarrassed by their own nudity and others that they expect everyone to be just like them. The difference is that I DON'T expect everyone to think just like me concerning nudity. I just expect them to realize that there is NOTHING indecent or inappropriate about simple non-sexual nudity. There! I'm done on this discussion--I think.

Rocket

10-19-2003, 08:23 PM

BobS,

A nudist park is different than a private home. You expect..and this includes that 8 year old child to see people nude. This is a private home...and yes..while it is his home..I think he could have used better judgement. And if you don't think people will wonder....ask some non-nudist friends..what they think of a nude guy being suprised by a girl..talking to her..asking for permission to be nude..and then..continueing on....and this happens several times.

What he should have done is simply said something like "Excuse Me"..and then covered up..and after chastized his wife for using such poor judgement of bringing an 8yr old child in the house.

Regarding the backyard and fence..if you live in an area which won't allow total privacy..then keep your clothes on. That's one of the sacrifices you make when you live in a communal area. If you don't like it..then you can either move/go to another area/ask permission of your neighbor(s). If there is no objection..then you can do what you want. Infact, if there is no objection, as far as I am concerned you can have sex out there....

It seems to me though...a number of the people here don't see that..they think they can live in a communal area..and still do whatever they want..and not think or care it might affect
someone else's right to enjoy their own backyard.

Jon-Marc,

I don't doubt you did NOTHING wrong. Still, having a discussion with an 8 yr old girl to get her permission to be nude (and while being nude) is extremely poor judgement. Your wife used extremely poor judgement as well by bringing this child into your home knowing how you were most likely undressed. Also, to take the position of this being your house so you can do what you want to justify nudity in front of a child is poor as well. You should have immediately excused yourself upon finding this girl..and gotten dressed ASAP.

BTW..this talk isn't about being anti-nude (as some say)..it's just about common sense. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-20-2003, 12:14 AM

Jon-Marc

Not surprisingly I agree with Rocket o this one. Whilst I have no doubt at all about your motives, I think your actions were ill-judged to say the least.

Speaking as a member of the legal profession in the UK, had you done that here you would most certainly have been at the very least interviewed by the police and would very likely by now be on the files of our Social Services Department as a potential risk. I know that you are no risk in realiy but you live in the same world as the rest of us and these days, with our society's witch-hunt for paedophiles, you can't be too careful.

The kids were OK with it and so were the parents, but you couldn't have known that in advance (or could you??). As I said before, had you have done that in front of my 8 year old daughter I would have been mad as hell. So would the vast majority of parents in my view.

Some kids are brought up with nudity, others aren't. Whether they are brought up with it or not is a decision for their own parents.

Stu

Bob S.

10-20-2003, 06:07 PM

I am not saying that people will think the worst of others. It happens every day. But we do not know what the child told the parent, if anything. Maybe she said, "It was funny because I saw Mr. Jon naked in the bathroom." Maybe the girl just accepted it. We also don't know what the child's home life is either.

And Rocket, you just gave a blanket statemement of "It violates standards of decency." You didn't make any qualifications. And what about parents who go naked in front of their chidlren? Are they also violating said decency standards?

Yes, Jon-Marc could have closed the door upon the child seeing him naked, but as he said, she had already seen him and he was just acting as if there was nothing wrong with the situation. Sure he took a risk. But it seems to have payed off.

Again Rocket, I was asking you what kind of fence you had? Can you see your neighbors from your backyard?

Bob S.

Rocket

10-20-2003, 09:07 PM

BobS,

I live in an apartment..I am going to University. I actually don't have a fence. If you are talking about my parent's place..our area has some large homes behind so they actually can see into the backyard. If I was to lay down right by the fence..I believe no one could see me..so it would be OK..but I wouldn't be comfortable doing it.

Towards someone's parents, and being brought up with nudity..that's different than Jon-Marc's example so it is probably OK (although I wouldn't want to do it..I can't imagine seeing my parents nude!). However, given the dynamics of society, even if this child had been raised with nudity, I think Jon-Marc should have gotten dressed ASAP..there is simply no real defence for this conduct and I hope he doesn't do it again..he is playing with SERIOUS FIRE.

Why is it poor for Jon-Marc to be nude in front of this child? This has already been covered...

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-21-2003, 03:51 AM

Stu,

I'm not at all surprised that you agree with Rocket since she's always agreeing with her.

Rocket, I couldn't care less what other people THINK of me. My happiness isn't based upon other people's thoughts or asinine opinions.

As I said, this was over 30 YEARS ago when my first daughter was less than 3-years-old. I now live alone and no children see me nude except at the resort, and they don't care any more than the ones did 30 years ago. End of discussion.

Rik

10-21-2003, 04:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
..I can't imagine seeing my parents nude! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why not? Do you mean you cannot envisage what they look like or that you have a psychological problem in dealing with other people's bodies? Is this specific to your parents or to anyone else? If it is, then why does it make a difference if its your parents?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> However, given the dynamics of society, even if this child had been raised with nudity, I think Jon-Marc should have gotten dressed ASAP..there is simply no real defence for this conduct and I hope he doesn't do it again..he is playing with SERIOUS FIRE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not quite sure who you think needs protecting here. Is it the child who saw Jon-Marc naked or is it Jon-Marc who might have found himself in trouble with the parents (or the law) for allowing himself to be seen by a child?

Rik

10-21-2003, 07:14 AM

Rik

"I'm not quite sure who you think needs protecting here. Is it the child who saw Jon-Marc naked or is it Jon-Marc who might have found himself in trouble with the parents (or the law) for allowing himself to be seen by a child?"

I think Jon-Marc did the wrong thing perhaps for the right intentions. Whilst everything turne dout OK for him in the end, he put himself at risk of all sorts of trouble. I may be totally wrong but I suspect that, now he's had time to reflect this and discuss it with others, he realises that what he did was unwise because the outcome could have been very unpleasant for him. We all make errors of judgement from time to time. And we should all learn from our mistakes and, where possible, the mistakes of others.

Stu

Rocket

10-21-2003, 08:29 AM

Jon-Marc,

I am curious if you have ever had any education. The reason I ask is the statement "I could care less what other people think of me" is pretty bad unless you want to live like a hermit.

Perhaps you do..but if you interact with people..how other people view you IS important. If your neighbors have negative views on you..it affects your relationship with them; at the nudist club you go to if would affect you there as well. How your daughter's view you, would affect your relationship and, if they have kids, perhaps your grandchildren as well.

So..you should be concerned of how others view you. I hope you can see that..

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

10-21-2003, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I think Jon-Marc did the wrong thing perhaps for the right intentions. Whilst everything turne dout OK for him in the end, he put himself at risk of all sorts of trouble. I may be totally wrong but I suspect that, now he's had time to reflect this and discuss it with others, he realises that what he did was unwise because the outcome could have been very unpleasant for him. We all make errors of judgement from time to time. And we should all learn from our mistakes and, where possible, the mistakes of others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't disagree with what you say but Rocket's orginal comment, "That is detestable and far removed from acceptable conduct!!!", suggests some sort of risk to the child whereas now she's suggesting, as you are, that he was putting himself at risk as a result of public paranoia about paedophiles rather than simply acting in a manner which the child's parents may disapprove of.

