Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nude teens in Vermont town

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

  • #31
    EVERYONE, Think of the children.
    Isn't it weird that whenever someone wants something changed for thier own benefit they say something like that as if it was a trump card.
    stu, you should really do research on the psychological affect of nudity and children. There has not been any report of a negative effect on a child, raised in a healthy nonsexual nudist family, there actually have been reports of positive effects. When i look at the news every night, unless something good is on. I only see "textile" people causing mayhem. There will be a rare time when a nudist will do something wrong, and of course it will be on every newspaper and such, but they never show the positive things. It is just like the views on teenagers. I am not sure how old you are, but by the way you are speaking, you aren't a teen. I like how you are able to speak for all teenagers. That we do things to irritate and cause trouble. you should reread the article a couple more times. Maybe even have someone else read it aloud to you. They were not trying to irritate anyone. It was hot and a couple of dozen teens decided to have hula hoop contest, riding bikes, other things nude. God forbid they do that, rather than sit at home with clothes on smoking pot. It also stated that Nobody, including the police, seemed to take offense. Noone was arrested and their law is "public nudity isn't illegal in the town of 13,000 people, unless it's done to arouse sexual gratification." So they weren't having sex on the road. I wish i could take off my clothes during the summer down here. When everyday for 3 or so months it is 90 and up degrees but feels like 100. here is another story of the issue http://www.reformer.com/search/ci_4207655

    Comment


    • #32
      Well said sportkid and I have been following this with interest. All good and valid points.

      -Danee

      Comment


      • #33
        According to the Infoplease crime report, Vermont is the third safest state in the nation, behind North Dakota and Maine, on a per capita basis.
        Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there,

        Comment


        • #34
          Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there, Smiler

          According to Infoplease, Florida and South Carolina are the most dangerous states, both are "Shall Issue" states meaning that police are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who can legally purchase a gun.

          Perhaps there is another explanation for the peaceful nature of Vermont citizens?

          -Mark

          Comment


          • #35
            BobS - I'm not defending the extremes of anti-nudism you people have to deal with when you encounter some authorities. I'm 100% on your side in that respect. Consideration is a two-way street. By definition, so is compromise. Nudists and textiles must be prepared to give and take.

            As for children - of course they are relevant to this. So far as possible, we don't allow children to hear obscene language or witness sex acts. There is no evidence that I know of that children being exposed to these things are caused any PHYSICAL harm by them, any more than there is by being exposed to nudity. Indeed, there are some people (a few) - including some parents - who think it is healthy and natural for kids to see adults having sex as part of a normal, loving relationship! I don't agree with them, as I suspect you don't. I also think it is preferable for children not to see nudity. You don't have any such concerns, and that's fine, but who should decide what my kids should and should not be allowed to see? Should the "kids-can-see sex" people be allowed to indulge openly in sex in public parks because a minority thinks it's natural and harmless? Or should the parents decide what their own kids should and shouldn't see?

            Do I compare these kids in Battleboro to those who spray grafitti or shoot-up drugs on street corners? No - because, so far as we know, they are doing nothing illegal. But if they change the law, and that change is brought about through the will of the people, then they have both a legal and a moral obligation to respect that.

            And now you are saying that even when it is legal, we shouldn't do it?
            I'm not sure why you are saying that, Bob. I'm not asking these young people to compromise when what they are doing is lawful. I've tried to be clear all along that, so long as what they are doing is legal, they are entitled to do it. The people are, however, free to object to laws that permit behaviours they find unacceptable and the onus is then upon the legislators to consider bringing news laws in accordingly. It is only at that stage when negotiation and compromise should come into play.

            Sportkid

            I think I have answered some of your points above, but I would like to add one thing. Psychology is not and never has been accredited as a true science. It is inherently subjective and composed of countless theories, sometimes based upon "research", and many of these conflict with one another. Psychologists may, for example, talk about "positive psychological effect" or "positive body image", but they are both nebulous and utterly subjective.

