Nudity - how natural?

[Kari P]

I would like to draw this theme off from the law discussion ("The Law: My Suggestion" in Legal issues) where Stu and Rocket are denying the naturality and reasonability of nudity based on the facts about our environment.

Already said: "We are born without clothes" (Bob S.) "Nude when possible, clothed when practical. I think the environment can be adjusted to." (NudeAl) "It is something they have to experience, and they will soon know if it works for them." (Duneman) "There aint no reason why you cant stand in the shade nude." (Nudkiwi) I agree with all of them.

Our species homo sapiens has used clothing during thousands of years but not originally. I can honestly admit that clothing is one of the most remarkable early invents of human. Without it we couldn't have spread to all over the globe, we couldn't survive in most of the climate zones. These are facts.

But when humans started to wear clothes, they were first used only for body protection and physical comfort. The social aspects of clothing and finally its compulsory in certain cultures (ours included, but not every culture of the world) came later. I don't know when - can someone tell it? Anyway it is clear that the use of clothing always and everywhere is only a tiny scratch in the history of mankind.

Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role. If you don't have a physical need to use clothes, why use them? (I use the words nudism and naturism as true synonyms, but prefer naturism because it includes the thought "back to nature".)

If you never try the experience of being nude, you don't know how it feels. Especially if you were nude in the free nature, you could feel the wonderful feeling of beeing free and a part of the nature itself. That's how I feel it.

Naturism is not adoration of sun. We know the good and bad things related to sun exposure.

That we cannot be nude constantly in our climates, doesn't take away the naturality of nudity and the pleasure it gives when we have the opportunity. We can even widen our zone of comfort to areas not initially seeming comfortable in the nude state. The body adapts, and if we stop thinking constantly of slight imcomfort ("brr, it's cold here") we can still get so much pleasure from just being naked that it is worth doing.

This is enough from me at the start about the naturality of nudity. I bring into discussion another natural thing, being barefoot.

Rocket said: "Bare feet aren't all that great to walk around in.."

This is also a thing where it is possible to widen one's zone of comfort by repeated excercise. Not all naturists are barefooters, but I am. In the summer I am almost constantly barefoot; in the winter I am barefoot at home, elsewhere in shoes with no socks removing the shoes where I can.

This morning I walked outdoors about 40 meters to get the paper from the mailbox wearing only a t-shirt and shorts, no footwear. The temperature was at freezing point, and there was a thin layer of ice on the ground. But I suffered of no pain nor felt even a slightest incomfort. I am not a masocist. What I did is really within my zone of comfort. For this short trip I don't have to wear more. Doing it this way was practical. (Could I have done it fully naked? For the physical aspect only, yes.)

Kari P

[Kari P]

I would like to draw this theme off from the law discussion ("The Law: My Suggestion" in Legal issues) where Stu and Rocket are denying the naturality and reasonability of nudity based on the facts about our environment.

Already said: "We are born without clothes" (Bob S.) "Nude when possible, clothed when practical. I think the environment can be adjusted to." (NudeAl) "It is something they have to experience, and they will soon know if it works for them." (Duneman) "There aint no reason why you cant stand in the shade nude." (Nudkiwi) I agree with all of them.

Our species homo sapiens has used clothing during thousands of years but not originally. I can honestly admit that clothing is one of the most remarkable early invents of human. Without it we couldn't have spread to all over the globe, we couldn't survive in most of the climate zones. These are facts.

But when humans started to wear clothes, they were first used only for body protection and physical comfort. The social aspects of clothing and finally its compulsory in certain cultures (ours included, but not every culture of the world) came later. I don't know when - can someone tell it? Anyway it is clear that the use of clothing always and everywhere is only a tiny scratch in the history of mankind.

Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role. If you don't have a physical need to use clothes, why use them? (I use the words nudism and naturism as true synonyms, but prefer naturism because it includes the thought "back to nature".)

If you never try the experience of being nude, you don't know how it feels. Especially if you were nude in the free nature, you could feel the wonderful feeling of beeing free and a part of the nature itself. That's how I feel it.

Naturism is not adoration of sun. We know the good and bad things related to sun exposure.

That we cannot be nude constantly in our climates, doesn't take away the naturality of nudity and the pleasure it gives when we have the opportunity. We can even widen our zone of comfort to areas not initially seeming comfortable in the nude state. The body adapts, and if we stop thinking constantly of slight imcomfort ("brr, it's cold here") we can still get so much pleasure from just being naked that it is worth doing.

This is enough from me at the start about the naturality of nudity. I bring into discussion another natural thing, being barefoot.

Rocket said: "Bare feet aren't all that great to walk around in.."

This is also a thing where it is possible to widen one's zone of comfort by repeated excercise. Not all naturists are barefooters, but I am. In the summer I am almost constantly barefoot; in the winter I am barefoot at home, elsewhere in shoes with no socks removing the shoes where I can.

This morning I walked outdoors about 40 meters to get the paper from the mailbox wearing only a t-shirt and shorts, no footwear. The temperature was at freezing point, and there was a thin layer of ice on the ground. But I suffered of no pain nor felt even a slightest incomfort. I am not a masocist. What I did is really within my zone of comfort. For this short trip I don't have to wear more. Doing it this way was practical. (Could I have done it fully naked? For the physical aspect only, yes.)

Kari P

[Abiqua]

Archaeologists, of course, often find remains of clothing, but can't generally tell whether a culture which had no written records had any actual ban against nudity.

Such bans probably developed for the first time before 8000 years ago, I would guess based on what I've read of it, and today there probably isn't any culture which is completely free of some clothing requirement. Even "primitive" cultures usually require a minimal covering of one sex even if the other sex goes nude.

As far as bare feet and light clothing are concerned, if you're comfortable with it, don't let the skeptics discourage you just because they're too timid to try it! About ten years ago, we had a snowfall that left over one foot (30 cm) on the ground, which is quite a lot here; when a car got stuck next to my house, I ran out barefoot to help push it, much to the amazement of the driver (I admit that part of the amazement might have been that someone came to help, but it was my bare feet that he commented on).

Even the most determined of nudists will put on clothes when the weather conditions become too extreme for his or her comfort level - and there are situations when clothing, including shoes, really are needed for safety. Other than that, why should we put on clothes just because someone else shivers looking at us?

Keep barefooting, Kari!

[Buzzer]

I read that when europeans first discovered the Eskimos they were amazed to find out that, when in-doors, they would shed their clothes completely.

[Gary Naturist]

I read recently of some research that determined that people originally started to wear clothes when they moved north into colder weather.

How this was determined is very interesting. The researchers found that, while there were lice on the bodies of the more northern people, there were none on the more southern people. Body lice live in clothes, not on the skin.

Using google, I found an article on this topic. Here is the URL:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-22-5074674.html

Gary

Kari

"Our species homo sapiens has used clothing during thousands of years but not originally."

It is believed that even the primates that preceded homo sapiens wore clothing. And anthropologists are certain that homo erectus wore animal skins. Human beings are no longer tree-dwelling, fur-bearing apes. Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing.

"The social aspects of clothing and finally its compulsory in certain cultures (ours included, but not every culture of the world) came later."

It's only compulsory in public places. And it is compulsory in almost every culture to cover the genitals when in public.

"Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role."

I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few.

"If you don't have a physical need to use clothes, why use them? (I use the words nudism and naturism as true synonyms, but prefer naturism because it includes the thought "back to nature".)"

There are lots of things that we don't have a physical need for, but we still use them. It's part of our culture and it's what makes us what we are. We don't need to put up Christmas trees each December - in fact it's very illogical to do so. My family aren't even Christians but we always have a Christmas tree. Cultural norms are just that - they are based on neither logic nor physical need.

"If you never try the experience of being nude, you don't know how it feels. Especially if you were nude in the free nature, you could feel the wonderful feeling of beeing free and a part of the nature itself. That's how I feel it."

Nobody is stopping you enjoying being nude. But there are times and places where you can be nude and times and places where you can't. I don't think that most people share your pleasure of bein nude. It's no more than a state of undress that is necessary to take a shower.

"That we cannot be nude constantly in our climates, doesn't take away the naturality of nudity and the pleasure it gives when we have the opportunity. We can even widen our zone of comfort to areas not initially seeming comfortable in the nude state."

Your "pleasure" a being nude is no more logical than my dislike of nudity. Both are just "feelings". But it's good and fine so long as your "pleasure" isn't someone else's offence, And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Great topic Kari,

Clothes were first created for protection from the elements. As I eluded to in the other topic, snails are not born with a shell. Does that make that shell unnatural? hermit crabs also look for their own shell to live in. But that does not mean they are being unnatural.

Humans have always lived in areas where they could have protection from the elements. Remember the term cavemen? Where do you think they lived? In caves. So could there be an argument that our fabricated homes are unnatural?

"Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing."

It is autumn right now. And when I look into the sky, I will occasionally see a flock of birds flying south. Why do they do that? Because their habitat is getting too cold and they are looking for a warmer place to live. Bears and other animals just sleep through the winter rather than deal with the cold (and lack of food). Other animals grow a thicker coat of fur for the winter. There are many ways that animals deal with a change in the habitat. If we didn't have clothing, we would be like the birds, migrating south for the winter.

"I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few."

Reread what Kari said. Nudists and naturists have decided that clothes have a specific role, and that role is for protection of the elements. When the weather is fine, there is no need for clothes. And you are right, most nudists are very resepectful of others feelings. The ones who are advocating for more places and more acceptance by society are going to be the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention. But to call it misguided is wrong.

"My family aren't even Christians but we always have a Christmas tree. Cultural norms are just that - they are based on neither logic nor physical need."

You get a Christmas Tree not out of cultural norm, but out of familial trdition. Halloween is a cultural norm over here, but there are people who don't celebrate it. A cultural norm is not a good reason for continuing to do something. It used to be cultural norm to wear full body bathing attire to go swimming.

"And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others."