Whatever one's personal views on whether or not children should be exposed to nudity there's no doubt that paedophillia is now perceived to be endemic and this view is whipped up by the tabloid press to the extent that any connection between male adults, children and nudity is automatically perceived to have some sexual content. Even Rocket suggested that she was more prepared to believe that Jon-Marc must like exposing himself to children than simply believing him to be a nudist who's trust in himself might not be shared by others.

It becomes quite difficult to discuss the issue rationally. Unless one is seen to utterly condemn
any action which might possibly be construed as paedophillia then there seems to be an assumption by many people (but not you I think) that one therefore has some sympathy for paedophiles. Paedophillia is the modern equivalent of witchcraft and it's sad to see that society's paranoia has, in my opinion, had a damaging effect on children as a whole where, for example, they are less likely to play in the streets, less likely to walk to school, where parents are much more conscious about how their physical relationship with their children may be perceived and where there has been a significant drop in the numbers of male primary school teachers over the last few years who fear that their desire to work with children will be perceived as odd (at best) and who fear the sort of accusation which Rocket directed to J-M.

I don't know whether that analysis adds anything to the debate - it's certainly taken it further off topic (sorry!!!) - but it's nevertheless interesting to delve a little deeper into the sort of instant reactions that some people have regarding nudity.

Rik

10-21-2003, 09:07 AM

Rocket,

When I was as young and immature as you, I was very concerned about other people's opinions of me. I based my self worth on what others said and thought about me. Time and wisdom have taught me that my self worth comes from within and not from others. As for my education, unless you've got more than two years of college, I have more education than you at this point.

I said, "I COULDN'T care less", which is the correct way to say that, not "I COULD". If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly. I am very well educated in English grammar. Certainly I care that people know that they can trust me. I am a very honest person. I've been told I'm TOO honest. I care that people know that I'm no threat to anyone. I care that people know that I'm a man who is controlled by God. OK, people, get offended at that name if you want.

My daughters have their lives to live, and I have no influence over them any longer. They also have no influence over me and the way I live my life. I love them dearly, and they love me. When I say I couldn't care less what others think of me, I mean that I no longer look to others for my self worth as the young do.

An 11-year-old great-nephew said that I'm weird because I like to be nude. So do I think of myself as weird just because he says I am? I don't think so! I have matured past the point of needing other people's approval of anything I do. When I was in my early 20's and single and didn't believe in sex outside of marriage, and I still don't, my parents thought there was something wrong with me and thought I was gay. I married the wrong person that they wanted me to marry because of their thoughts about me.

No, I no longer let other people's opinions of me govern my opinion of myself. If your happiness is based on what others think of you, then that's your problem. I make my own happiness. It doesn't come from others' opinions of me. I am very well liked by everyone who knows me. I have no enemies, and I'm very highly spoken of by others. I hear this often: So-and-So said some really nice things about you", and "So-and-So speaks very highly of you." People have often told me the good things one of my sons-in law says about me. Of course, I enjoy hearing the good reports about me. However, any negative statements made by people like my immature but "all-knowing" great-nephew mean nothing to me since I know it's not the truth.

Rocket

10-21-2003, 09:47 AM

Rik,

I think Jon-Marc approached this nudity in front of this child different than most. And he continued to defend it with really absurd arguments like "it's my place", "my wife brought the child", "the 8 year old child didn't have a problem"...when he should have just said he used poor judgement.

Also, there were others here who went to his side...and they really should have..if they thought about it....really should have agreed with myself and Stu.

If this mother had complained (and most would) I can tell you the Police and Child Affairs would have taken this EXTREMELY seriously. As Stu pointed out..at the least, he would have been interviewed....and most likely had his name entered on a "potential risk" list. I don't think he would want that. As well, because kids talk to other kids, and kids talk to parents (even teachers and counsellors) this matter could have escalated as well.

None of this would have been pleasant, and I am disappointed in that, after 30years, he didn't see that..

Simply put, people are going to error on the side that supports the defense of the child....

Jon-Marc,

As for you, I am sorry your 2 marriages didn't work out and that you are alone. And..from the sound of your posts..you sound bitter...

I am sorry about that as well. I will have you in my prayers tonite /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-21-2003, 10:48 AM

Rocket,

I hope that when you get married someday that you find someone who will love you and be faithful to you. Otherwise you will find out what it means to have a reason to be bitter over an unloving and unfaithful spouse. We both married for the wrong reason. I married to appease my parents. She married to get away from hers. She didn't love me, and I couldn't love someone who gave herself to every man she could and saw nothing wrong with it.

If you were married to a man like that, I would hazard a guess that you would be bitter about that, but then maybe you're a better person than I am. I TRY to live by God's standards, but I usually fail. Unlike some I've known, I don't act as though I'm perfect, and I know I'm far from it.

10-21-2003, 11:05 AM

Stu,

No, I haven't "realized" that I did anything unwise or wrong. My wife should have warned the parents that I was always nude in the house. That way if they didn't want me to be nude in front of their children, I would have worn at least a robe, or they could have kept their kids home. In most cases these were not children she was baby sitting, although that was the case sometimes. So most of them didn't need to be in our house. To my finite mind, closing the bedroom or bathroom door, or putting something on would say that I was embarrassed at being seen. To me it was no different than if I had been fully dressed. Rocket thinks I'm an exibitionist and said I like showing myself to kids. What I like is being nude just like most of the people in this forum. What I can't understand is why Rocket and Stu are so upset over something I did over 30 years ago when I was young and a little foolish and tended to want things my way. Now that I live alone, I CAN have things my way in my home.

Chief78CJ7

10-21-2003, 06:52 PM

My two cents..

No one is wrong here, but... as I see it, the attitude in general of overprotecting children is actually leading to people not seeing what really should be done to help children. Many socieites are so freaked about the issues regarding youth protection as not not really know what the problems are and are not.

People are worried about nudists on one hand, but totally ignore the *fact* that most molestations are by friends or family members.

When we accept blanket policy agaisnt something like nudity and think it's harming children, yet they themselves are naked.

I've always treated my children as adults in training.. that means taking the world's happenings and not ignoring them or condoning them, but explaining them. I don't talk down to my children nor dumb down how I talk to them--that's silly to do unless you want your kids to talk like that. If you want them to talk intelligently, talk intelligently to them. If they don't understand something, explain it to them.. My two boys are 9 and 6.

I leave the nudity up to them, but seeing their parents nude is how it's been since they're born. I just wonder how parents know to start dressing in front of their children--or do some people make sure they're dressed even in front of a 2 day old baby. heh

My youngest is actually more embarrassed to be seen in his underwear than be nude. Tell me that isn't society or TV or peer pressure or whatever? Shame is indeed learned..

OK.. I'll quit rambling..

Bob S.