            The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to? Should it be (a) some nudists?, (b) one or other psychologist, or (c) the child's parents? I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want my youngest child to see a naked adult just yet. I feel very strongly about this and I couldn't care less what some middle-class, liberally-minded psychologist thinks is a "positive psychological effect". I don' know if you are a parent yourself but if and when you are, you will have the right to follow any psychologically based conclusions you like when determining how to raise your own child. We textiles are entitled to the same consideration, even though you may think we are very wrong.

            Stu

            Comment


            • #36
              Hey Stu, i agree with you that kids should not see sex... but no one has said anything about sex. As it has been said numerous times before on this forum nudity does not equal sex. Even grown adult shouldn't see others having sex unless they choose to do it, but they should not be subjected to it out in the public, what they do behind closed doors is their own business. As far as nudity and children, i see it as if they are seeing humans like any other animal... with out clothes. Not that i'm trying to call humans animals in a negative conotation, but just that we indeed are of the mammilian species homo sapiens (latin for "wise man" or "knowing man"). No one in this forum has said "sure, let the kids watch us have sex because it is part of life" From what I read i think most keep that behind closed doors while the kids are away or when they aren't around. In my opinion there is nothing wrong seeing what humans do on a day-to-day basis in the buff b/c it is like watching... lets say a dog, for arguement sake, doing it's day to day activities. That's just my opinion... i may have been reading the threads wrong. Someone let me know if I'm wrong in my way of thinking.

              But you are right, they are your kids and you can raise them the way you think is correct. People can give you all the suggestions in the world, but that does not mean that you have to take them. Take what people are saying here as suggestions and things to ponder about, that's all. These forums were created so that we may learn to help eachother and to share our points of view with like minded, and not so like minded people, which is all fun in my opinion.


              Sportkid

              Keep up the good work. You're a wealth of information at your age, and i think that is great. Thank you for all your insight.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
                quote:
                Vermont is a state that allows concealed carry freely without need of permits. Criminals have a hard time finding unarmed citizens there, Smiler

                According to Infoplease, Florida and South Carolina are the most dangerous states, both are "Shall Issue" states meaning that police are required to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who can legally purchase a gun.

                Perhaps there is another explanation for the peaceful nature of Vermont citizens?

                -Mark

                Sorry for the topic diviation. Fla.'s problems have a lot to do with drugs and illegals. SC. may be getting some of the overflow.
                Vermont has fewer of these issues.
                We could open another topic on this.

                Comment


                • #38
                  In NYC you can get arrested even if you are not naked:

                  No pants

                  FYI, all 8 people arrested had their cases dropped. (Which makes sense since no one committed a crime!)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    im sick and tierd of (doing it for the kids)the way the u.s. is going.we'll have a country full of panzies.by the time thier adults .the'll have no clue,on how this world is running.that being said,it would be nice if we had world peace.but we all know.it's never been that way nor will it ever be that way.theres been war and violence sence the start of mankind.the way it's going with religion....dont see it changing any time soon..........

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Stu2630:

                      The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to?
                      So it'd be ok to teach your child that it was ok to murder other people if their religion was different than yours, or that it's ok to treat some people differently because of what colour their skin is?

                      In terms of the current context then of course it's ok for you to raise your children not seeing nudity, that isn't harming them physically, it just depends how you think it will affect them mentally. As you said psychology isn't an exact science, but if a child is more accostomed to nudity from an early age then chances are that when they get older they won't feel that their body is shameful and will feel more comfortable about themselves, as many people here are.


                      I still wonder though how you manage to draw parallels between mere nudity and public sex, vandalism and drug use.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        no, i am not a parent. I am a kid, who was raised in a "textile" family and for a long was never subjected to nonsexual nudity. I use to be afraid, confused, ashamed, and well the list goes on about my body. I still have questions as to why a parent would want to hide what God created. I am not saying that a parent should run around naked and point at every body part they have and explain what it does. I do believe that a parent should be lenient and not so fearful of their body or any other body and they should teach their child to not be fearful of their body. I think the people that are making such a big deal about it are those who have a problem with themselves and/ or ashamed of their own bodies and they are passing it down to their child like a sickness. Nudist express acceptence. Textiles dont. I am a teen and clothing now a days is a big deal. If you arent wearing the right type of clothes then you are looked down at or made fun of. It is stressful, well at least for everyone else, i was born with style and yet i still rather have no clothes. itd save me alot of time and money if i didnt have to worry about getin the top brand clothes and such. if you really wanna help your kids, don't let them grow up and be ashamed of their body. That doesnt mean make them a nudist, but dont make them shun their body.

                        the more people accept themselves, the more, people will accept others

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Stu:"Nudists and textiles must be prepared to give and take."

                          Change that to just textiles and I'll agree. Not because I don't think nudists shouldn't compromise, but because we always do.

                          Stu:"As for children - of course they are relevant to this."

                          I didn't say children weren't relevant. You misunderstand. My comments were that by bringing up the protection of the children, textiles are trying to squelch the conversation. The question, "What about the children", as I already stated, is meant as a rhetorical question. They do not want it answered. And anyone who states that the children will not mind or be negatively affected are seen as perverts.

                          Stu:"Or should the parents decide what their own kids should and shouldn't see?"

                          The parents have the right to protect shield their children in their homes. But they do not have that right when they are out in public, especially where legal behaviour is involved. Parents cannot shield the world from their children unless they keep them within the home forever.

                          Stu:"Do I compare these kids in Battleboro to those who spray grafitti or shoot-up drugs on street corners? No - because, so far as we know, they are doing nothing illegal."

                          You wrote: Nudity is quite different. As for harm, I would class it in a similar way to, for example, racist posters, or the display of explicit pornography, or the graphic portrayal of drug-use. There is no evidence that any of these cause physical harm to the viewer, but we don't want them in our environment. So do you mean that only in areas where nudity is illegal, nudity is like those? Elsewhere, nudity is unlike those?

                          Racism does cause physical harm. Drug use also causes physical harm--especially illicit drug use. How does nudity have any connection to those two?

                          Bob S.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            because seeing a nude body could blind you for life

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by BlobbyBob:
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by Stu2630:

                              The bottom line is: who should determine what their own child is exposed to?
                              So it'd be ok to teach your child that it was ok to murder other people if their religion was different than yours, or that it's ok to treat some people differently because of what colour their skin is?

                              In terms of the current context then of course it's ok for you to raise your children not seeing nudity, that isn't harming them physically, it just depends how you think it will affect them mentally. As you said psychology isn't an exact science, but if a child is more accostomed to nudity from an early age then chances are that when they get older they won't feel that their body is shameful and will feel more comfortable about themselves, as many people here are.


                              I still wonder though how you manage to draw parallels between mere nudity and public sex, vandalism and drug use.


                              How do you manage to draw parallels between stating an opinion on how one desides to raise their own children when it comes to viewing public nudity to murdering someone? Did you stop to think that maybe it was just an example, an exageration to make a point? There are some who believe that exposing your kids to sex is healthy, and some think that there is nothing wrong with drug use, just as nudist believe that there is nothing wrong with being nude and that it is healthy for kids to be exposed to it. Self esteem issues are not exclusive to textiles, we are exposed to negetive images if we are in clothes or not. We, nudist and textiles, can raise our children not to believe what is presented to them through the media as the truth, and that there is no such thing as a perfect body, without exposing them to nudity and the outcome will be less self esteem issues when it comes to body image.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sportkid:
                                Nudist express acceptence. Textiles dont.
                                I would not use generalisations. I was raised textile and still taught acceptance of others no matter their skin color, religion, or beliefs, and also acceptance of myself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X