Announcement

**Kari P** · 10-29-2003, 02:28 AM

I would like to draw this theme off from the law discussion ("The Law: My Suggestion" in Legal issues) where Stu and Rocket are denying the naturality and reasonability of nudity based on the facts about our environment.

Already said: "We are born without clothes" (Bob S.) "Nude when possible, clothed when practical. I think the environment can be adjusted to." (NudeAl) "It is something they have to experience, and they will soon know if it works for them." (Duneman) "There aint no reason why you cant stand in the shade nude." (Nudkiwi) I agree with all of them.

Our species homo sapiens has used clothing during thousands of years but not originally. I can honestly admit that clothing is one of the most remarkable early invents of human. Without it we couldn't have spread to all over the globe, we couldn't survive in most of the climate zones. These are facts.

But when humans started to wear clothes, they were first used only for body protection and physical comfort. The social aspects of clothing and finally its compulsory in certain cultures (ours included, but not every culture of the world) came later. I don't know when - can someone tell it? Anyway it is clear that the use of clothing always and everywhere is only a tiny scratch in the history of mankind.

Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role. If you don't have a physical need to use clothes, why use them? (I use the words nudism and naturism as true synonyms, but prefer naturism because it includes the thought "back to nature".)

If you never try the experience of being nude, you don't know how it feels. Especially if you were nude in the free nature, you could feel the wonderful feeling of beeing free and a part of the nature itself. That's how I feel it.

Naturism is not adoration of sun. We know the good and bad things related to sun exposure.

That we cannot be nude constantly in our climates, doesn't take away the naturality of nudity and the pleasure it gives when we have the opportunity. We can even widen our zone of comfort to areas not initially seeming comfortable in the nude state. The body adapts, and if we stop thinking constantly of slight imcomfort ("brr, it's cold here") we can still get so much pleasure from just being naked that it is worth doing.

This is enough from me at the start about the naturality of nudity. I bring into discussion another natural thing, being barefoot.

Rocket said: "Bare feet aren't all that great to walk around in.."

This is also a thing where it is possible to widen one's zone of comfort by repeated excercise. Not all naturists are barefooters, but I am. In the summer I am almost constantly barefoot; in the winter I am barefoot at home, elsewhere in shoes with no socks removing the shoes where I can.

This morning I walked outdoors about 40 meters to get the paper from the mailbox wearing only a t-shirt and shorts, no footwear. The temperature was at freezing point, and there was a thin layer of ice on the ground. But I suffered of no pain nor felt even a slightest incomfort. I am not a masocist. What I did is really within my zone of comfort. For this short trip I don't have to wear more. Doing it this way was practical. (Could I have done it fully naked? For the physical aspect only, yes.)

Kari P

**Abiqua** · 10-29-2003, 03:41 AM

Archaeologists, of course, often find remains of clothing, but can't generally tell whether a culture which had no written records had any actual ban against nudity.

Such bans probably developed for the first time before 8000 years ago, I would guess based on what I've read of it, and today there probably isn't any culture which is completely free of some clothing requirement. Even "primitive" cultures usually require a minimal covering of one sex even if the other sex goes nude.

As far as bare feet and light clothing are concerned, if you're comfortable with it, don't let the skeptics discourage you just because they're too timid to try it! About ten years ago, we had a snowfall that left over one foot (30 cm) on the ground, which is quite a lot here; when a car got stuck next to my house, I ran out barefoot to help push it, much to the amazement of the driver (I admit that part of the amazement might have been that someone came to help, but it was my bare feet that he commented on).

Even the most determined of nudists will put on clothes when the weather conditions become too extreme for his or her comfort level - and there are situations when clothing, including shoes, really are needed for safety. Other than that, why should we put on clothes just because someone else shivers looking at us?

Keep barefooting, Kari!

**Buzzer** · 10-29-2003, 06:17 AM

I read that when europeans first discovered the Eskimos they were amazed to find out that, when in-doors, they would shed their clothes completely.

**Gary Naturist** · 10-29-2003, 07:38 AM

I read recently of some research that determined that people originally started to wear clothes when they moved north into colder weather.

