Where do textiles get their logic from?

[Barnard]

I've grown up in a textile world, but I've always been an out of the box thinker. In fact, along the way, I've been exposed to an old man constantly belittling his wife. I've heard a lot of people talk about how evil (black people) are. So even though I was a child at the time, I've made myself aware that not all old people are like that. And going outside at that time, I tested the theory by talking to a black girl. She didn't seem particularly evil to me. Going through life, I continued to challenge our moral system with clear logic.

But I never could find the logic in why so many people feel offended by their own natural state. Every man has a penis and breasts. Every woman has a vagina and more developed breasts for feeding babies.

If a kid didn't already ask before, "Where do babies come from?" The easiest answer is "When this and that go together"
And every homophobe's worst fear - "What about that other?"
"Well, that one just hurts"

Everyone has an *** with 2 buttcheeks which connect the legs and torso. So what!? How can seeing those things derange a kid or bother someone? There's alot of horrible things to see in the world. If your own body is one of them, how can you have pride in your own life and that of people you respect?

Are the majority of our population so "sheepish" that they accept what their peers believe in as right without question? The object of this thread is to figure out at its core what textiles find offensive about nudism.

The first time I saw a woman's breast, my first thought was, "Well, I guess I'm supposed to get excited". To fit in at that time, I pretended to do just that. Then when I left the area, I started thinking about something else, unrelated.

It seems men are brainwashed into admiring breasts as the primary object of lust, because they are partially visible, like a tease.
I get this from knowing that women's breasts are for breastfeeding, and doesn't seem to be critical to sex.
But I do know that women often experience erotic pleasure when a man works her breasts right.
Could this be because of that association of breasts and erotica? Women's sexual arousal seems to be based on a state of mentality. Some women are aroused by their breasts. Others aren't but gravitate toward attention to their feet during foreplay.

With this kind of logic in mind, it seems like the artifical identity that clothing establishes for people is really a big headgame from our ancestors. A real shame too, because if we didn't wear clothes when it's not neccessary, we may have adapted over time to be climatized to the elements. But I could be wrong. Regardless, this kind of dependency brings shame on humans, while wildlife is completely independent and free.

In the thread I made about that guy who made the youtube video "Nudism Sucks", someone pointed out that there's no point in arguing with idiots. Fortunately, we got our own local textile Stu here for intelligent debates, so this next portion is directed to you:

What is it that you find unsettling about nudity? Does this apply to men only or men and women?
Is your distaste for nudity based on your influences growing up, or is there a specific reason that it bothers you?
What would you consider worse for a child to see - nudity or a person being beaten to a bloody pulp?

[LumpyPostage]

Looking for logic online is like trying to find a fortune cookie in China.

All sexual arousal is based in the brain. I'm not going to pretend to speak for all women, but in my brain, breasts are very critical to sex.

Feet are critical to a good foot massage. Which, by the way, is usually a better way to get sex than any breast groping.

[Barnard]

Perhaps, but when I debate with people in person, they are generally idiots who jump to conclusions without clear thought, or just won't talk of it at all. They talk of genitals like they're from a different world, even though they themselves have them. They refuse to consider that there's more to nudism then meets the eye (I know, what a pun). And when I try to explain other aspects that void out that silly mindset, they interrupt with more choppy conclusions. Often like a rubber band, they keep snapping back to the genital thing.

At least with online, the conversation can't be interrupted. There's a lot of very intelligent people on CFF, so considered this a great place to post this topic.

[Baron Lake]

ouch, ouch

[LumpyPostage]

If you're trying to convince anybody, online or offline, that your opinion is right and theirs is wrong, you are going to fail.

[sunnysmile_fl]

I'm with you, Barnard.

I supposed though that all for the double-standards that go with textilism can be packed into one word...socialism. And socialism is about three words... fear and control. It's merely a way where the political powers-that-be bring about a global sense of control over their people. Through fear, primarily. And over the centuries way too many people among Society bought into the double-standards to the degree that the rest of the entire civilisation of any given modern culture was fleeced into having to comply with the nonsensical ruling that everyone had to think a certain way. Because all too many people at the start of all this that long ago were too intimidated by the powers-that-be to risk bearing the expression of any thoughts otherwise, lest, back in the ancient days anyway, they be fed to the lions.

But through the centuries and into this day and age we have become so much more intelligent and advanced that it irks me that more people don't yet realize that we as a modern society had been brainwashed this way over the course of so many generations and we as a modern people have the oprion and the inner courage to stand up in numbers and berak this horrible cycle of political and nonsensicle nonsense. I'd like to say that that's one of the primary missions of the CFI organisation and this forum.

Today modern technology gives us a way we can now communicate these things and for the betterment of the future of society as well as for the betterment of our own state of mental health and wellbeing.

[Naturist Mark]

Maybe you meant this word.

[Barnard]

Lumpy Postage, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything in this thread. I'm looking for the logic in why textiles are offended by their own bodies and those of others. Offended by things that are apart of everyone, things that are well known, visually and factually. SunnySmile made a great example of how the psychological uniformity of textilism came to be so much of a sensitive matter from a clear logical perspective.

When I read about someone being shocked by nudity, like in the recent article on this board about the latest naked rambler, I often feel tempted to ask, "Are you stupid? Did you honestly not know what a man or woman looks like without clothes? If you did know, where's this shock coming from? Seriously, it's just human flesh like that of what's apart of you or your spouse."

The common justification from textiles as to why they oppose nudism is usually along the lines of "I don't want to see balls or nipples."
This is not a logical statement because there is no explanation as to why these things are bad. It reflects the mind control of cultural thinking and is unnaturally uniform.

[Baron Lake]

Lets not forget the necessary sycophant hoards. (maybe "hoards" should be spelled another way?)
(this post in reference to Mark's not Bernards)

[Kouak]

It seems men are brainwashed into admiring breasts as the primary object of lust, because they are partially visible, like a tease.
I get this from knowing that women's breasts are for breastfeeding, and doesn't seem to be critical to sex.
But I do know that women often experience erotic pleasure when a man works her breasts right.
Could this be because of that association of breasts and erotica? Women's sexual arousal seems to be based on a state of mentality. Some women are aroused by their breasts. Others aren't but gravitate toward attention to their feet during foreplay

Doubt men have been brainwashed and that is the source of the excitement. I believe we get excited when we see someone who is sexually mature. A kid is not. They are small. One very visible change, even in clothes, is the size of the breast. Kids have none. Women do. So we equate the larger the breast is to mean the more mature and ready for sex the woman is. Hence the excitement.

It is also an easy clue to tell someone's age. This is why small breasted women are treated like children and not seen as sexually mature. On the other hand, a female who happens to have developed early is always being treated as older than she really is.

An example of this is my 2 nieces (sisters) who were 6 years apart. The older one was in college and small breasted. The younger one was still in high school and very endowed. When the younger one visited the older one at college, only the older sister was carded much to her dismay and her sister's amusement.

The net of this is when we see the breast, we use this crude measure to determine if the woman is not too young by her size. If she is large (old) enough, we get excited.