offense and the natual debate [Archive]

11-04-2003, 06:13 AM

Bob,

"To me, in that context, natural means anything not man-made. And since clothes are man-made, they cannot ve natural. Nudity is how we were created. Nudit is natural".

By your definition of natural, virtually everything we do is unnatural. We breath polluted air. We eat at best food which has been genetically selected for centuries to produce totally unnatural crops or animals that could never survive in the wild - and at worst food which is highly processed and full of chemicals. The vast majority of our food is transported to us by unnatural means because it can't be produced within walking distance of our homes. We travel by unnatural means, sleep on unnatural beds in unnatural houses where we listen to unnatural music and watch unatural TV. When we're sick we are examined using unnatural machines and given unnatural chemicals to make us better (even when nature would naturally end our lives). Human kind lives mainly on parts of this planet that could not naturally sustain totally natural human life - either because it's too cold, too hot, not enough fresh water or not enough natural wild items to eat. Human beings aren't natural creatures.

"Now, in this whole lengthy debate, the whole argument has been whether nudity is natural. But what about the feelings surrounding nudity. Is it natural to be offended by the sight of the human body? Is it natural to think of the body as grotesque?"

Nudity is neither natural nor unnatural because people aren't natural creatures living natural lives. Certainly some of our feelings are primeval in origin - e.g. hunger, sex, tiredness, fear. But just as many, and ALL the higher ones, are culturally-founded. That's why we talk, shave, read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, admire Renoir, drink claret. And it's why the more cultured among us lift our snouts from the troughs and look up at the stars and wonder why we are put on this earth. In the process of leaving behind our animal selvs and evolving into higher beings we take on, and pass on to our children, certain cultural attitudes, values and norms. These are not fixed in stone. They are not primeval like hunger or fear. But they are real to us and are part of our psyche. Now it is possible to step outside some of these cultural attitudes and, when you do, you are bound to see things differently - and you can never go back to how you were before. It's rather like a virgin who values her virginity. When it's gone, it's gone forever. She may then go onto enjoy a full and varied sex life and never look back. On the other hand she may wish she had saved herself for that special Mr Right.

Asking why something is perceived as "grotesque" is an impossible question to answer. The word itself relates to an aesthetic - and try as you might you can never satisfactorily explain an aesthetic because it's not grounded in logic. It's about feeling and emotion. Can you rationalise why you feel love? Or why you prefer red wine to white wine?

"Is it natural to think of the body in negative terms? Nudity should be at most a neutral stimulus."

Why should it? The human body isn't just a plank of wood. It is like the human face - it has a gigantic range of associations many of which are deeply rooted in our minds. We're not animals and we're not natural creatures so why should we equate our feelings with theirs? I don't believe that people do generally think of the human body as grotesque, nor that they think of it in negative terms. They see their own bodies and their partners bodies and are OK with that. They see naked people in shower rooms and changing rooms, and they see near nudity on beaches. This causes them no problems because they see it as being in context - as 'appropriate' for the place and time. Out of context, however, causes feelings of shock, revulsion and alarm. And any of us can experience these emotions when seeing something out of context.

"It is for children who have grown up in nudist homes. It is for nudists who regularly see other nude bodies. So what is the nature of offense of the body?"

We feed our children roast lamb but we don't expect them to see the animal being slaughtered unless we live on a farm. Such a sight may be no big deal to a farmer's child, but we wouldn't expect to see the slaughtering being done openly in the supermarket - that could be traumatic for a city-dwelling child.

The offence of the human body is something that is in our minds. But the fact that it resides in our minds should not diminish its importance.

Stu

Ren

11-04-2003, 12:12 PM

For once it would be nice to read a topic that doesn't include Rocket's insipid remarks. I would be with Stu, except he parses the act of breathing versus the act of breathing pollution. It is natural for man to eat and breathe and man cannot generally control the content of his air or his food (unless he has a self-sufficient farm). But the thing is that it is a natural thing to experience hunger to to quench it or to breathe in the air around you. It is something man made that makes the food/air not in its natural state, but not the acts of eating/breathing.

Rocket - you're a broken record. Too bad you keep trying to play.

Nude in the North

11-04-2003, 01:29 PM

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

Clothes beat nudity almost everytime...but since you disagree, please expain how being nude is better than being clothed. Not one isolated example..but for daily living 365 days per year.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can think of several reasons, but here's the most important one.

You Wouldn't be around.

Steve

Rocket

11-04-2003, 01:47 PM

Steve,

Lame answer..

How are no clothing better for living 365 days per year..12 months....

Perhaps you could just explain for MN..

That's a cold spot in North America...with snow and ice..

How is walking around nude in freezing or below freezing weather better than wearing thermal underwear, boots, toque, and mitts?

How long is it cold there?

So...how is being nude better? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nude in the North

11-04-2003, 02:14 PM

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

Lame answer..

How are no clothing better for living 365 days per year..12 months....

Perhaps you could just explain for MN..

That's a cold spot in North America...with snow and ice..

How is walking around nude in freezing or below freezing weather better than wearing thermal underwear, boots, toque, and mitts?

How long is it cold there?

So...how is being nude better? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I repeat !

Because you won't be here!

When you make any kind of intelligent comment I'll be happy to respond with an intelligent answer.
So far all I have read from you are Rantings of the 8th grade level.
Come back when you have something worth reading to add to our discussion.

Steve

Nude in the North

11-04-2003, 02:25 PM

The offence of the human body is something that is in our minds. But the fact that it resides in our minds should not diminish its importance.

Stu

But can you fault enlightened people for trying to free your mind of notions of shame or guilt?
Can you fault teachers for teaching subjects that were unacceptable 50 or 100 years ago?
If not for enlightened people we would never have progress.

I don't wish to "Force" nudity on anybody.
Only understanding.

Steve

Rocket

11-04-2003, 02:32 PM

Steve,

I don't see any sort of refute of that talk I made of animals..

My physiological talk in regards to that other subject was accurate..

So....how are these NOT adding to the discussion(S)?

Now, the pro-nude side argues that nudity is natural..we are animals..

Nudism is comparable to slavery and oppression..

Does that make sense? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kari P

11-04-2003, 02:34 PM

I am near to Bob's thoughts, but as I said earlier in the thread started by myself ("Nudity - how natural?"), to me it is not necessary to deny the naturality of clothes or houses or everything man-made. We can only make comparisons on things: one thing is more natural than another. Clearly nudity is more natural than clothing.

Stu, you are a good writer! I can agree with the most of your text. This excerpt is the place where I have the most to say:

"Why should it? The human body isn't just a plank of wood. It is like the human face - it has a gigantic range of associations many of which are deeply rooted in our minds. We're not animals and we're not natural creatures so why should we equate our feelings with theirs?"

What do you know about the feelings of other animals than us humans? Maybe you say that they are not offended by nudity?

Your "deeply rooted" associations with the nude human body have something to do with sex. You don't equal sex with nudity, that's an over-simplification. But, expressly the genitals (and female breasts) are to you such private parts of the body that should be nearly always covered. Genitals are for sex and they make the visible difference between sexes (two meanings of the word "sex" in English: sexual activity and gender), so they have to be dirty in some way. I cannot see any other basis for their unesthetic status.

Is it so that you, who are offended by nudity, when you see a naked person, have a fear that the person is naked for the purpose of sex? Because you haven't got used to seeing non-sexual nudity, the sexual connotation of nudity is in your mind. Believe me: with practise you can get over it.

To me an important keyword is 'toleration'. You two, Rocket and Stu, seem to be quite intolerant. There may be other things that cause an offence to you, but specially nudity is an offence that you cannot handle peacefully.

To make the world a better place we should tolerate many things and handle our possible feelings of offence peacefully. We should tolerate e.g.

- different religions,
- different ethnic origins,
- different languages,
- different sexual orientations,
- different political, social and other opinions,
- handicaps, injuries and inherited ugliness,
- different clothing and hair styles,
- different lifestyles

etc. Some of these are people's choices on their own living, some not, but is there really such a difference between the reasons that it is acceptable to demand people to take the "right choice" (or not to show their "wrong choice") if they have a choice?

Nudity makes a good toleration test. You (Rocket and Stu) haven't passed it because you have your discriminating "be out of sight" and "the majority rules" attitudes. Naturists are generally very tolerant because they themselves are a submissed minority.

Kari P

Nude in the North

11-04-2003, 02:52 PM

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

I don't see <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is the only part of your last post that made any sense at all.

Your on the right track. The sooner you discover that you don't know anything, the sooner you will start to learn.

Steve

No Threads

11-04-2003, 03:55 PM

Hey its 80 degrees in here, ya I?m naked, It gets cold I put on cloths. I go to a beach that is clothing optional, people know they will see naked people there. I go to a beach that isn?t and I wear a suit I mow the back yard with no cloths ( ah not in the winter ), I have a fence, I mow the front yard with my suit on ( no fence ) what?s the big deal.. Hey everyone has a place where they feel natural (comfortable ).. Clothed or not..

Boreas

11-04-2003, 06:03 PM

I am so frustrated with good discussions being turned into volleys defending lame arguments. I have a question about this statement:

"How is walking around nude in freezing or below freezing weather better than wearing thermal underwear, boots, toque, and mitts?

How long is it cold there?"

When did ANYONE in this board suggest walking around nude in sub-zero weather?? People in here have said over and over again that clothes have their purpose. The issue is related to being offended or not about nudity. Where do you come up with these ideas Rocket? Please stay closer to topic. Or pay more attention to your high school teachers.

It is currently -15C in my part of the world. I would never want to advocate going nude outside on a day like today. I quite like my parka and accessories for this weather. On the other hand, I do not want to feel ashamed of my body or feel shamed by someone else's views on nudity. I am not likely to go for a walk down the street nude on a summer day either. If someone IS nude in public WHY is it such a big deal? We all have varying proportions of the same parts. (Yes I do know about male/female genitalia differences so don't even go there). Why is an arm more acceptable to be seen than a penis? Or an ankle more acceptable than a breast? At one time it was VERY scandalous for a woman to show her ankle in public. The old "bathing costumes" were the mimimum amount of clothing allowed in public. Times change...thank goodness.

Bob S.

11-04-2003, 06:10 PM

Thanks for agreeing somewhat with me, stu. Except for the breathing and eating part, everything else is right. All of our creations are not natural. Clothes, transportation, shelter, some medicines, etc. Of course, most medicines are based on natural products and homeopathy is a burgeoning field of medicine.

But as I have asked both you and everyone else, please provide for me your definition of natural in the context that you suggest. Until then, this is a pointless endeavor (this goes for Rocket, too).

"Nudity is neither natural nor unnatural because people aren't natural creatures living natural lives."

Underneath it all, we are creatures of habit, with innate reflexes, knowledge, and behaviours. So what that we are not living like our ancestors? Cultural mores do not make something natural or not. Is killing more natural in some cultures than in others?

"But they are real to us and are part of our psyche. Now it is possible to step outside some of these cultural attitudes and, when you do, you are bound to see things differently - and you can never go back to how you were before."

I am not saying that you are kidding yourselves. I am aware that feelings are real, but my point is just that, they are cultural and not an innate part of humans. Humans do not come out of the womb with an anxiety of nudity. Children have to be taught to put on clothes. They have to be taught that some places for nudity are not fine. For them, nudity is the default. I understand that your children never ran around the house naked when they were two, but I suspect that was because they were never allowed to. My brother, sister, and I took baths together, were naked during some of our curiosity games, and when our parents would allow us to go outback without clothes during a summer rainshower. I also did accidentally walk in on my parents naked on a couple of occasions, but they did not act as though I did anything wrong.

"The offence of the human body is something that is in our minds. But the fact that it resides in our minds should not diminish its importance."

And I understand that, but why is it there for some? And which came first clothes or offense?

Bob S.

Bob S.

11-04-2003, 06:33 PM

Rocket,

"we have the ability to reason, and make decisions"

So why have some of you come to the decision that nudity is offensive?

"The only one's that aren't are those extremely poor cultures out in the Middle of nowhere. They don't have medical either..Bob...or anything of the things we take for granted.."

Poor in our terms. And you are thinking of the Sally Struthers "Feed the Children" countries. The Ethiopias of today. There are quite a few cultures unmolested by "civilized society" who live off the land. They go naked or sporting a few scraps of cloth or jewelry. They hunt for their food, build earthen huts, and rely on their primitive medicine men to cure all ails. They are not poor. They can provide for themselves and not be a burden on others.

"Clothes beat nudity almost everytime...but since you disagree, please expain how being nude is better than being clothed. Not one isolated example..but for daily living 365 days per year.."

