Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nude teens in Vermont town

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nude teens in Vermont town

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/...mont_nude_dc_2

    Wish I could participate.

  • #2
    Originally posted by JoshuaZ:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/...mont_nude_dc_2

    Wish I could participate.
    There are others that wish they could participate, JoshuaZ

    Click on Link to CFF "Nude Legally" thread

    I'd rather be sunning my buns and skinny dippin' at Shangri La Ranch

    Comment


    • #3
      I hope someone from Clothesfree gets up there and interviews them before the kneejerk politicians make it illegal because they figure that they have to protect someone.

      NDR

      Comment


      • #4
        I would move to Vt to ,if it wasnt for the long and cold winters.I enjoy going to the Ledges,which is just outside of Brattleboro , in Wilmington.Its a nice clothing-optional beach on the Harriman reservoir.Its nicer later in the summer when the water level is lowered and the sandy beach is more"exposed".

        Comment


        • #5
          If you're interested in reading more about the story, click on
          Link to Brattleboro Reformer - Nudists seek harmony
          Link to The Boston Globe - Law of nature prevails in Vermont

          If you read The Boston Globe article, click on the Do you think nudity is a basic human right? link
          to view some very interesting opinions. I noticed that AANR and The Naturist Society websites are mentioned in a couple of the posts.

          nifocinphx

          Comment


          • #6
            Seems as if Vermont has been in the news lately on the subject or skinny-dipping, being nude in public, and state laws, and local community’s ordinances on nudity.

            Interesting I would come across this on line petition which had a deadline a year ago on 8-03-2005, where only 259 signatures were posted out of a goal of 10,000 required to petition to keep skinny dipping legal.


            Link to Petition to Keep Skinnydipping Legal In Vermont.
            .

            Comment


            • #7
              This is the letter I like:

              Posted by lamourie on Aug-23 6:01 PM - Message #6546.138 in response to #6546.1
              Speaking as a naturist, I believe that we do have a basic human right to be nude. BUT we all are different people, and we must respect the customs and regulations of the society in which we live.

              There are many naturists in New England. Most of us restrict our nudity to spots where skinny dipping is traditionally accepted, our own private property, and nudist or clothing-optional resorts. We do not simply strip anywhere even if technically legal. That's because we respect the values and opinions of others and never wish to offend "textiles" (non-naturists). Courtesy and common sense prevail.

              I believe that society's uptight attitude and shame about nudity -- especially concerning less than perfect bodies -- is unfortunate. Non-sexual social nudity is a great way to feel good about one's self and one's body....Social nudity brings feeling of freedom, comfort, and exhilaration to many, but it is not for everyone. Certainly, many people still object to seeing others, and even themselves, nude. So stripping anywhere you like is disrespectful and will only bring about legal means to curtail the practice. It will be many years before public nudity is more widely accepted, so until then, please respect others and be nude where appropriate.
              Well said!

              Stu

              Comment


              • #8
                "We have a nuclear power plant a few miles away and a ridiculous war in the Middle East, countries getting bombed," said Ian Bigelow, a 23-year-old who had gathered with some of his friends outside a bookstore. "So why's it such a big problem if we chose to get nude?"
                This is a quote from the article cited above. I think it says it all. So I know I am preaching to mostly choir here, but aren't there more important things than nude teens in a parking lot. I think it is great they are pushing the envelope. Maybe someday I will have their courage to get some of my friends together.......it may be awhile though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why must nudists be pacifists? I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?

                  Is it appropriate that if one clothed person is offended, then one clothes-free person must put their clothes on? What if one clothed person complains about ten clothes-free people?

                  Must nudists only practice what should be and seems to be their God given right only when the majority approve? Must we always tip-toe around those who are so easily offended?

                  When a single individual can complain about a group of nudists, not only have we become subject to the rule of the majority, but the minority who disapprove as well.

                  Nudity should not be subjected to such terms as "when appropriate", for there will always be at least one who finds it "inappropriate", and we will always have the threat of having someone harass us for being nude.

                  If nudity is OK, then it is OK. And as long as the youth mentioned in the article are doing nothing lewd or sexual, we should be willing to stand behind them and support them. After all, isn't that the sort of rights we would all like to be able to exercise?

                  NDR

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?
                    There are many kinds of behaviour that are "appropriate" in the eyes of some but not others and public nakedness is just one of them. Other behaviours include using certain words that the English-speaking world consider obscene, or having sex. Where a person wishes to behave in public in such a way that they know may cause offence, then they have a moral obligation to minimise that risk. This can be done either by negotiation with the potential offendees, or by exercising discretion. The writer (lamourie) recognises this, and I applaud her for it.

                    Standing on principle, being unwilling to respect the values and sensitivities of others, refusing to enter into dialogue or to compromise - these are the foundations of fundamentalism. As we can see, fundamentalism rarely succeeds and is the cause of most of the world's strife.

                    Stu

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To STU2630:

                      Right on!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why must nudists be pacifists? I really disagree with the idea that nudists should only be nude "where appropriate". Appropriate in the eyes of whom?
                        My concern is that we are concerned about a female breast or a nipple or an aereola, while at the same time we can watch tons of violence on TV or have a fake war. Personally, I think we ought to be more concerned about the amount of murders or other violence we can see on TV.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I see it as if there is a problem about seeing someone nude, then do not look. Back in the day, it was innappropriate for females to wear pants, Interracial dating, black people on the wrong side of the road. If those people believed that they shouldnt do it because it will cause offence, then where would this world be. I believe it to be great that they are people out there who will stand up and be naked. If more people were open and acceptable to the human body, then life might just be better. In society now, when nudity is brought up, it is almost immediatly thought to be either sexual or sinful, rather than normal and natural. So of course, when a child is taught that throughout their life, whenever they get nude or se nudity they will believe that and act on it in that mannor. I think optional nonsexual nudity in a casual way is harmless and actually be beneficial. There have been studies on children and nudity, and it all proves to be unharmful. http://www.fcn.ca/children_2.htm

                          ps. I believe that it is innappropriate to smoke in public, because it is a health factor, yet people do it and it is harmful to children and yet the government isnt doing anything about it. I think people should spend the time that they are dissing nudity and making laws and stuff for it, and spend that energy on bigger more important issues.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Stu:"Standing on principle, being unwilling to respect the values and sensitivities of others, refusing to enter into dialogue or to compromise - these are the foundations of fundamentalism."

                            That also describes many textiles, especially those in office. That stance, Stu, is the reason why there are so few places that allow legal nudity.

                            The most repeated fallback position that prudes take where nudism and public nudity is concerned is: "What about the children?" When asking that rhetorical question, one which they neither want to hear an answer to nor one which they can answer, they are refusing to enter into any dialogue or making any attempt to compromise.

                            Nudists are not the problem, Stu. The general public are the fundamentalists when it comes to public nudity and nudism in the vast majority of cases. When a nudist attempts to go outside the norms, one of two things happen: He is either arrested or, as in this case, the people in charge decide to change the law to make it illegal so they can arrest anyone else in the future who follows the same behaviour.

                            So who, pray tell, is the fundamentalist, according to your definition, in that scenario?

                            Bob S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Stu,

                              You do not really address the issue. In this instance, the young nudists are doing nothing illegal. Why should they have their "rights" removed by another individual or groups of individuals, who claim to be offended?

                              Must nudists always take a back seat in the "right"'s department, even when they have the legal right to be nude? Or will it always be the nudist who must give way to the wishes of the clothed?

                              If we do indeed believe that nudity is ok, then we must defend that right. And we must do it even more vigilantly where it is a right that someone is trying to take away.

                              NDR

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X