And I wonder how natural it is to take offense at the sight of the human body? That would be an interesting study to do, if possible. My guess is that it is extremely recent and that it is an unnatural thing to find the human body offensive.

Bob S.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It is believed that even the primates that preceded homo sapiens wore clothing. And anthropologists are certain that homo erectus wore animal skins.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually irrelevant to the topic, but if you can, could you give links to scientific research that says this?

I am sure that if homo erectus wore animal skins, they did it only for protection of the body.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Human beings are no longer tree-dwelling, fur-bearing apes. Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. Cannot you see where the point is? You and other textile people have converted a very-often-necessity to nearly-always-must. You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's only compulsory in public places. And it is compulsory in almost every culture to cover the genitals when in public.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you are in your opinions very tight about what is a public place. I come to this in the law discussion when time permits.

About covering genitals, you earlier somewhere asked: "How it is so difficult to wear a small piece of garment?" My wife asks exactly the same way! My simple answer is: "Why I should?" I can see no such difference in my body parts that expressly the genitals should be covered in the first place. Repeatedly I am trying to say to my wife: "How that small piece of garment makes my image significantly prettier to look at? Am I ugly? Cannot you love me just the way I am?"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role."

I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have probably misunderstood me. I should have said clearer: "Nudists or naturists have put clothing back to its original and the most rational role in their only life as far as they can do it. Some of them are trying to spread acceptance to the idea in the public."

Naturism is both a lifestyle and an ideology. You have concentrated on the lifestyle part. Those of us who take the ideology most seriously are not only following it in their lives but also promoting it in the public, mostly in a benign way. With realism we cannot expect the great public to adopt our view to clothing, but we expect it to have tolerance to both our lifestyle and our attempts to spread the ideology behind it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Your "pleasure" a being nude is no more logical than my dislike of nudity. Both are just "feelings".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously you haven't understood the term "zone of comfort". It is the translation of a term I once heard in a lecture of a psychiatrist. It means simply the variety of the different environments and social situations you feel yourself comfortable in. The moral of the lesson was that widening your personal zone of comfort is a good thing, and you can do it by your own decisions. So my zone of comfort doesn't mean the places where I feel myself free to be naked or to do something else that could discomfort others, as your comment puts me to think you had understood it.

Kari P

While clothing is necessary at times to protect the body from adverse weather, clothing has never been and never will be NATURAL. Even in the cold state of Michigan we could be nude outside in the summer and maybe even at least part of the spring. The more hardy of adventurers could probably go out nude in parts of the fall and winter when the temps get up into the 60's at times.

I wear clothes because I HAVE to in order to be warm, and to keep from being arrested because other people have a problem with people being NATURAL as we were meant to be. The only REAL purpose for clothing is for body protection, but it has turned into a necessity for many people who are embarrassed by nudity and choose to make it shameful when it's perfectly natural which clothing ISN'T.

Bob

"Humans have always lived in areas where they could have protection from the elements. Remember the term cavemen? Where do you think they lived? In caves. So could there be an argument that our fabricated homes are unnatural?"

I think we have to be extremely careful about our use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" - these terms can have such a wide range of meanings they become meaningless. Short of us all returning to central Africa and living in the trees we have to recognise that our own evolution has detatched us from most aspects of nature.

"There are many ways that animals deal with a change in the habitat. If we didn't have clothing, we would be like the birds, migrating south for the winter."

That wouldn't be practicable, Bob. At least, not without using other unnatural mean of transport like cars, trains and aeroplanes.

"Reread what Kari said. Nudists and naturists have decided that clothes have a specific role, and that role is for protection of the elements. When the weather is fine, there is no need for clothes."

Oh no, Bob. Clothes do far more than just protect us from the elements. They help to give us identity, a social position, authority, and they add colour and style to our lives. They hide the fact that we are overweight, or have cellulite or scars or birthmarks etc. Clothes help us to work, to carry things we need thus freeing our hands, to stay clean (e.g. when gardening or painting). Clothes even help us to have fun! And, most important of all, in this day and age clothes protect us from exhibiting our private parts and protect others from having to see them.

"And you are right, most nudists are very resepectful of others feelings. The ones who are advocating for more places and more acceptance by society are going to be the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention. But to call it misguided is wrong."

Calling for more places is right - there is a justifiable case for that. Calling for more acceptance is misguided and wrong if it involves nudists practising their hobby in a way that is likely to cause offence to others.

"You get a Christmas Tree not out of cultural norm, but out of familial trdition."

The familial tradition is based un the cultural norn, Bob. That's why the majority of families do the same thing - or is it just a co-incidence?

"Halloween is a cultural norm over here, but there are people who don't celebrate it. A cultural norm is not a good reason for continuing to do something".

I suspect that the main reasons for people not celebrating Halloween are firstly that it is primarily aimed at children - so if you have no children in your family you don't bother, and secondly religious - there are some people who associate the festival with sinister and anti-Christian forces. A cultural norm is worth continuing if it is (a) harmless, and (b) popular. Cultural norms help to keep identity and cohesion in societies; they add colour - mitigating against the blandness which is a danger in mono-cultural societies.

"It used to be cultural norm to wear full body bathing attire to go swimming."

Fashions do change.

"And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others."

"And I wonder how natural it is to take offense at the sight of the human body? That would be an interesting study to do, if possible. My guess is that it is extremely recent and that it is an unnatural thing to find the human body offensive."

It is neither natural nor unnatural, Bob. Cultural norms sometimes become so deeply embedded that any breach of them results in widescale disgust. At one time there were public executions. People die. Is it unnatural to find the sight of criminals being put to death disgusting? Is it unnatural to find the sight of people having sexual intercourse disgusting? I suggest not. It's a cultural thing.

Kari P

"Actually irrelevant to the topic, but if you can, could you give links to scientific research that says this?"

We had a TV programme all about homo-erectus and Neanderthal man shown here last year on the BBC. They explained how the ancestors of modern man used to skin animals and tan the hides to wear. They even showed some bone tools made for this purpose.

"I am sure that if homo erectus wore animal skins, they did it only for protection of the body".

Perhaps initially. But clothes wold soon become a status symbol, a means of attracting the opposite sex, a means of showing which family or tribe you belonged to, a way of displaying your wealth etc.

"You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism."

I'm sorry, Kari, I don't know what you mean. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"And you are in your opinions very tight about what is a public place. I come to this in the law discussion when time permits".

Here a public place is quite simply any place to which the public has right of access.

"About covering genitals, you earlier somewhere asked: "How it is so difficult to wear a small piece of garment?" My wife asks exactly the same way! My simple answer is: "Why I should?""

The reason you should is to avoid causing offence to others.

"I can see no such difference in my body parts that expressly the genitals should be covered in the first place".

But others can se a difference. They don't mind if you exposeyour arms or even your chest, but not your genitals.

"Repeatedly I am trying to say to my wife: "How that small piece of garment makes my image significantly prettier to look at? Am I ugly? Cannot you love me just the way I am?"

You know that isn't the reason she wants you to cover up.

"You have probably misunderstood me. I should have said clearer: "Nudists or naturists have put clothing back to its original and the most rational role in their only life as far as they can do it. Some of them are trying to spread acceptance to the idea in the public."

OK, so nudists can tell people about what they do and invite them to try it. I'm OK with that. But what they must NEVER do is to force nudity onto others who do not want it. All that will do is antagonise the public and they will begin to think of naturists as offensive people.

"Naturism is both a lifestyle and an ideology. You have concentrated on the lifestyle part. Those of us who take the ideology most seriously are not only following it in their lives but also promoting it in the public, mostly in a benign way."

It must be ONLY in a benign way. Trying to force an ideology onto an unwilling public, whether it is Christian fundamentalism, Marxism or naturism, is doomed to failure and a great deal of misery will be caused along the way.

"With realism we cannot expect the great public to adopt our view to clothing, but we expect it to have tolerance to both our lifestyle and our attempts to spread the ideology behind it."

The public are already fairly tolerant of naturists providing they practice out of sight of the rest of us. The right to free speech also ensures that naturists have the right to tell people about their ideology an dto try to persuade them to try out the lifestyle. There is nothing objectionable about that. But if you try to force people to accept it by saying "I'm nude in public - get used to it! If you don't like it then that's your problem" that will win you lots and lots of enemies among the otherwise tolerant public. They will call for the law to be used against you.

"So my zone of comfort doesn't mean the places where I feel myself free to be naked or to do something else that could discomfort others, as your comment puts me to think you had understood it."

OK. I see what you mean, now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Jochanaan]

Very interesting topic! But the question as originally posed begs a couple of others: "What is natural?" And, "Is natural good?"

As to what is natural, I suspect we would all have different definitions, particularly those who have strong feelings one way or another about religions. The Bible describes a natural state in its first two chapters. Naturalists and other scientists have seemingly agreed on another. And other religions and belief systems have presented conflicting views. So we probably will never agree.

Many think that there's nothing wrong with crops being modified at the genetic level. (Actually, we've been doing this for millenia by breeding; we've just developed different methods in the last few years.) But many others shudder even to think of it. Some of us look around at all the pavement surrounding us and think, "What a waste of good land!"

And even if we did agree on what is natural, most would also agree that it is virtually impossible to live a completely natural life now. Think of it. No clothes. No shelter. Drink water from streams or lakes. Pluck fruits and greens for your food. Can you think of any place where we can do such things and not die of hypothermia or malaria or some other ill?

So you see the difficulties.

As for me, I try to live as naturally as I can: organic foods when my budget permits, walking or riding a bicycle where I can, and so forth. Shedding clothes when I don't need them for protection is just a part of this. Even more, it's a spiritual attempt to return to the state described in Genesis 1 and 2. I feel strongly that body shame is both unnatural and oppressive; so, with concessions to my friends and family who feel otherwise, I wear clothes when I must and take them off when I can.

