Making naturism more acceptable

[Steve]

Nudism is not a behaviour it is a chosen mode of "dress". Segregating those who choose to go nude is the same as segregating those who like to wear their hats sideways and their pants down below their butt cheecks. I find that mode of dress offensive because it is an insult to intelligence, do I have the right to tell them, "It is okay to dress that way as long as I do not have see it."? No, so why do a few textiles have the ability to dictate to us where nudity is acceptable?

yes Nimrod I am sure when it pours rain, or snow (granted doubt you see that much of that in CA) you are naked.

I think Stu2630 answered your other question.

as someone who has enjoyed nude recreation with plans to attend some naturist getaways (courtesy of knowledge gained on this site) I can safely say it is recreation only.

and with like minded people. I have no objection to those who choose to view the matter differently. Thats what makes the world go round

[Naturist Mark]

That's why we need there to be laws to protect the rest of us from you, because you clearly won't respect our sensibilities.

Why respect the sensibilities of those who won't respect ours?

Your very first principle, even when arguing in favor of 'nudist rights' is that textile sensibilities ALWAYS trump those of nudists.

You are surprising me lately, Mark. I'm sure you didn't used to express such militant views - not as I remember.

Oh, I've always rejected the notion that people have a right to not be offended - that is nothing short of tyranny.

Part of that is that I'm American. We believe that there is an absolute right to be offensive - we've enshrined it as the most basic principle in our bill of rights - we really really do believe in Freedom of Speech, to a degree that almost no other nation in the world can conceive of it, which is why the Arab world just can't get their heads around the idea that our government and citizenry had nothing to do with a certain fake movie trailer on YouTube. But we are also a nation with more than its share of prudes, idiots and religious zealots - nudism does not enjoy the tolerance that speech does - completely harmless nudity is actively attacked while vile harmful speech is widely tolerated.

Now I will readily cop to making some pretty broad statements lately - but the 'militancy' is intended to underscore the basic asymmetric regard for the rights or desires of one group compared to another. When I argue from a reversed standard, you regard me as shrill, militant or unreasonable, when in fact I am only being a mirror.

[Steve]

Mark

I am not sure nudists have rights per se.

of course, they have the same rights as everyone else regarding free speech..protection..fire dept..police..

but the right to be naked in front of others? there are laws against what you outline.

one of the problems is you say nudists are a group aka a type of race, sex..

lets forget about nudity for a second..you claim right to be offensive?

so it's ok if someone masturbates in public? what about defecating in a bucket (I use this because there is a cleanliness issue)?

Mark, I am afraid all those things I just outlined would be classed as gross indecency and that would be the public definition of public nudity as well.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark

I am not sure nudists have rights per se.

Of course they do. Same as anyone else. All people have the same rights.

The basic premise that nudists must always be the ones to defer says that they don't have the same rights as anyone else - and that can't be correct.

I'm not dense, I am perfectly aware that people have to compromise in order to live in reasonable harmony, but the notion that all the compromise must always come from the same side is not reasonable, that means they aren't real people and don't have real rights.

Quick reasonableness test - for every concession you ask of one group, try flipping it around to see if it feels right to ask the equivalent of the other. Go back and read some of my recent posts - that is what I have been trying to do. If it doesn't seem reasonable when flipped - it is wrong ... try harder next time.

What I am seeing here are attempts to justify discrimination by building straw men and talking about defecation and masturbation. Stop that, everyone recognizes it as trolling.

Oh by the way, say hello to Sandy/Rocket, it's been a while.

[Stu2630]

Naturist Mark

Why respect the sensibilities of those who won't respect ours?

I think most textiles do respect your rights. Of course, it varies between individuals and areas, but there is plenty of goodwill towards naturists by the textile majority.

Your very first principle, even when arguing in favor of 'nudist rights' is that textile sensibilities ALWAYS trump those of nudists.

Textiles sensibilities should always trump the rights of naturists in non-nudist places events etc, certainly. The opposite is true at nudist locations, and that is quite proper.

Oh, I've always rejected the notion that people have a right to not be offended - that is nothing short of tyranny.

There always have been, and always will be, limitations on what you regard as freedom of expression - and that is not of itself tyranny. Even in America, you have laws on slander, libel, obscenity, pornography and so on. The European approach recognises that freedom of speech is essential, but there should be limitations for some kinds of expression, and proper forums where people can express their views, no matter how heretical or odious. I recognise the problems in the European countries with regard to limiting free speech for the sake of causing offence. However, I differentiate between freedom of speech on the one hand, and freedom to behave as you like on the other. The former should enjoy a far greater rein and far fewer limitations than the latter, and public nudity is most definitely the latter. Freedom of expression is the freedom to express a view and that should mean others are free to listen, or to be absent from having to hear or see that expression. Consequently, when Westboro Baptist Church goes to the funerals of American servicemen killed in Afghanistan or Iraq and peddle hate speech to distressed mourners, I don't think thatis the exercise of free speech - it is downright cruelty.

But we are also a nation with more than its share of prudes, idiots and religious zealots - nudism does not enjoy the tolerance that speech does - completely harmless nudity is actively attacked while vile harmful speech is widely tolerated.

To you, nudity is harmless - to me, it is no less offensive than, for example, being confronted with pornography, and I don't want it in the environment I have to use. Nudists and textiles should show mutual consideration. Tha means nudists should be catered for by the provision of public spaces assigned to them for their own use and enjoyment. In return, nudists should respect the sensibilities of non-nudists and not behave in ways they know will annoy, offend or antagonise.

Is that so unreasonable?

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

I must disagree and say that most textiles do not respect nudist rights for there basically are no rights to be respected in the first place. If they did respect (non existing) nudist rights, then they would be the first ones to at least demand at least some legal nudist beaches. Instead, they continue to fuel harrasment and arrest of nudists who are nude on a traditional (although not legally recognized) clothing optional beach. Textiles, for a variety of reasons, either don't understand or outright despise nudists and want to continue to prohibit their nudist behavior through law. I see this time and time again. To so many textiles, if a person is nude, then they become a non human being. This is even taught in art classes where students are taught to see a nude model as an object. This way of thinking goes well beyond the classroom and continue through the life of the art student who will always see a nude person as an object unless they are enlightened enough to think about, challenge, and change their beliefs about nudity.

[Steve]

Of course they do. Same as anyone else. All people have the same rights.

The basic premise that nudists must always be the ones to defer says that they don't have the same rights as anyone else - and that can't be correct.

I'm not dense, I am perfectly aware that people have to compromise in order to live in reasonable harmony, but the notion that all the compromise must always come from the same side is not reasonable, that means they aren't real people and don't have real rights.

Quick reasonableness test - for every concession you ask of one group, try flipping it around to see if it feels right to ask the equivalent of the other. Go back and read some of my recent posts - that is what I have been trying to do. If it doesn't seem reasonable when flipped - it is wrong ... try harder next time.

What I am seeing here are attempts to justify discrimination by building straw men and talking about defecation and masturbation. Stop that, everyone recognizes it as trolling.

Oh by the way, say hello to Sandy/Rocket, it's been a while.

Mark

I truly dont know what you are talking about. but it's ok because I was told before to expect surprises.

I think Stu2630 summed up your other posts quite well.

I am truly sorry that there aren't any place closer than 5-6hrs from you as you say to go. However Ohio is a big state.

what I envision is a park like area kinda like Garden of Eden while sectioned and marked a true nudist paradice.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect textiles to demand beaches for nudists. That is something nudists have to do for themselves and then seek the support of friendly textiles and the authorities.

We have to remember, too, that it is not unknown for nudist venues to become the haunts of people who are anything but real nudists, such as gay cruisers, exhibitionists and swingers, and nudism gives them both the venues and the cover they need to appear legitimate. How many nudist beaches have been spoiled by these characters? So it is possible to understand that the authorities are going to be very cautious indeed before allocating a particular beach for nudist use because they could be inviting trouble for themselves. That's why I have suggested a code, agreed between nudists and the authorities.

Here in Sweden, nudists are spoiled for choice. If you came to visit me, I have no doubt you could find at least TEN locations which are recognised as clothing optional within one hour's drive from my home - and the nearest is just ten minutes away. Nudism isn't a problem here because it is catered for - BUT - nudists here also respect the rights of the rest of society, the 90%+ who are strictly textile, to enjoy nudity-free environments. Nudists here don't try to "push the envelope' or convince us that their way is healthier or otherwise preferable: they just get on with their lives, mindful that they are a minority and their preferred state can upset others.

America could do a lot worse than to copy Sweden in this regard.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Naturist Mark

You have a legitimate beef about the fact that there is no local provision for you and you have to drive several hours to find a nudist place.

That is not how it should be and I genuinely sympathise.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines

I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect textiles to demand beaches for nudists. That is something nudists have to do for themselves and then seek the support of friendly textiles and the authorities.

We have to remember, too, that it is not unknown for nudist venues to become the haunts of people who are anything but real nudists, such as gay cruisers, exhibitionists and swingers, and nudism gives them both the venues and the cover they need to appear legitimate. How many nudist beaches have been spoiled by these characters? So it is possible to understand that the authorities are going to be very cautious indeed before allocating a particular beach for nudist use because they could be inviting trouble for themselves. That's why I have suggested a code, agreed between nudists and the authorities.

Here in Sweden, nudists are spoiled for choice. If you came to visit me, I have no doubt you could find at least TEN locations which are recognised as clothing optional within one hour's drive from my home - and the nearest is just ten minutes away. Nudism isn't a problem here because it is catered for - BUT - nudists here also respect the rights of the rest of society, the 90%+ who are strictly textile, to enjoy nudity-free environments. Nudists here don't try to "push the envelope' or convince us that their way is healthier or otherwise preferable: they just get on with their lives, mindful that they are a minority and their preferred state can upset others.

America could do a lot worse than to copy Sweden in this regard.

Stu

Stu,

Two things.........

1) It is not unknown for textile beaches to become the haunt of people who are anything but peaceful people who come to the beach to relax and enjoy the atmosphere. For example, some textile beaches here have become bombarded with low flying aircraft towing huge banners that advertise one product or another. The loud noise from such aircraft is very annoying yet it is tolerated. Some textile beaches have also hade problems with drinking and drug parties. The authorities should be honest and crack down on textile beaches before they even consider harrassing peaceful nude sunbathers - as they have done on one beach after another.

2) How long is the outdoor sunbathing and swimming season in Sweden? I bet that it is already over. The Swedish climate can be said to be the ultimate control of outdoor nudists as the season is honestly very short.