How this was determined is very interesting. The researchers found that, while there were lice on the bodies of the more northern people, there were none on the more southern people. Body lice live in clothes, not on the skin.

Using google, I found an article on this topic. Here is the URL:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-22-5074674.html

Gary

10-29-2003, 08:44 AM

Kari

"Our species homo sapiens has used clothing during thousands of years but not originally."

It is believed that even the primates that preceded homo sapiens wore clothing. And anthropologists are certain that homo erectus wore animal skins. Human beings are no longer tree-dwelling, fur-bearing apes. Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing.

"The social aspects of clothing and finally its compulsory in certain cultures (ours included, but not every culture of the world) came later."

It's only compulsory in public places. And it is compulsory in almost every culture to cover the genitals when in public.

"Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role."

I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few.

"If you don't have a physical need to use clothes, why use them? (I use the words nudism and naturism as true synonyms, but prefer naturism because it includes the thought "back to nature".)"

There are lots of things that we don't have a physical need for, but we still use them. It's part of our culture and it's what makes us what we are. We don't need to put up Christmas trees each December - in fact it's very illogical to do so. My family aren't even Christians but we always have a Christmas tree. Cultural norms are just that - they are based on neither logic nor physical need.

"If you never try the experience of being nude, you don't know how it feels. Especially if you were nude in the free nature, you could feel the wonderful feeling of beeing free and a part of the nature itself. That's how I feel it."

Nobody is stopping you enjoying being nude. But there are times and places where you can be nude and times and places where you can't. I don't think that most people share your pleasure of bein nude. It's no more than a state of undress that is necessary to take a shower.

"That we cannot be nude constantly in our climates, doesn't take away the naturality of nudity and the pleasure it gives when we have the opportunity. We can even widen our zone of comfort to areas not initially seeming comfortable in the nude state."

Your "pleasure" a being nude is no more logical than my dislike of nudity. Both are just "feelings". But it's good and fine so long as your "pleasure" isn't someone else's offence, And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others.

Stu

**Bob S.** · 10-29-2003, 09:39 AM

Great topic Kari,

Clothes were first created for protection from the elements. As I eluded to in the other topic, snails are not born with a shell. Does that make that shell unnatural? hermit crabs also look for their own shell to live in. But that does not mean they are being unnatural.

Humans have always lived in areas where they could have protection from the elements. Remember the term cavemen? Where do you think they lived? In caves. So could there be an argument that our fabricated homes are unnatural?

"Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing."

It is autumn right now. And when I look into the sky, I will occasionally see a flock of birds flying south. Why do they do that? Because their habitat is getting too cold and they are looking for a warmer place to live. Bears and other animals just sleep through the winter rather than deal with the cold (and lack of food). Other animals grow a thicker coat of fur for the winter. There are many ways that animals deal with a change in the habitat. If we didn't have clothing, we would be like the birds, migrating south for the winter.

"I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few."

Reread what Kari said. Nudists and naturists have decided that clothes have a specific role, and that role is for protection of the elements. When the weather is fine, there is no need for clothes. And you are right, most nudists are very resepectful of others feelings. The ones who are advocating for more places and more acceptance by society are going to be the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention. But to call it misguided is wrong.

"My family aren't even Christians but we always have a Christmas tree. Cultural norms are just that - they are based on neither logic nor physical need."

You get a Christmas Tree not out of cultural norm, but out of familial trdition. Halloween is a cultural norm over here, but there are people who don't celebrate it. A cultural norm is not a good reason for continuing to do something. It used to be cultural norm to wear full body bathing attire to go swimming.

"And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others."

And I wonder how natural it is to take offense at the sight of the human body? That would be an interesting study to do, if possible. My guess is that it is extremely recent and that it is an unnatural thing to find the human body offensive.

Bob S.

**Kari P** · 10-30-2003, 02:26 AM

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
It is believed that even the primates that preceded homo sapiens wore clothing. And anthropologists are certain that homo erectus wore animal skins.

Actually irrelevant to the topic, but if you can, could you give links to scientific research that says this?

I am sure that if homo erectus wore animal skins, they did it only for protection of the body.

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
Human beings are no longer tree-dwelling, fur-bearing apes. Very few of us could survive in our habitats without clothing.