[Baron Lake]

Come on Stu. "The general public is already tolerant of nudity as long as they are not confronted with it" What kind of "tolerance" is that? Also, you are not having nudity "forced" upon you. No one is forcing you to be nude. It is you and people like you who are forcing others to be clothed (under penality of law)to protect your irrational ideas. Lighten up buddy. Find another doctor, one who will give you prozac instead of mares piss! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Baron

Baron

"The general public is already tolerant of nudity as long as they are not confronted with it" What kind of "tolerance" is that?"

It means that you get naturist beaches and venues that you can use.

"Also, you are not having nudity "forced" upon you. No one is forcing you to be nude."

That's not logical. If I complain that my neighbour is playing his music too loud and he's therefore "forcing" it on me, he can't say: "well it's my music, I'm not forcing you to listen to it", can he?

That's even more relevant in public places. The way you behave in the presence of others affects those others. You can do pretty much what you like on your bit of the world (your home) but when you're out in public then you conform to certain accepted ways of behaving that the rest of us find acceptable otherwise you get removed from those places. That seems reasonable to me.

"It is you and people like you who are forcing others to be clothed (under penality of law)to protect your irrational ideas."

If you want to be naked, fine. Be naked as you like in your own private space, or in the space shared among others who are OK with it. But you don't do it in the presence of the rest of us who aren't OK with it. It's your opinion that my ideas are irrational, but that's not what I'm wanting to do any way. I just want to keep public places free from behaviour that most people find unacceptable and that makes those places less comfortable for most people to use.

"Lighten up buddy. Find another doctor, one who will give you prozac instead of mares piss!"

I'm light enough thanks. But I have a say in what happens in the places I have to use and that I own and pay to be maintained. And why the heck do I need Prozac? Just because I hold a different opinion to you doesn't mean I'm depressed. As for the mare's urine tablets - they have been flushed down the pan.

Stu

[Kari P]

It's impossible to comment on everything - just a few excerpts.

As Jochanaan says, there are many different definitions of naturality. Bob seems to be near to my thoughts. We do not have to deny the naturality of clothes no more than of our houses. They can be considered natural, too. But nudity is still our original dress, thus it is more natural than any clothing.

The question should not be of what is natural. The right way to think is to compare things - which one of two alternatives is the more natural. When we say to want to be in a natural state, we actually want to be as natural as we practically can, making our choices from available alternatives. To that point, nudity is or should be one available alternative, when the environmental conditions permit it.

Is a Christmas tree a cultural norm or not? It is not a compulsory thing, you know. Clothing is much more compulsory in our society. Thus you cannot equate the things. If you accept a Christmas tree as a family tradition, you do it by your free choice even if you give reasons for your choice by the cultural norm. It's not the same with clothes: you have no free choice.

What I mean when I say: "You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism." I give my explanation to this, but I don't want Rocket to come into this discussion.

The facts are that we have two different sexes meant for reproduction, and that a substantial part of the individuals of a population must have a sexuality corresponding to their sexes in order that population to survive (very-often-necessity). There is no acceptable logic to draw the conclusion that every individual must behave corresponding to one's sex (nearly-always-must), and to make a norm from it. Similarly, our culture dominated by textile people has made the use of clothing a norm, while the need for it is actually on the very-often-necessity level and has been raised to the nearly-always-must level by illogical reasoning.

Stu, you are right in that there are many reasons to use clothes in addition to the physical need. But you give very little choice to those people that at times care only about that single reason and don't want to use clothes when they don't have a need.

You say you give a choice: be naked, but just out of sight of people that might be offended by nudity. This isn't enough, though I and the most of us are not in the first place coming naked to the streets, shops and public parks.

I could initially accept your wish for a ban of nudity in public places. But I don't accept your definition of a public place. I say the rest of what I have to say in the law discussion.

Kari P

Kari

"Is a Christmas tree a cultural norm or not? It is not a compulsory thing, you know. Clothing is much more compulsory in our society. Thus you cannot equate the things."

I was merely pointing out that people don't always behave out of pure logic. Sometimes our behaviour is culturally conditioned and these things are not usually bad nor destructive.

"If you accept a Christmas tree as a family tradition, you do it by your free choice even if you give reasons for your choice by the cultural norm. It's not the same with clothes: you have no free choice."

You have a free choice to put up a Christmas tree in your home or not. You have a choice to be naked in your home or not. It's your home and your choice. But it would not be right to put up a Christmas tree in a public place if most people found it offensive, would it? When the authotrities do put up Christmas trees in public they do it because they believe most people will want to see it and will enjoy it.

"There is no acceptable logic to draw the conclusion that every individual must behave corresponding to one's sex (nearly-always-must), and to make a norm from it".

That's a very complex issue and not one we can do justice to here. But to me the relevant part about sexual preference is that it is, for the most part, an entirely private matter. Homosexuals do not generally have sex with each other in public - so they don't usually cause anyone offence.

"Similarly, our culture dominated by textile people has made the use of clothing a norm, while the need for it is actually on the very-often-necessity level and has been raised to the nearly-always-must level by illogical reasoning."

Firstly, virtually everyone is a textile person who sometimes is naked. I am, you are, and everyone here is. Nobody is clothed all the time and no-one is naked all the time. So all we are discussing is when and where nudity is acceptable. When you are in your own home it is your own choice. When you visit me in my home you should respect my feelings and not be naked if it offends me or my family, otherwise you should not be there. When you are in a public place you should respect the public's feelings (or the majority of the public's feelings) otherwise you should not be there. Why is this reasoning "illogical"?

"But you give very little choice to those people that at times care only about that single reason and don't want to use clothes when they don't have a need."

Of course they have a choice. They can choose to wear clothes (which they almost certainly do most of the time anyway). Or they can choose to be naked provided they are either in a private place or on a naturist beach. That is their choice.

"You say you give a choice: be naked, but just out of sight of people that might be offended by nudity. This isn't enough, though I and the most of us are not in the first place coming naked to the streets, shops and public parks."

It has to be enough. It is wholly unreasonable to expect the majority of people radically to abandon their long-held social conditioning and shift their values to tolerate what they regard as the intolerable just to accommodate the recreational preferences of a tiny minority (who, as I said, are still free to pursue their interests in other places).

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
When you are in a public place you should respect the public's feelings (or the majority of the public's feelings) otherwise you should not be there. Why is this reasoning "illogical"?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not that, you are not seeing the point. You present the reason of "the majority of the public's feelings" as a fact that has existed before the shift of the status of clothing from very-often-necessity level to nearly-always-must level. The status is now on the latter level and the people's opinion reflects it, but the level shift itself has been illogical. Shortly: The fact that clothing is very often necessary is not a logical reason to make it a must nearly always.

People have not always in the history regarded the use of clothes as compulsory. Look at http://www.naturists.com/history.html .

Kari P

[RIVERRAT]

to all, when GOD created man and women, He created them nude, he gave them the choice and the beauty of being naked.God had no problem with nudity and it was GOD'S choice for us. Until they decided to try and be GOD like, we would be nude to this day.Now man has decided to clothe, if GOD had his way clothes would not be needed. I know many of you donnot believe in GOD and I respect your right to your beliefs, but don't kick my beliefs around. GOD intended for us to be natural, so I guess man has decided GOD was wrong.

When I was young and was dancing slowly with a woman who was generously endowed, her breasts pressing against my chest was very exciting, and we were both dressed.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fashions do change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup. And they change because people push the envelope. They do things that offend others persistantly enough that people learn that the offense they were taking was merely foolishness, an affectation taken over something they discovered really wasn't important at all.

Long hair was once offensive on a man, now is considered inoffensive.

Body piercing? One time the only place a "good" girl could be pierced was the earlobe; a guy not at all. Nowadays boy and girls both are pierced in all kinds of interesting places.

Being a skinhead was offensive once and associated with only neonazi types. Now it's quite common.

At one time swimmimg in anything less than the equivalent of long underwear was illegal in many areas. The trend has been consistantly in the direction of less coverage, fueled by people who challenged the conventions. Today we have legalized toplessness in NY, Ontario and else where, Spencer Tunick has no problem photographing nude people in large numbers anywhere he wants we even have a few legal nude beaches. No reason to believe the trend won't continue.

The coming and going of fashion is not something the law has a proper place in.

aunaturelone

"Long hair was once offensive on a man, now is considered inoffensive...Body piercing? One time the only place a "good" girl could be pierced was the earlobe; a guy not at all. Nowadays boy and girls both are pierced in all kinds of interesting places."

I am old enough to remember the inception of all these things and people's initial reaction to them. And it was astonishment shock even, but never offence. I once remember reading a quotation by an English duke in which he described how ridiculous and effeminate mens fashion had become and how shocked to see some of the modern styles that young men were wearing. It was said somewhere in the latter half of the fifteenth century (I'll try to find it!) The young have always tried to extend the boundaries of fashion their parents previously set - it's normal youthgful rebellion. Nothing to do with nudity.

"Being a skinhead was offensive once and associated with only neonazi types. Now it's quite common."

Being a skinhead can be just a fashion statement like I mentioned above. But some things worn can actually be threatening and offensive and the police here have made arrests on that basis.

"At one time swimmimg in anything less than the equivalent of long underwear was illegal in many areas. The trend has been consistantly in the direction of less coverage, fueled by people who challenged the conventions."

In the first quarter of the 20th century Europe was emerging from the Victorian age of extreme prudery in which they even used to cover table legs!! It is natural that some of these excesses have been relaxed. I have a photograph of my grandfather on a beach in 1938. He is wearing swimming trunks that would look perfectly normal on a beach today. That was 65 years ago! The trend has all but reached its limit.

"Today we have legalized toplessness in NY, Ontario and else where,"

In some places authorities have legalised toplessness NOT because people are more accepting of nudity, but because they have become paranoid about "sex equality". In Europe there has been a strong trend against toplessness on beaches and it was reported this year in the Danish press. You would be hard pressed today to see a topless woman on most popular British beaches and in any public park. And bear in mind that the topless movement began in St Tropez in the early 1960s - 40 years ago!!!!