I live in a house. I can keep this house warm for most of the time. No need to be clothed when inside of my house. I will save on laundry as I will only have to shower and only have my sheets and towels to wash. I can earn a living by telecommuting or working creating websites, so there would be no need to go out. You can get groceries delivered as well.

In the summer, money would be saved by setting the thermostat higher. And in the winter, 72F is fine. With a pool in my backyard, swimming naked is much more preferrable than donning a swimsuit. And without the suit, I could keep the chemicals down. Same thing with the hot tub.

"Bob says that anything man-made does not qualify as natural..

How does this fit with the animal kingdom?"

"*Birds make nests...are these not natural to the birds?
*Wasps make nests...are these not natural to the wasps?
*Ground squirrels dig burrows..and then make nests..are these burrows and nests not natural to the ground squirrels?
*Rabbits make nests..are these not natural to the rabbits?"

No, no, no, and no. The homes are not natural to the animals, but making the homes is. I have never stated that making a home was not natural. But the homes themselves are not natural. Now, all of these homes are what we consider as natural as we are looking at them through the eyes of a human. All of the creatures live in nature, hence everything they do is natural. Think of it this way: Imagine an alien culture from another planet made their way here. How would they see the clothing on us? Would they see it as our natural way or would they see clothes as a covering, for whatever reason, and underneath is our natural state?

Things we do are natural, things we make are not. Cultural mores and social norms are not natural.

Bob S.

Rocket

11-04-2003, 06:52 PM

BobS,

Regarding the other nations of the world..and what is termed poverty..

I am not talking RELATIVELY poor..which is what you speak..I am talking ABSOLUTE poverty.

You don't know what that is like (fortunately) and neither do I. Poverty that is life threatening....

So poor...they die Bob..

No food Bob..

No water Bob..

No sanitation Bob..

Check out the life expectancy in these areas were you say the people are so nude and happy..check out their medical..their education..

It won't be good...Bob..

BTW...it's pretty funny watching you do the Cha-Cha about what is "natural." If an animal makes a home..it's not natural..but..if through geological processes..the earth makes a cave..it is...

Sure...Bob /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

11-05-2003, 06:40 AM

Kari

?Clearly nudity is more natural than clothing?.

I don?t accept the whole premise of that statement, Kari. It is like saying that being outdoors is more natural than being in a building, or urinating on the ground is more natural than urinating in a toilet. Whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant to our whole debate as far as I am concerned. Natural can be relevant to us with regards to what we put into our bodies ? e.g. natural foods are (usually) healthier than processed foods and herbal medicines may (on occasions) be better for us, or perhaps just less harmful, than pharmaceutical products. But there is nothing inherently unnatural nor unhealthy about having a piece of cloth next to your skin nor anything especially healthy about being nude.

?What do you know about the feelings of other animals than us humans? Maybe you say that they are not offended by nudity??

Our basic emotions (e.g. sex, hunger, fear) come from a part of our brains called the amygdale whilst our higher feelings and emotions stem from the processes that take place in our frontal lobes. Animals have less developed frontal lobes and, as a consequence, don?t generally experience ?offence?.

?But, expressly the genitals (and female breasts) are to you such private parts of the body that should be nearly always covered. Genitals are for sex and they make the visible difference between sexes (two meanings of the word "sex" in English: sexual activity and gender), so they have to be dirty in some way. I cannot see any other basis for their unesthetic status.?

You are still missing my key point, Kari. People see nudity every day. They see their own bodies, their partners bodies, strangers using showers etc and even as part of their work. They have no problem in those circumstances. The problem arises in seeing nudity OUT OF CONTEXT ? i.e. on a non-naturist beach or in a public park. There are even naturists who have posted here who say that they find such inappropriate nudity offensive and unacceptable. So your analysis must be wrong or, at least, incomplete.

?Is it so that you, who are offended by nudity, when you see a naked person, have a fear that the person is naked for the purpose of sex? Because you haven't got used to seeing non-sexual nudity, the sexual connotation of nudity is in your mind. Believe me: with practise you can get over it.?

I don?t automatically associate nudity with sex. And I don?t want to get over my dislike of seeing nudity. I like being the way I am.

?To me an important keyword is 'toleration'. You two, Rocket and Stu, seem to be quite intolerant. There may be other things that cause an offence to you, but specially nudity is an offence that you cannot handle peacefully.?

If anything causes me offence I shall say so whether it is nudity or something else. I find foul language offensive but if I am in the company of men, most of whom use this sort of language in normal conversation, then I must put up with it. But if I hear it spoken loudly on a ?bus then I say something! I have done this quite a few times.

?To make the world a better place we should tolerate many things and handle our possible feelings of offence peacefully. We should tolerate e.g.

- different religions,
- different ethnic origins,
- different languages,
- different sexual orientations,
- different political, social and other opinions,
- handicaps, injuries and inherited ugliness,
- different clothing and hair styles,
- different lifestyles

Religions are private matters of individuals. They don?t bother my life or me. Ethnic origins and sexual orientations are not, in themselves, offensive. They are simply what people are. Languages cannot offend any reasonable human being. Opinions are fine when kept inside one?s head. If you introduce your opinions to others then you must be a little more careful. If you bring them onto the streets then you must be extra careful that you don?t cause alarm or offence. Handicaps, injuries and ugliness are just things that people can?t help. Clothing and hairstyles are just part of the normal options available and don?t usually offend anyone. Lifestyles aren?t a problem if they don?t affect other people?s lifestyles.

Public nudity affects everyone who has to use public places. It is a choice ? a behaviour - not a fixed characteristic.

?Nudity makes a good toleration test. You (Rocket and Stu) haven't passed it because you have your discriminating "be out of sight" and "the majority rules" attitudes. Naturists are generally very tolerant because they themselves are a submissed minority.?

We are not asking naturists to be tolerant. We are asking them to be considerate of the feelings of people who have to ? and are entitled to ? use public places but who find their behaviour offensive. The solution is very simple indeed and should make everybody happy:

1. Hugely increase the number of authorised naturist venues (e.g. beaches, parks etc) so that nobody has to travel too far to find a place to be nude
2. Make public nudity outside those areas a specific criminal offence and enforce it robustly.

No what is wrong with that? Do you want to force people who find nudity offensive to have to endure it? Hope not!

Bob

?But as I have asked both you and everyone else, please provide for me your definition of natural in the context that you suggest. Until then, this is a pointless endeavor (this goes for Rocket, too).?

I don?t know a definition of ?natural?, Bob, but I don?t see its relevance.

"Underneath it all, we are creatures of habit, with innate reflexes, knowledge, and behaviours. So what that we are not living like our ancestors? Cultural mores do not make something natural or not. Is killing more natural in some cultures than in others??

I don?t know but I can?t see where this preoccupation with ?natural? is taking us. Is nature our ?God?? Or is it something we can use and work with from time to time to further our own interests and those of the planet upon which we live? One of the most natural things we can all do is to die, but that doesn?t stop us from doing all we can to postpone this inevitable event.

" I am aware that feelings are real, but my point is just that, they are cultural and not an innate part of humans. Humans do not come out of the womb with an anxiety of nudity. Children have to be taught to put on clothes. They have to be taught that some places for nudity are not fine. For them, nudity is the default?.

True. For children eating with their fingers is the default. Answering the call of nature whenever they feel the need is also the default in younger children. Crying when you don?t get what you want is the default. Children are expected to follow our lead, not the reverse. We don?t design our cultural norms or accepted practices upon what children do.

?And I understand that, but why is it there for some? And which came first clothes or offense??

Clothes, obviously. Our sensibilities have evolved over time and they aren?t grounded in pure logic. But we have them and we don?t have any desire to dispel them. For that reason, and because they are so commonplace as to be the accepted norm, they should be respected by those who don?t share them.

Stu

Rik

11-05-2003, 07:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
And I don?t want to get over my dislike of seeing nudity. I like being the way I am. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah now I understand - you obviously derive a lot of pleasure out of being offended.

Are you into sado-masochism as well?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Rik

Rocket

11-05-2003, 07:44 AM

Here is how the Oxford Dictionary Defines "Natural":

1a) Existing or caused by nature
3 ) of human nature etc..not surprising; to be expected

This is the definition of the word "Nature":

1) a person or thing's innate qualities
2) the physical power causing all phenomena of the material world
2b) these phenomena (plants, animals, landscape etc)
5) a specified element of human character
6) HUMAN NATURE

Points within these points to it is "natural" for humans to have clothes. And clothes have been part of mankind since, and even before recorded history (the oldest corpse found in the Alps had clothes). Therefore, clothes are natural. Because nudists are in a distinct minority within the world..I believe it can be argued that they are the unnatural ones /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I quoted relevant quotes from the Oxford Dictionary because it gives examples with music, etc. The Oxford Dictionary is considered by most the definitive on the English Language. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BobS...please research these happy nude people in these Third World Countries..and we'll look them up and check on their demographics..

Interesting enough, when ever there is a mission of disaster relief, supplies brought include medicine, food, and CLOTHES.

soundman

11-05-2003, 08:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Interesting enough, when ever there is a mission of disaster relief, supplies brought include medicine, food, and CLOTHES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is your point?

I wear clothes 95% of the time and yes, I need them for protection. Yes, it is natural. But is it natural to be obsessed with clothes? Run for cover if terror it someone walks in on you when you are changing? THAT is not mentally healthy. Is it natural to always get dressed to go swimming? I am sure through the centuries people have swam naked and yes, it should be natural and normal. I like wearing clothes, it is comfortable and yes, I like to take them off sometimes like when it is safe from people like you and the sun is out and the water looks refreshing to jump in, etc.

Why would you want to force your obsession on me?

11-05-2003, 08:19 AM

Rik,

"Ah now I understand - you obviously derive a lot of pleasure out of being offended."

Now you're being flippant. I also don't like seeing:

* gratuitous violence on TV
* animals being culled or slaughtered
* sex acts in any form
* paedophiles, necrophiles, health
visitors and other perverts discussing
their vile practices.
* certain surgical and cosmetic proceedures
* people urinating or deffecating

I prefer to be the sort of person who finds these things unpalatable rather than the sort of person who is hardened to them.

"Are you into sado-masochism as well?"

Why? Is it fun?

Soundman

"But is it natural to be obsessed with clothes?"

Who is obsessed with clothes? I'm not and I've no reason to believe that Rocket is. We just don't want to see inappropriate nudity, that's all.

"Run for cover if terror it someone walks in on you when you are changing? THAT is not mentally healthy."

No. We just either reach for something to cover ourselves with or ask the perso to turn away. There's nothing unhealthy about that.

"Is it natural to always get dressed to go swimming?"

It's perfectly natural to wear a swimming costume. That's what swimming costumes are made for. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"I am sure through the centuries people have swam naked and yes..."

In some cultures yes. In others no. In our present culture nude swimming is the exception and not the rule.

"...it should be natural and normal".

That's just your personal opinion - which you are entitled to - but it isn't a hard, undisputable fact.

"I like wearing clothes, it is comfortable and yes, I like to take them off sometimes like when it is safe from people like you..."

Brilliant! If you are prepared to avoid getting naked in the presence of people like me and others who might find it offensive then you are a considerate naturist and we have nothing to argue about. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Why would you want to force your obsession on me?"

We don't have any obsession. All we ask is that you respect the sensibilities of the majority who find nudity in public unacceptable. Enjoy your naturist practices at places set aside for that purpose and not where it could cause offence. Where is the problem?

Stu

Rocket

11-05-2003, 08:34 AM

SoundMan,

Are you still crying the blues because you can't take a neighborhood walk in the nude?

You just don't get it do you?

Our standards aren't nudity..and these areas you refer to are public areas. The public has the right to enjoy these areas free from offense. The attitude of people is nudity is offense..at least in the context you speak of. The feelings of this vast number simply outweigh the feelings of this very minor minority.

As I've said many times...if you aren't happy LEAVE. No one is forcing you to stay here....

Join these happy nude people in these Third World Countries Bob speaks of. We'll see how "happy" you really are without all you take for granted in a modern Industrialized nation like the USA. Do you think the medical will be as good? Nope..Dental? Nope..Living Standards..Nope

Stop trying to spit in the face and create a personal affront to those who've provided you a standard of living I have doubts you really deserve. In short, become, or try to become, a constructive member of society with a contribution....not some ninkonpoop with a selfish agenda to walk around nude in public, and cause offense to those who are more than likely supporting your butt right now.

soundman

11-05-2003, 08:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by soundman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rocket:
[qb] SoundMan,
Are you still crying the blues because you can't take a neighborhood walk in the nude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is just a dream. A person can dream right?

Why would I want to leave this great country. I was born here. I skinny-dipped in the boy scouts at secluded lakes when I was 12. Thinking back, it was not sexual at all or offensive. It was a very innocent time.

You seem to be afraid of change. Anything that is not "normal" to you is scary. Your type tried to stop mini-skirts, rock music, planes, cars, etc.
If you lived 100 years ago, you would be saying "If man was meant to fly, he would have wings".

Try being tollerant and look forward to inevitable change for the better.

11-05-2003, 09:00 AM

Soundman

"Try being tollerant and look forward to inevitable change for the better"

1. Why should the majority accept disgusting behaviour from a selfish minority?

2. There is nothing inevitable about the change you are looking for, and

3. 'Better' for who? Certainly not better for Rocket or me. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're being selfish again.

Stu

soundman

11-05-2003, 09:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Why should the majority accept disgusting behaviour from a selfish minority? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because we believe in freedom.
We accept your disgusting body-shame behavior.

Rocket

11-05-2003, 09:16 AM

Stu,

This unemployed loser is not worthy of debate. He should be thankful to his country for that support check he receives..his food stamp card..and the government housing he lives in.

Soundman,

You might be able to understand this..

The vast majority of the US population AREN'T nudists. They won't raise their children to be nudists..who won't raise their chidren..and so on. Because of that..it's not too likely to see a "change for the better" as you believe.

Has any industrialized country (or non-industrialized) adapted nudity as the norm..and clothes not? Has it happened ANYWHERE in recorded time?

SoundMan..LEAVE...the country has better things to do than support your welfare butt. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

soundman

11-05-2003, 09:27 AM

Rocket,
What makes you think I am unemployed??
I have worked the same job for 20 years. I work very hard and find lazy people who use the government for support offensive.

Of course the majority of American are not nudists. So what. I don't expect it to change either.

BUT, we, as part time nudists, can grow, organize, and be who we are in this free country. Right?

You can start your own club also, call it "Body Haters Association" or anything you want. Go for it!

Rocket

11-05-2003, 09:46 AM

SoundMan,

OK..you are an employed loser working at some dead end job for minimum wage for 20 years! I am glad we cleared that up..

It's obvious you aren't too high on the IQ scale from your posts and logic..

"Body Haters"! Who's a body hater? I am not..and I doubt Stu is either. I see bodies all the time..we just don't want to see public nudity and we are not alone. It won't change and I have serious doubts public nudity is going to be the norm at anytime soon...infact I would bet on that. I would challenge you to that bet..but I don't think it's fair to take your bus fair /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW...no one has ABSOLUTE freedom because you live in a communal society. One's "freedoms" as you say aren't so exact.

Go for a nude walk in my neighborhood..my brother wants to have the "freedom" to beat up a pervert who gets his jollies exposing himself to kids. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

soundman

11-05-2003, 09:55 AM

I am not a dishwasher. But, I respect dishwashers.

We are not trying to convert you. We are just trying to defend ourselves from whoever you are!

Why are you and Stu hanging out here anyway? You guys are scary. Do you also go to other forums that you are not into and harass them?

11-05-2003, 10:08 AM

Soundman

"I have worked the same job for 20 years. I work very hard and find lazy people who use the government for support offensive."

You mean people like Steve Gough? Yeah! I totally agree - that almost as offensive as his silly (nude) walk.

"We are not trying to convert you. We are just trying to defend ourselves from whoever you are!"

If you are a considerate naturist who respects the sensibilities of the majority, then you don't need to defend yourselves from the likes of Rocket or myself. I think I speak for Rocket when I say that we support the rights of naturists to have and enjoy decent, accessible, private and properly designated naturist facilities. Just don't expose yourself in public - what the heck is wrong with that?

"Why are you and Stu hanging out here anyway? You guys are scary. Do you also go to other forums that you are not into and harass them?"

No, I get all my fun here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Seriously, if think find us 'harassing', then please feel free to ignore our posts. I have no wish to 'harass' anyone.

Stu

Trailscout

11-05-2003, 10:17 AM

Rocket,
It's too easy to diss welfare recipients without knowing the facts. There are lazy people who pretend to work at their jobs and are parasites of the company that gives them their paychecks.

I used to assume that welfare was for the losers, until it happened to a friend of mine. She made some mistakes when she was a kid, but she used her time on welfare to feed her child, finish her education, get some counseling for her problems, and she also turned to the Lord for salvation. She got off the dole as quickly as she could. She has supported herself honestly for 25 years, now has a very well-paying job and is raising bright ambitious children who will go far in life. I am glad that society could help her and sometimes that help came from my pocket when it wasn't easy to pay my taxes. I am sure that some people need to get off welfare and get a job right away, other folks need a little more time. There may be some who will always need help. Private charities are great, but they can't reach everyone in need. Society is better because we help them. Some better oversight will cut off money to those who don't need it.

Trailscout

11-05-2003, 10:31 AM

Rocket,

We do not live by majority rule. A republican form of government protects the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Nudists are a segment of society with a lifestyle that is unpopular to some people, but our republican form of government protects the rights of people to express all opinions, even unpopular ones.

You have forgotten that some tribes in the tropics live in total nudity. It works out just fine, thank you. We have a lot to learn from so-called primitive peoples. We should study and emulate their knowledge of medicinal herbs, their self-sufficiency and their wise choice of enjoying life without clothes.

There are many aspects of modern industrial society that are inefficient and dehumanizing. It is the height of folly to assume that we cannot learn from others who are different from us.

soundman

11-05-2003, 10:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Just don't expose yourself in public - what the heck is wrong with that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is a reasonably secluded lake a public place? How do you define a public place? If I find a lake and others are fine with it and many are already nude, is is okay to skinnydip there?

Rocket

11-05-2003, 10:47 AM

SoundMan,

What do you think?

If everyone approves..and some are even partaking...there is no offense..

That's not what you have been talking about..you want to be able go nude at the nearest park..or walk around the block..those are public places though..so you can't.

It's not difficult to understand...

11-05-2003, 10:57 AM

Trailscout

"We do not live by majority rule".

And they call the US a democracy?

"A republican form of government protects the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority".

I've heard that before. To me, the expression "tyranny of the majority" is a contradiction in terms. The opposite of majority rule is minority rule - or even an autocracy - you know, something like Saddam Hussain's system of government.

"Nudists are a segment of society with a lifestyle that is unpopular to some people, but our republican form of government protects the rights of people to express all opinions, even unpopular ones."

Everyone has a right to express opinions regardless of how unpopular they are. I don't think anyone here is taking issue with that.

"You have forgotten that some tribes in the tropics live in total nudity. It works out just fine, thank you. We have a lot to learn from so-called primitive peoples. We should study and emulate their knowledge of medicinal herbs..."

Sorry, but whilst I'm sure we can pick up a few things from primitive tribes, I'm afraid the truth is that they can learn a heck of a lot more from us than we can from them. Over the centuries and given the choice most formerly 'primitive' peoples were only too keen to enjoy what the European explorers had to offer.

"their self-sufficiency and their wise choice of enjoying life without clothes."

I don't think it was either wise or a real choice at al. They just didn't know any better. Have you not noticed how many 'primitive tribes' are only too happy to put on a pair of shorts and a tee shirt these days - yes, even those tribes in the Amazon basin and in Borneo are now sporting western garments. And you won't see many Australian Aboriginals or Southern African bushmen wandering about displaying everything these days.

soundman

"Is a reasonably secluded lake a public place?"

That depends on who owns it and who is allowed to use it.

"How do you define a public place?"

Simple. Any place to which the public has a right of access.

"If I find a lake and others are fine with it and many are already nude, is is okay to skinnydip there?"

Sure, if it's a designated naturist place. Otherwise it's OK so long as nobody objects - but if they do then the skinnydipping stops.

Stu

soundman

11-05-2003, 11:02 AM

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

What do you think?

If everyone approves..and some are even partaking...there is no offense..

That's not what you have been talking about..you want to be able go nude at the nearest park..or walk around the block..those are public places though..so you can't.

It's not difficult to understand... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,
Of course, I understand all that.

What I don't understand is what do you find so offensive about a naked body? Please directly answer that question.

11-05-2003, 11:11 AM

Soundman

I'm sure that Rocket can answer for herself, but I gave a very detailed answer to that question from my perspective on page 1 of this thread when Bob S asked me the same thing.

Personally I don't think it's very relevant anyway. It's like someone trying to force you to eat something you don't like unless you give them what they consider to be a logical and satisfactory explanation as to why they don't like it. The fact that they don't like it should be sufficient. The fact that people find human nakedness offensive in public should also be sufficient.

Stu

soundman

11-05-2003, 11:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's like someone trying to force you to eat something you don't like unless you give them what they consider to be a logical and satisfactory explanation as to why they don't like it. The fact that they don't like it should be sufficient. The fact that people find human nakedness offensive in public should also be sufficient.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nothing wrong with trying to find a reason behind it, or a cure.

Kari P

11-05-2003, 12:35 PM

Stu and Rocket, you always turn your arguments towards public nudity as if we had the urge to walk naked on the streets. Being nude in a secluded place where the probability to meet other people, and especially people like you, is is NOT public nudity in our terms.

It is NOT MUCH expected from people in general that they let a naturist group, which they (with very low probability, but we talk about the case when it still happens) happen to find in such a place, be in peace and choose another place. This is not a real conflict, it happens in everyday life that you find a place you were going to occupied and make a new choice about your place.

Stu and Rocket, I believe that you very probably are in a minority. Most people would handle this by both parties unexpected encounter in a peaceful way. They would not demand immediate covering-up.

We don't want laws to support intolerant people like you. If you want to ban public nudity by law, define it in a fair way not to cover all secluded places - and KEEP AWAY from them if you are concerned about the small probability to find there naked people.

Your "be out of sight" attitude is intolerant. It is, regardless of what you say if you don't change it milder.

About the "majority rules" principle in democracy. In our modern societies democracy is based on representatives that the people elect. Very few things are solved by direct voting - fortunately. It is the task and responsibility of our representatives to make enlightened decisions based on knowledge and hearing to different groups. Thus they really can sometimes make a decision that would not go through in a direct poll. They should do, and they do, make such decisions when the subject is about the rights of minorities.

Kari P

11-05-2003, 02:03 PM

Kari

"..you always turn your arguments towards public nudity as if we had the urge to walk naked on the streets."

You probably don't have any such desire, Kari, but there has been support voiced here for a man who is in prison for doing that very thing. All I'm asking for is consideration by all naturists and an effective law against the inconsiderate ones.

"Being nude in a secluded place where the probability to meet other people, and especially people like you, is is NOT public nudity in our terms."

Public nudity means being nude in a place to which the public has right of access - in other words a public place is any place that is not a private place or a government restricted place. That is both common sense and the legal position. So a secluded place can still be a public place. I want to retain my right to visit secluded public places without any risk of being caused danger by naturists who are too inconsiderate to wear a small garment to cover their genitals.

"It is NOT MUCH expected from people in general that they let a naturist group, which they (with very low probability, but we talk about the case when it still happens) happen to find in such a place, be in peace and choose another place. This is not a real conflict, it happens in everyday life that you find a place you were going to occupied and make a new choice about your place."

As I said, the "who was here first decides the dress code" is unworkable and would be a source of conflict. The minority preference must therefore yield to the majority preference.

"Stu and Rocket, I believe that you very probably are in a minority".

That may be the case in Finland, Kari, but it would be a mistake to believe it for the UK. Public nudity is unacceptable to the great majority of people - even in secluded places.

"Most people would handle this by both parties unexpected encounter in a peaceful way. They would not demand immediate covering-up."

No. Here many people would either become aggressive or just call the police. My proposed law change would prevent such conflict by making the law clear. If you want to be nude in public without any risk of being required to cover up or leave GO TO A NATURIST VENUE. Simple.

"If you want to ban public nudity by law, define it in a fair way not to cover all secluded places - and KEEP AWAY from them if you are concerned about the small probability to find there naked people".

No. We textiles are the majority and you nudists are the minority. If you want to be certain of your right to be naked, GO TO A NATURIST VENUE.

"Your "be out of sight" attitude is intolerant. It is, regardless of what you say if you don't change it milder."

Of course you must be out of sight - there is no question about that. People who are nude in the presence of others who don't like it are either exhibitionists or just plain inconsiderate. Be naked with those who are like yourselves, don't force others to endure it.

"About the "majority rules" principle in democracy. In our modern societies democracy is based on representatives that the people elect."

And why do we elect these 'representatives'? Is it because we think they look nice? No. It's because they 'represent' out views. That's what they are supposed to do.

"Very few things are solved by direct voting - fortunately. It is the task and responsibility of our representatives to make enlightened decisions based on knowledge and hearing to different groups. Thus they really can sometimes make a decision that would not go through in a direct poll. They should do, and they do, make such decisions when the subject is about the rights of minorities."

Any representative that would make a decision that would mean the majority of his electorate would be exposed to being caused serious offence when using public places is unfit to be a representative! And secondly, naturists are only a minority because they CHOOSE, for purely recreational purposes, to behave in a way that is different to the majority. In that way they can be compared to, for example, players of a minority sport. The authorities should, as far as possible, make provision for that sport. But that doesn't mean they should have a right to play it absolutely anywhere they like even if that involves causing serious annoyance/disruption to everybody else.

Kari - accept your minority status. Accept that nudity causes offence. Accept that it is unreasonable to inflict nudity on an unwilling majority of the people. Then you can focus your efforts on getting your fair share of proper and private naturist facilities well out of sight of the rest of us - and everybody will be, or should be, content.

Stu

Nude in the North

11-05-2003, 02:25 PM

Ya see , the point of a democratic society isn't to OUTLAW everything that the majority dislikes.
The goal is to provide for the wants and needs of all citizens. To teach tolerance and acceptance of people who have different beliefs or customs. And to allow them to pratice their lifestyle without persecution.

Now, I don't think very many nudists really want to go to WalMart naked. And most of us can understand why the world isn't ready to accept us walking naked down the streets.
But to risk being charged with Criminal charges that would put us in the same catagory as Rapists and Molesters for simply being nude is Persecution.
I take many steps to insure that the general public won't see me nude in my house or yard. But should I be Arrested if by chance someone catches a glimpse of me for a few seconds.
Should I be Jailed if someone walks up to my privacy fence and peeks through.
Should I have my name placed on the national Sex Offender list because someone happens to see me as I walk by a window that I forgot to pull the shade down on.

These are the concerns of nudists. People automaticly assume that any man that is nude MUST be doing something Perverted. There is no benefit of the doubt given to a nudist. We would be arrested and charged with whatever crime the prosecuter could come up with. And without the financial resourses to fight the charges most of us would have to plead guilty to something just to end the trial.

I don't expect that all public places will or should allow nudity. But Don't forget , Nudists pay taxes too. And since we pay our share of taxes we should get some consideration when public places are designated Clothed or C/O.

Here in Minnesota for example. There are over 12,000 Lakes. There are 0 public beaches designated C/O. I don't want all public beaches to be C/O. But would one in each county be too much to ask. That would give us around 50 nude beaches and over 12,000 Clothed ones.

The Idea that a nudist should find secluded places where nobody will likely see them nude is absurd. To expect a nudist to scramble for his clothing if someone happens to wander into this secluded area or risk being Jailed for Indecent Exposure is Absurd.

When we talk about educating the public about nudism, we aren't trying to convert them to it. We just want them to understand that it shouldn't be a crime to be nude.
We just want to have OUR taxes spent on providing places where we can go without being Harassed or risking Arrest.

Here's my suggestion for how the law should read.

There is No offence committed by a nude person if,
1. The nude person has taken reasonable steps to make a private area to be nude in.
2. The nude person is in a public area where nudity is commonly accepted or sanctioned by local laws.
3. The nude person is not behaving in a sexually deviant manner, or attempting to draw the attention of others for sexual gratification.

I know this probably isn't going to pass the test. But I think it's reasonable to ask that nudity be decriminalized.

Here is a suggestion for a Federal Mandate.

All states shall provide a reasonable amount of public land, parks, and beaches to designate clothing optional. The amount of land should not be less than 1% of all public areas and should reflect the percentage of the population that makes use of such areas.

I hope my efforts to turn this thread into something constructive doesn't offend anyone. I'm just tired of the same old arguments.
Let's try to come up with some realistic ideas that both sides could live with, instead of the All or None bickering. If some public areas were designated C/O and the rest of the public knew about it there would be no reason to make them secluded areas. People that didn't want to see nudity could easily avoid them. And nudists wouldn't have to infringe on the textile areas if a few equally accessable areas were set aside for them.
It works in Florida. Why not Everywhere?

Steve

Rocket

11-05-2003, 03:09 PM

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

What do you think?

If everyone approves..and some are even partaking...there is no offense..

That's not what you have been talking about..you want to be able go nude at the nearest park..or walk around the block..those are public places though..so you can't.

It's not difficult to understand... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,
Of course, I understand all that.

What I don't understand is what do you find so offensive about a naked body? Please directly answer that question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SoundMan,

I am not opposed to nudity in the correct context...

Sorry..but like most..I don't think the correct context is walking on public streets, at the mall, Community Park, and other public areas.

Those are public areas, and the vast majority of the population (which does include me) would find it an affront and offensive to see someone..anyone..nude..

Nude in North,

If you took steps to not be seen nude, but were inadvertantly seen nude anyway, there is no intent to offend..so I don't think there is any case for prosecution.

That would also apply to areas that were remote, and it could be reasonably assumed that you would encounter no one while nude..but did anyway.

When you speak of 1000 lakes..yes..and no..to making any of them nude. If some of the lakes are not being used..perhaps there is a case to consider a CO beach. If ALL 1000 lakes are presently being used by what is called "Textiles"...then inspite of the number, you might not have a case to ask for a CO beach. BTW..I have reservations, inspite of having 1000 lakes..that all these lakes are suitable to be considered, or not as well..but I don't know the geography of the area. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

soundman

11-05-2003, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by soundman:
What I don't understand is what do you find so offensive about a naked body? Please directly answer that question.

SoundMan,

Sorry..but like most..I don't think the correct context is walking on public streets, at the mall, Community Park, and other public areas.

Those are public areas, and the vast majority of the population (which does include me) would find it an affront and offensive to see someone..anyone..nude.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I knew you couldn't answer that question directly. I already know you and others find it offensive to see it. I will try again:

What do you find so offensive about a naked body? Please directly answer that question.

Rocket

11-05-2003, 03:30 PM

SoundMan,

Who says I find anything offensive about a naked body..

I've had sex..with the lights on..no covers..

Believe me..I've seen everything!!!

But..that's the correct context..not taking a walk to the park, and see someone hanging around the swings nude..or walking around the neighborhood..

Hope that answers your question

Naturist Mark

11-05-2003, 03:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
If ALL 1000 lakes are presently being used by what is called "Textiles"...then inspite of the number, you might not have a case to ask for a CO beach. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you think 'Textile' preferences should always trump naturists? That even 1 out of 1000 beaches shouldn't be reserved for c/o use if some textiles want that 1 beach also? That isn't tyranny?

-Mark

soundman

11-05-2003, 03:35 PM

Thanks!
We need our own segregated park then. I see you would never want to co-exist.

Nothing further to discuss then.

aunaturelone

11-05-2003, 03:47 PM

I don't think a "Federal Mandate" is called for. Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds any authority to dictate to states any policy re. nudity and I wouldn't want there to be.

This is a battle that has to be fought at the state and local levels. Different localities can have different policies and it doesn't bother me. For example there is no state law against nudity in CA. That means that counties and cities are free to set their own policies.

National parks and forests are also free to create and enforce different policies. Golden Gate Park is very tolerant. There are also some national seashores that are very intolerant.

That means that in Chico and San Francisco and a few other communities, simple nudity is legal. It allows the state parks department to set aside clothing optional areas of beaches (only one so far) and to tolerate it on all state beaches if there are no complaints.

Having a variety of different approaches offers many advantages. It offers people for whom the nudity issue is very important havens to go to. The most liberal environments offer an example to the less liberal ones to prove that the predictions of disaster are just paranoid hokum. It creates pockets of relative freedom that can be expanded outward from and areas where oppression is more easily resisted.

States and local communities are supposed to be the "laboratories of democracy" evisioned by the founders with 50 different state appraches and thousand of different local approaches. What works will eventually spread and what does not will eventually fade away for that is how the free market of ideas works.

Never mind that there is no possible authority for the feds to get into regulations concerning clothing requirements. A federal mandate is a prescription for stagnation and the death of diversity.

aunaturelone

11-05-2003, 03:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Are you still crying the blues because you can't take a neighborhood walk in the nude? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why if he is, I suggest he visit where it is legal and try it.

http://www.baretobreakers.com

11-05-2003, 03:52 PM

Steve,

Please clarify. You said:

"Here's my suggestion for how the law should read.

There is No offence committed by a nude person if,
1. The nude person has taken reasonable steps to make a private area to be nude in.
2. The nude person is in a public area where nudity is commonly accepted or sanctioned by local laws.
3. The nude person is not behaving in a sexually deviant manner, or attempting to draw the attention of others for sexual gratification."

OK - sounds fairly reasonable, perhaps with slight modifications. So presumably if someone is nude outside the conditions 1,2 and 3 they would commit a criminal offence. But then you said:

"...But I think it's reasonable to ask that nudity be decriminalized."

So how would you enforce 1,2 and 3 without incorporating them into the law? Would they just be guidelines? I don't understand. Sorry.

Stu

Rocket

11-05-2003, 03:55 PM

Mark,

Read what I said..yes and no..

BTW..I don't feel if there is 100 lakes or 1000 lakes that is suffecient to make ANY of them nude or CO..

It is much the same to say:

"We have 10,000 acres of land in public use..now we'll make 50 acres (or whatever) of this public land for nude use..."

If those 50 acres are presently being used for public purposes there may be no advantage and even disadvantages to making them nude..

I am sorry, but I just don't feel your desire to be nude is a RIGHT that you are entitled to because you do have to work within a much larger picture.

However, the possiblity may exist to make some areas nude friendly or tolerant...but that depends on what the demographics.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stevenf64

11-05-2003, 03:56 PM

OK just as a point I understand that this board tries to be open minded and lets everyone speak there mind. But there must be an end to people who come here FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE to argue. The people who would argue the color of the sky. Is it that hard to figure out from the name of this web site that it is a PRO NUDISM site and most of the people here are PRO nudists. I keep seeing the same people who do nothing but Slam people for there veiws. SOMETIMES even going as far as making it very personal. What is the matter with the administation are they so afraid to be called closed minded that they dont want to put a stop to this? Maybe I am the only one who feels this way However I do not think that is the case. I also feel that lots of good people are being turned away and turned off by the CONSTANT bickering.
Just my 2 cents worth
Steve

Boreas

11-05-2003, 04:26 PM

Amen to that Steven. Points have been made and remade. All this is doing is causing animosity. I don't see any good debate happening after a certain point. It is very frustrating to see good discussions turned into bickering...and taken off track. It is becoming the same old same old. I have started avoiding a couple of posters because I am starting to know what is going to be said anymore.

11-05-2003, 04:41 PM

steven I'm with you on this one. When one person trolls a board and posts nasty things about everyone here why should they be allowed to post here at all? Shouldn't the welfare of the majority here be considered? Why aren't the moderators aggressively protecting this board so that it is a nice place to visit?

There is not one thread we can discuss without someone that is anti-nude dropping in and ruining it for the majority.

tarsus

11-05-2003, 05:20 PM

hello stu and rocket
i have said before and will say again; everyone has a right to speak. but you are starting to drone,to be like a pop-up ad,a fly to a sleeping person,a missionary to a homeless person waiting to eat.waiting for the end of the work day.your mother-in-law to go home.i could go on /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
most of us live in your world,would it be so bad to come spend a little time in ours??
or are you afraid you might like it???????

NudeAl

11-05-2003, 05:22 PM

I agree with the majority of you. I don't think any original ideas have been posted here in a while. It seems the most of the time they post just to cause hate and discontent, many inflamatory remarks made over and over again. Mostly by the same ones. I won't name any names but I think those who come here a lot can figure out what I mean. Get over it and get on with it.

Trailscout

11-05-2003, 06:45 PM

This thread's original intent was to debate the rights of prudes not to be offended by nudity vs. the rights of the nudist to be nude.

We must use a combination of approaches to lessen the offense people take to the sight of nudity.
I would be very interested in reading the exact sequence of events that led continental Europe from universal body shame to partial body acceptance.

Lacking that story, I can merely offer common sense on how to take America toward our goal:
Nudity is rendered less offensive to most people as they become accustomed to seeing it in positive nonsexual situations.

Ideally, children would develop a positive concept of the nude human body as they grew up.

Public education, "friend telling friend", positive portrayals of social nudity in the media all serve to swing people toward acceptance of the body. Being a nudist should not be a "dirty secret".

We need a concurrent increase in the number and distribution of nudist venues, both public and private. There is much we can do to make fuller use of existing facilities, but we clearly need more places to go. Some of that increase is in stasis until anti-nudity laws are reversed, local political offices are held by sympathetic people and actual nudists. National nudist organizations should provide leadership to existing resorts to make them more appealing to modern families. Nude beaches should be better patrolled and more family-friendly. Nude cruises are a great port of entry to nudism. There should be more of them.
Whatever means we find of recruiting new nudists, their help is needed to expand nudism in the courtroom, at the beach and underserved areas of the country.

Others have suggested that we focus our efforts on creating "test markets" for social nudism in liberal areas. Then, more conservative towns and counties will see that a nude beach or resort is good for tourism and not a threat or offense at all.

The more people have an opportunity to learn about us firsthand, the more we can dispel myths about nudism and consequently defuse hostility.

Bob S.

11-05-2003, 06:58 PM

"The point myself and Stu are getting at is that what human beings do because we have the gift of reason; the decisions we make, are natural.."

Yes, we have the gift of reason. And it seems that you and stu have reasoned that clothes are necessary for most of your lives. The rest of us have reasoned that clothes are only necessary for work and a few other times such as when we are out in public. All other times, such as when we are home or at clothing-optional destinations, clothes re unnecessary.

" the things we do are natural.."

Just said that.

"That we develop airplanes that can take us distances we once only could dream of is natural.."

But airplanes are not indigenous to any known ecosphere. Airplanes are not alive. Airplanes are not creations of the Earth.

"That we research medicine and human biology is natural.."

That we heal ourselves is natural. But my medicines that I take do not grow in the wild. As far as I have seen, there are no pill plants.

"And..clothes are natural as well.."

stu said it best (regarding clothes)
"But there is nothing inherently unnatural nor unhealthy about having a piece of cloth next to your skin nor anything especially healthy about being nude."

I have never said that covering oneself is unnatural. I said that clothes are unnatural. I have yet to see a T-Shirt field. Or a sheep wearing a cardigan sweater that it grew spontaneously.

"Our standards aren't nudity"

And that is one good thing you have actually said. Clothes are the norm for our society. But not natural to human beings.

"I personally don't think it is that "natural" for someone to be nude at some resort when he has lived with the comforts we've taken for granted in this society"

So it isn't natural for someone to move out of their parent's house? It isn't natural for someone to find some new home and a new identity for themselves? And the only comforts nudists need are indoor plumbing and electricity/gas. Clothes are not necesssary for us.

"I do though, have a problem with someone trying to change or impose what is simply not accepted by the masses...and that seems to be what you and others here want."

So do you vote? Elections are all about the decision for the electorate to demand change or keep the status quo. And change is always happening. You may not even be aware of it, but it is out there. Yes, some of us here are out to change what others think. But so are you. You even made that statement that you want others here who are lurking to agree with you. But as I have constantly stated, changing public opinion is going to be an almost individualistic approach. It may be slow and arduous, but we are on the road to it.

"I was watching CNN and they had weather reports in your State. You're a tougher person than me to walk around there nude"

You need to look at my specific city. Virginia is a large state and currently, a cold front is passing through it. Here in Virginia Beach for the last week, it has been unusually warm. Today, it would have been perfect weather for a nude walk. Highs in the mid or upper 70s. I could still go outside naked right now as it is still in the upper 60s and humid. And I have been naked outside in the 50s, with no wind, after sunset.

"Check out the life expectancy in these areas were you say the people are so nude and happy..check out their medical..their education.."

I have never made any statements about their quality of life. I know that they truly suffer from real poverty.

Bob S.

Rocket

11-05-2003, 07:22 PM

BobS,

I appreciate the response..but as you have constantly asked me to back what I say..I have quoted the Oxford Dictionary..and it's definitions support my opinion /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry Bob...nothing natural about walking around nude...and given the hardships/climate..

I went outside today..in bare feet..and wearing a thermal underwear. There was snow on the ground..guess where I was cold and where I wasn't..

Good to hear the weather was positive in your area for a nude walk...but with clothes EVERYDAY one can go out..be comfortable..and stay out longer..

BTW...which argument is it? Are these nude people happy and prosperous OR do they have a poor quality of life? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob S.

11-05-2003, 07:24 PM

stu, this whole debate rides on what your definition of natural is. It could be normal, innate, pertaining to the nature of things, etc. If your definition of natural is normal for us, normal for society, then I would agree with you.

"For children eating with their fingers is the default."

Actually, babies have the suckling reflex. For all mammals, suckling from the mother is the "default." After that, everything a baby touches goes into its mouth. Forks, spoons, knives, chopsticks, cups, and the like are not natural for babies and they must learn how their specific culture eats.

"Children are expected to follow our lead, not the reverse. We don?t design our cultural norms or accepted practices upon what children do."

I am not saying that we do. But different societies do things differently. Some societies do not have clothes. For them, nudity is their cultural norm. But as I said, cultural and societal norms do not mean anything in determining what is natural to humans as animals or not.

"Who is obsessed with clothes?"

You are, or at least were. You extreme anxiety over nudity gives you an obsession with clothes, or being covered up. If you did not have an obsession with clothes, you would not have any problem with having surgery on your knee, even if they take off your shorts and underwear in doing that.

"It's perfectly natural to wear a swimming costume. That's what swimming costumes are made for."

But other than covering up the legally appropriate areas, they are useless.

"Why should the majority accept disgusting behaviour from a selfish minority?"

Your opinion.

"Better' for who? Certainly not better for Rocket or me. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're being selfish again."

Better for the sanity of society. The USA enjoys showing sexualized nudity, but not social or simple nudity. Understanding nudity as something that is harmless and mundane.

Bob S.

Nude in the North

11-05-2003, 07:29 PM

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

"...But I think it's reasonable to ask that nudity be decriminalized."

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What I mean is that simply being nude should not be a Criminal Offence.
The current laws and interpretation of those laws by prosecutors always attach some sexual connotation to nudity. Thus making nudity a Sex Crime. Sex crimes are Criminal offences on the level of Felonies.
Our legal system has many levels of offence.
The least of which is a Petty Misdemeanor.
The worst being a Felony.
Why should Being seen nude be on the same level as Rape and Murder.
A misdemeanor is not considered a Criminal offence. Things like minor traffic offences or disorderly conduct are often charged as misdemeanors.
The law I suggested would allow for nudity in select public places. It would also seperate simple nudity from Sex Offences.
Maybe this example will help explain.
1.
A man stands in a alley waiting for some young girl to walk by. When a girl gets close he opens his coat exposing his Penis to the girl.
This Is Indecent Exposure. A Criminal offence that deserves a stiff penalty and a registration to the sex offender list.

2.
A man is tanning nude in his back yard. Behind a 6 foot tall (2 Meters) fence. A young girl peeks through a crack in the fence and sees the man. She calls the police.
The man is charged with Indecent Exposure the same as the above case.

Can you see a difference ? Should both men be considered Sexual Predators and spend the rest of their lives registering their every move so people can be informed of their criminal background?

Steve

Bob S.

11-05-2003, 07:45 PM

Rocket, are you here just to harass us. It is obvious that you don't read what we are writing and instead, just read what you want to read. Then, you just write your frequently derrogatory, condescending, and occsaionally hate-filled words.

And you would rather see us violaently attacked then to see us naked?

"That's not what you have been talking about..you want to be able go nude at the nearest park..or walk around the block..those are public places though..so you can't."

Who is advocating that? I would say that is our ultimate goal, but as that is not my immediate goal. You just love putting words into our mouths, don't you.

"I have quoted the Oxford Dictionary..and it's definitions support my opinion"

No, Rocket. You just gave a dictionary definition. Simply defining a word does not support an argument. That would be like supplying the definitions of life and death in a discussion about the death penalty. Use that definition and extrapolate from it your own opinion.

"I went outside today..in bare feet..and wearing a thermal underwear. There was snow on the ground..guess where I was cold and where I wasn't.."

I would never do that because I do not want frostbite. People made clothes to protect themselves from the elements. That was an important step in our development as a species. But why is it that we wear clothes when it is 80 degrees outside. Why do we wear clothes when swimming?

In the NYC Marathon, some runners applied Vasoline to their thighs where their running shorts ended. Why? Because of the chafing that occurs when the shorts fabric rubs against the skin.

"Are these nude people happy and prosperous OR do they have a poor quality of life?"

If they are in abject poverty such as in places where you are referring to, their quality of life is poor. But happiness is a state of mind, not an environmental condition. I can't say how many of them are happy. Some of them may be prosperous in relation to their neighbors. Please Rocket, since you are so concerned about them, go over there and find out how they are, what their states of mind are. And stay there! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob S.

Nude in the North

11-05-2003, 07:52 PM

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

Nude in North,

If you took steps to not be seen nude, but were inadvertantly seen nude anyway, there is no intent to offend..so I don't think there is any case for prosecution.

Steve says;
So you didn't really mean it when you said that you would call the police if you saw a person nude in their back yard??? You made it very clear in your other posts that you would call the police under any circumstances if you saw someone nude in a place where the public MIGHT see them.

Rocket says;
That would also apply to areas that were remote, and it could be reasonably assumed that you would encounter no one while nude..but did anyway.

Steve says;
Again you have said that even in a remote area that is public land you would call the police.

Rocket says;
When you speak of 1000 lakes..yes..and no..to making any of them nude. If some of the lakes are not being used..perhaps there is a case to consider a CO beach. If ALL 1000 lakes are presently being used by what is called "Textiles"...then inspite of the number, you might not have a case to ask for a CO beach.

Steve says;
It's 10,000 Lakes. Thats TEN THOUSAND.
And since people have lived in this state for well over 100 years it's unlikely that any of them could be considered Unused by textiles.

If nudists are only allowed to ask for places that nobody has ever set foot on in the past, where do you suggest we look for a place to go. On the Moon?
Florida Has 1,000's of miles of Beaches. They set aside 1 mile of beach for nudists to leagly go.
I think it's reasonable to select a few decent beaches and not just some isolated beach so far from civilisation that nobody has ever been there before.

Rocket says;
BTW..I have reservations, inspite of having 1000 lakes..that all these lakes are suitable to be considered, or not as well..but I don't know the geography of the area. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Steve says;
Some of the lakes don't have very nice beaches . And some of them have Several excellent beaches.
Again it's 10,000 lakes. And atleast 10,000 beaches that are suitable for recreation.
Would it be so much to ask that people allowed a few of them to be clothing optional.

Steve

Rocket

11-05-2003, 08:30 PM

Nude in the North,

When I was talking about my neighbor I was referring to BLATANTLY (which they would have to do) being nude in their yard. I thought I made that clear..perhaps not..

If someone took steps to NOT be seen..but was seen anyway..there is no intent to offend. I might mention it to them/let it slide..it really just depends...because NO ONE is going to do that around here.

Regarding nude in the woods..I have encountered people nude in the woods having sex. I spotted them a long way off and simply went the other way. I can't recall ever saying I would call the Police if they were in a remote area (how could I? Geeze..it's a remote area!). It is reasonable for them to suppose that no one will come upon them..but things do happen.

Towards your lakes...there is no right for nude beaches PERIOD..so no one is obligated to give one even if it's 10,000 lakes. What I had tried to say (am I doing a poor job communicating?) is that if any of these lakes were being used by someone, they have a precedent for that lake.

I would say the same thing, if there was a beach that was used by the nudists..and then..Textiles or Fisherman came along, and demanded that lake..and the nudists be gone. In this case, the nudists have the precendent for the lake..

Kinda first dibbs /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope that sets the record straight...

Rocket

11-05-2003, 08:46 PM

BobS,

If being nude in public is your ULTIMATE goal..what you are talking about is baby steps up to your objective..so you are talking about it..

I got news for you Bob..I have my Crystal Ball...

IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN

The only way would be for a radical change in outlook. The Nudist Resorts/memberships would have to swell enormously...the whole population..

Changes would have to be made by law..laws brought in by Judges..so on..so on...

BobS..the Oxford Dictionary supports what I said..I quoted verabatim..

I am trying to find a book I have that talks in great detail about these happy nude people who you have said live prosperous lives and depend on no one...if I find it..I'll post what it says.

To let you know..I was out at the Mall today..and for the people I saw..both within the Mall and parking lot..I imagined them all nude..

Well..I just about threw up!!! Just the thought is difficult to imagine..the reality..

Anyway, I doubt very much that this nitemare will ever happen. God help us if it does.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

11-05-2003, 09:19 PM

Not counting all the small lakes, we are almost totally surrounded by three of the Great Lakes. That's the Northern, Eastern and Western sides of Michigan. That's well over 800 miles of shoreline of lakes that are a lot like an ocean. I think it would be very reasonable to make a few miles of that clothing-optional. A few miles of that 800+ miles isn't too much to ask--except to Stu and Rocket. We're only asking for a little more tolerance on the part of textiles, but they want it all their way.

tarsus

11-06-2003, 03:14 AM

one woman just did not want to sit in back of the
bus.she started a movement that would change a country. in 50's and early 60's when i was a boy
i watched this happen. a lot of people said it would not happen.i do belive this is a civil rights issue,we have the right to be happy.
nudity does no one harm.any reasoning that says it does may put a person in the same group as
racists,gay haters,etc. think about that please.
i like pie,does this mean i have a right to demand
that cake be banned? now that i am diabetic should i demand both be banned so i do not have to see them on a store shelf?

11-06-2003, 06:54 AM

Bob S

?You extreme anxiety over nudity gives you an obsession with clothes, or being covered up?.

Yes I did have a little anxiety about seeing nudity and I certainly don?t let others see me nude. That?s a personal preference.

?If you did not have an obsession with clothes, you would not have any problem with having surgery on your knee, even if they take off your shorts and underwear in doing that.?

It wasn?t due to an ?obsession? Bob, I just don?t like people seeing my private parts. I don?t think that?s especially abnormal. In he end the surgeon was told that I?d be keeping my shorts and underwear on during the surgery and they weren?t to be removed. That decision was respected. They weren?t touched.

"But other than covering up the legally appropriate areas, they are useless?.

When you wear swimming trunks, you don?t do it because the law says you have to ? the law never even crosses your mind. You wear trunks because you don?t want people to see your private parts. Why do you think so many people choose to keep their swimwear on even on CO beaches?

"Better for the sanity of society?.

Your opinion. J

?The USA enjoys showing sexualized nudity, but not social or simple nudity. Understanding nudity as something that is harmless and mundane.?

Do society want you to change their perception of nudity as something that is mundane? Perhaps the absence of seeing nudity generally makes it all the more exciting and sexy when you do see it. Perhaps that?s one of the reasons people reject nudity ? it transforms the exciting into the mundane. Just a thought.

Steve,

Thanks for explaining the difference between misdemeanour and felony ? now I see what you are saying and I agree with what you are saying. It?s quite different over here in the UK. Any breach of the criminal law here is a criminal offence, whether that is murder or illegal parking. So here to ?decriminalise? something would effectively mean that the police and all other public authorities are left completely powerless to act. But you aren?t advocating that, so I agree with you.

You also said:

?Again it's 10,000 lakes. And at least 10,000 beaches that are suitable for recreation. Would it be so much to ask that people allowed a few of them to be clothing optional.?

I don?t have a problem with there being a few clothing optional areas away from the coast, provided of course they are screened off from general public view and there are large and conspicuous warning signs in several languages to alert people to the danger that, if they proceed beyond that point, they may encounter total nudity. So again, I agree.

Jon-Marc

?That's well over 800 miles of shoreline of lakes that are a lot like an ocean. I think it would be very reasonable to make a few miles of that clothing-optional. A few miles of that 800+ miles isn't too much to ask--except to Stu and Rocket. We're only asking for a little more tolerance on the part of textiles, but they want it all their way.?

Hey! That?s not fair! I actually AGREE with you that it?s perfectly right that you should have inland naturist areas set aside for you. How else can I say that I?M ON YOUR SIDE!!!! I have said all along that naturists don?t get their fair share of locations and facilities and that?s plainly unjust. I just want you to be provided with more places and then the law to be very strict about inappropriate public nudity elsewhere. What?s wrong with that?

Tarsus

?nudity does no one harm. any reasoning that says it does may put a person in the same group as racists, gay haters, etc. think about that please.?

I have thought about it ? and I think it?s nonsense. We are not talking about a minority group that shares fixed characteristics such as black people or homosexuals. We are talking about a preferred type of behaviour that is permitted in private places and a few public places. Nudity does no ?harm? when in context and visible only to those who wish to see it ? just like sex etc. But if nudity causes widespread offence, shock and disgust of people exercising their right to enjoy public places and facilities then that is harm in my book.

Stu

soundman

11-06-2003, 08:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I was out at the Mall today..and for the people I saw..both within the Mall and parking lot..I imagined them all nude..

Well..I just about threw up!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Throwing up means you are sick. Go to a doctor, get cured and leave this forum.

11-06-2003, 08:08 AM

soundman

"Throwing up means you are sick. Go to a doctor, get cured and leave this forum."

Throwing up doesn't mean you are in need of a doctor as you well know.

If Rocket's posts irritate you so much, don't read them. If you do read them then be prepared to dissent from her views with logic. Chill out and don't be so unkind.

Debate and discussion should be enjoyable! This place would be pretty boring if everyone thought the same.

Stu

soundman

11-06-2003, 08:19 AM

I know. I was just joking with her!

11-06-2003, 08:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If Rocket's posts irritate you so much, don't read them. If you do read them then be prepared to dissent from her views with logic. Chill out and don't be so unkind.

Debate and discussion should be enjoyable! This place would be pretty boring if everyone thought the same.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why use logic on someone that hasn't made a bit of sense since her first post?? LOL!

She has been nothing but unkind to all of us and you can't discuss and debate with someone that has no clue what that involves.

11-06-2003, 10:36 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630

Jon-Marc

“That's well over 800 miles of shoreline of lakes that are a lot like an ocean. I think it would be very reasonable to make a few miles of that clothing-optional. A few miles of that 800+ miles isn't too much to ask--except to Stu and Rocket. We're only asking for a little more tolerance on the part of textiles, but they want it all their way.”

"Hey! That's not fair! I actually AGREE with you that it's perfectly right that you should have inland naturist areas set aside for you."

Well, thank you, Stu for actually agreeing with that. I was very surprised. While other people's nudity never shocked, alarmed, or upset me, I was extremely bashful about being seen nude by other adults. That changed after my first time being nude with other adults. I've always loved being nude when alone, but now I want to enjoy as much nude freedon outside as possible--just not this time of year. Our highs right now are in the 30's F.

11-06-2003, 11:21 AM

Rocket if you are really so blind that you don't see your negative attitude then there is nothing I can say that would sink in. Quite frankly I don't care if it sinks in or not. I've watched you totally ignore very good points with wonderful references. I've seen you tell someone that has a college background in law that he's clueless.

And especially I've watched you ignore posts that pointed out huge holes in your theories.

I've seen posts that were removed because they were so rude, mostly about homosexuality which you obviously have no understanding of.

You've refused to post anything that might back up your viewpoints in several cases. Basicly you've made a total a$$ out of yourself here and many people are not amused. BTW I run my websites a lot different. When one single person causes so much destruction in such a short time to so many people I don't let them stay. You are only fortunate in that the administrators aren't as sensitive to the health of the boards here.

And anyone that would think that cats were lubricated doesn't need Internet access so that they can spread their ignorance on to others.

aunaturelone

11-06-2003, 11:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I have thought about it ? and I think it?s nonsense. We are not talking about a minority group that shares fixed characteristics such as black people or homosexuals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bigotry doesn't have to have a racial basis. One can be just as bigoted against a religion or the lack of a religion. One can be bigoted against the poor or against the rich or against people of a particular political persuasion or against a philosophy. Bigotry is nothing more than moral or psychological prejudgement of a person based on externalities.

Naturists/nudists do have a fixed characteristic. Without exception they prefer to be nude when the environment comfortably allows them to do so and they prefer it to be an ofensive and unremarkable event. Lose that trait and you are no longer a nudist/naturist. It is what defines your philosophy.

You can't simply decide that tomorrow you'll stop wanting to be socially nude any more. You don't become a nudist in such a gymnophobic world without it running far too deep for that. It's not a casual decsison to become a nudist, it comes fom deep within.

You could decide you'll stop being socialy nude, stop seeking your heart's desire and try to keep it repressed. You might just succeed. You might also end up living a miserable and emotionally constipated life.

aunaturelone

11-06-2003, 11:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>It's repugnant and not normal. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You're funny!

What is "normal" is what you are naturally, when not under any form of external threat or coercion. And what is "repugnant" is mostly learned and subject to the changing whims of fashion.

A statement like that would disqualify you for any hope of winning elective office in about 1/2 of the US. (Say that in any of our greatst cities and you'd be political dead meat!) And we're a more Puritan country than Canada!

11-06-2003, 12:32 PM

aunaturelone

"Bigotry doesn't have to have a racial basis. One can be just as bigoted against a religion or the lack of a religion. One can be bigoted against the poor or against the rich or against people of a particular political persuasion or against a philosophy. Bigotry is nothing more than moral or psychological prejudgement of a person based on externalities."

Sorry, butI really object to your use of the term "bigotry" in this context. Bigotry is a blind and unthinking prejudgement of people for what they are. Bigotry is by its very nature stupid and totally closed-minded. I'm far from that. I am an intelligent, thinking and soul-searching individual. I do go away and reflect on many points raised here. I don't object to naturists per se - quite the contrary - I have said more than once that many of the naturists here are intelligent and thoughtful people. My opinion of nudity is that it is a behaviour that should be restricted to places where it will not cause offence to the sensibilities of the masses. To misuse the term "bigotry" in this way smacks of a blind and stubborn refusal to accept that anyone has a legitimate opinion if it conflicts with your own on this issue. Now that really IS bigotry!

"Naturists/nudists do have a fixed characteristic. Without exception they prefer to be nude when the environment comfortably allows them to do so and they prefer it to be an ofensive and unremarkable event."

I assume you mean 'inoffensive'. If that is the case then there should be no problem. Naturists can perfectly easily ensure that their nudity is virtually 100% inoffensive by only being naked out of sight of others who are likely to be offended by it. I regret that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a small minority of naturists who are only too happy to cause such offence.

"You can't simply decide that tomorrow you'll stop wanting to be socially nude any more. You don't become a nudist in such a gymnophobic world without it running far too deep for that. It's not a casual decsison to become a nudist, it comes fom deep within."

People don't become naturists by accident. It's a fully conscious decision. In that respect it is no different from deciding to become a golfer, a cigarette smoker or a vegetarian. You decide to try it and before you know it you're hooked and you are buying into the whole deal. You, not nature nor external forces, have determined what you have become. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to expect society to change normal rules to accommodate behaviour that they have previously considered grossly unacceptable. An analogy - dogs are not allowed in shopping malls. Blind people are allowed to bring guide dogs into shopping malls. But pet dogs will never be allowed into shopping malls regardless of how much their owners can't bear to be parted from their beloved hounds. So concessions are made for the blind because they can't help being blind - if other shoppers object to the presence of guide dogs in shops then that's just too bad. But pet owners choose to be just that and so can not expect the same 'special treatment'.

"You could decide you'll stop being socialy nude, stop seeking your heart's desire and try to keep it repressed. You might just succeed. You might also end up living a miserable and emotionally constipated life."

We all have hearts desires. But we usually have to compromise with the wider world when sekin to fulfil them. That's life for naturists too.

Stu

aunaturelone

11-06-2003, 12:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Sorry...no one is "naturally" homosexual..because the physiology of both male and female bodies support childbirth. That is interaction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What a sad life, never to have known oral sex or masturbation. You'd have to find them unnatural and repugnant as well for neither one supports childbirth. Even the thought of birth control must make you gag for it surely does not support reproduction. When you pass menopause you will forsake sexuality because it is no longer reproductive?

For that matter neither does kissing. Sex is for bonding and for pleasure as much as for reproduction. Only in those lower animals where receptivity is limited to occaisional brief periods of fertility is sex purely a reporoductive act.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I guess if someone felt it was ok to mate with a cow..that is natural and not repugnant.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspect the cow would find it repugnant. We have laws against animal cruelty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Yeah..I am funny...and you..are stupid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you are nothing but a flame. Not a very bright one a that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As I told Cyndiann, I don't suffer fools to well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If there were "fools" on this fourm, you could solve your problem instantly by leaving. (Please do.) By staying you demonstrate you enjoy being insulting and obnoxious for its own sake. On the internet that's called being a "flamer". The annonymity of the format allows you to behave in a rude and hostile manner that you'd be far to fearful of doing in real life.

Perhaps it is yourself you don't suffer so well.

aunaturelone

11-06-2003, 01:19 PM

Stu:

I didn't mean to say you were a bigot, I merely wished to point out that bigotry is not as narrowly defined as you seem to present. It is also present in degrees. One can be a little bigoted or a lot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>People don't become naturists by accident. It's a fully conscious decision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not so sure about that. I think it is something one learns rather than something one decides. Once you have learned the joys of social nudity, you can't unlearn them.

Suppose you had never eaten eggs benedict before. Being a strange food you you might naturally be nervous about the taste. (And some people have a greater innate fear of strange food than others!) Someone who has tried it tells you it made them sick. You've read all kinds of things attacking eggs for their high levels of cholesterol, so you are convinced they are unhealthy.

Then one day someone coaxes you into trying them. You reluctantly take a taste - and discover you love them! Now they aren't strange any more, so you don't fear them. The other guy who said he got sick has an even bigger food phobia than you do and was starting to gag just from looking at them. (Or maybe he had a lousy chef or the sauce was improperly prepared and gave him food poisoning. Maybe he simply has a different set of taste buds than you. It happens.) Some research turns up the fact that heavy consumption of eggs may cause an increase in "bad" cholesterol levels in some people, but it is far from certain and eggs in moderation are fine and nutritious for you.

Conditions may prevent you from having the eggs you want. But from this point on you will not be able to "decide" not to want to eat eggs benedict anymore. Nothing short of a serious egg related trauma will change your taste for them.

Once truth has been identified it cannot be unlearned unless even an greater truth is revealed to supplant it. And in the case of eating eggs or religious faith or being socially nude, the truth is a personal truth and not readily ameanable to external pressures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>We all have hearts desires. But we usually have to compromise with the wider world when sekin to fulfil them. That's life for naturists too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is my position that it is every ones' right to minimize the amount of compromise forced upon them when engaged in their pursuit of happiness. Throughout time, the great strides of progress have taken place when individuals and minorities forced society to compromise rather than just accepting what the powers that bee had in store for them.

tarsus

11-06-2003, 03:00 PM

hello stu
you speak of nudity causing wide spread shock; disgust.
ever been to new york city? nude models are photographed on a regular basis. it draws some looks, but no one turns to stone or runs down the street screaming "i saw a naked person".
nudity does draw some shock but would it be all that widespread, as you imply?
you know a black person causes shock in some areas
here.gays shock some people, iranians,& iraq's scarce the h*ll out some people.
some do not like some of these people or their ideas but they get over it. no one throws up, no one goes screaming,running for their life.
i think you have spent too much time in blighty
sorry; i can't spell very well.by the way i work with all these types,i got over it,so will you.
think of it as shock therapy.

DoubleRK

11-06-2003, 03:48 PM

Stu

"People don't become naturists by accident. It's a fully conscious decision."

True, it is a conscious decision that is not usually arrived at without considerable thought and soul searching.

"In that respect it is no different from deciding to become a golfer, a cigarette smoker or a vegetarian. You decide to try it and before you know it you're hooked and you are buying into the whole deal."

This is where you are mistaken, it's not a reconational activity like golf nor a habit like smoking it is more of a spiritual experience and like any other spirituality, once it's experienced it can not be denied.

A Naturists can no more stop being what they are than a Christian is able to, as it is a SPRITIUAL BELIEF and not just a recreational activity. Does this mean that Naturism is a religion? I guess in a way it is since it is a spritiual experience. Does this mean you can't be a Christian Naturist? No, of course not. Narturism simply enhances ones spritiual beliefs, if you believe in Budda you'll feel closer to Budda, if you believe in God, you'll feel closer to God; in other words, you feel closer to whatever diety you happen to believe in.

Well, that's how I feel about Naturism and why I object to the idea that it's just a "recreational activity". For the same reason, I object being required to distance myself from my spirituality by wearing clothing when not necessary.

Let me try to summerize this: social nudity is NOT the same as Naturism however, Naturism does INVOLVE social nudity. You can experience social nudity without any spiritual feelings but to experience Naturism a spiritual connection is required.

Ok, I'm sure I lost everyone now and for that I apologize but putting how I feel into words can be hard sometimes.

Kari P

11-07-2003, 03:27 AM

Aunaturelone and DoubleRK seem to think differently about people becoming naturists by accident or by conscious decision, but they refer to different things. Aunaturelone speaks about the joys of social nudity, which are learned and cannot be unlearned. DoubleRK instead speaks about accepting the basic ideas underlying naturism, which is a fully conscious decision to naturists who come from non-naturist families. Those coming from naturist families haven't necessarily made a conscious decision about their naturist values and lifestyle.

Stu, you have been explained by many authors that naturism is more than the desire and practice of being naked - it's a philosophy (I used the word 'ideology' that may be a wrong word). It comes near to naturism being a religion - it isn't, but you should get the idea.

Thus, a ban of nudity almost everywhere is kind of persecution based on opinions - our opinion that there is nothing wrong with nudity. We can accept laws that prohibit nudity in really public places provided that they allow it elsewhere in a fair manner. We can talk about where the border is to be drawn - but

Stu, you define your "public areas" much too widely, including all secluded places and even private yards visible to others in them. Your definition is at the extreme where there are virtually no places for naturists to be legally naked without the legal right of someone seeing it to stop it. This cannot be accepted by us. You can make no deal with us if you don't come towards.

Stu, your opinions have this far appeared as intolerable. "Be out of sight" is not real toleration. But you are not a hopeless case, which Rocket surely is. We don't expect your conversion to a naturist, but you can finally come to a mental decision that nudity is not so bad - it doesn't necessarily cause so much distress as you say, to yourself and others who you want to "protect" against seeing unexpected nudity. My belief is based on your apparent will and ability to discuss with us to the point.

You don't believe any references made by naturists to psychological research that honestly can be used to support our beliefs - that exposing children to nudity or allowing them to be naked is not injurious and can have beneficial effects. What if we ask you: Can you point to any research which supports the opposite view?

Kari P

shãybare

11-07-2003, 04:07 AM

DoubleRK, you have spoken well and I don't think you've lost anyone, especially Stu who, on this topic, is like a hound dog in heat and won't go away. Remember though Stu is here not to uplift but to tear down. He does this rather than deal with his weird hang-ups about nudity. He is extremely educated but quite apparently totally clueless about what nude freedom and body acceptance is all about. He is like the parent that yells at his kids but doesn't listen. He says he likes to debate but his "I'm right, you're wrong parental" attitude is apparent to anyone with a mind of their own. I believe Rocket is his only lap-dog, er, I mean supporter.

nudeM

11-07-2003, 04:11 AM

Rocket being Stu's supporter? Do you mean athletic supporter? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

11-07-2003, 05:20 AM

aunaturelone

?I'm not so sure about that. I think it is something one learns rather than something one decides. Once you have learned the joys of social nudity, you can't unlearn them.?

Certainly. Pleasures are, by their very nature, addictive. The greater the pleasure the greater the addiction. I take your point about eggs benedict (which, incidentally, I have never tasted). I think the key difference is that what we eat normally affects only ourselves. A close friend of mine is a dentist. She won?t eat garlic or certain other foods before treating patients to avoid causing the offence of bad breath regardless of the pleasure she is denying to herself. I think you see my point.

?It is my position that it is every ones' right to minimize the amount of compromise forced upon them when engaged in their pursuit of happiness.?
Indeed. But we simply MUST make compromises when our happiness impacts upon the happiness of others. Sometimes I walk my dog in my local park whilst listening to the melodies of Madame Butterfly or Don Giovanni. I know that not everyone shares my love of opera, so I wear headphones ? something I found quite uncomfortable and to some extent detracts from my enjoyment of the music.

?Throughout time, the great strides of progress have taken place when individuals and minorities forced society to compromise rather than just accepting what the powers that bee had in store for them.?

I agree. Compromise is essential. The question, though, is where to draw the line. There should be no issue with regard to nudity. Those like yourself who want to practice it should be able to do so and those who find it offensive like me should have some guarantee that they won?t encounter it. To keep both of us happy requires a compromise. I have tried to suggest one that fulfils both our requirements. Can you suggest a better one?

Tarsus

?you speak of nudity causing wide spread shock; disgust. Have you ever been to new york city??
No, that?s one pleasure I have denied myself ? and will continue to deny myself.
?nude models are photographed on a regular basis.?
That does not surprise me. But as I don?t ever go there I don?t have a problem with that.

?but no one turns to stone or runs down the street screaming "i saw a naked person". nudity does draw some shock but would it be all that widespread, as you imply??

If you all around Amsterdam you will see open prostitution and drug-dealing and nobody bothers about it. So I don?t go there either. It just goes to show that, if forced, even revolting behaviour is tolerated and standards fall.

?you know a black person causes shock in some areas
here.gays shock some people, iranians,& iraq's scarce the h*ll out some people.?

People can?t help being black, gay or Iranian etc. But they can help being naked.

?i think you have spent too much time in blighty?
I certainly have! But not for the reasons you suggest. I have spent a lot of my time in other countries of the world including most of Western Europe and all Scandinavia (where I have lived on and off), South Africa, Botswana and Namibia (where I lived for 2 years), Japan and Laos, Greenland (5 times!), Siberia and Mongolia ? and briefly to Bolivia, Chile and Easter Island. Will that do?

?think of it as shock therapy.?

If I wanted shock therapy I would arrange some sessions. But I don?t ? and I resent others imposing them on me.

DoubleRK

??it is a conscious decision that is not usually arrived at without considerable thought and soul searching.?

Really? Are you telling me some people don?t (a) drift into it because their friends or family do it, (b) come across it by accident (e.g. on holiday) and spontaneously give it a go or (c) get talked into it by a spouse/partner?

"This is where you are mistaken, it's not a recreational activity like golf nor a habit like smoking it is more of a spiritual experience and like any other spirituality, once it's experienced it can not be denied.?

I?m not sure that I accept that point. That may be your personal experience but from what I know many naturists just indulge in this activity as a sort of holiday preference. Either way ? it is an activity that is basically done for pleasure and relaxation.

?A Naturists can no more stop being what they are than a Christian is able to, as it is a SPRITIUAL BELIEF and not just a recreational activity. Does this mean that Naturism is a religion? I guess in a way it is since it is a spritiual experience. Does this mean you can't be a Christian Naturist? No, of course not. Narturism simply enhances ones spritiual beliefs, if you believe in Budda you'll feel closer to Budda, if you believe in God, you'll feel closer to God; in other words, you feel closer to whatever diety you happen to believe in.?

I can?t quite see where this is taking us. A spiritual belief is something that happens internally. It doesn?t directly affect others. Nudity, on the other hand, can do.

?For the same reason, I object being required to distance myself from my spirituality by wearing clothing when not necessary.?

You need only distance yourself from the rest of the non-naturist population at those times when you chose to be naked. It is the behaviour that is restricted, not the person. If you insist upon being naked ALL the time, then you should consider moving to a full-time naturist community. We can?t all just do what we like when we like and where we like because what we do impacts upon others. The fact that it?s a ?spiritual? need is neither here nor there.

Kari

I think we are just going to have to disagree about where nudity should be permitted and allow our respective legislators to decide on our behalves based upon public opinion in our respective countries. You seem to be happy enough with your laws and, in spite of the need for clarity, I prefer our laws.
I would, however, like you to try to answer the question I put to aunaturelone above, namely, can you suggest a compromise that (a) enables you to enjoy your naturism whilst (b) guaranteeing that I won?t encounter the nudity that I find so gross and repugnant?

Shaybare

?He does this rather than deal with his weird hang-ups about nudity?.

I don?t need to deal with my ?hang-ups? about nudity because I don?t encounter it. I intend to keep it that way.

?He is extremely educated but quite apparently totally clueless about what nude freedom and body acceptance is all about.?

It?s about a minority of people who, for reasons that I can?t quite grasp, have a compulsion to divest themselves of all their garments and make their private parts visible to others. And you have the temerity to accuse me of being weird! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

?He is like the parent that yells at his kids but doesn't listen.?

I have listened. But have people been REALLY seeing this issue from a textile standpoint? Or have they been naturists for so long they can no longer relate to the textile perspective.

Stu

Kari P

11-07-2003, 06:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I think we are just going to have to disagree about where nudity should be permitted and allow our respective legislators to decide on our behalves based upon public opinion in our respective countries. You seem to be happy enough with your laws and, in spite of the need for clarity, I prefer our laws.
I would, however, like you to try to answer the question I put to aunaturelone above, namely, can you suggest a compromise that (a) enables you to enjoy your naturism whilst (b) guaranteeing that I won?t encounter the nudity that I find so gross and repugnant?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Already long time ago we could have stopped the conversation and simply find that we disagree. But you have on your side kept the dialogue going.

The laws in European countries, including ours (Finland and the UK), are quite similar. The difference comes from their interpretation, and finally from the general level of tolerance in the countries, as nudity in itself is not defined as a crime. You give the impression that people in the UK are generally as intolerant as you, but this may not be the full truth.

I have already many times said what an acceptable compromise between us could be. From my last posting: "We can accept laws that prohibit nudity in really public places provided that they allow it elsewhere in a fair manner. We can talk about where the border is to be drawn."

If you want to be sure (assuming everyone behaves according to the law) that you never encounter naked people, keep away from the areas where nudity is accepted by the law - regard them as clothing-optional. So simple!

Kari P

11-07-2003, 07:09 AM

Kari

"But you have on your side kept the dialogue going."

OK, but I think we have tried but cannot agree. That's OK with me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"You give the impression that people in the UK are generally as intolerant as you, but this may not be the full truth".

Generally speaking, people in the UK will not accept nudity in public places - not even in remore public places - they WILL call the police. That is the truth and you can believe me or not. Remember that here even our television is much more restricted at showing nudity that in most European countries, and you will rarely see a topless woman on a beach or even a woman in a restaurant breastfeeding a baby. I visit European countries and I know that attitudes in the UK are different in some ways.

"If you want to be sure (assuming everyone behaves according to the law) that you never encounter naked people, keep away from the areas where nudity is accepted by the law - regard them as clothing-optional. So simple!"

Nudity is accepted in law at naturist places - and that's all. But if you are talking about other places - i.e. remote places - and you say I should have to keep away from all of those in my own country just because a minority might feel inclined to get naked where they please? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif No, way, Kari! That's not a compromise most people in the UK would consider for a moment!

Stu

aunaturelone

11-07-2003, 09:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>remote places - and you say I should have to keep away from all of those in my own country just because a minority might feel inclined to get naked where they please? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you should keep away from remote places entirely, for being in a remote place is by itself a risk. Slip and fall, twist your ankle or bang your head in a remote place and the consequences are much more dire than merely seeing some nudity.

11-07-2003, 09:22 AM

aunaturelone

"Perhaps you should keep away from remote places entirely, for being in a remote place is by itself a risk. Slip and fall, twist your ankle or bang your head in a remote place and the consequences are much more dire than merely seeing some nudity."

I accept natural hazzards, but I have a right to expect people to avoid causing man-made ones.

Stu

Rocket

11-07-2003, 09:52 AM

I've got an idea..

Why don't these nudists just keep their clothes on?

Works for most the world with no problems..

If they just HAVE to be nude (and they really don't) they can just go to some real out of the way place where they are unlikely to encounter anyone (and if they see someone they can either quickly cover up or just hide)..and there be no problems /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Boreas

11-07-2003, 03:55 PM

Rocket, have you not been reading anything on these boards??? Or are you just here to spout off?

Stu, I like some of your recent posts. It seems you have been doing a lot of thinking. As I was reading through the last few posts on this thread I couldn't help but think of how culture plays such a part in our attitudes. You and Kari have compared the UK and Finland, where the laws are similar and the interpretations are different. I live in Canada and am always interested in the Canada/US differences. We seem very similar to others, and yet we have some different views and interpretations. Hmmmm...now I think I am babbling. Anyway, your travels have obviously had an impact on you. Maybe next year you will be visiting a CO beach...expecially if you keep hanging out here! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, I guess my cultural reference is that we have been taught by our culture etc about what is offensive or not. I used to see my English grandfather struggle with things which were okay here in Canada and were appalling to the Brit sentiment. If only we can learn from each other even better!

Okay, I am going into babble mode...it has been a long day!

soundman

11-07-2003, 08:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I've got an idea..
Why don't these nudists just keep their clothes on? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because this is supposed to be a forum for nudists. Why are you trying to ruin it for us?

Bob S.

11-07-2003, 09:33 PM

"what you are talking about is baby steps up to your objective..so you are talking about it.."

Yes. We have to go slowly because of people like you.

"The only way would be for a radical change in outlook."

And that is a laudable goal that, unlike you believe, is attainable.

"Changes would have to be made by law..laws brought in by Judges..so on..so on..."

Changes could be made by case law or by convincing the legislators.

"the Oxford Dictionary supports what I said..I quoted verabatim.."

1a) Existing or caused by nature
3 ) of human nature etc..not surprising; to be expected

1a Human civilizations are not generally considered as being in nature in their habitats.

3 Human nature in this case is referring to what makes us who we are. What type of person we are.

"Nature"

1) a person or thing's innate qualities
2) the physical power causing all phenomena of the material world
2b) these phenomena (plants, animals, landscape etc)
5) a specified element of human character

1 Innate qualitites are those which we are born with.
2 Water cycle, weather, gravity, tectonic plates, etc.
3 Plants result from sunlight and water, animals survive on water, plants and other animals, etc
5 survival instinct, sexuality, parental instinct, etc.

None of these definitions comes close to explaining your argument regarding how clothes are natural to our species. They are the norm in our societies, but they are not natural.

"I am trying to find a book I have that talks in great detail about these happy nude people who you have said live prosperous lives and depend on no one...if I find it..I'll post what it says."

And I'm trying to find where I ever mentioned such a people. I haven't found it yet.

"Well..I just about threw up!!! Just the thought is difficult to imagine..the reality.."

So you are just about on the same plane as stu. Just seeing others naked makes you violently ill. That is gymnophobia. So we now have two gymnoophobes (OK, one gymnophobe and one person with extreme anxiety with nudity). And to think that one is for our rights and the other claims (although I have extreme doubt about that) to have gone for a nude swim amongst others.

Bob S.

Bob S.

11-07-2003, 09:57 PM

"People don't become naturists by accident."

People don't become textiles by accident. They are taught it by parents. Some of them disregard those teachings and still become naturists. Sometimes they are still young when they start to question the rules, other times they don't come to the nudism conclusion until they are middle age or older. I never understood what the big deal was and was one of those teens that you will occasionally hear about on thees forums who could only practice my nudism in private, like when my parents left me home alone.

Others stick to their teachings and keep the clothes on. A select few actually are so indoctrinated about the need for clothes that they cannot even imagine others who are naked.

aunaturelone,

Your egg analogy reminded me of "Green Eggs and Ham." by Doctor Seuss. Sam I Am refused to eat the title dish, but the other character followed him everywhere he went, offering it to him. Finally, desparate to get rid of this little stalker, he tried the dish and actually liked it. Kind of like nudity and with a copy of the book and some time, I could probably come up with a nudist version.

Bob S.

RIVERRAT

11-07-2003, 11:09 PM

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

"Bigotry doesn't have to have a racial basis. One can be just as bigoted against a religion or the lack of a religion. One can be bigoted against the poor or against the rich or against people of a particular political persuasion or against a philosophy. Bigotry is nothing more than moral or psychological prejudgement of a person based on externalities."

Sorry, butI really object to your use of the term "bigotry" in this context. Bigotry is a blind and unthinking prejudgement of people for what they are. Bigotry is by its very nature stupid and totally closed-minded. I'm far from that. I am an intelligent, thinking and soul-searching individual. I do go away and reflect on many points raised here. I don't object to naturists per se - quite the contrary - I have said more than once that many of the naturists here are intelligent and thoughtful people. My opinion of nudity is that it is a behaviour that should be restricted to places where it will not cause offence to the sensibilities of the masses. To misuse the term "bigotry" in this way smacks of a blind and stubborn refusal to accept that anyone has a legitimate opinion if it conflicts with your own on this issue. Now that really IS bigotry!

"Naturists/nudists do have a fixed characteristic. Without exception they prefer to be nude when the environment comfortably allows them to do so and they prefer it to be an ofensive and unremarkable event."

I assume you mean 'inoffensive'. If that is the case then there should be no problem. Naturists can perfectly easily ensure that their nudity is virtually 100% inoffensive by only being naked out of sight of others who are likely to be offended by it. I regret that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a small minority of naturists who are only too happy to cause such offence.

"You can't simply decide that tomorrow you'll stop wanting to be socially nude any more. You don't become a nudist in such a gymnophobic world without it running far too deep for that. It's not a casual decsison to become a nudist, it comes fom deep within."

People don't become naturists by accident. It's a fully conscious decision. In that respect it is no different from deciding to become a golfer, a cigarette smoker or a vegetarian. You decide to try it and before you know it you're hooked and you are buying into the whole deal. You, not nature nor external forces, have determined what you have become. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to expect society to change normal rules to accommodate behaviour that they have previously considered grossly unacceptable. An analogy - dogs are not allowed in shopping malls. Blind people are allowed to bring guide dogs into shopping malls. But pet dogs will never be allowed into shopping malls regardless of how much their owners can't bear to be parted from their beloved hounds. So concessions are made for the blind because they can't help being blind - if other shoppers object to the presence of guide dogs in shops then that's just too bad. But pet owners choose to be just that and so can not expect the same 'special treatment'.

"You could decide you'll stop being socialy nude, stop seeking your heart's desire and try to keep it repressed. You might just succeed. You might also end up living a miserable and emotionally constipated life."

We all have hearts desires. But we usually have to compromise with the wider world when sekin to fulfil them. That's life for naturists too.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RIVERRAT

11-07-2003, 11:21 PM

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

"Bigotry doesn't have to have a racial basis. One can be just as bigoted against a religion or the lack of a religion. One can be bigoted against the poor or against the rich or against people of a particular political persuasion or against a philosophy. Bigotry is nothing more than moral or psychological prejudgement of a person based on externalities."

Sorry, butI really object to your use of the term "bigotry" in this context. Bigotry is a blind and unthinking prejudgement of people for what they are. Bigotry is by its very nature stupid and totally closed-minded. I'm far from that. I am an intelligent, thinking and soul-searching individual. I do go away and reflect on many points raised here. I don't object to naturists per se - quite the contrary - I have said more than once that many of the naturists here are intelligent and thoughtful people. My opinion of nudity is that it is a behaviour that should be restricted to places where it will not cause offence to the sensibilities of the masses. To misuse the term "bigotry" in this way smacks of a blind and stubborn refusal to accept that anyone has a legitimate opinion if it conflicts with your own on this issue. Now that really IS bigotry!

"Naturists/nudists do have a fixed characteristic. Without exception they prefer to be nude when the environment comfortably allows them to do so and they prefer it to be an ofensive and unremarkable event."

I assume you mean 'inoffensive'. If that is the case then there should be no problem. Naturists can perfectly easily ensure that their nudity is virtually 100% inoffensive by only being naked out of sight of others who are likely to be offended by it. I regret that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a small minority of naturists who are only too happy to cause such offence.

"You can't simply decide that tomorrow you'll stop wanting to be socially nude any more. You don't become a nudist in such a gymnophobic world without it running far too deep for that. It's not a casual decsison to become a nudist, it comes fom deep within."

People don't become naturists by accident. It's a fully conscious decision. In that respect it is no different from deciding to become a golfer, a cigarette smoker or a vegetarian. You decide to try it and before you know it you're hooked and you are buying into the whole deal. You, not nature nor external forces, have determined what you have become. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to expect society to change normal rules to accommodate behaviour that they have previously considered grossly unacceptable. An analogy - dogs are not allowed in shopping malls. Blind people are allowed to bring guide dogs into shopping malls. But pet dogs will never be allowed into shopping malls regardless of how much their owners can't bear to be parted from their beloved hounds. So concessions are made for the blind because they can't help being blind - if other shoppers object to the presence of guide dogs in shops then that's just too bad. But pet owners choose to be just that and so can not expect the same 'special treatment'.

"You could decide you'll stop being socialy nude, stop seeking your heart's desire and try to keep it repressed. You might just succeed. You might also end up living a miserable and emotionally constipated life."

We all have hearts desires. But we usually have to compromise with the wider world when sekin to fulfil them. That's life for naturists too.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu this is without a doubt your best posting, I agree whole heartedly, those of us who choose to be nude, though I wish I could be nude everywhere, but I agree with you we should not offend others, no matter what we choose to do and I respect the fact that you don't want to be nude except to bath, I don't agree with it, but I respect it, being nude is a state of mind as is your choice not to be, I wish I could do all things nude, but the law and others, like yourself have a problem with that, so I will keep my nudity in the confines of where it is not offensive to those like youself, I would rather that clothed was the acception but that being the case I will indure till we are accepted and clothed is the other. Very well written. Stu who says your such a bad guy.