Yes. Cannot you see where the point is? You and other textile people have converted a very-often-necessity to nearly-always-must. You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism.

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
It's only compulsory in public places. And it is compulsory in almost every culture to cover the genitals when in public.

And you are in your opinions very tight about what is a public place. I come to this in the law discussion when time permits.

About covering genitals, you earlier somewhere asked: "How it is so difficult to wear a small piece of garment?" My wife asks exactly the same way! My simple answer is: "Why I should?" I can see no such difference in my body parts that expressly the genitals should be covered in the first place. Repeatedly I am trying to say to my wife: "How that small piece of garment makes my image significantly prettier to look at? Am I ugly? Cannot you love me just the way I am?"

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
"Nudists or naturists are trying to put clothing back to its original and the most rational role."

I thought that most nudists and naturists were just people who liked to be naked among other naturists as a form of relaxation. I don't think most naturists are trying to change the rest of society - just a vocal and, in my view, misguided few.

You have probably misunderstood me. I should have said clearer: "Nudists or naturists have put clothing back to its original and the most rational role in their only life as far as they can do it. Some of them are trying to spread acceptance to the idea in the public."

Naturism is both a lifestyle and an ideology. You have concentrated on the lifestyle part. Those of us who take the ideology most seriously are not only following it in their lives but also promoting it in the public, mostly in a benign way. With realism we cannot expect the great public to adopt our view to clothing, but we expect it to have tolerance to both our lifestyle and our attempts to spread the ideology behind it.

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
Your "pleasure" a being nude is no more logical than my dislike of nudity. Both are just "feelings".

Right.

quote:
Originally posted by stu2630:
And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others.

Obviously you haven't understood the term "zone of comfort". It is the translation of a term I once heard in a lecture of a psychiatrist. It means simply the variety of the different environments and social situations you feel yourself comfortable in. The moral of the lesson was that widening your personal zone of comfort is a good thing, and you can do it by your own decisions. So my zone of comfort doesn't mean the places where I feel myself free to be naked or to do something else that could discomfort others, as your comment puts me to think you had understood it.

Kari P

10-30-2003, 06:09 AM

While clothing is necessary at times to protect the body from adverse weather, clothing has never been and never will be NATURAL. Even in the cold state of Michigan we could be nude outside in the summer and maybe even at least part of the spring. The more hardy of adventurers could probably go out nude in parts of the fall and winter when the temps get up into the 60's at times.

I wear clothes because I HAVE to in order to be warm, and to keep from being arrested because other people have a problem with people being NATURAL as we were meant to be. The only REAL purpose for clothing is for body protection, but it has turned into a necessity for many people who are embarrassed by nudity and choose to make it shameful when it's perfectly natural which clothing ISN'T.

10-30-2003, 06:28 AM

Bob

"Humans have always lived in areas where they could have protection from the elements. Remember the term cavemen? Where do you think they lived? In caves. So could there be an argument that our fabricated homes are unnatural?"

I think we have to be extremely careful about our use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" - these terms can have such a wide range of meanings they become meaningless. Short of us all returning to central Africa and living in the trees we have to recognise that our own evolution has detatched us from most aspects of nature.

"There are many ways that animals deal with a change in the habitat. If we didn't have clothing, we would be like the birds, migrating south for the winter."

That wouldn't be practicable, Bob. At least, not without using other unnatural mean of transport like cars, trains and aeroplanes.

"Reread what Kari said. Nudists and naturists have decided that clothes have a specific role, and that role is for protection of the elements. When the weather is fine, there is no need for clothes."

Oh no, Bob. Clothes do far more than just protect us from the elements. They help to give us identity, a social position, authority, and they add colour and style to our lives. They hide the fact that we are overweight, or have cellulite or scars or birthmarks etc. Clothes help us to work, to carry things we need thus freeing our hands, to stay clean (e.g. when gardening or painting). Clothes even help us to have fun! And, most important of all, in this day and age clothes protect us from exhibiting our private parts and protect others from having to see them.

"And you are right, most nudists are very resepectful of others feelings. The ones who are advocating for more places and more acceptance by society are going to be the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention. But to call it misguided is wrong."