10-21-2003, 07:01 PM

Just curious Jon-Marc, to put this in chronological perspective, when did these incidents occur? 70s? 80s?

Realize that back then, the pedophile witchhunts were still in their infancy and people could look at a male and not see a potential child molestor. And I know just how sticky it can be nowadays. I am one of the only male preschool teachers, possibly in the US. I am the only one that I know of and I am only one of four males even in the area working for my daycare (which has over 200 employees in a number of facilities). The other three are my boss, a school-age teacher, and the area maintenence man. I am looked on much more than my female coworkers.

I understand the intense scrutiny that men go through around children. But I also think that children are very keen on the environment. Jon-Marc may have gotten lucky, but he may have also had the perfect reaction. He made it such a non-issue that the children didn't consider it out of the ordinary. If he had reacted negatively, the child may have been more prone to be nagative in their feelings of the encounter.

In today's climate, everything is considered as a potential negative (and if you want more ranting by me on this topic, please see the "Young Naturists" forum under the thread, "Exposing the Children."

Bob S.

10-22-2003, 04:53 AM

Bob,

To answer your question: These incidents happened in the late 60's and early 70's.

10-22-2003, 05:52 AM

Jon-Marc

"What I can't understand is why Rocket and Stu are so upset over something I did over 30 years ago when I was young and a little foolish and tended to want things my way."

I'm not upset, Jon-Marc. I think that especially in the present climate an adult being naked in the presence of children always gives rise to suspicions and alarm. As you say, it was 30 years ago so there is nothing to be gained from dwelling on it.

Chief78CJ7

"People are worried about nudists on one hand, but totally ignore the *fact* that most molestations are by friends or family members."

It's not just physical molestaton that causes the worry - indecently exposing the private parts also causes anxiety and distress. Other than in very particular circumstances - e.g. a naturist place or in a family in which nudity is the norm - for an adult to be naked in the presence of a child is frought with danger.

"I leave the nudity up to them, but seeing their parents nude is how it's been since they're born. I just wonder how parents know to start dressing in front of their children--or do some people make sure they're dressed even in front of a 2 day old baby. heh"

That's easy to answer. In my case none of my three children have ever seen me naked. My wife stopped allowing my son to see her naked when he got old enough to appreciate the world around him - i.e. at about two or three months of age.

"Shame is indeed learned.."

I'm not sure why naturists choose to use the word "shame". In my younger days it was called "modesty". The only time where shame arises is if you are displaying yourself inappropriately in front of others who find it offensive. Now hat IS a cause for shame.

Stu

Kari P

10-22-2003, 06:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In my case none of my three children have ever seen me naked. My wife stopped allowing my son to see her naked when he got old enough to appreciate the world around him - i.e. at about two or three months of age.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To me that sounds very extraordinary. I'm a Finn. Here in Finland virtually every child (whether or not in a naturist family) sees his/her parents and other family members naked regularly, in the sauna. In public saunas (that are usually separate for each sex) other people too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I'm not sure why naturists choose to use the word "shame". In my younger days it was called "modesty". The only time where shame arises is if you are displaying yourself inappropriately in front of others who find it offensive. Now hat IS a cause for shame.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure that your attitude to nudity is not normal modesty. Call it shame or something else.

Normal nudity isn't offensive to Finns in appropriate contexts. Nudity in public may be, but there are really public places (streets and parks etc.), less public places (nature and countryside), and private areas visible to others. In each class of places nudity is tolerated differently, but the Finnish law says actually nothing about nudity.

Kari P

Rocket

10-22-2003, 07:28 AM

Our culture here in different to that of the Finland..so this comparison really makes no sense.

Here...for the most part..as kids get older, they DON'T go nude in front of their parents..and their parents don't go nude in front of them.

When I was small, my Mom used to put me in the tub with my brother...but now..that would be unsuitable. We wouldn't take a bath together in the nude now...

It's not a case of "body shame" it's just our culture different..with some different values.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-22-2003, 07:33 AM

Kari - welcome to the discussion.

"To me that sounds very extraordinary. I'm a Finn. Here in Finland virtually every child (whether or not in a naturist family) sees his/her parents and other family members naked regularly, in the sauna."

Very few homes here have saunas. In most cases, parents in the UK do not allow their children to see them naked. I don't even allow my wife to see me naked, but I admit that is rather unusual even for the UK.

"In public saunas (that are usually separate for each sex) other people too."

Here most public saunas are separate for male and female - either having two saunas, or different times for men and for women. Where saunas are for both sexes at the same time they usually require swimwear to be worn. We have separate showers and changing rooms and nudity is acceptable in those places because you will not be seen by members of the opposite sex.

"I'm sure that your attitude to nudity is not normal modesty. Call it shame or something else."

Most people aren't ashamed of their bodies - that isn't the reason they don't want others to see them. Even people with perfect bodies don't like to be naked in the presence of other people.

Stu

luvnaturism

10-22-2003, 07:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
....Here...for the most part..as kids get older, they DON'T go nude in front of their parents..and their parents don't go nude in front of them....

It's not a case of "body shame" it's just our culture different..with some different values.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Certainly our cultures are different, and they do reflect different values. Often the values that drive behavior in the US are not healthy, but rather perverse. The net effect is that a high level of body shame pervades our culture.

Every developing child has a normal curiosity about its own body and the bodies of others. When this curiosity can be satisfied by observing the bodies of people of various ages who are engaging in normal, non-sexual activity?such as bathing or swimming?the child no longer has a need for intense observation.

However, the normal curiosity can't be satisfied just in infancy. It's a process that continues throughout childhood as children continue to learn?and to need to learn?about themselves and the world around them.

When the curiosity isn't satisfied, the normal becomes abnormal. The child learns that certain parts of the body are "dirty." They develop shame about their own bodies. By adolescence this can lead to severely harmful behavior, not to mention the resulting vulnerability to countless sales pitches that promise relief from the shame just by buying products.

Recognizing that cultures are different and have different values shouldn't lead us to assume that "ours" is better, or at least equal, to "theirs." There are many points at which the various European cultures reflect values that could benefit the US if we would allow it to happen. Reduced body shame is just one of them.

Abiqua

10-22-2003, 08:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Okay, so in the thread "Making Love Outdoors" the topic degraded into discussion on breaking the law, and public nudity. Stu and other textiles have made public nudity a violation of the law nearly everywhere in the United States to some degree or another...with Arkansas leading the pack with some of the most extensive anti-nudity laws anywhere. All states (and most foreign countries) have very strict laws against sexual behaviour in public places. Both anti-nudity and public sex laws seem to fall under the same catagory. MOST nudists would agree that having sex in a public place is very wrong, and should be enforced by the law, but we are often quick to violate the laws regarding nudity, braving our bodies into our back yards, or stripping to nothing out on a hiking trail. Someone asked on the other thread...what's the difference? Both are laws designed to protect the moral, ethical, and safety concerns of the general public, so what makes breaking one a good thing, and breaking the other a bad thing? I am not confused about this issue, and I know why I think it is different, but I'm curious as to what the rest of you have to say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Replying to the original question, I do have a gut reaction against public copulation (which I have witnessed once, at a textile beach), but I'm mature enough to admit that I can't provide a logical reason why it should be banned. It certainly did me no harm to see the young couple having sex - the erection that it aroused did not send me out of control.

