The dangers of 'letting it all hang out'

[Stu2630]

A personal comment from Daily Mail correspondent, Mark Dooley. I don't think he is focusing on nudism, but rather on a particular trend in the perception of the naked body. Anyway, for what it's worth, this is what he says:

Can there be any word in our language that is abused more than ‘liberation’? For isn’t it ridiculous to use the same word when referring to the emancipation of those imprisoned at Auschwitz and what pseudo-psychologists call ‘sexual liberation’? Surely, delivering people from tyranny does not equate to letting it all hang out. Furthermore, what exactly are those who let it all hang out liberated from? According to the gurus of our therapeutic culture, they have been freed from unhealthy inhibitions and harmful prudery. But, surely, it is unhealthier to shamelessly exhibit the human body than to idealise it?

.....

There is nothing healthy in making public those parts which the rest of us would prefer you kept private

If anything, such behaviour is sick, a sign that the offender has no idea what it means to be human. And it is only when we are honest enough to confront it as a sickness, that we shall finally see how foolish we were to conflate it with freedom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-hang-out.html

Stu

[NakedGary]

Quote from Stu's post #1 [Quote of Mark Dooley]

Surely, delivering people from tyranny does not equate to letting it all hang out. Furthermore, what exactly are those who let it all hang out liberated from?

Testicle hugging, penis limiting briefs, boxer shorts, and underware.

Let it all hang out Naturally, even if you have to go commando under pants or a dress, men and women!

Letting it all hang out is healthy, not dangerous

[luvnaturism]

Mark Dooley says, "There is nothing healthy in making public those parts which the rest of us would prefer you kept private."
So YOUR and MY freedom is restricted to that which doesn't make others uncomfortable? By this logic wouldn't we still have slavery, child labor, the 72 hour work week, and no women allowed to vote? My understanding of freedom is that you are entitled to be safe from harm caused by my actions, but you are not entitled to be free from embarrassment or other discomfort if I say or do something that you find unattractive or undesirable. Sometimes you just have to look the other way and pretend you didn't see or hear that.

[nimrod]

I knew this would come, the negative commentary brought to you by Stu. It is his words coming from anothers mouth. It is this sort of post that keeps me from believing he is not anti-nudist.

[David77]

If anything, such behaviour is sick, a sign that the offender has no idea what it means to be human. And it is only when we are honest enough to confront it as a sickness, that we shall finally see how foolish we were to conflate it with freedom.

Who does this columnist, Mark Dooley, think he is to make this judgement that this is a symptom of sickness? He is not a psychiatrist but merely a bad columnist! His editor should have cought this wild unsubstantiated claim.

He says that such a person "has no idea what it means to be human". This is another damnable irrational hot-headed statement!

Down with Dooley and his filth!

[Stu2630]

I knew this would come, the negative commentary brought to you by Stu. It is his words coming from anothers mouth. It is this sort of post that keeps me from believing he is not anti-nudist.

I found this article late last night on the Daily Mail site and I wasn't sure I should post it because I knew someone would say this is Stu being anti-nudist. It isn't - I thought it would be interesting and provocative, and stimulate discussion.

Mr Dooley's views are his own. In all honesty, I am not entirely sure what he is talking about or who he has in mind: I am confident that the antics of Stephen Gough would fall within this ambit but I don't think he was thinking about organised nudism.

For example, when he says: "There is nothing healthy in making public those parts which the rest of us would prefer you kept private" - then, in the strict literal sense, I agree with him. I do not think nudity is healthy - or unhealthy: in health terms, it is neutral. Consequently, it is absolutely fine in a nudist context but not so in the wider public sphere. When he says: "such behaviour is sick", again, I do not believe he has responsible nudism in mind. If he does, then I profoundly disagree with him.

Stu

[jasenj]

I knew this would come, the negative commentary brought to you by Stu. It is his words coming from anothers mouth. It is this sort of post that keeps me from believing he is not anti-nudist.

Wow. Someone shares an article that derides nudism and you're going to attack him? I hope the mailman doesn't bring you any bad news.

Hopefully someone from the official nudist organization in the UK will respond to Mr. Dooley's hog slop.

- Jasen.

[jasenj]

For example, when he says: "There is nothing healthy in making public those parts which the rest of us would prefer you kept private" - then, in the strict literal sense, I agree with him. I do not think nudity is healthy - or unhealthy: in health terms, it is neutral.

Actually, there are studies (no, I don't have them at hand) that show modern people tend to have severe vitamin D deficiencies. The best way to get vitamin D is to expose your skin to the sun - the more skin the better. So nudity in moderate doses could very well be healthy.

There is also psychological health - which I'm sure is far more controversial. Proponents of nudism say that being exposed to many different bodies and body types helps people develop better self-image and reduces the influence of "beauty standards" pushed by advertisers and the media.

Just hit the Naturist Society or AANR or any other nudist organization's web site for more on the health benefits (mental and physical) of nudism.

- Jasen.

[jasenj]

When he says: "such behaviour is sick", again, I do not believe he has responsible nudism in mind. If he does, then I profoundly disagree with him.

I think it's pretty clear from the article that he totally conflates nudism, pornography, swinging, clothing styles he doesn't like, celebrity worship, and who knows what else. The article is a complete mishmash of logical fallacies.

- Jasen.

[Stu2630]

Actually, there are studies (no, I don't have them at hand) that show modern people tend to have severe vitamin D deficiencies. The best way to get vitamin D is to expose your skin to the sun - the more skin the better. So nudity in moderate doses could very well be healthy.

Jasen

The difference between acceptably dressed to be in public and being naked is something as small as a skimpy bikini or a pair of shorts. Certainly, we should be encouraging people to expose their skin to a reasonable amount of sunlight to produce vitamin D, but without significantly increasing the risk of skin cancer. I am not sure there is any substantial advantage in exposing the relatively small proportion of skin which is covered by a swimsuit, though.

There is also psychological health - which I'm sure is far more controversial. Proponents of nudism say that being exposed to many different bodies and body types helps people develop better self-image and reduces the influence of "beauty standards" pushed by advertisers and the media.

Yup, that is controversial alright! I am not convinced there are any such benefits. Of course there are all kinds of studies which indicate all manner of things in that respect, but I have looked at these as a researcher myself, and they are incredibly subjective. For example, who is to say what is, or is not, a "better" self-image? And to what extent is the ethos of naturism (rather than the practice itself) and the kinds of people attracted to it responsible for some of the benefits they advocate are conferred by it?

I think it's pretty clear from the article that he totally conflates nudism, pornography, swinging, clothing styles he doesn't like, celebrity worship, and who knows what else. The article is a complete mishmash of logical fallacies.

I am inclined to agree. I wasn't entirely sure what he was talking about - e.g. nudity in what contexts etc, and it was quite a confusing mix of topics.

Stu