Where do textiles get their logic from?

[Stu2630]

So would you say that to your perception, despite being educated on the reality of nudism, you still percieve nudity as automatically sexual? I get this from the analogy you used with the library staff. .

Wow! A lot to answer here. While I do recognise there is such a thing as non-sexual nudity, I am also a product of my culture in that I perceive nudity as something which generally only occurs in either bathing or sex. I do not perceive it as having any other role.

Offence does seem like a logical thing, but through brainwashing: the manipulation of the mind's perception of reality against it's natural common sense, offence can be "programmed" to be triggered by literally anything, regardless of absurdity -

It's not "brainwashing" so much as cultural conditioning - and we are all culturally conditioned as it goes with being a sophisticated and civilised human being. I am quite content with my cultural conditioning as i see it as part of my cultural identity and do not wish to be "de-programmed".

I think offense can still exist in a logical mind. Though not nearly as many triggers, a logical mind must be much more reasonable in it's justification for offence.

For example, I am personally offended by theives. I think they are worthless parasites who are completely selfish. When they steal from me, I feel violated, like I'm just some piece of dirt they can freely pass over on their way to their destination in hell, kicking and spreading through the air. I'm offended because I know that my life means nothing to these leeches, that to them, I'm just a lifeless stepping stone who has no needs.

I wouldn't call that "being offended" because it is something which causes material harm as well as the emotional distress.

If you are a man who finds the sight of women more offensive then the sight of men, unless you are gay (no offence intended), this seems to imply that you associate nudity as a corruptive thing rather then sexually deviant. Seems more of a religious mentality then a cultural one.

I don't find "the sight of women offensive", but rather the sight of women who are what I consider to be inappropriately naked to be offensive - it is a kind of visual assault on my sensibilities. It's the same with men.

But when you say offence is not logical, this seems to sound like you mean it's normal for offence to be completely unjustified, as to lack logic is to lack reason - to be offended by something when there is no reason to be offended by it. "I'm offended because the tree outside my house has 3,230 leaves." If it is acceptable to be offended by nudity without a logical reason, then shouldn't the statement in quotation marks for example be equally valid?

Offence isn't a rational response - it is entirely generated within the mind of the offended individual. We are offended because we are human and we have values and taboos which are culturally founded, and some behaviours are perceived as threatening these.

When I rediscovered nudism, and I word it this way because all humans seem to be converted to textile by either their parents, the media or their peers, I was very upset.
I felt that I had been decieved as an infant into thinking that my body was not normal, and had the choice and knowledge of nudism kept away from me. For me, rediscovering nudism was liberating not because it was something new, but something old that had been snatched away from me at birth. I felt that society had no right to take away my freedom of expression.

OK, you had an issue and nudism helped you to resolve it.

I even consider the law against nudism to be a violation of the American constitution. Do you agree that the requirement of clothing violates freedom of expression?

I don't know much about your Constitution, although I doubt many US judges would see it that way. I do consider that those of us who want to live in a nudity-free environment also have rights. That's why it's good that there are places set aside for people like you to practice and enjoy your nudity but without bothering people like me.

But something that doesn't make sense is that you feel confident that you can "recalibrate your sensibilities" if you wished but prefer to be as you are. Ordinarily for those who do not understand nudism, this is understandable as something new can be scary. They are too scared to calibrate themselves as you put it. But you as a member of this board, do understand nudism. You must be aware that if you were to visit a nudist resort and meet any one of us, nothing would be any different then if you visited a textile resort.

We can recalibrate our sensibilities in just about any way we like. My eldest daughter is a doctor and she had to recalibrate her sensibilities at her first day in medical school at the age of 18 when she was presented with a corpse and had to dissect it. I recall reading an article by a deeply religious and conservative woman who was a janitor at a film studio that was taken over by a porn company. We can get used to pretty much anything if we have to - but that doesn't mean we should.

So with this in mind, the fact that you understand nudism, which in turn understand the liberating feel and experience of it, that you never considered giving it a try to expand your horizons, I find very surprising indeed. Especially knowing ahead of time that it would be risk free, that there would be no gawking, drooling or disrespectful responses from the community. Sorry for the run on sentence.

I would find it quite shocking and distressing at first. As I said, I would acclimatise in due course, but it's not something I want to do.

Don't you think that not wanting your child to see nudity is like keeping a choice out of their hands? Wouldn't you say that's like not letting your child see sunlight? That's not a suggestion to encourage your child to look for nudity, but an idea as to weather or not they should have a choice as to the lifestyle, much like how a child may choose to be homo or heterosexual

I don't see it that way. I have raised three children, my youngest is nearly 17. My eldest two managed just fine with never seeing nudity. They have both been in long-term relationships and are very well-balanced adults. My youngest seems to be turning out the same. We all choose what we want our kids to see, or rather not see, and I, like most parents, have kept them from seeing depictions of graphic violence, sex and nudity.

I am not sure that seeing nudity has any role in helping a child to decide whether they are straight or gay.

Stu

[nudeyooper]

[QUOTE]I don't know much about your Constitution, although I doubt many US judges would see it that way. I do consider that those of us who want to live in a nudity-free environment also have rights. That's why it's good that there are places set aside for people like you to practice and enjoy your nudity but without bothering people like me.[QUOTE]


I agree with anyone's right to stay clothed, but the problem as I see it in the United States is that if nudists gather at out of the way places on public lands, there will be some group that will try to prevent them from being there. If they were clothed, there would be no objection.

Unofficial nudist or clothing optional beaches are often hundreds of miles away. In all of Michigan with the longest coast line of any state there is only one. It is in a National Lakeshore, the walk to the beach is long, and people who use it face some sort of persecution if not prosecution.

Even on the official beaches, in Wisconsin there is one, the walk to the beach is about a mile from the parking area, and because it is on a river it is easily seen by other users of the water. That has presented problems, and the law is fairly strictly enforced to keep the few from damaging the opportunities for the many who behave appropriately while there.

The argument that many of us have, is simply that there are not enough places that are clothing optional, and those that are have difficult access. Clubs can be expensive, and again the nearest one could be hundreds of miles from home.

[Stu2630]

[QUOTE=nudeyooper;316414]

The argument that many of us have, is simply that there are not enough places that are clothing optional, and those that are have difficult access. Clubs can be expensive, and again the nearest one could be hundreds of miles from home.

That is a problem for you. It is unfair and unnecessary in a country as massive as yours. I say unnecessary because here in Sweden we probably have more than we need. There are about 60 recognised nudist places in Sweden - a country of just 9-million inhabitants, and the vast majority of the population are within easy reach of one:

http://www.scandinavianaturist.org/?page_id=600

And this one lies just 10-minutes drive from my house.

http://www.scandinavianaturist.org/node/145

I am informed it is not used anywhere near enough and if naturists don't use it, then it will revert to being a textile beach again.

In your case, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have a fair proportion of public facilities - beaches, lakesides, areas in national parks.

Stu

[Barnard]

[QUOTE=Stu2630;316398]Wow! A lot to answer here. While I do recognise there is such a thing as non-sexual nudity, I am also a product of my culture in that I perceive nudity as something which generally only occurs in either bathing or sex. I do not perceive it as having any other role.
[/FONT]
Is this the case with most textiles? To be aware that one is the product of their culture...I was actually upset when I figured this out myself when I reverted back to nudist, because I realized that my free will of the past was an illusion, and I never had much opportunity for nudist recreation aside from secret hikes in the woods or swimming in a lake. By organizing my mind with logic, I had restored my free will, as logic does not lead astray in reality.

It's not "brainwashing" so much as cultural conditioning - and we are all culturally conditioned as it goes with being a sophisticated and civilised human being. I am quite content with my cultural conditioning as i see it as part of my cultural identity and do not wish to be "de-programmed".

We covered this before, but what we failed to touch on is the difference. Mental conditioning and brainwashing both revolve around changing a person's beliefs and perception of reality. The hands, mouth, tongue, neck, breasts and fingers can all have something sexual associated with them. The taboo against nudism seems to stem from the taboo against sex. Though the genitals are the core sexual parts, all the above features simply supplement and enhance the sex. These parts also are what sexually arouses people, not limited to the genitals alone. In fact, a woman with her genitals, but missing her hands will significantly lose sexual attraction, even if seen nude by one who associates nudity with sex.

I'm not so sure that cultural conditioning is responsible for being a sophisticated and civilized human being. That seems like it has more to do with control of the masses. Education on the other hand, where people are taught common courtesy is something completely different, and may possibly be what you meant. The common courtousy becomes common sense as it is a means of "Do unto others has would do unto self" if I'm not mistaken on the phrase. With that, being civilized becomes common sense.


I wouldn't call that "being offended" because it is something which causes material harm as well as the emotional distress.

I don't find "the sight of women offensive", but rather the sight of women who are what I consider to be inappropriately naked to be offensive - it is a kind of visual assault on my sensibilities. It's the same with men.


Offence isn't a rational response - it is entirely generated within the mind of the offended individual. We are offended because we are human and we have values and taboos which are culturally founded, and some behaviours are perceived as threatening these.

Depends on perception of reality. I would be offended if someone intentionally kicked mud on me and a newspaper I'm reading on a bench. I don't see how that is irrational. It's logical. But being offended by nudity is not rational as it is a taught behavior and makes no logical sense.

OK, you had an issue and nudism helped you to resolve it.

I don't know much about your Constitution, although I doubt many US judges would see it that way. I do consider that those of us who want to live in a nudity-free environment also have rights. That's why it's good that there are places set aside for people like you to practice and enjoy your nudity but without bothering people like me.

To me, nudism has never been a culture or lifestyle. It was about embracing myself as a real human being, independent from artificial layers. With clothes, I just don't feel real. I don't feel that nudism helped me resolve anything. The issue was the realization of formerly being controlled.