I strongly oppose laws against public nudity, as nudity will never be considered healthy and normal as long as it's confined to restricted locations. This leads inevitably to the assumption that simply nudity is wrong, that it's a sex crime (especially when children are involved), and the biggest myth of all, that very few people go nude.

I agree with breaking any law that is unjust, but in doing so, I would also be agreeing to accept the consequences of my civil disobedience if I couldn't persuade a judge or jury in my favor.

If you think about it, that's how men got the right to go shirtless on public beaches in the 1930s: they began ignoring the law.

Rik

10-22-2003, 08:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In most cases, parents in the UK do not allow their children to see them naked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kari, I have to dispute (or at least qualify) what Stu says. Stu has extreme views on nudity and it seems that sometimes this colours his view of what other people think or do.

To some extent it depends what you mean by "children" but in my view I would say that most parents in the UK do allow their children to see them naked certainly until they are 5 or 6 years old and in many families until about 10 or 12 years old. Beyond that it is less likely (but by no means uncommon) but the reticence stems more from a child's growing sexual awareness than a parent's desire not to allow their children to see them naked.

Rik

Rocket

10-22-2003, 09:38 AM

LuvNaturilsm,

It's not about "reduced body shame"..even when I've been clothed (like around my brother) it doesn't mean I am ashamed of my body. I simply prefer not to be seen nude..

I also prefer not to see him..and I do know what a male body looks like..

Towards this other guy who wrote sex should be public..nudity laws shouldn't exist..this view is so outrageous and absurd it's difficult to respond. If you want to increase nudity, I guarantee taking a stance like that will hurt you much more than help you.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-22-2003, 09:48 AM

"Replying to the original question, I do have a gut reaction against public copulation (which I have witnessed once, at a textile beach), but I'm mature enough to admit that I can't provide a logical reason why it should be banned."

So you would be fine about your kids seeing it too? How about them witnessing an orgy in full swing?

"I strongly oppose laws against public nudity, as nudity will never be considered healthy and normal as long as it's confined to restricted locations".

There is no evidence that I am aware of to prove that nudity is healthy.

"This leads inevitably to the assumption that simply nudity is wrong.."

No it doesnt. Virtually everybody encounters nudity at home. Most people see it in showers and changing rooms at gyms, swiming pools etc. and they don't assume it's wrong. What is wrong is inappropriate public nudity.

"..and the biggest myth of all, that very few people go nude."

Very few people DO go nude in public. That's no myth - it's fact.

"I agree with breaking any law that is unjust..."

You mean unjust in YOUR opinion.

"If you think about it, that's how men got the right to go shirtless on public beaches in the 1930s: they began ignoring the law."

There is no reason to believe that the law prohibiting men going shirtless on public beaches was unjust beyond the fact that it was contrary to public opinion. People were accustomed to seeing men topless - workmen, farmers and even such as boxers and bodybuilders, were commonly seen without shirts in the 1920s and 1930s. I think you'll find that public opinion is far less tolerant of public nudity - even today.

Stu

Rocket

10-22-2003, 10:27 AM

I reread that guys post. If he thinks this..his IQ must be too low to have a serious debate with...

The vast majority of the public would be opposed to allowing people to copulate in public..so it's banned. People have the right to enjoy public areas without seeing that..

Same with public nudity..the public has a right to enjoy public areas without seeing nudity..

Towards the "unjust law"..this means if he doesn't agree with a law..he feels he has the right to break it. So..if he feels it should be OK to rape a women..rape is OK..

If he decides it is "unjust" for a bank to hold money..he is free to rob it. If he thinks it is "unjust" for Bill Gates to be worth 50 Billion Dollars compared to people starving..it means we should steal from him.

I honestly shake my head at the attitude of some of the people on the forum!!!

Kari P

10-22-2003, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I reread that guys post. If he thinks this..his IQ must be too low to have a serious debate with... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Abiqua said only:

"Replying to the original question, I do have a gut reaction against public copulation (which I have witnessed once, at a textile beach), but I'm mature enough to admit that I can't provide a logical reason why it should be banned."

Saying that there isn't a "logical" reason to ban something doesn't mean saying that something should be allowed, because there may be other reasons, irrational by their nature. Personally I admit the same as Abiqua.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
The vast majority of the public would be opposed to allowing people to copulate in public..so it's banned. People have the right to enjoy public areas without seeing that.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they have it. By law, in every country, as I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Same with public nudity..the public has a right to enjoy public areas without seeing nudity.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they have it. In practice, but not by law in every country. When nudity in public is not explicitly banned, it is still considered as unacceptable by so many (one should never say "most" if there is no research showing that) people that it doesn't happen in the most public areas.

I am one of the naturists that feel it possible to change the common attitudes toward nudity in small steps. In our minds nudity is not an expression of sexuality. If the puclic acceps that postulate, they can gradually become accustomed to the thought that some people don't mind using clothes always and everywhere even if they can be seen. That doesn't mean nudity becoming accepted in really public places at once.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Towards the "unjust law"..this means if he doesn't agree with a law..he feels he has the right to break it. So..if he feels it should be OK to rape a women..rape is OK.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. Seeing a specific law as unjust and breakable doesn't mean seeing every law as such.

All of you who are speaking about laws banning nudity, are you really sure that they are in force in your country? I know that there are such laws somewhere, but what I know of the laws in Europe, they generally prohibit only "indecent sexual behaviour" and say explicitly nothing about nudity. Then, if simple nudity is not considered as a sexual phenomenon, especially in the application of the law by police and courts, it is actually not banned by law.

Kari P

namedun

10-22-2003, 12:49 PM

Off topic!
Have you ever heard "war isn't about what's right, it's about what's left"? I know we're not talking about war, but really, when it comes down to it, what we are "allowed" to do, is only relative to what will happen if we do what ever it is. Rights and obligations are just pretty things that society has made up, and society itself, most people never realize, isn't necessary for human existance.
What I'm trying to say is, I don't care if I do or don't have the right to be nude when I want to. What I care about, is whether anything bad will happen to me for being nude. It all depends on the situation.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

namedun

10-22-2003, 12:56 PM

Also, who ever said the anit-nudity laws in North America are a product of the majority of the people's preference? Almost all people I've ever talked to about nudism have no problem with it, and most wouldn't be too bothered by seeing it. I think that anti-nudity laws are held in place by both extremist "moral" groups and public's lack of interest and caring on the issue. Governments haven't changed these laws, because most people simply don't care and therefore, why should the government take pro-active action?

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

10-22-2003, 01:03 PM

"Also, who ever said the anit-nudity laws in North America are a product of the majority of the people's preference? Almost all people I've ever talked to about nudism have no problem with it, and most wouldn't be too bothered by seeing it."