Calling for more places is right - there is a justifiable case for that. Calling for more acceptance is misguided and wrong if it involves nudists practising their hobby in a way that is likely to cause offence to others.

"You get a Christmas Tree not out of cultural norm, but out of familial trdition."

The familial tradition is based un the cultural norn, Bob. That's why the majority of families do the same thing - or is it just a co-incidence?

"Halloween is a cultural norm over here, but there are people who don't celebrate it. A cultural norm is not a good reason for continuing to do something".

I suspect that the main reasons for people not celebrating Halloween are firstly that it is primarily aimed at children - so if you have no children in your family you don't bother, and secondly religious - there are some people who associate the festival with sinister and anti-Christian forces. A cultural norm is worth continuing if it is (a) harmless, and (b) popular. Cultural norms help to keep identity and cohesion in societies; they add colour - mitigating against the blandness which is a danger in mono-cultural societies.

"It used to be cultural norm to wear full body bathing attire to go swimming."

Fashions do change.

"And remember that in extending your "zone of comfort" you can bring discomfort to others."

"And I wonder how natural it is to take offense at the sight of the human body? That would be an interesting study to do, if possible. My guess is that it is extremely recent and that it is an unnatural thing to find the human body offensive."

It is neither natural nor unnatural, Bob. Cultural norms sometimes become so deeply embedded that any breach of them results in widescale disgust. At one time there were public executions. People die. Is it unnatural to find the sight of criminals being put to death disgusting? Is it unnatural to find the sight of people having sexual intercourse disgusting? I suggest not. It's a cultural thing.

Kari P

"Actually irrelevant to the topic, but if you can, could you give links to scientific research that says this?"

We had a TV programme all about homo-erectus and Neanderthal man shown here last year on the BBC. They explained how the ancestors of modern man used to skin animals and tan the hides to wear. They even showed some bone tools made for this purpose.

"I am sure that if homo erectus wore animal skins, they did it only for protection of the body".

Perhaps initially. But clothes wold soon become a status symbol, a means of attracting the opposite sex, a means of showing which family or tribe you belonged to, a way of displaying your wealth etc.

"You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism."

I'm sorry, Kari, I don't know what you mean. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

"And you are in your opinions very tight about what is a public place. I come to this in the law discussion when time permits".

Here a public place is quite simply any place to which the public has right of access.

"About covering genitals, you earlier somewhere asked: "How it is so difficult to wear a small piece of garment?" My wife asks exactly the same way! My simple answer is: "Why I should?""

The reason you should is to avoid causing offence to others.

"I can see no such difference in my body parts that expressly the genitals should be covered in the first place".

But others can se a difference. They don't mind if you exposeyour arms or even your chest, but not your genitals.

"Repeatedly I am trying to say to my wife: "How that small piece of garment makes my image significantly prettier to look at? Am I ugly? Cannot you love me just the way I am?"

You know that isn't the reason she wants you to cover up.

"You have probably misunderstood me. I should have said clearer: "Nudists or naturists have put clothing back to its original and the most rational role in their only life as far as they can do it. Some of them are trying to spread acceptance to the idea in the public."

OK, so nudists can tell people about what they do and invite them to try it. I'm OK with that. But what they must NEVER do is to force nudity onto others who do not want it. All that will do is antagonise the public and they will begin to think of naturists as offensive people.

"Naturism is both a lifestyle and an ideology. You have concentrated on the lifestyle part. Those of us who take the ideology most seriously are not only following it in their lives but also promoting it in the public, mostly in a benign way."

It must be ONLY in a benign way. Trying to force an ideology onto an unwilling public, whether it is Christian fundamentalism, Marxism or naturism, is doomed to failure and a great deal of misery will be caused along the way.

"With realism we cannot expect the great public to adopt our view to clothing, but we expect it to have tolerance to both our lifestyle and our attempts to spread the ideology behind it."

The public are already fairly tolerant of naturists providing they practice out of sight of the rest of us. The right to free speech also ensures that naturists have the right to tell people about their ideology an dto try to persuade them to try out the lifestyle. There is nothing objectionable about that. But if you try to force people to accept it by saying "I'm nude in public - get used to it! If you don't like it then that's your problem" that will win you lots and lots of enemies among the otherwise tolerant public. They will call for the law to be used against you.