Unless my research failed me, freedom of expression is an extension of freedom of speech, which is a big one in the constitution. But are we really expressing ourselves with clothes made by other people, or are we expressing the ideas of the company that we purchase our clothes from?

You also said that nudism is a violation of textile rights because it offends people. But if this is true then shouldn't other things that offend people also be considered under this? Would it be right to outlaw gays holding hands because the Westborrow Church is offended by gays.

Also, regarding your response to nudeyooper, I don't know about other countries, but in America, nudist venues are few and far between, usually requiring the most footwork and accessibility inconvenience. It's as if the rest of the country views nudists as slime and must be quarantined in the hardest to find places, like putting a group of people on an astroid and sending them to the far reaches of the solar system.

[rickwest]

"..in America, nudist venues are few and far between.." "It's as if the rest of the country views nudists as slime and must be quarantined in the hardest to find places.."

As a result of this situation, most of us never really get the opportunity to experience social nudism like we would like to do. This is very surprising, given the social changes that came with events such as Woodstock and Burning Man, yet it seems that restrictions on public nudity are increasing and not decreasing, as you might expect they would. As a conservative, I have to believe that it is due, in part, to the growing degree of liberalism, where government controls behavior, that is to blame for these restrictions. Yet, at the same time, you have events, such as WNBR, nude running events, and Seattle's Fremont Solstice Parade, where public nudity is tolerated, if for only a very short period of time.

I think that society pays a big price for being so restrictive about non-sexual nudity. I would expect that it definitely contributes to issues of negative body image. It must be shocking to many that, when they get married or become involved with someone, their significant other's body may not live up to the ideal image they had expected. I recently saw that some celebrities have discussed their enjoyment of home nudity but that has limited benefit for the acceptance of public nudity.

It would be very beneficial if pro-nudist groups and businesses would advertise on TV and in popular publications about the benefits of family and public nudity. In time, the public would lose some of the ignorance about public nudity and become more accepting of it. I can only hope that this happens in my lifetime.

[Naturist Mark]

it seems that restrictions on public nudity are increasing and not decreasing, as you might expect they would. As a conservative, I have to believe that it is due, in part, to the growing degree of liberalism, where government controls behavior, that is to blame for these restrictions. Yet, at the same time, you have events, such as WNBR, nude running events, and Seattle's Fremont Solstice Parade, where public nudity is tolerated, if for only a very short period of time.

Good point. That is probably why public nudity is most tolerated in places like Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi and least tolerated in places like San Francisco, Vermont, and Oregon.

[squatch]

"..in America, nudist venues are few and far between.." "It's as if the rest of the country views nudists as slime and must be quarantined in the hardest to find places.."

As a result of this situation, most of us never really get the opportunity to experience social nudism like we would like to do. This is very surprising, given the social changes that came with events such as Woodstock and Burning Man, yet it seems that restrictions on public nudity are increasing and not decreasing, as you might expect they would. As a conservative, I have to believe that it is due, in part, to the growing degree of liberalism, where government controls behavior, that is to blame for these restrictions. Yet, at the same time, you have events, such as WNBR, nude running events, and Seattle's Fremont Solstice Parade, where public nudity is tolerated, if for only a very short period of time.

I think that society pays a big price for being so restrictive about non-sexual nudity. I would expect that it definitely contributes to issues of negative body image. It must be shocking to many that, when they get married or become involved with someone, their significant other's body may not live up to the ideal image they had expected. I recently saw that some celebrities have discussed their enjoyment of home nudity but that has limited benefit for the acceptance of public nudity.

It would be very beneficial if pro-nudist groups and businesses would advertise on TV and in popular publications about the benefits of family and public nudity. In time, the public would lose some of the ignorance about public nudity and become more accepting of it. I can only hope that this happens in my lifetime.

it's utterly comical that you believe that it's the liberals who wish to control behavior when reality reflects the opposite.

[NakedGary]

Quote "Naturist Mark" Post #56

Re: Where do textiles get their logic from?

Originally Posted by rickwest
it seems that restrictions on public nudity are increasing and not decreasing, as you might expect they would. As a conservative, I have to believe that it is due, in part, to the growing degree of liberalism, where government controls behavior, that is to blame for these restrictions. Yet, at the same time, you have events, such as WNBR, nude running events, and Seattle's Fremont Solstice Parade, where public nudity is tolerated, if for only a very short period of time.



Good point. That is probably why public nudity is most tolerated in places like Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi and least tolerated in places like San Francisco, Vermont, and Oregon.

"Naturist Mark" did you mean just the opposite of what you posted, or:

Public nudity is most tolerated in places like San Francisco, Vermont, and Oregon.

Public nudity is least tolerated in places like Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi

[Naturist Mark]

"Naturist Mark" did you mean just the opposite of what you posted, or:

Public nudity is most tolerated in places like San Francisco, Vermont, and Oregon.

Public nudist is least tolerated in places like Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi

Well Gary, if that is true, then rickwest's reasoning is exactly backwards!

[nimrod]

We really do need a sarcasm font.