I've met hardly anyone who thinks there should be a relaxatio on the laws of public nudity. The general view I encounter is that those who engage in it are inconsiderate offensive exhibitionists and should be locked up.

Stu

namedun

10-22-2003, 01:34 PM

Wow, you live in Europe!?

Rocket

10-22-2003, 04:50 PM

For the most part..Stu's statement parrells (sp?) my experience. The vast majority of people ARE opposed to nudity really in any form..

I was talking to my brother, and he mentioned his boss sent him to an area which had a "co-spa". I asked what his reaction was. He told me that most people disapproved of it..and that really didn't like it there..but tolerated it..

I've spoken to other people about our local nude beach..and most seem opposed to it..

So...with this straw poll (admitted very limited) really no support..

I think it will remain something for a very few to do..but embraced by the general public..NOT A CHANCE.

KariP,

I was talking about North America..not Finland. But I suspect if you wanted to go to the local mall in Helsinki nude..you wouldn't be shopping long. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NudeAl

10-22-2003, 07:01 PM

My experience's are quite opposite.

I have talked to more that a few of our local citizens about our popular nude beach here and they seem to be of the opinion that it is a tourist draw and tourism is a major industry here. Most say they have no problem with it. We also have several nude resorts in our area due to the climate, meaning both the weather and the social/political atmosphere. These groups sponser community projects like beach clean-ups and sponsering sections of hiway, the adopt a hiway project, picking up trash etc. This generates public awareness if not support.

My friends and family all know we are nudists and no one has a problem with it. I think we are pretty lucky in this as some of the relations have some strong religious beliefs but then blood is thicker than religion apparentlty. I doubt we are going to change the world overnight but I think over time we will see a change.

Bob S.

10-22-2003, 07:44 PM

"I honestly shake my head at the attitude of some of the people on the forum!!!"

So do I, Rocket, so do I. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

"My wife stopped allowing my son to see her naked when he got old enough to appreciate the world around him - i.e. at about two or three months of age."

stu, that is very young. Even at 12 months, they are just learning to appreciate the world around them. And even then in their limited way. There are some motehrs who are still breastfeeding theri children past the one year mark. That is a part of the body that you find repulsive, I believe). I believe that most parents still allow their chidlren to see them past their second birthday. I live in an extremely conservative area of the country and still, I have seen many a parent take their preschool child into the bathroom with them.

"So you would be fine about your kids seeing it{public sex} too?"

I don't necessarily want to see it, so if I had children, I wouldn't want them to see it, either. But hey, it could open the door to a load of questions. "What were they doing, Daddy?" That could lead to a discussion about your own attitudes. Where some people see obstacles, they should be seeing valuable teaching moments with their children.

"There is no evidence that I am aware of to prove that nudity is healthy."

There is no evidence that you will accept that nudity is healthy. There have been scientific studies done involing preschool children's attitudes compared with their home life. There was a book published called "Gropwing Up Without Shame" by Dennis Craig Smith and Dr. William Sparks regarding social nudism and its effect on children. Look on the internet and you can find evidence to support us.

"Very few people DO go nude in public. That's no myth - it's fact."

So why be overly concerned about the laws?

Bob S.

Bob S.

10-22-2003, 07:56 PM

"Towards the "unjust law"..this means if he doesn't agree with a law..he feels he has the right to break it."

Didn't you read the whole discorse about civil disobedience elsewhere (maybe even on this very topic)? If you feel that a law was created under famlse pretensees, either due to undue influence, erroneous logic. If the law is too vague, too restrictive, violates one of your government-granted freedoms, etc. you have a moral obligation to try to overturn the law. If the law is new, there is the idea of getting an injunction to stop its implementation. After that, the only ways to get it repealed are to talk with your elected representatives and violate it and test its veracity in a court of law.

Now keep in mind Rocket, that the idea of "civil disobedience" is a peaceful protest. There can be no harm or threat of harm that befalls anyone else because of it. So rape, bank robbery, and taking of one's money does not fit into the definition of civil disobedience.

And isn't it funny that stu and Rocket, the two most vehemently opposed to nudity outside of traditional places, both have had similar experiences with people who agree with them. Meanwhile, most people here who are nudists or enjoy nude leisure, upon talking to non-nudists about their attitudes get much more nudist-friendly answers. Hmm, maybe we attract likes.

Bob S.

Rocket

10-22-2003, 08:08 PM

BobS..

There you are wrong..

I am NOT opposed to nudity outside of places if no one objects..

If you want to be nude in your backyard..and your neighbors don't mind..it's FINE WITH ME..

Infact..IT'S FINE WITH ME IF YOU HAVE AN ORGY THERE..AS LONG AS NO ONE OBJECTS..

The problem with your position..is people DO OBJECT..and you live within a communal society..so you can't have your way..

When you try to push for your way anyway..that's when you create problems..

Naturist Mark

10-22-2003, 08:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
If you want to be nude in your backyard..and your neighbors don't mind..it's FINE WITH ME..

Infact..IT'S FINE WITH ME IF YOU HAVE AN ORGY THERE..AS LONG AS NO ONE OBJECTS.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why does Rocket always equate nudity with sex? We are talking about nudism, not swinging! Nudity does not equal sex.

Nude is not lewd. But some people's minds are.

-Mark

Rocket

10-22-2003, 10:06 PM

Mark,

I don't necessarily equate nude with sex. BobS sitting in his backyard reading a paper in the nude isn't sex.

I was simply trying to point out that he could do anything as far as I was concerned..as long as his neighbors didn't object.

The orgy was my extreme example to make my point /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kari P

10-23-2003, 01:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
KariP,

I was talking about North America..not Finland. But I suspect if you wanted to go to the local mall in Helsinki nude..you wouldn't be shopping long. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know you were talking about North America. You say that cultural comparison doesn't make sense. To me it makes. Me, you, and everyone, could learn something from it. For example that people can tolerate much more nudity than you and the people you have talked with do.

I appreciate that you know that much of geography, at least that Finland is in Europe and Helsinki is its capital. Excellent! (I've read that there is a significant percentage of the citizens of the USA whose knowledge of other countries is minimal.)

I live in a small town, not in Helsinki. I wouldn't do what you said, even in my home town. But let's think about it. That would be an interesting experiment to test both the public opinion and the meaning of the law.

A person walking nude in a crowded area would very probably been asked to cover up first by some other walker or salesperson, and then by a policeman. If the nude person obeyed immediately - that's fine, nothing else happens, maybe even no penalty. In this case we could ask what was the policeman's right to give his order.

If the person does not do as the policeman orders, he probably will be arrested (just like Steve Gough in England) and prosecuted - for what? In the first hand for disobeying the authority, and the person's attorney would ask where the right for the order was, based strictly on law.

Next the person could be prosecuted for indecent behaviour in the public. For the prosecutor this will be very hard to prove if the person was simply walking naked, not fondling himself nor putting up any special show. I believe (only believe, I don't know of any real case) that the court accepts that simple nudity is not indecent behaviour and finds the person not guilty.