"Spencer Tunick has no problem photographing nude people in large numbers anywhere he wants..."

No. He has to plan it carefully first and consult with the owners or authorities who will ensure that nobody is likely to be offended. Provided that is prevented I have no problem with him producing his rubbish.

"...we even have a few legal nude beaches."

Nobody objects to that - I don't. There are a few naturists in the world and they have every right to be accommodated. Just so long as they don't expect every other beach to allow this particular passtime.

"The coming and going of fashion is not something the law has a proper place in."

I agree. But public nudity isn't a fashion thing - it's an offence thing and is usually, and rightly, suppressed.

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"There is no acceptable logic to draw the conclusion that every individual must behave corresponding to one's sex (nearly-always-must), and to make a norm from it".

That's a very complex issue and not one we can do justice to here. But to me the relevant part about sexual preference is that ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The question wasn't about your opinion about homosexualism, instead about the "logic" some people draw their extremely negative attitude to it with, or how they explain where it comes from.

I may have barked at the wrong tree. If I remember right, you have always mentioned the general attitudes to nudity (that you believe are as tight as your own) as the reason to ban nudity in public places, and haven't used the necessity of clothes in our climates as the actual argument. If this is right, you haven't used "Rocket logic".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Homosexuals do not generally have sex with each other in public - so they don't usually cause anyone offence.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They can cause offence to some people by their mutual expressions of love. This kind of offence is no reason to prohibit that kind of normal behaviour which is generally accepted between heterosexuals or between parents and children. So this is one example of behaviour that may be offending to someone but is still acceptable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It has to be enough.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are far from each other in our opinion. As I said in the law discussion, you would with your law take away already recognized rights.

In this not-naturist country where I live, people know that the law guarantees the home privacy for everyone, including the right to do any legal things in one's home and its yard. When it comes to breach of peace, the police could stop that doing, but I don't believe that there are many people in Finland who would call the police if their neighbor appeared casually nude on his/her own yard or was seen nude at the window. The people would only ignore it. If random occurrences change to a regular mode, then making some obstacle of sight is a good idea to keep harmony with the neighbor. But that is not required by law.

In summer many Finnish people live in a "cottage" (nowadays they are built as any other house with all modern conveniences) at a lake or the sea. My family, too. Many people swim naked at their cottages being possibly visible to their neighbors or boats passing by. People can also sometimes be naked on their boats. No one would take these as an offence.

Once I and my wife saw a man and a boy skinny-dipping in the harbor of a town when we (only we two) were on a cruiser. This happened about 15 years ago when both of us were non-naturists. We thought what we saw as nothing special.

Our own land, where our summer home is located, is small and with open sight from the neighbors and the road which ends there. Our neighbors have seen meen naked many times, and this has not changed the way they look at me. When they are away, I feel myself free to be naked all the time on our own land and its immediate environment. I have gone for walks in the forest naked (and barefoot), and I have once cycled on the quiet road about two kilometers back and forth; one man (who knows me) saw me and said nothing then nor later.

I don't want any law that would criminalize what I have done and will be doing the next summers. Stu can say that everything is OK because the neighbors have already seen me naked and not objected. But if any tight-minded person ever comes too near to our land (unfamiliar people do it often, when they turn back at the end of the road which is above our house, and they also have seen me naked) or encounters me on trail when I am naked, according to Stu's law he/she has the right to object - and that's the end of the joy.

So, there is already so much toleration of nudity that Stu's law would be a deterioration to the current situation. People already tolerate and can be teached to tolerate much more nudity than he suspects.

Kari P

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I am old enough to remember the inception of all these things and people's initial reaction to them. And it was astonishment shock even, but never offence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, wasn't it? I too am old enough to remember the beginnings of the long-hair renaissance (and it is that; throughout history men have worn their hair long as often as short--look at most pictures of Jesus Christ or our ill-fated General Custer) and there was lots of offense, with preachers such as David Wilkerson objecting to it from the pulpit. (Rev. Wilkerson, thankfully, changed his views later.) My own stepbrother was long-haired, and he was threatened more than once by short-haired bullies. When I went to college in the late 1970s my conservative Christian alma mater had a rule against long hair on men (and against beards, which made even less sense).

Oh, and nudity was and is very much a part of the hippie movement. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kari

"The question wasn't about your opinion about homosexualism, instead about the "logic" some people draw their extremely negative attitude to it with, or how they explain where it comes from."

It has various origins. To some people homosexuality is a sin and contrary to the Bible. To others it is simply a form of sexual perversion - rather like paedophilia - except that there are no victims. Many people today accept that people of the same sex live together as a man and woman do but they would not like it if they showed the same sort of affection in public.

"I may have barked at the wrong tree. If I remember right, you have always mentioned the general attitudes to nudity (that you believe are as tight as your own) as the reason to ban nudity in public places..."

Correct

"...and haven't used the necessity of clothes in our climates as the actual argument. If this is right, you haven't used "Rocket logic".

As I said, clothes are not just there to protect us from the elements. That is just one of the uses of clothing.

"So this is one example of behaviour that may be offending to someone but is still acceptable."

Is it acceptable? I'm not sure that it is.

"We are far from each other in our opinion. As I said in the law discussion, you would with your law take away already recognized rights."

My proposed law is for my own country where there are no recognised rights to be nude anywhere in public apart from naturist beaches.

"... but I don't believe that there are many people in Finland who would call the police if their neighbor appeared casually nude on his/her own yard or was seen nude at the window."

They would here! You see - we have a very different culture.

"Many people swim naked at their cottages being possibly visible to their neighbors or boats passing by. People can also sometimes be naked on their boats. No one would take these as an offence."

Again that would be very unusual here in England and the police cold very well be called and at the very least require the naked people to cover up and be decent in public. If they refused there is no doubt they would be arrested.

"I have gone for walks in the forest naked (and barefoot), and I have once cycled on the quiet road about two kilometers back and forth; one man (who knows me) saw me and said nothing then nor later."

Don't try that in England!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I don't want any law that would criminalize what I have done and will be doing the next summers."

You may not - but how do others feel about it? If they are OK about it then that's fine. Here most people would not beOK about it so you shouldn't do it.

"But if any tight-minded person ever comes too near to our land (unfamiliar people do it often, when they turn back at the end of the road which is above our house, and they also have seen me naked) or encounters me on trail when I am naked, according to Stu's law he/she has the right to object - and that's the end of the joy."

Aren't they too allowed to have joy? To be able to go for a walk without seeing something they think is disgusting? Here people would complain - I would complain!

"So, there is already so much toleration of nudity that Stu's law would be a deterioration to the current situation"

My law would make your country better for people like me and worse for people like you. Perhaps there are many people in Finland who feel as I do - like your wife, perhaps?

"People already tolerate and can be teached to tolerate much more nudity than he suspects."

Nobody has the right to try to "teach" people to tolerate disgusting behaviour. People already know what they like and are prepared to tolerate and minority interest groups shouldn't try to change deep-seated values of the majority just to make life slightly more convenient for themselves.

Jochanaan

"Oh, wasn't it? I too am old enough to remember the beginnings of the long-hair renaissance (and it is that; throughout history men have worn their hair long as often as short--look at most pictures of Jesus Christ or our ill-fated General Custer) and there was lots of offense, with preachers such as David Wilkerson objecting to it from the pulpit".

Religious zealouts will take offence at anything. The ordinary people of the UK's first experienced long hair since WW2 was on The Beatles (if you call that style 'long'). The talk in those days was that they looked scruffy, or effeminate, or just plain silly. There was no "offence" such as people turning away in disgust or complaining to the authorities. It was just "the young folks putting on the style".

"My own stepbrother was long-haired, and he was threatened more than once by short-haired bullies".

Youngsters who identify with a particular style-group or youth subculture have always been vulnerable to this by opposing factions. Do you really think that short-haired youths were literally "offended" by the sight of long-haired youths in the way that a woman with a child would be offended by the sight of a naked man in a park? I don't think so.

"When I went to college in the late 1970s my conservative Christian alma mater had a rule against long hair on men (and against beards, which made even less sense)."

At my son's school they have a rule that boys can't wear ear-rings. That doesn't mean that the staff are offended by the sight of a boy sporting such a trinket.

"Oh, and nudity was and is very much a part of the hippie movement."

Yes, and thankfully that movement, with its unwashed adherents, hallucinogenic drugs and anti-war slogans is gradually fading into the obscurity of time.

Stu

[DanishNaturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In Europe there has been a strong trend against toplessness on beaches and it was reported this year in the Danish press.
Stu [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuse me, but what makes makes you think that? I am a Dane, and I have not seen any such reports. Besides, skinnydipping (that means toplessness, too) is allowed on ALL but two of Denmark's beaches, and I have yet to meet someone, who thinks that this should not be the case.

By the way: What is wrong with "anti-war slogans"?

Danish

"Excuse me, but what makes makes you think that? I am a Dane, and I have not seen any such reports."

Then you obviously don't read "Politiken". I was in DK in July and August this year and there was half a page on the subject in one edition. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They contrasted the situation in the mid 1970s with the scorching summer of 2003 and asked why there were fewer topless women on Danish beaches - and most women that were topless were Germans. The same report was also mentioned on the radio (the national talk station - is that DR1?)

"Besides, skinnydipping (that means toplessness, too) is allowed on ALL but two of Denmark's beaches, and I have yet to meet someone, who thinks that this should not be the case."

Me too. I have seen toplessness on Danish beaches - but it's getting less common every year I come. I have never seen total nudity probably because it never seems to happen on most Danish beaches. I have a very close friend in the Rigspoliti and she lives just west of K?ge and she told me that she has never seen skinnydipping on the beach she normally visits nor any other beach in DK (she doesn't go to the "fribadestrande"). So I have the evidence of my own eyes - I have lived in DK temporarily and I visit the country at least twice a year - and a friend who is a native Dane. Now you're not going to tell me that nudity is a common sight on the popular beaches on, say, Zealand, e.g. Stillinge Strand, Karreb?ksminde, Sj?llands Odde, Fakse Ladeplads, or on M?n. These are just some of the beaches I have enjoyed for weeks over the past three years and I have yet to see a single nudist!

