Heat wave: For millions without power, little relief

[Davin]

In the news, they always say wear lose light color clothing.
They never say go naked.
Wouldn't it be nice that when it's really hot if towns would allow people to go around naked?
It's unfortunate tht USA is not as lieant on nudity as European countriese are.

Why is it OK to expose an animal's penis (dog, monkey/chimp, bear), but not a human?

[Bob S.]

Stu: "There is hardly a part of the anatomy which is not involved in some way in sex - especially the mouth, hands, arms, legs etc, but all the sensory organs too. However, these are not primary sex organs which are reproductive, nor are they parts of the anatomy which distinguish male from female. So, in our culture, they are not deemed to be "intimate", and so can be exposed to family and strangers alike."

The buttocks are neither a sexual organ nor are they gender specific. Therefore, by your logic, they can be exposed to anyone with no problem. On a woman, she has no sexual organs that are visible, at least if she is unshaven in her pubic area. Pubic hair is not gender specific. The female breast is only different in usability, not necessarily in looks as some men can have similar looking breasts to some women.

Stu: "Secondly, because they are infants, their private parts have no sexual associations with (normal) people because they are not sexual beings. That's why non-nudist parents are fine with naked two-year-olds on the beach, but that would not extend to twelve-year-olds."

So twelve-year-old children are sexual beings? Not according to the law. Age of consent is generally 16 or above. Also, a twelve-year-old body can vary wildly from completely pre-pubescent to nearly completely pubescent.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

nudeM

I will and I'll let you know. Watch this space.

BobS

The buttocks are neither a sexual organ nor are they gender specific. Therefore, by your logic, they can be exposed to anyone with no problem.

My comment about sex organs was very specifically related to the penis, not to anything else. Of course, a woman's sex organs would count, too. I agree that buttocks, like breasts, are not primary sex organs, but they, like the pubic area in general, are kept from view for very slightly different reasons, namely that they are perceived as being intimate, albeit not as intimate as the penis/vulva, but certainly more intimate than, for example, the mouth or hands. In other words, there is a continuum of degrees of intimacy of parts of the anatomy in our culture and, as I have said repeatedly, this is all determined by cultural norms. People like you would like to shift the cultural boundaries, or perhaps dispense with them entirely: people like me would like to preserve and reinforce them.

So twelve-year-old children are sexual beings? Not according to the law. Age of consent is generally 16 or above. Also, a twelve-year-old body can vary wildly from completely pre-pubescent to nearly completely pubescent

The law takes account of emotional maturity when it establishes an age of consent. In biological terms, we become sexual beings at puberty and that age has been reducing for several decades. It is, I regret to say, no longer unusual for a 12-year-old girl to become pregnant.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "I agree that buttocks, like breasts, are not primary sex organs, but they, like the pubic area in general, are kept from view for very slightly different reasons, namely that they are perceived as being intimate,"

The buttocks have suffered from the crime of being too close to the primary sex organs. Clothing that has been created to cover the primary sex organs just happen to cover the buttocks as well. It is for the same reason that underwear is seen as intimate apparel but swimwear is not. The former is always hidden while the latter is intended to be outerwear.

Stu: "The law takes account of emotional maturity when it establishes an age of consent. In biological terms, we become sexual beings at puberty and that age has been reducing for several decades. It is, I regret to say, no longer unusual for a 12-year-old girl to become pregnant."

So in Sweden, there is a spate of preteens getting pregnant? It is exceedingly rare around here for anyone under 12 to get pregnant. Now as for having consensual (not forced) sex, that is somewhat more common, if still unusual.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

So in Sweden, there is a spate of preteens getting pregnant? It is exceedingly rare around here for anyone under 12 to get pregnant. Now as for having consensual (not forced) sex, that is somewhat more common, if still unusual.

Not so much here in Sweden, Bob, because schoolteachers are thrusting condoms into kids' hands befoe they have a single hair growing under their armpits. I accept the need for contraception advice, but they have taken it to a ridiculous level here, almost encouraging kids to have sex. I was thinking of Britain, where it is no longer unusual for 13-year-olds to be taken to an abortion clinic.

With regard to my point on nudity, we tolerate very small children's nakedness because they are far removed from what normal people would regard as sexual beings. We do not accept nakedness of pubescent children largely because they are now sexual, although I accept there is a grey area between the two stages.

This is just one more area in which polarisation has occurred over the past several decades: while nudist children think nothing of being naked around others, and people being naked around them, textile children similarly copy their parents' ethos and learn what is considered "decent". There is nothing inherently wrong with either way of raising children - it is a matter of parental preference.

With regard to the heatwave you are experiencing, nudists' children will no doubt wish of divest themselves of every fibre of their clothing while textiles' children will seek to keep cool by donning lightweight summer dresses or other loose garments.

Stu

[nimrod]

This is just one more area in which polarisation has occurred over the past several decades: while nudist children think nothing of being naked around others, and people being naked around them, textile children similarly copy their parents' ethos and learn what is considered "decent". There is nothing inherently wrong with either way of raising children - it is a matter of parental preference.

Stu

I remember saying to you that offences are learned and it was the reaction to nudity by the parents that teaches the children to be offended by it, and you argued that was not true. Were you then arguing for the sake of arguement, or have you changed you mind since?

[Stu2630]

I remember saying to you that offences are learned and it was the reaction to nudity by the parents that teaches the children to be offended by it, and you argued that was not true.

Did I argue with that? I don't think I did. I have always said that the offence people experience towards nudity was culturally based and, if so, then of course it is a learned response.

If yiou think I said anything different, please post a link to show where i said it - and what I said exactly.

Stu

[nimrod]

Did I argue with that? I don't think I did. I have always said that the offence people experience towards nudity was culturally based and, if so, then of course it is a learned response.

If yiou think I said anything different, please post a link to show where i said it - and what I said exactly.

Stu

Yes, you did, but it was so long ago that I cannot remember when or what thread or post. If I remember correctly, your arguement was that peoples reaction to nudity was inherent and not a learned responce. Also, I do not know if those posts still exsist since many were lost during the move.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "I was thinking of Britain, where it is no longer unusual for 13-year-olds to be taken to an abortion clinic."

Now that I am surprised after reading some stories from the UK.

Stu: "With regard to my point on nudity, we tolerate very small children's nakedness because they are far removed from what normal people would regard as sexual beings."

That is ideal, however, the pedophile society has made too many people look at children through the eyes of the pedophile, sexualizing the idea of children without clothes. This has happened in Australia to a severe effect and we have ignorant people in the US so afraid of nude pictures of children that they assume it is illegal to even have pictures or see a movie where a child is naked.

Stu: "This is just one more area in which polarisation has occurred over the past several decades: while nudist children think nothing of being naked around others, and people being naked around them, textile children similarly copy their parents' ethos and learn what is considered "decent"."

How is this polarized? In my use of the word, polarizing connotes major public disagreements. Also, both textile children and nudist children both rebel in opposite directions. I was a nudist child in a textile family who just had to learn to hide my proclivities.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

nimrod

Yes, you did, but it was so long ago that I cannot remember when or what thread or post. If I remember correctly, your arguement was that peoples reaction to nudity was inherent and not a learned responce. Also, I do not know if those posts still exsist since many were lost during the move.

Nope. I don't recall ever believing or saying any such thing. I have always maintained that our response to nudity is cultural. I think you have mis-remembered.

BobS

Now that I am surprised after reading some stories from the UK.

Yes, it is very controversial.

That is ideal, however, the pedophile society has made too many people look at children through the eyes of the pedophile, sexualizing the idea of children without clothes. This has happened in Australia to a severe effect and we have ignorant people in the US so afraid of nude pictures of children that they assume it is illegal to even have pictures or see a movie where a child is naked.

I agree. I think the alleged paedophile is the bogeyman of our time, along with the alleged racist and the alleged homophobe. I use the word "alleged" because it seems to be enough just to be suspected of being so inclined to be labelled as such and have one's reputation wrecked.

Of course nudists, and some other people who are not nudists, are going to photograph their children naked and that does not mean they should be assumed to be paedophiles. So we agree on this, Bob.

How is this polarized? In my use of the word, polarizing connotes major public disagreements. Also, both textile children and nudist children both rebel in opposite directions. I was a nudist child in a textile family who just had to learn to hide my proclivities.

I was using the term "polarised" in the philosophical/structuralist sense rather than the political sense, Bob, i.e. meaning that people are deciding for themselves to be clearly and definitely nudists, or clearly and definitely non-nudists. British Naturism has noticed this trend in their latest survey: they state that more people are willing to state that they are nudists and be counted as such, but that the rest of society is becoming less tolerant of nudity.

Stu