There are very, very few extremists that would go through this process. Testing the law is not a sufficient incentive to do it, and there is a risk that the support of "ordinary" naturism only shrinks with it.

If you seriously look around in the internet for pictures depicting public nudity, you find them. Easily, I think. Indeed I have seen them. There are pictures taken somewhere in central Europe (e.g. Germany) where you can see nude women (yes, only women) on crowded streets, even sitting on a police car with policemen smiling in there. None of the persons visible in the pictures seem to be seriously embarrassed. I told this only to point out that nudity in very public settings is actually tolerated somewhere in the area of western cultures.

But, this talk was about "very public" nudity that most naturists are not going to exercise. I know what you, Rocket, think about nudity in one's one back yard. ("Do it if you have consent of every people that can see you.") There are a great variety of other, principally public but less public than streets, places not specially devoted to naturism where one can be nude with a low risk to be seen by anyone who may find it offensive. You cannot require that absolutely no unconsented outsider can see nudity.

Kari P

10-23-2003, 06:42 AM

Bob,

?There are some mothers who are still breastfeeding their children past the one year mark. That is a part of the body that you find repulsive, I believe).?

All my kids were bottle-fed. My wife agreed to this at my suggestion. And I don?t find women?s breasts to be very attractive, no.

?I believe that most parents still allow their children to see them past their second birthday. I live in an extremely conservative area of the country and still, I have seen many a parent take their preschool child into the bathroom with them.?
I don?t know how prevalent that is here in the UK. I suspect not very.

"There is no evidence that you will accept that nudity is healthy. There have been scientific studies done involving preschool children's attitudes compared with their home life?.

That?s attitudes, not physical health. Once person?s opinion of what constitutes a healthy attitude may be very different to mine.

?There was a book published called "Growing Up Without Shame" by Dennis Craig Smith and Dr. William Sparks regarding social nudism and its effect on children. Look on the internet and you can find evidence to support us.?

I have looked on the net. I have found no impartially obtained evidence (i.e. evidence collected by naturists is hardly impartial) that proves that nudity has any physical benefits. How can it be healthier to be naked than to wear light clothing?

"So why be overly concerned about the laws??

The laws need to be tightened up in order to prevent and, if necessary, prosecute the occasional inconsiderate and antisocial person parading about or otherwise exhibiting himself on the pretext of being a genuine naturist. I can think of people who do just that.

?Didn't you read the whole discourse about civil disobedience elsewhere (maybe even on this very topic)??

I?m well aware of the arguments in favour of civil disobedience, Bob, I have taught the various concepts of jurisprudence and legal ethics. I just think the arguments are defective.

?If the law is too vague, too restrictive, violates one of your government-granted freedoms, etc. you have a moral obligation to try to overturn the law. If the law is new, there is the idea of getting an injunction to stop its implementation. After that, the only ways to get it repealed are to talk with your elected representatives??

Yes.

??and violate it and test its veracity in a court of law.?

No. The law is the law and, other than in the most extreme circumstances, or where you are disenfranchised in some way (you have no voice, no vote, no right to associate with other like-minded people, no right to campaign etc), then you have a moral obligation to obey it and seek to change it only through lawful means.

?? the idea of "civil disobedience" is a peaceful protest. There can be no harm or threat of harm that befalls anyone else because of it.?

You can peacefully march through the streets, you can peacefully lobby politicians, you can peacefully get a petition together etc etc. All these methods are lawful and they upset no-one. Civil disobedience that causes angst is not only legally wrong I is also morally reprehensive.

?Hmm, maybe we attract likes.?

Of course they do, Bob.

Kari P

?There are very, very few extremists that would go through this process?.

I am glad that you agree that they are extremists.

?Testing the law is not a sufficient incentive to do it, and there is a risk that the support of "ordinary" naturism only shrinks with it.?

Indeed it does. I suspect that, if the truth were known, Mr Gough has caused quite a few people to re-think their otherwise benign attitude towards naturism from being a harmless pastime ? perhaps worthy of investigation - into a doctrine supported by offensive extremists and anarchists.

Stu

Rik

10-23-2003, 08:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
All my kids were bottle-fed. My wife agreed to this at my suggestion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really do like to impose your particular brand of prudishness on others even to the extent of denying your own children the benefit of their mother's milk. I find that quite sad although I don't expect you to understand why.

Rik

10-23-2003, 09:11 AM

Rik,

It was a suggestion, not an instruction. She was quite happy to bottle feed them all and they turned out very healthy!

Stu

Jochanaan

10-23-2003, 09:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
What he should have done is simply said something like "Excuse Me"..and then covered up..and after chastized his wife for using such poor judgement of bringing an 8yr old child in the house. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Marriage must be based on trust. (If it isn't, it's a marriage in trouble.) Jon-Marc's wife, by bringing the child over knowing her husband would probably be naked, had made a decision, either by considering all the facts or merely on "the spur of the moment;" Jon-Marc, by trusting her judgment, was merely doing what any husband would who loves and trusts his wife.

Sometimes, as in this instance, spontaneous events may come out much better than anyone involved could have foreseen.

Jochanaan

10-23-2003, 09:57 AM

As for the witch-hunt for pedophiles, or rather pederasts, it certainly is out of control. But it is only a symptom of a larger problem: the perception that most men are little better than animals and driven entirely by sexual hunger.

The majority of men I know, although they probably have a healthy sex drive (I wouldn't know and see no need to ask), are driven by other desires, beliefs, and needs.

And consider the large percentage of men--even priests /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --who have NOT commited rape, incest, or pedophilia. Let's not look so much at the bad apples, but rather consider all the innocent ones.

Rik

10-23-2003, 09:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It was a suggestion, not an instruction. She was quite happy to bottle feed them all and they turned out very healthy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can imagine the conversation:

"You won't be doing that disgusting breastfeeding stuff will you dear?"

" Of course not Stu honey, when it comes down to pleasing my hubby or doing the best for my children then hubby wins every time."

"But darling it's [I]only a suggestion! You don't have to deny the kids just so I don't have to look at your breasts. But it would be rather nice if you did."

"Stu, believe me I'm already losing the will to live so you win ok?"

"Ah honey, you're so thoughtful. I'm glad we're agreed on that. Now then, let's turn the light out so we can get undressed for bed."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

10-23-2003, 11:07 AM

Rik,

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!

We don't get undressed with the light off - that would be silly. We do it behind the screen with the lights on.

Stu

Rik

10-23-2003, 11:13 AM

LOL

Boreas

10-23-2003, 05:23 PM

Wow...time warp! What year is this??? It is sounding like Victorian England in here. Is that where you live Stu? Screens? That is hysterical. To each his own of course.

Bob S.

10-24-2003, 09:24 PM

"I am NOT opposed to nudity outside of places if no one objects.."

Well Rocket, who would disagree with that statement except for the anti-nudist extremists?

"The problem with your position..is people DO OBJECT..and you live within a communal society..so you can't have your way."

Refresh my memory, what is my way according to you? My way, according to me, is to allow the public to become more acclimated to nudity, both seeing it and accepting it as normal as opposed to getting all freaked out just from seeing a naked body. And just to tell you again, I have only been arguing for more "public nudity" as a way to get the public to become used to it. It has kind of become a tad out of contol.

Bob S.

Bob S.

10-24-2003, 09:47 PM

"All my kids were bottle-fed. My wife agreed to this at my suggestion. And I don?t find women?s breasts to be very attractive, no."

Experts say that the more a mother breastfeeds her child, the healthier that child will be.

"Once person?s opinion of what constitutes a healthy attitude may be very different to mine."

Fine, a healthy attitude about clothing and the human body is someone who doesn't totally reject seeing the naked body. Someone who does not need clothes on all the time. Someone who can be naked for extended lengths of time. More later. How about you?

"I have found no impartially obtained evidence (i.e. evidence collected by naturists is hardly impartial) that proves that nudity has any physical benefits."

So would you reject all claims collected by a law enforcement group concerning benefits of enforcing certain laws? Who else is going to collect evidence proving nudity has benefits other than those who are in favor of more nudity? We find scientific and anecdotal evidence that familial nudity is mentally healthier than a clothing-mandatory household and post it online.

"The laws need to be tightened up in order to prevent and, if necessary, prosecute the occasional inconsiderate and antisocial person parading about or otherwise exhibiting himself on the pretext of being a genuine naturist."

I have been arguing this with you elsewhere. The laws you have so far seem to be working. Steve Gough is in jail, Vincent Bethell has given up for now, most of the populace is clothed in all the appropriate places.

"Civil disobedience that causes angst is not only legally wrong I is also morally reprehensive."

And if that "angst" is the very thing that the disobedient wants to challenge?

Bob S.

10-25-2003, 06:07 AM

Bob

"Experts say that the more a mother breastfeeds her child, the healthier that child will be."

Oddly enough, there is now a school of thought in the medical profession that challenges that (my daughter, a med student has ben learning about this). Because women have a very unnatural diet, and are giving birth much later in life, it is now suspected in some quarters that many babies do at least as well if not better taking nutrients through bottle-feeding. Formula baby milk is now very accurate in responding to what a baby needs, and there is some doubt about earlier claims that a baby can take in antibodies through breast milk. So this is a hotly contraversial subject. I have nothing against breastfeding women - so long as they do it out of sight.

"Fine, a healthy attitude about clothing and the human body is someone who doesn't totally reject seeing the naked body. Someone who does not need clothes on all the time. Someone who can be naked for extended lengths of time. More later. How about you?"

I have no problem seeing the naked body - in context. I take my clothes off (all of them now) when I take a shower. I have no desire to be naked for extended lengths of time and I fail to see why having such a desire is a healthy attitude.

"So would you reject all claims collected by a law enforcement group concerning benefits of enforcing certain laws?"

No /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Who else is going to collect evidence proving nudity has benefits other than those who are in favor of more nudity?"

It's like asking anti-abortionists to prove that abortion can be harmful to the mother. Or pro-abortonists to prove that it's not. Research carried out by people with "an axe to grind" can never be regarded as scientific and impartial. Now if an independent university research team did a study then that might be more credible. Got any evidence of that quality, Bob?

"We find scientific and anecdotal evidence that familial nudity is mentally healthier than a clothing-mandatory household and post it online."

Sorry, but I've not seen any impartial empirical evidence to support what you say. Where is the evidence?

"The laws you have so far seem to be working. Steve Gough is in jail, Vincent Bethell has given up for now, most of the populace is clothed in all the appropriate places."

Steve Gough should have been jailed before he left Cornwall, never mind geting as far as he did. Vincent Bethell has indeed given up, but the police and crown prosecutors are left scratching their heads about the best way to prosecute public nudity. They are left having to make public order law fit the circumstances rather than the other way round.

"And if that "angst" is the very thing that the disobedient wants to challenge?"

Angst is an emotion, not a rationale. Nobody has the right to challenge another's emotion.

Stu

Naturist Mark

10-25-2003, 12:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob

"Experts say that the more a mother breastfeeds her child, the healthier that child will be."

Oddly enough, there is now a school of thought in the medical profession that challenges that (my daughter, a med student has ben learning about this). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There may be some thought ... but the majority of expert opinion (and Stu is a great proponent of following majority opinion) is clearly in favor of breastfeeding infants for at least 6 months.

<A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9987460&dopt=Abstract" TARGET=_blank>Breast-feeding and infant illness: a dose-response relationship?
</A> Study showing that breastfeed confers immunity to infants.

USAID: American Government support for breastfeeding (http://www.usaid.gov/pop_health/cs/csbfeeding.htm)

Austrailian government support for breastfeeding (http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/strateg/brfeed/brfacts.htm)

UN support for breastfeeding (http://www.unicef.ca/eng/travail/breastFeeding/index.html)

Breastfeeding is endorsed by the UK's National Health Service (http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/)

http://www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/images/leaflet/bfl_07.gif
NOT objectionable to reasonable people

10-25-2003, 02:08 PM

Mark,

I my younger days we were told not to eat bread and potatoes because these were full of starch, which was, they said, bad for us. We were, however, encouraged to eat fatty foods. Then they told us that cholesterol in the diet caused artherosclerosis (leading to heart disease). They now know that's nonsense.

I have had some pretty bad experiences with doctors - if certain ones among them had got their way I would have undergone surgery at the age of twelve that would have turned me into some sort of freak. I would never have been able to have a family but, luckily, I had the presence of mind to resist them. Needless to say I take what medics say with a BIG pinch of salt. They can't agree among themselves.

And just to remind you what I said above:

"I have nothing against breastfeding women - so long as they do it out of sight."

Stu

Bob S.

10-25-2003, 03:13 PM

"Oddly enough, there is now a school of thought in the medical profession that challenges that {benefits of breastfeeding}"

But you also said that "Needless to say I take what medics say with a BIG pinch of salt." So do you only go with the research that you agree with? And will you now believe your daughter more than other medics?

"I have nothing against breastfeding women - so long as they do it out of sight."

You have a problem with them feeding their babies in public. That should be one of a woman's most basic rights, to feed her baby wherever she needs to.

"Got any evidence of that quality, Bob?"

Go here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/2516/familial_attitudes.html

Warning, at the top of the page is a picture of a woman holding her naked baby boy in the air. You can see his bare bottom.

The site gives a basic rundown of four studies dealing with "Parental Attitudes," "Childhood influences on adult adjustment," "Children's perceptions of nudity ," and "Nudist and non-nudist perceptions." The whole studies are not reproduced on the site, but there is a bibliography at the end if you want to look up the individual studies yourself.

There is also the "205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism" complete with a bibliography at the end (and no pics).
http://www.fkk-online.de/205_args.htm

And a general bibliography for nudism: http://home.twcny.rr.com/pj3schult/Pete/Nudism/nudebiblio.html

Finally, is that your real pic? I was rather used to your previous avatar.

Bob S.

Boreas

10-25-2003, 04:56 PM

I have been thinking lately that Stu and Rocket are really just having us on...playing games with us. Some of their posts are just so outlandish such as Stu and his wife using a screen so they won't see each other naked. Can you picture that. A big old Victorian house (I see Scrooge here for some reason) and a curtained off bed, so as not to get a draught (draft) etc. So, here are my theories.

Rocket has mentioned several times that she is a university student yet has as of yet failed to back up some of her beliefs (esp re homosexuality on Exposing Children thread). She has yet to quote from the texts she claims to have read. So I believe she is a graduate psychology student (though she could spell psychological?) doing a research paper on responses/discussions on Internet message boards.

I suspect that Stu is actually a nudity loving naturist who wants to have some fun. He actually loves the sight of nude bodies, male or female.

Those are my theories anyway.

Rocket

10-25-2003, 05:01 PM

Still Boreas,

I am not participating on that "gay thread" anymore. After Ren made his personal attack, I won.

Commonsense defeats nonsense everytime..so..when I examined some of the claims..I just looked at it from a simple biological point of view (which I was challenged to do). I looked up some alternative views, but really what I said, is just what everyone knows /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Don't need to go further..

I can't speak for Stu regarding his relationship with his wife, but it is HIS relationship, and not my concern. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-26-2003, 01:44 AM

Bob

"But you also said that "Needless to say I take what medics say with a BIG pinch of salt." So do you only go with the research that you agree with? And will you now believe your daughter more than other medics?"

I am very dubious about research. As I said before, experts conducting research often come up with conflicting evidence - usually because they have made up their minds in advance and the research is designed to prove a hypothesis rather than to investigate.

"You have a problem with them feeding their babies in public. That should be one of a woman's most basic rights, to feed her baby wherever she needs to."

Going to the toilet is a basic need, but we do it out of sight.

"Go here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/2516/familial_attitudes.html

I did. Then I emailed the web address to a colleague who is a research professor of psychology at my university. Rather than copying and pasting the whole lengthy response, I have cobbled together a few extracts ? the items in brackets are my editing/summarising and not her words:

?This is not research in itself. It is an essay in which certain pieces of research have been selected and then selectively interpreted by the author. Nothing I have seen in this essay convinces me that there is irrefutable evidence proving nor disproving that children brought up accustomed to seeing nudity are advantaged psychologically or developmentally?? [ibid] ??extremely scant evidence by someone who just writes off the greatest child psychologist of the twentieth century, Benjamin Spock? if I remember rightly (his) views (on children's exposure to nudity and sex) were based on those of the father of psychoanalysis himself, Sigmund Freud.?

She went on to cast doubts on whether the author was an academic at all and suggested that the essay might be that of a student undertaking a masters degree or similar.

"Finally, is that your real pic? I was rather used to your previous avatar."

Yes, Bob, if you like I'll change my avatar back again?

?I have been thinking lately that Stu and Rocket are really just having us on...playing games with us. Some of their posts are just so outlandish such as Stu and his wife using a screen so they won't see each other naked. Can you picture that. A big old Victorian house (I see Scrooge here for some reason) and a curtained off bed, so as not to get a draught (draft) etc. So, here are my theories.?

I actually live in a fairly modern house. But your comments show that we live entirely different lifestyles. Our bed is, indeed, a four-poster, but that is because my wife always had a fancy for one, for aesthetic reasons, and not to keep out the draughts.

?I suspect that Stu is actually a nudity loving naturist who wants to have some fun. He actually loves the sight of nude bodies, male or female?.Those are my theories anyway.?

Sorry to disappoint but with me you get what you see. Your theories, like those Bob referred to, are unsound.

Stu

Kari P

10-26-2003, 01:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

I have no problem seeing the naked body - in context. I take my clothes off (all of them now) when I take a shower. I have no desire to be naked for extended lengths of time and I fail to see why having such a desire is a healthy attitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you naked only in the shower? If so, I think you miss many of the small joys of life. E.g. sleeping in the nude is natural and really comfortable. Only one who has slept both in clothes and without clothes can honestly make a comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

Steve Gough should have been jailed before he left Cornwall, never mind geting as far as he did. Vincent Bethell has indeed given up, but the police and crown prosecutors are left scratching their heads about the best way to prosecute public nudity. They are left having to make public order law fit the circumstances rather than the other way round.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about Bethell, so I handle only the Gough case. So, the authorities have finally found a legal reason to prosecute him and to put him in jail. What it actually was?

To my knowledge Gough hasn't done something really wrong, just walked naked. Did he do it only in the countryside or also in the streets in towns?

I move shortly to the law proposal thread to comment your thoughts.

Kari P

Kari P

10-26-2003, 02:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

?This is not research in itself. It is an essay in which certain pieces of research have been selected and then selectively interpreted by the author.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see the things the same way. But, could it still be possible that the research referred to is as such valid scientific research?

Kari P

10-26-2003, 03:41 AM

Kari

"I see the things the same way. But, could it still be possible that the research referred to is as such valid scientific research?"

Of course. But I suspect that, if you contacted most of the researchers mentioned and told them what the author had concluded from looking at their research, they would strongly take issue with him. What my psychologist friend is telling me is that the author has stuck several pieces of carefully selected research together and arrived at a conclusion that is far removed from what the researchers themselves were claiming. It's the sort of thing that might suffice for a masters' dissertation (i.e. demonstrating early formation of research skills and competence in referencing) but would be torn to shreds is presented as a proven hypothesis for a PhD thesis as far too superficial and presumptive.

Stu

Bob S.

10-26-2003, 01:34 PM

"I am very dubious about research."

So most research is suspect in your view. Polls are as well. It seems you rely soley on anectdotal and first-hand evidence, which is iffy at best, as we have discussed. You seem to have your mind made up and nothing will convince you otherwise.

"Going to the toilet is a basic need, but we do it out of sight."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif So? It is a sanitary issue. All receptacles for elimination are placed in separate rooms so that all sanitary issues can stay in there.

"?This is not research in itself. It is an essay in which certain pieces of research have been selected and then selectively interpreted by the author."

So I am going to assume from your friend that he actually did his own research and read up on the studies cited? I never said that this was a definitive study. I said the site gives a basic rundown of the studies. I also mentioned the bibliography, which was the more important aspect of it.

Now, if you would please, give me impartial studies that suggest that familial nudity is not healthful. I doubt there is any out there.

"Benjamin Spock? if I remember rightly (his) views (on children's exposure to nudity and sex) were based on those of the father of psychoanalysis himself, Sigmund Freud.?"

From what I have heard, he came up with his ideas on family nudity when he was shaving in his bathroom while naked with his very young son sitting on the sink next to him. The boy reached out for his penis a couple of times and he theorized that the boy was wither intimidated by it or was acting in a sexualized fashion to his penis.

If that was the case, yes, he used Freudian theory to come up with his conclusion, but most of the phychoanalytic theory is in major question.

"But, could it still be possible that the research referred to is as such valid scientific research?"

The bibliography gave references to all of the studies used. The best way to find out what they actually said in the studies would be to actually refer to those specific stuidies.

Bob S.