"By the way: What is wrong with "anti-war slogans"?"

They're pointless.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"I think we have to be extremely careful about our use of the words "natural" and "unnatural""

OK stu, define them. Natural to me means that it is the way that nature intended, something found in nature. Since humans are born naked, that is our natural state. Any additions to that state, be they clothing, paint, jewelry, etc. are not natural as they are not an intrigal part of the human body.

"Short of us all returning to central Africa and living in the trees we have to recognise that our own evolution has detatched us from most aspects of nature."

Our own technological advances have done that. Controlled fire gave us light and heat at night. The wheel gave us a way to transport things. Stone tools gave us a way to separate the skin from the animal carcass. Our increasing intellectual ability and learning gave us more power over our environment.

And evolution has made it so that we are not able to live in trees. We have no tails or long toes. We are best suited for the land. We can live off the land if we learned how. It is our own advancement that has made us unlearned about how to live off the land. But it can be done. Go camping in a forest. You can survivfe with nothing but your own wits

"That wouldn't be practicable, Bob. At least, not without using other unnatural mean of transport like cars, trains and aeroplanes."

It may not be practical, but it can be done. Scientists suggest that the first humans to arrive on the North American continent came via the Bering Land Bridge, now the Bering Straight. And yet, indigenous peoples are all over this continent from Florida to Alasaka.

"They help to give us identity, a social position, authority, and they add colour and style to our lives."

All of that can be done without clothes. Just a bit of paint made from animal blood or plant dyes can co the trick.

"They hide the fact that we are overweight, or have cellulite or scars or birthmarks etc."

Clothes cannot disguise someone who is overweight. Scars and birthmarks can also be covered by paint as well. Cellulite hatred is cultural.

"Clothes help us to work, to carry things we need thus freeing our hands, to stay clean (e.g. when gardening or painting)."

Women in some cultures carry large baskets on their heads. A utility belt can also help out.

"Clothes even help us to have fun!"

That is true, but I was referring to utilitarian reasons for clothes.

"in this day and age clothes protect us from exhibiting our private parts and protect others from having to see them."

That's only because of the law. How about natural reasons for clothes? And why do you say that it is "{protecting} others from having to see them"? They do not need "protection" from nakedness.

"A cultural norm is worth continuing if it is (a) harmless, and (b) popular."

And cultural norms can get started if they fall under those same categotries. Skinny-dipping should fall under that category.

"Fashions do change."

That wasn't the reason for the bathing costume. It was to protect the eyes of others from seeing bare navels, thighs, and any other body part that was considered as unacceptable to show in public.

"Cultural norms sometimes become so deeply embedded that any breach of them results in widescale disgust."

Nudity does not result in widescale disgust. It results from the unexpectedness of seeing a naked body combined with the realization that it is illegal. It also comes from misguided and unhealthy teaching that the body is sinful to look at. The result is confusion when it comes to the human body.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Another question stu, besides the law, give me one reason for the use of swimming trunks in the water.

"He is wearing swimming trunks that would look perfectly normal on a beach today. That was 65 years ago! The trend has all but reached its limit."

Speedos are accepted on beaches now, stu. That wouldn't have been good 65 years ago. Trends do continue, sometimes repeat, and sometimes change. The only reason why nudity has not hit the popularity it could have is because those who enjoy it have accepted some beaches away from others, have been too nice to others who choose not to try it, are afraid of what others would do if they found out about it, and/or are afraid of being arrested.

"In some places authorities have legalised toplessness NOT because people are more accepting of nudity, but because they have become paranoid about "sex equality"."

So you are saying that women should not be equal to men? Breasts are only wrong if they are women's breasts. Fat men can have similar sized breasts, but they are fine because they are not on a woman.

"But public nudity isn't a fashion thing - it's an offence thing and is usually, and rightly, suppressed."

This coming from a person who gets irrationally anxious upon seeing a naked female or someone else seeing him naked. This coming from someone who thinks the penis, vagina, butt, and female breast are repugnant to look at. You can't see it as a fashion thing. All you see is the ugliness of it.

"It is wholly unreasonable to expect the majority of people radically to abandon their long-held social conditioning and shift their values"

I agree with you in a sense, stu. I don't think that even Steve Gough was expecting to change society with one walk. Not even Vincent Bethell was expecting to do that. He was trying to prove that it was not illegal. It is going to take a concerted effort combining getting the word out, inviting people to nude venues, amazing PR and maybe even some natural nudity to change social conditioning. But it can be done. Do people want it? They won't know if they still are conditioned against nudity.

Bob S.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"But if any tight-minded person ever comes too near to our land (unfamiliar people do it often, when they turn back at the end of the road which is above our house, and they also have seen me naked) or encounters me on trail when I am naked, according to Stu's law he/she has the right to object - and that's the end of the joy."

Aren't they too allowed to have joy? To be able to go for a walk without seeing something they think is disgusting? Here people would complain - I would complain!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Those people turning on the road above our house come usually by car. Some walkers and joggers have been seen too, and I don't remember times when I had then been nude outdoors. But it can happen.

Yes, it is a joy to just walk, to look at the nature and to hear birds singing. The walker who approaches my house sees that the road ends and branches to private yards (ours and our neighbors' on the both sides). At the point where a casual walker could see our yard and possibly me there naked, he/she is already at a distance of less than 100 meters from our land. He/she should anyway turn back soon, and so he/she probably does right away when seeing me. I cannot believe that someone could be offended at the sight nor be disappointed for that he/she "couldn't" (I am not denying it) walk up to the very end of the road.

See that I am naked at home, on my own land, and doing nothing pervert nor illegal. Believe or not, there aren't many people like you who would see it disgusting. If you happened to walk there, would you really call the police? The police is 20 km away, and they would say: "That's not extremely unusual. He has the right to be naked there on his own land. We will not come there because there is no reason." This is the situation with the current law, I don't want your law.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Perhaps there are many people in Finland who feel as I do - like your wife, perhaps?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I cannot talk with her! From the fact that we still live together I draw the conclusion that she has adapted to my nudity, despite all of her dirty talk. I don't want to handle this more.

Kari P

[Nude in the North]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Stu

"Besides, skinnydipping (that means toplessness, too) is allowed on ALL but two of Denmark's beaches, and I have yet to meet someone, who thinks that this should not be the case."

Me too. I have seen toplessness on Danish beaches - but it's getting less common every year I come. I have never seen total nudity probably because it never seems to happen on most Danish beaches. I have a very close friend in the Rigspoliti and she lives just west of K?ge and she told me that she has never seen skinnydipping on the beach she normally visits nor any other beach in DK (she doesn't go to the "fribadestrande"). So I have the evidence of my own eyes - I have lived in DK temporarily and I visit the country at least twice a year - and a friend who is a native Dane. I have yet to see a single nudist!/QUOTE]

I'm a bit confused by all this Stu.
You say that you can't stand the sight of a nude person yet you travel to a country where it is legal to be nude several times a year. You even go to the beaches, where you would have the most likely chance to see someone topless or nude.
Wouldn't someone that Hated the site of Human Flesh as much as you do avoid going to those places at all costs??

And you claim that if Nudity laws were relaxed , so people could be nude in more public places, There would be nude people everywhere. Yet from your own experience you have seen that not to be the case.
You have traveled to a country where nudity in public is legal and yet you have never seen someone nude in that country in any of the public places you have visited.

Doesn't this make your fears seem a bit irrational?

Steve

[DanishNaturist]

"Then you obviously don't read "Politiken". I was in DK in July and August this year and there was half a page on the subject in one edition. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They contrasted the situation in the mid 1970s with the scorching summer of 2003 and asked why there were fewer topless women on Danish beaches - and most women that were topless were Germans. The same report was also mentioned on the radio (the national talk station - is that DR1?)"

That might be the case, but at the same time there has been a lot of articles in the newspapers (among others Information and Belingske Tidende) and reports on TV, primarily TV2, that were very positive about naturism.

"I have never seen total nudity probably because it never seems to happen on most Danish beaches. I have a very close friend in the Rigspoliti and she lives just west of K?ge and she told me that she has never seen skinnydipping on the beach she normally visits nor any other beach in DK (she doesn't go to the "fribadestrande")...I have yet to see a single nudist!"

Well, if you look for them, you will actually see skinnydippers on most of the popular beaches in Denmark. The Danish beachgoers show mutual respect; the naturists stay on the more secluded spots and don't wander into the textile parts of the beaches as they don't want to offend the textiles, while the textiles just stay on the non-nude parts of the beaches and leave the naturists alone if they don't want to see them.

"By the way: What is wrong with "anti-war slogans"?"
"They're pointless."

Well, I have no problem seing a point with anti-war slogans; it is important always to think for yourself and, to a certain extent, question the authorities.

[Johno]

All of the posts have been interesting, but allow me to discuss the broader topic of why the majority of people have the view that particular parts of the body are offensive and as such must be covered up.

The answer is simple, people are products of habit. All of the events which have made up their lives since birth have given them an opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.

If, for your entire life, you are told that nudity is bad, when you grow up you will most likely continue feeling that way.

During our history, clothing went very gradually from a neccessity in some situations (for warmth, protection etc) to a neccessity in all situations (primarily for protecting genitalia).

Many people have discussed whether being naked is 'natural' or not, whether it is 'right' or not. The truth is nobody can possibly know because we are all products of a culture and upbringing and as such have views which have been thrust upon us. Removing these views and becoming completely objective is a much more difficult task than people would think.

This does no only occur in the argument of nakedness. Taking a very simple and more recent example, driving a car. How many people here would hesitate to drive a car?, not because of the environmental consequences, but the life threatening consequeces. I haven't done my research so I'm not sure, but my understanding is that the number of people who die each year from car accidents is far greater than the number of people who die from some of the most deadly diseases. Yet, people grow up driving cars so they just accept it. Contrast this with people's views of planes, which kills an incredibly smaller number of people, and you'll see what I mean. People aren't brought up on flighing in planes.

Let me rephrase the above paragraph. Assume someone invented a teleporting device, which was capable of transporting people to any destination instantly. There was 1 catch, 1 in 100 million people randomly didn't survive. Could you imagine the outcry if this was thrust upon people? My guess would be that very few people would take the risk (with billions of people in the world, and assuming everyone used it twice a day, over 100 people would die per day, over 36,500 per year. imagine if a disease killed that many in a year, it would be classed a plague). The reason?, people have not been brought up on it, so they are generally against it.

I have digressed a fair way from the topic of nudity but I felt it would help get my point across, which is that there is no right or wrong overall, only that for individual people who have been influenced by their experiences.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the word 'change'. People, in general, don't like change. If they've been told all their life that driving in cars is ok, they'll do it. If they've been told all their life that other people's genitalia are rude, they believe it.

Danish

"That might be the case, but at the same time there has been a lot of articles in the newspapers (among others Information and Belingske Tidende) and reports on TV, primarily TV2, that were very positive about naturism."

It's the same here. The public is not anti-naturist and neither am I. I just support segregation.

"The Danish beachgoers show mutual respect; the naturists stay on the more secluded spots and don't wander into the textile parts of the beaches as they don't want to offend the textiles, while the textiles just stay on the non-nude parts of the beaches and leave the naturists alone if they don't want to see them."

Thank you. You have illustrated my point beautifully. Danish naturists are content to use beaches and parts of beaches away from the textiles because they know that the textiles prefer not to see nudity. So Danish naturists aren't trying to be allowed to be naked on any part of any beach they like - they are far too considerate for that. My friend in the Rigspoliti told me that when naturists have strayed onto popular textile beaches there have been complaints and even a few people charged with "uanst?ndig blottelse af legemet" - but this is rare. This is how it should be.

"Well, I have no problem seing a point with anti-war slogans; it is important always to think for yourself and, to a certain extent, question the authorities."

OK, but I don't have much time for slogans generally. If you want to argue something you should do so properly and not just throw slogans about.

Johno

"If, for your entire life, you are told that nudity is bad, when you grow up you will most likely continue feeling that way."

Nobody that I know is told that nudity is bad. They are just told that there is a time and place for nudity and that to be nude in the wrong place or at the wrong time is at the very least bad maners and at worst highly offensive.

Stu

[fns]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
While clothing is necessary at times to protect the body from adverse weather, clothing has never been and never will be NATURAL. Even in the cold state of Michigan we could be nude outside in the summer and maybe even at least part of the spring. The more hardy of adventurers could probably go out nude in parts of the fall and winter when the temps get up into the 60's at times.

I wear clothes because I HAVE to in order to be warm, and to keep from being arrested because other people have a problem with people being NATURAL as we were meant to be. The only REAL purpose for clothing is for body protection, but it has turned into a necessity for many people who are embarrassed by nudity and choose to make it shameful when it's perfectly natural which clothing ISN'T. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bravo, Jon-Marc, truer words have never been written or spoken. Those who continue to argue against public nudity due to morality, or whatever their arguement is, miss the whole point, which you have stated succinctly.

fns

"Those who continue to argue against public nudity due to morality, or whatever their arguement is, miss the whole point, which you have stated succinctly."

Clothing may have been invented by cavemen to protect them from the elements, but we have come along way since then. We are complex human beings with a long cultural history from which values and norms have taken root in our collective psyche.

Clothing today is far more than merely a way of protecting us from the elements just as we don't any longer just have sex to procreate, or drink wine to quench a thirst. Clothing plays a role in our identity, our role and status, and our ego. Clothing tells others about us - our sex, our mood, our current activity, our job, our religion or nationality and even what football team we support.

The publc places we enjoy were designed and built BECAUSE we are sophisticated and BECAUSE we have values and identities. If you want to live in a sophisticated culture and enjoy the benefits that lifestyle confers then abide by the norms and traditions of that culture. If you want a totally natural lifestyle then go and live in a cave where your nudity won't be of too much concern to the bats and the bugs who share your environment.

Stu

[NudeAl]

Yes clothing is used to segregate, to diferentiate and to show what part of the social stratum you are a part of. Nudity is a great equalizer in this respect. I know I run the risk of sounding like a Marxist or Socialist here but it puts us in contact with others that come from a wide range of backgrounds. And we might never run into some of these people outside of this environment. This in turn allows us to exchange ideas and information and perhaps break down certain preconceived ideas or misconceptions we have formed about a certain segment of our society. It is truely the great equalizer of men and women. We are laid bare to the world and are showing how vulnerable we can be. In this way it must be seen to be the most natural state, this side of heaven, we humans can exist in. A lot of the clothes we wear define us by saying to the world how we want to be percieved, nudity breaks that down.

[Trailscout]

Stu,

I realize that in a complex society in a temperate climate, clothes are likely to be around for a long time in certain settings, but what precept of civility demands that a gentleman be dressed at all times and all situations?. After all, the clothes you wear to a sporting event are not likely what you would wear to the office.

In some future society when nudity is encouraged and celebrated, nudity would be a logical option for people out for a swim, gardening, playing a game of tennis at the neighborhood park, perhaps even jogging down the road on a summer day.

There is no need to identify our social role and status while swimming at the neighborhood pool.

In my father's day, a boy could swim nude in the river just outside of town and it created no moral crisis. He and his brother were regular skinnydippers there. People in his town tended to be well-mannered, polite and many were well-educated. My father is not a barbarian. He has a college degree and has dedicated his free time to the arts, music and the advancement of his knowledge of good literature. I would daresay that western society has lost some of its nobility if it so disdains God's highest creation, the human body, that it denies its citizens even the briefest moments of naked communion with the elements in an innocent moment of recreation.

[Bob S.]

"We are complex human beings with a long cultural history from which values and norms have taken root in our collective psyche."

And not all of those values and norms are necessarily good. Values and norms come and go. In the early part of last century, eugenics was popular all over the world. The thought that selective breeding could eliminate certain maladies in our gene pool was common sense to everyone. This led to sterilizations of many millions of people in the US, I'm sure also in England and Europe. Of course in Germany, they were taking this pseudoscience to its extreme.

Tattoos were considered as wholly inappropriate in the 50s. They were something that drunks and raunchy sailors got. Over the next 4 decades, tattoos slowly became popular until these days where it is considered somewhat commonplace. Same with body piercings. When the Beatles went on the Merv Griffin Show, they were chastized for having long hair. Elvis was shown from the waist up so that the television audience didn't have to see his gyrating hips.

All it is going to take is a concerted effort from nudists/naturists for societal attitudes to change from non-acceptance to at meast tolerance. I don't think Main Street will gain acceptance, but beaches with no real boundaries, parks in the middle of the city, etc. will become tolerated.

"Clothing plays a role in our identity, our role and status, and our ego."

Yes. It can identify certain professionals in their field. It can make statements. It can act as a billboard. It can tell others that you have money.

"Clothing tells others about us - our sex, our mood, our current activity, our job, our religion or nationality and even what football team we support."

That first one, watch out. Ever heard of transvestites? Cross Dressers? The wearing of black is generally meant for mourning, although now it has more uses.

"If you want to live in a sophisticated culture and enjoy the benefits that lifestyle confers then abide by the norms and traditions of that culture."

But at the same time, it is your responsibility to attempt to make any changes to that culture that you deem fit.

Bob S.

[stevenf64]

Stu or Rocket or whoever..
I know that you gents are against nudity. And you say it has a lot to do with descensy(sp).
My guestion to you is you dont like think ppl should show off the beauty of the human body but if they wear those little leave nothing to the imagination bathing suits that go out of their way to scream look at these parts, its ok...
Just wondering
Steve

Al

?Yes clothing is used to segregate, to differentiate and to show what part of the social stratum you are a part of. Nudity is a great equalizer in this respect.?

Indeed it is. But even those at the bottom of the social pile want to retain their clothed identity ? indeed they are often proud of it! You obviously appreciate the ?equalising? effect of nudity and see it as a benefit Great! Keep on doing it with others who are like-minded to yourself.

Trailscout

??but what precept of civility demands that a gentleman be dressed at all times and all situations??

It doesn?t ? of course there are times and places where it may be appropriate to be nude.

?In some future society when nudity is encouraged and celebrated, nudity would be a logical option for people out for a swim, gardening, playing a game of tennis at the neighborhood park, perhaps even jogging down the road on a summer day.?

You are making a dangerous assumption here ? namely that the future belongs to those who hold your particular outlook on this. Naturism has been practiced for many decades ? perhaps even more than a century. In that time it has waxed and waned ? come into and out of fashion many times. The same can be said of nudity itself.

?There is no need to identify our social role and status while swimming at the neighborhood pool.?

There is no need to, no, but even there people tend to follow the broader rules of social conduct and stay clothed. Many women actually enjoy choosing and wearing brightly-coloured or designer swimwear, whilst both sexes use such garments to hide physical imperfections.

?In my father's day, a boy could swim nude in the river just outside of town and it created no moral crisis. He and his brother were regular skinnydippers there.?

What is acceptable in children is not necessarily so with adults. What would have happened if a grown-up couple had done the same?

?I would daresay that western society has lost some of its nobility if it so disdains God's highest creation, the human body that it denies its citizens even the briefest moments of naked communion with the elements in an innocent moment of recreation.?

As a non-believer I am unable to relate to such points constructively.

Bob

?And not all of those values and norms are necessarily good. Values and norms come and go?.