"So my zone of comfort doesn't mean the places where I feel myself free to be naked or to do something else that could discomfort others, as your comment puts me to think you had understood it."

OK. I see what you mean, now. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Stu

**Jochanaan** · 10-30-2003, 07:40 AM

Very interesting topic! But the question as originally posed begs a couple of others: "What is natural?" And, "Is natural good?"

As to what is natural, I suspect we would all have different definitions, particularly those who have strong feelings one way or another about religions. The Bible describes a natural state in its first two chapters. Naturalists and other scientists have seemingly agreed on another. And other religions and belief systems have presented conflicting views. So we probably will never agree.

Many think that there's nothing wrong with crops being modified at the genetic level. (Actually, we've been doing this for millenia by breeding; we've just developed different methods in the last few years.) But many others shudder even to think of it. Some of us look around at all the pavement surrounding us and think, "What a waste of good land!"

And even if we did agree on what is natural, most would also agree that it is virtually impossible to live a completely natural life now. Think of it. No clothes. No shelter. Drink water from streams or lakes. Pluck fruits and greens for your food. Can you think of any place where we can do such things and not die of hypothermia or malaria or some other ill?

So you see the difficulties.

As for me, I try to live as naturally as I can: organic foods when my budget permits, walking or riding a bicycle where I can, and so forth. Shedding clothes when I don't need them for protection is just a part of this. Even more, it's a spiritual attempt to return to the state described in Genesis 1 and 2. I feel strongly that body shame is both unnatural and oppressive; so, with concessions to my friends and family who feel otherwise, I wear clothes when I must and take them off when I can.

**Baron Lake** · 10-30-2003, 07:47 AM

Come on Stu. "The general public is already tolerant of nudity as long as they are not confronted with it" What kind of "tolerance" is that? Also, you are not having nudity "forced" upon you. No one is forcing you to be nude. It is you and people like you who are forcing others to be clothed (under penality of law)to protect your irrational ideas. Lighten up buddy. Find another doctor, one who will give you prozac instead of mares piss! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Baron

10-30-2003, 08:17 AM

Baron

"The general public is already tolerant of nudity as long as they are not confronted with it" What kind of "tolerance" is that?"

It means that you get naturist beaches and venues that you can use.

"Also, you are not having nudity "forced" upon you. No one is forcing you to be nude."

That's not logical. If I complain that my neighbour is playing his music too loud and he's therefore "forcing" it on me, he can't say: "well it's my music, I'm not forcing you to listen to it", can he?

That's even more relevant in public places. The way you behave in the presence of others affects those others. You can do pretty much what you like on your bit of the world (your home) but when you're out in public then you conform to certain accepted ways of behaving that the rest of us find acceptable otherwise you get removed from those places. That seems reasonable to me.

"It is you and people like you who are forcing others to be clothed (under penality of law)to protect your irrational ideas."

If you want to be naked, fine. Be naked as you like in your own private space, or in the space shared among others who are OK with it. But you don't do it in the presence of the rest of us who aren't OK with it. It's your opinion that my ideas are irrational, but that's not what I'm wanting to do any way. I just want to keep public places free from behaviour that most people find unacceptable and that makes those places less comfortable for most people to use.

"Lighten up buddy. Find another doctor, one who will give you prozac instead of mares piss!"

I'm light enough thanks. But I have a say in what happens in the places I have to use and that I own and pay to be maintained. And why the heck do I need Prozac? Just because I hold a different opinion to you doesn't mean I'm depressed. As for the mare's urine tablets - they have been flushed down the pan.

Stu

**Kari P** · 10-30-2003, 01:00 PM

It's impossible to comment on everything - just a few excerpts.

As Jochanaan says, there are many different definitions of naturality. Bob seems to be near to my thoughts. We do not have to deny the naturality of clothes no more than of our houses. They can be considered natural, too. But nudity is still our original dress, thus it is more natural than any clothing.

The question should not be of what is natural. The right way to think is to compare things - which one of two alternatives is the more natural. When we say to want to be in a natural state, we actually want to be as natural as we practically can, making our choices from available alternatives. To that point, nudity is or should be one available alternative, when the environmental conditions permit it.