Indeed so. But that doesn?t mean to say that we should abandon all those we have now because a small minority wants us to accept something.

?In the early part of last century, eugenics was popular all over the world. The thought that selective breeding could eliminate certain maladies in our gene pool was common sense to everyone. This led to sterilizations of many millions of people in the US, I'm sure also in England and Europe. Of course in Germany, they were taking this pseudoscience to its extreme.?

An excellent example of why we should be suspicious of any new wisdom but instead build upon existing values!

?Tattoos were considered as wholly inappropriate in the 50s. They were something that drunks and raunchy sailors got. Over the next 4 decades, tattoos slowly became popular until these days where it is considered somewhat commonplace. Same with body piercings.?

I find tattoos and body-piercings to be gross. But if people choose to damage themselves in these ways then that?s their business. I don?t like them but I can?t say I generally find them offensive.

?When the Beatles went on the Merv Griffin Show, they were chastized for having long hair. Elvis was shown from the waist up so that the television audience didn't have to see his gyrating hips.?

Sure, fashion changes with the weather. I?ve seen far worse than long-hair and gyrating hips. Some of the sights could be described as a ?culture shock?, but I?d never claim they caused me offence. Punk rockers and Goths are just kids putting on the style ? they look outlandish but not offensive.

?All it is going to take is a concerted effort from nudists/naturists for societal attitudes to change from non-acceptance to at least tolerance. I don't think Main Street will gain acceptance, but beaches with no real boundaries, parks in the middle of the city, etc. will become tolerated.?

I see no signs of this happening, Bob. From what I have seen here, and been told privately, the typical naturist is male, white, middle-aged and middle-class. In other words, naturists are often people exactly like me! Now I don?t see young people regarding me nor my generation etc as role-models for what is fashionable. Relatively speaking, it seems that, for example, very few young women find naturism appealing, nor do most teenagers.

I wonder what you mean by ?concerted effort? as well. It doesn?t matter how much effort you put in, I don?t think you are going to encourage hoards of newbies to start coming along to naturist beaches and venues. So what?s left? Lawbreaking? FORCING nudity upon an unwilling public (e.g. like Mr Gough)? Try that and you?ll not win converts, you?ll win lots and lots of public hostility ? then wait for the inevitable backlash!

I think your optimism is unfounded.

"Clothing tells others about us - our sex, our mood, our current activity, our job, our religion or nationality and even what football team we support."

?But at the same time, it is your responsibility to attempt to make any changes to that culture that you deem fit.?

I agree. So let?s have lots and lots more naturist venues to accommodate your needs. In return, if you use other public places, stay decent!
Stevenf64

?Stu or Rocket or whoever..?

Rocket has taken off, but I?m still on the launch pad ? at least for the time being.

?I know that you gents are against nudity. And you say it has a lot to do with decency.?

We?re against inappropriate public nudity because we find it revolting and offensive.

?My question to you is you don?t like think ppl should show off the beauty of the human body??

Firstly, I don?t think human bodies are especially beautiful ? no even my own (have you seen my picture ? yuk!). Secondly, I have no problem with people showing off any part of their bodies in private, and most parts of their bodies in public. But there are bits that should be covered up in public.

?but if they wear those little leave nothing to the imagination bathing suits that go out of their way to scream look at these parts, its ok...?

Yeah, they are fine. So long as they cover the rude bits.

Stu

[stevenf64]

Stu you think that the body is not a beutiful thing. And that how someone looks is all thats important. You also think that its ok to cover with dental floss and that makes it ok... Stu I really do feel sorry for you.
I hope someday that you will have an eye opening experience. If your kids or your wife became a nudist, or heaven forbid you walked in on a naked person, would your heart take it? You will some day stand naked before the LORD and I dont know how you will tell him that what he created is ugly.
well whatever
Steve

[Bob S.]

"You are making a dangerous assumption here ? namely that the future belongs to those who hold your particular outlook on this."

How is that a dangerous assumption? He didn't state what country, he just stated "In some future society". Are all hypothetical situations dangerous? Are our dreams dangerous? He didn't even go into detail about how this future soceity came into being. Would it be a dangerous assumption to say...In some future society where no one is ever naked in public..."?

"What is acceptable in children is not necessarily so with adults."

So at what age should one not be allowed to skinny-dip? What age separates innocent childhood nudity from wrongful adult nudity? Is it when the child starts puberty? Is there a certain size of the girl's breasts? Should there be so many pubic hairs? Is it at a specific age? If so, that could make a child who is two years into puberty fine, but one who hasn't started growing wrong.

"An excellent example of why we should be suspicious of any new wisdom but instead build upon existing values!"

Eugenics was built on existing values.

"I see no signs of this happening, Bob."

Because the efforts have not started in earnest, yet.

"I wonder what you mean by ?concerted effort? as well. It doesn?t matter how much effort you put in, I don?t think you are going to encourage hoards of newbies to start coming along to naturist beaches and venues."

Concerted effort is bringing naturism "to the people." (Not as in lawbreaking, which I have said repeatedly is better for overturning laws, not gaining public support). Talk about it, more of us need to "come out" (myself included), more media exposure, better ideas for getting first timers interetsed, and a whole host of other ideas.

"I think your optimism is unfounded."

Every cause I believe in I also believe is a righteous cause. I am a generally optimistic person overall and I feel that eventually, nakedness will become more or less, a minor distraction at beaches and at certain parks. I also believe that, as we speak, the country is slowly becoming legal for women to become topfree. That is the first start.

"We?re against inappropriate public nudity"

Please define for everyone once more what public is to you. Whenever I see the term public, I think of an urban scene. I will assume that you are also talking about textile beaches as well.

" I have no problem with people showing off any part of their bodies in private, and most parts of their bodies in public"

So could I wear a sock in the front and strip of fabric about 2" on the backside? You would not be able to see my "bits."

Bob S.

Steven

"Stu you think that the body is not a beutiful thing. And that how someone looks is all thats important."

I don't care how they look, I just don't want to see them naked.

"You also think that its ok to cover with dental floss and that makes it ok... Stu I really do feel sorry for you."

Awww Poor Stu. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I hope someday that you will have an eye opening experience. If your kids or your wife became a nudist..."

There is practically no chance of that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If my kids DID want to be nudists then that's fine, so long as they weren't nude in my presence.

"..or heaven forbid you walked in on a naked person, would your heart take it?"

I'd be shocked and revolted, but I'd survive.

"You will some day stand naked before the LORD and I dont know how you will tell him that what he created is ugly."

I'm not blaming God because He didn't create humankind. Evolution did. The same evolution that also created toads and slugs and they're pretty ugly.

Bob S.

"How is that a dangerous assumption? He didn't state what country, he just stated "In some future society". Are all hypothetical situations dangerous? Are our dreams dangerous? He didn't even go into detail about how this future soceity came into being. Would it be a dangerous assumption to say...In some future society where no one is ever naked in public..."?"

To predict the future with certainty almost inevitably leads to disappointment. That's what I meant by "dangerous".

"So at what age should one not be allowed to skinny-dip? What age separates innocent childhood nudity from wrongful adult nudity? Is it when the child starts puberty? Is there a certain size of the girl's breasts? Should there be so many pubic hairs? Is it at a specific age? If so, that could make a child who is two years into puberty fine, but one who hasn't started growing wrong."

Personally I don't think children should skinnydip at all. Mine were NEVER allowed to run about naked and they never seemed inclined to do that anyway. If I had to set a specific age I'd say about three or four because at that age they are becoming accustomed to social norms of behaviour.

"Because the efforts have not started in earnest, yet."

I could be wrong but I suspect they won't start in ernest. I think most naturists are far too sensible to try to force acceptance upon a wider public that's far from being ready for it.

"Concerted effort is bringing naturism "to the people." (Not as in lawbreaking, which I have said repeatedly is better for overturning laws, not gaining public support). Talk about it, more of us need to "come out" (myself included), more media exposure, better ideas for getting first timers interetsed, and a whole host of other ideas."

Now that's fine in my book. Naturism is sometimes perceived as being a rather private, suspicious and unwelcoming world. Yes, you will get some success with this - if you are sufficiently united and committed and you are see as reasonable and considerate.

"Please define for everyone once more what public is to you. Whenever I see the term public, I think of an urban scene. I will assume that you are also talking about textile beaches as well."

A public place is any place to which the public has right of access.

"So could I wear a sock in the front and strip of fabric about 2" on the backside? You would not be able to see my "bits."

You's look ridiculous but I wouldn't object to that. I might laugh though! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[NUDKIWI]

Stu,
I cant believe it,it has finally happened,after all the posts i have read of yours,after all the comments i,ve seen you make,you have actually posted a comment that i agree TOTALLY with;
" Awww Poor Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif "

Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Suntied]

Just imagine....

My mother was a large woman, her pubic hairs were completely covered by her large belly. However, she was the sweetest woman I have ever known. Nobody cared that she was big.

When I was in math class, this bully came up to me and made fun of my little wanger... everybody else thought he was a total idiot and he was soon shunned from all recreational activities.

I saw this beatiful girl outside the icecream shop, her eyes were like emeraldes, her breasts were as beautiful as I have ever seen, and her skin looked like velvet on a sun soaked beach. I fell in love with her because she was everything I have ever beleived to be the one good enough for me.

I meet a man today, he was really nice and we had alot of things in common... we liked the same music, had the same goals in life, and GOD could he ever make me laugh. I wonder if he has a nice place to live? I wonder if his family will like me the way I am? Guess I'm jumping the gun here, but he sure is a good looking man... with that tan.

Me and Charlie... man we have a good time! Just talking and shooting the you know what... he is such a cool dude. I heard he is looking for a job, Maybe I can get him on where I work at the steel mill. Hope he doesn't mind whearing a leather apron to protect him from the sparks.

Whenever we go hunting in the winter, we always take some extra sheep skin to protect our skin from the cold. Some of us even wear shoes.

Just imagine...

[Bob S.]

"To predict the future with certainty almost inevitably leads to disappointment. That's what I meant by "dangerous"."

Disappointment over something not happening is not something dangerous. And the future Trail forsees could happen in the year 2217. And here is my prediction: Tomorrow, I will go to work and deal with less children than usual. Will I be disappointed if that does not happen? Sure. Was I dangerous in making such a prediction? No.

"Personally I don't think children should skinnydip at all. Mine were NEVER allowed to run about naked and they never seemed inclined to do that anyway. If I had to set a specific age I'd say about three or four because at that age they are becoming accustomed to social norms of behaviour."

I think one of the things everyone should experience in their life is to go skinny-dipping. And your children never ran around because you never let them. They did not seem inclined probably because you and your wife had a rigid after-bathtime routine where they were dried off and clothed in the bathroom. Had you just let them go after they were dried off without clothes, they would have had no problem with it.

So you are saying that at about age three or four, their nakedness goes from innocent to adult? I asked: What age separates innocent childhood nudity from wrongful adult nudity? This was more focused on the maturity of the body in combination with the maturity of the mind. And yes, that age is when you should start to expect certain behaviours from them.

"I could be wrong but I suspect they won't start in ernest. I think most naturists are far too sensible to try to force acceptance upon a wider public that's far from being ready for it."

You are wrong in how you interpreted my statement. We don't want to force our nakedness on others. We want others to hear our message.

"Naturism is sometimes perceived as being a rather private, suspicious and unwelcoming world. Yes, you will get some success with this - if you are sufficiently united and committed and you are see as reasonable and considerate."

Wait, I thought you said that most people understood what naturism is. And yes, we will get some success with that approach that you support. But then, success will beget more success and continuing until Trailscout's future scenario.

Bob S.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob

?And not all of those values and norms are necessarily good. Values and norms come and go?.

Indeed so. But that doesn?t mean to say that we should abandon all those we have now because a small minority wants us to accept something.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Changes always start by individuals and minorities wanting them. No change happens in the way that the majority suddenly changes its values.

You are unwilling to think about this social norm that tells nudity is a very private thing, if it is good or bad. It is good and the right thing to you, but not so because of your rational reasoning, instead because of your emotions, that is your learned way to see nudity as a serious offence. You are generally a rational person, you could overcome this emotion if you want!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
I think one of the things everyone should experience in their life is to go skinny-dipping. And your children never ran around because you never let them. They did not seem inclined probably because you and your wife had a rigid after-bathtime routine where they were dried off and clothed in the bathroom. Had you just let them go after they were dried off without clothes, they would have had no problem with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly right. Stu, if you only had let your children run around naked, they would have done it happily.

My children (now 8, 11 and 13) swim naked in the lake in summer at our private beach. They sometimes run naked in a summer rain. They run around the house and play with snow naked from the sauna, when we are at our summer home in winter. They do all this happily because they are allowed to. Not only me but also my anti-naturist wife allows them these simple and very natural joys.

Kari P

Kari

"Disappointment over something not happening is not something dangerous."

It was a figure of speech, Bob. Gosh! The difference between colloquial English in the US and the UK is a lot greater than I imagined. Over here a "dangerous assumption" isn't necessarily dangerous in the literal sense. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Had you just let them go after they were dried off without clothes, they would have had no problem with it".

Probably not. But you bring up your kids to assimilate your values. That's a perfectly natural thing for parents to do.

"What age separates innocent childhood nudity from wrongful adult nudity?"

I think nudity should be something one experiences in private or with other like-minded people. The child, therefore, will be guided into behaving as the particular adults present find acceptable. With my kids there was no suitable age to be naked outside the bathroom/bedroom. Most parents seem to allow more laxity in this respect - generally it's OK for kids to be nude until around ages 4 or 5. Because that seems to be the norm, I accept it when visiting beaches. I don't like it but I accept it.

"We don't want to force our nakedness on others. We want others to hear our message."

Provided the messages take the form of words, then I am OK with that.

"I thought you said that most people understood what naturism is".

They do. But they still perceive naturism as a rather closed environment that one has to formally 'join' to be accredited as a genuine naturist as opposed to a gawker (or worse).

"..success will beget more success and continuing until Trailscout's future scenario."

I wish you success - but not THAT much success!

Kari P

"Changes always start by individuals and minorities wanting them. No change happens in the way that the majority suddenly changes its values."

No, but people should be enticed into accepting change and not pressed or manipulated into accepting it against their own preferences or judgement.

"You are generally a rational person, you could overcome this emotion if you want!"

There are plenty of emotions tha I like and are part of me and I want to keep. My body-privacy and sensitivity about seeing nudity is one of them. It is part of my cultute and character. I value this part of myself and my family values it in me.

"Exactly right. Stu, if you only had let your children run around naked, they would have done it happily."

Perhaps. But they were happy with our rules anyway.

"My children (now 8, 11 and 13) swim naked in the lake in summer at our private beach. They sometimes run naked in a summer rain. They run around the house and play with snow naked from the sauna, when we are at our summer home in winter. They do all this happily because they are allowed to. Not only me but also my anti-naturist wife allows them these simple and very natural joys."

That's good - something you and your kids have enjoyed. I like my kids to be more cautious about exposing their bodies to others. You bring up your children with your values and I bring up my kids with mine. It's how it should be.

Stu

[fns]

Stu, I'm not interested in debating the issue with you. I agreed with someone else's post. I guess I'm as closed minded on my side of the issue as you are on yours. Therefore, to debate would be pointless. One thing, though, is you use sophistication as if it is something to be admired. Those who don't agree with you then, must not be as sophisticated as you, and something less than you, making yourself to be superior. Get off your high horse, you are no better, no worse than the rest of us. We will all end up in the same place in the end. I could care less what you think, and rest assured, this is the last note I will address to you.

[Bob S.]

"The difference between colloquial English in the US and the UK is a lot greater than I imagined"

Just remember stu, you speak English. I speak American.

"With my kids there was no suitable age to be naked outside the bathroom/bedroom. Most parents seem to allow more laxity in this respect - generally it's OK for kids to be nude until around ages 4 or 5. Because that seems to be the norm, I accept it when visiting beaches. I don't like it but I accept it."

I live in a very conservative area and can recall a woman who complained to the lifeguard when she saw a young 2-year-old girl running around topless on the beach. Of course, it didn't help anything that the woman is lives in one of the more expensive areas and they generally consider that beach "their beach." But, as per a treaty signed by King George III all beaches in Virginia are owned by the people. Sorry for that digression, just thought I'd throw in a bit of Virginia-British history.

Anyway, the lifeguard told the mother to put a top on her daughter. Afterwards, the "concerned citizen" was made the butt of jokes by many around here.

And for that age 4-5 rule, at the local YMCA where I work occasionally, a parent may bring their opposite gender child into the locker room with them up through age 4. Curious what it is at the spa where you are on the board?

Bob S.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
And for that age 4-5 rule, at the local YMCA where I work occasionally, a parent may bring their opposite gender child into the locker room with them up through age 4. Curious what it is at the spa where you are on the board?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I said the following in the thread "Nude outdoor in the winter" (off-topic there) that you may not have been reading:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In a family with many kids, taking care of all of the kids of the same sex can be problematic to one parent alone. Or, one parent could come with children of the opposite sex that are too young to cope by themselves and could be considered too old to be taken to the "wrong" side. (I don't know of any official age limit for that. I have once taken my daughter to the men's side when she was seven years old - no one objected, staff included. But in a similar case another parent could be in fear of a trouble.)

I have seen in Finnish bulletin boards wishes for non-sex-segregated family days in bathhouses, but there aren't such arrangements in Finland that I am aware of. A single bathhouse with a naturist department is an exception. I have learned that for instance in Sweden there are family days. And I am sure that there are families with children that would welcome them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You see, there are nuisances coming from sex segregation and the rules made "to protect the children". In the case handled above, my daughter, if not allowed to be with me at the men's side, could not have gone to the swimming pool at all, because her mother doesn't want to go there. Her body shame is on the level that she cannot show herself in public even in a bathing suite.

In Finland the acceptance for bringing even older children (up to 8 years or so) to the wrong side probably comes from the known fact that they have seen naked adults of both sexes anyway - it's nothing new to them. The same thing obviously contributes to the toleration of occasional nudity on a neighbor's yard. Protecting the children is here not a valid reason to be against nudity.

I had already said elsewhere to Stu that he has the right to bring up his children with his values. To me it's not that simple. When the parents' values are different, it is the parent who has louder voice who dictates the common values, especially the children's rights and responsibilities. Guess which one it is in my family!

Stu, you should see that even my anti-naturist wife has allowed the joys of nudity to my children. The freedom they enjoy is in no way extraordinary in non-naturist families.

Kari P

[Bob S.]

"You see, there are nuisances coming from sex segregation and the rules made "to protect the children". In the case handled above, my daughter, if not allowed to be with me at the men's side, could not have gone to the swimming pool at all, because her mother doesn't want to go there."

And therein lies the problem with all of these laws "to protect the children." They are also denying parents their rights to bring up their children in a way that they find appropriate. If a mother feels that her son is too young to change in the locker room by himself, she is not allowed to bring him with her into the womens' locker room. The same for using the bathroom. Although I remember back when my sister and I were much younger, she was a tomboy and looked like a boy as well (until the age of 8 or so for her, 10 for me) and she would have me take her into the boys' bathroom at a fast food restaurant or at the mall.

And let's look at some laws that are truly "for the children." Child labor laws, Amber Alerts, mandatory curfews, age of consent, public schooling laws, etc. Laws regarding nudity are not for the children, but rather for the politician. And that is how it is for about 90% of the bills introduced to "protect the children." They are meant to prop up the politician's standing on their fight against evildoers imagined or otherwise.

"Protecting the children is here not a valid reason to be against nudity."

It isn't about protecting the children, it is about the comfort and protecting the adults.

Bob S.