Is a Christmas tree a cultural norm or not? It is not a compulsory thing, you know. Clothing is much more compulsory in our society. Thus you cannot equate the things. If you accept a Christmas tree as a family tradition, you do it by your free choice even if you give reasons for your choice by the cultural norm. It's not the same with clothes: you have no free choice.

What I mean when I say: "You think that you can logically derive a social norm out of facts, but you cannot. The logical error is the same that homophobes make to resist homosexualism." I give my explanation to this, but I don't want Rocket to come into this discussion.

The facts are that we have two different sexes meant for reproduction, and that a substantial part of the individuals of a population must have a sexuality corresponding to their sexes in order that population to survive (very-often-necessity). There is no acceptable logic to draw the conclusion that every individual must behave corresponding to one's sex (nearly-always-must), and to make a norm from it. Similarly, our culture dominated by textile people has made the use of clothing a norm, while the need for it is actually on the very-often-necessity level and has been raised to the nearly-always-must level by illogical reasoning.

Stu, you are right in that there are many reasons to use clothes in addition to the physical need. But you give very little choice to those people that at times care only about that single reason and don't want to use clothes when they don't have a need.

You say you give a choice: be naked, but just out of sight of people that might be offended by nudity. This isn't enough, though I and the most of us are not in the first place coming naked to the streets, shops and public parks.

I could initially accept your wish for a ban of nudity in public places. But I don't accept your definition of a public place. I say the rest of what I have to say in the law discussion.

Kari P

10-30-2003, 01:41 PM

Kari

"Is a Christmas tree a cultural norm or not? It is not a compulsory thing, you know. Clothing is much more compulsory in our society. Thus you cannot equate the things."

I was merely pointing out that people don't always behave out of pure logic. Sometimes our behaviour is culturally conditioned and these things are not usually bad nor destructive.

"If you accept a Christmas tree as a family tradition, you do it by your free choice even if you give reasons for your choice by the cultural norm. It's not the same with clothes: you have no free choice."

You have a free choice to put up a Christmas tree in your home or not. You have a choice to be naked in your home or not. It's your home and your choice. But it would not be right to put up a Christmas tree in a public place if most people found it offensive, would it? When the authotrities do put up Christmas trees in public they do it because they believe most people will want to see it and will enjoy it.

"There is no acceptable logic to draw the conclusion that every individual must behave corresponding to one's sex (nearly-always-must), and to make a norm from it".

That's a very complex issue and not one we can do justice to here. But to me the relevant part about sexual preference is that it is, for the most part, an entirely private matter. Homosexuals do not generally have sex with each other in public - so they don't usually cause anyone offence.

"Similarly, our culture dominated by textile people has made the use of clothing a norm, while the need for it is actually on the very-often-necessity level and has been raised to the nearly-always-must level by illogical reasoning."

Firstly, virtually everyone is a textile person who sometimes is naked. I am, you are, and everyone here is. Nobody is clothed all the time and no-one is naked all the time. So all we are discussing is when and where nudity is acceptable. When you are in your own home it is your own choice. When you visit me in my home you should respect my feelings and not be naked if it offends me or my family, otherwise you should not be there. When you are in a public place you should respect the public's feelings (or the majority of the public's feelings) otherwise you should not be there. Why is this reasoning "illogical"?

"But you give very little choice to those people that at times care only about that single reason and don't want to use clothes when they don't have a need."

Of course they have a choice. They can choose to wear clothes (which they almost certainly do most of the time anyway). Or they can choose to be naked provided they are either in a private place or on a naturist beach. That is their choice.

"You say you give a choice: be naked, but just out of sight of people that might be offended by nudity. This isn't enough, though I and the most of us are not in the first place coming naked to the streets, shops and public parks."

It has to be enough. It is wholly unreasonable to expect the majority of people radically to abandon their long-held social conditioning and shift their values to tolerate what they regard as the intolerable just to accommodate the recreational preferences of a tiny minority (who, as I said, are still free to pursue their interests in other places).

Stu

Announcement

Nudity - how natural?

Nudity - how natural?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment