Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nude teens in Vermont town

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bob S.:

    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.

    Bob S.
    I would have to disagree with that, parents have the right to shield their children no matter where they are. What they do not have the right to do is expect everyone else to change their behavior to suit their beliefs.

    Comment


    • #47
      I think the complainant in this matter was very foolish. The teenagers were just relieving their boredom. If prevented by law from being a bit outragious (in the eyes of some) they may well resort to DRUGS AND ALCOHOL to relieve their boredom.

      If the nudity had been ignored, the teenagers would have had their fun, no harm done but now it will all be brought before the Government to make new laws, lots of publicity and may well incite teenagers to GREATER PROTEST by continuing the nudity despite it becoming illegal (if the law is changed).

      In either senario it will be clear that the complainant should have looked the other way and forgotten about it (other than causing a stir at tea parties).

      JAMES

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
        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
        I agree. Being Irish and being raised in a "sexually" repressive environment, I can't help but note that the complaint comes from a "Theresa Toney" a rather common Irish Catholic name. Her reasoning is interesting too. Should children SEE these children? My response is God yes! They should long ago have had their curiosity filled by seeing their parents and siblings nude. These Vermont kids aren't fornicating! They will be better off by getting familiar with the nude bodies of their friends!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by nimrod:

          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?
          Re-read my post with that in mind.

          As for drug use - well it doesn't mater what some people think, using drugs can cause physical harm, that isn't an opinion but a fact surely. As for sex, well I personally haven't ever heard of a parent who thought it was ok to let their child see them having sex, but I am young so go easy on me lol

          Comment


          • #50
            BobS
            What about the children", as I already stated, is meant as a rhetorical question. They do not want it answered.
            If I ask the question "What about the children?", it's not because I want you to accept my reasons for not wanting them to see adult nudity, it's because I want you to be considerate enough to respect my views that they should not, Bob. Yes, I do think that kids are negatively affected, but I respect your rights to believe the opposite to be the case and to bring up your own children accordingly. Like it or not, we live in a clothed society. Most nudists wear clothes most of the time and many nudists regard nakedness as something they are content to enjoy for relaxation. Our children live in the same world and would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect nudists' children to be prevented from seeing clothed people. But it is not unreasonable to expect nudists to respect textiles' sensibilities when using non-nudist places.

            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.
            Two discrete issues here. Firstly, if a town, county, state or country has no legally-enforceable ban on public nudity and certain individuals choose to exercise what they see as a right to be naked in public, then anyone who objects should either (a) move somewhere else, (b) tolerate the nudity, or (c) canvass legislators to bring in the desired prohibition. The teenagers concerned can not, and should not, be prosecuted if they are breaking no laws. Nevertheless, if they know that their behaviour is causing distress, they certainly have a moral duty to do what they can to ameliorate it. The second issue you raise concerns parents "shielding" children from undesirable sights. I would argue that parents attempt to do that anyway, with varying degrees of success. We try to stop our kids being exposed to all sorts of stuff we don't want them to see and hear. The fact that they may encounter it anyway does not mean that we, as parents, should simply shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it.

            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?
            The SIGHT of other people indulging in racism does not cause physical harm. The sight of other people using drugs does no physical harm. Same goes for strong sexual imagery. And, of course, the same goes for nudity. For many parents like ourselves, nudity goes into the same compartment as these other things in that, while they cause no physical harm, but they are things we don't want our kids to be exposed to. So we don't want them visible in our environment, Bob.

            Stu

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BlobbyBob:
              Re-read my post with that in mind.
              I do not need to, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy, but I am happy that you saw it yourself.

              As for drug use - well it doesn't mater what some people think, using drugs can cause physical harm, that isn't an opinion but a fact surely. As for sex, well I personally haven't ever heard of a parent who thought it was ok to let their child see them having sex, but I am young so go easy on me lol
              You were taught that the use of illegal drugs is harmful, but prescription drugs can be just as harmful. Most drugs, illegal or not, are not harmful until someone missuses them, like an addiction, and some drugs are more addictive than others. The drugs that are illegal are so because someone has determined that they have no medical value, their only use is for a high and they do not treat any disease. People use the drug alcohol legally and in front of their children every day with no thought of how it might effect them.
              Just last night after I posted, I watched a TV program that touched on the subject of the exposure of sex and children. There is a group, you could call them a cult, that preached free love and they believe that not only should you expose children to sex but have them participate in it. Now that is an extreme case, and the result was one of the kids grew up to kill his own mother, then himself, and others are damaged psycologically.
              I hope that was easy enough on you, I try to inform and not attack.

              Comment


              • #52
                Stu,

                The teens have no moral duty to ameliorate distress. If they feel your distress is inapporopriate they can say "Get over it".

                Using this principle, vegan parents may not want their kids exposed to meat and people wearing fur. Should those that eat meat and wear fur now do so in private to keep the vegans from distress? Or would they tell the vegans to deal with it?

                NDR

                Comment


                • #53
                  Is there any scientific evedence that supports the belief that exposing children to social nudity leads to better body accecptance? Are the higher numbers of children with a healthy body image within the nudist community due to exposure, or is it because they were taught to accept the differences in others and themselves?
                  Is it a combination of both exposure and teachings? I was raised mostly textile, but my parents tried to teach me to be accepting of the differences of others and myself. Accepting others was the easier lesson to learn, accepting myself took a long time. Would I have learned to accept the differences in me just by being exposed to social nudity?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    How can you catagorize nudity with racism, sex, and drugs. Racism, sex, and drugs can cause a psychological harm. There has been no report of nonsexual nudity causing any harm.
                    Hey nimrod, there has been reports of social nudity being a positive influence on children. I think it was 7-10 year study. And there were quite a few that were 5 and up. There was either no effect or a positive effect.

                    Here is a question. Lets say that a child (steve) is being taught that the body is a natural thing and that the penis and such is normal like a hand or an arm, considering it is made of muscles, bone, cells, and such. As well as the breast and stuff.
                    Now there is another child (we shall call him Sam) who is taught not to be nude or to see others nude, and that those select body parts are sexual and are different from the rest of the body.
                    Now lets say they are both friends and are walking down the street and see a picture on the ground or see someone walking by naked. A female perhaps. Which child would be more curious, sexually aroused, and bring more attention to the image?
                    Stu and Nimrod, Do yall not have mirrors in yalls bathrooms?
                    if you do, you should take them down cuz your kids might see someone naked in them.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The teens have no moral duty to ameliorate distress. If they feel your distress is inapporopriate they can say "Get over it".
                      Obviously you and I have a different approach to morality. I regard the causing of unnecessary mental distress to be as unacceptable as causing physical pain or financial loss because the suffering involved can be just as great.

                      Using this principle, vegan parents may not want their kids exposed to meat and people wearing fur. Should those that eat meat and wear fur now do so in private to keep the vegans from distress? Or would they tell the vegans to deal with it?
                      That's a fantastic example - thanks! I never thought of it before. You see, I am neither a vegan or vegetarian. I once visited a Buddhist community village in which the people there are strict vegetarians, and some of the younger members have never seen, let alone eaten, any kind of meat. Such people really do find the stench and sight of meat unbearably repugnant - just as we would be disgusted by the sight and smell of a rotting corpse. When among such people, should I say "I'm gonna fry some steak. If you all can't stomach the sight and smell, well that's your problem"? OR Should I respect the majority sensibility and restrict my meat preparation and consumption to places where I would know that it would not cause anyone any distress?

                      Nudists are a tiny minority in most western societies. The majority have a responsibility to respect them and, so far as is reasonable, to make provision to accommodate their needs, preferences and lifestyles. In return, the minority must respect the feelings and sensibilities of the majority. That, surely, is the ideal to which we should be striving - not simply saying "I'm gonna do my own thing and if you find that objectionable, then you can go boil your head!"

                      Stu

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Stu,

                        Since you agree it is a good example about vegans, would you answer the question about whether or not vegan parents should have the right to protect their children the same as textiled parents apparently want to protect theirs against seeing a nude body?

                        Also, all of the reading I have done on nudism does not state that nudists are a "tiny" minority. Quite the contrary. More than a "tiny" minority have been skinny-dipping, for example. And nude recreation is growing quite rapidly. The recreation industry is chasing the nudist dollars and it is not because they are a "tiny" minority.

                        Perhaps you should rethink why you believe they are a "tiny" minority. Could it be the oppressive laws and risk taken in this country if you are caught nude? Could it be that the fear of prosecution keeps most nudists out of sight?

                        NDR

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          stu,your not a nudist.this is a nudist site,where we all like to share nudist experiences or tips,or for the newbies with questions.how about just going away and let us enjoy our nudity.go find a textile site and you can rag on the nudist all you want.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Stu, shouldn't the minority also deserve some respect? Always being kicked around.Perhaps if you would try it, you would realize there is nothing wrong. After all, if people would open themselves, we could accomplish so much more than what we have in this society.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by Bob:
                              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!)



                              why did police charge them with disorderly conduct ?
                              Disorderly Conduct (or "Breach of Peace" in Britain) is the charge police use when they want to charge or arrest someone who is not commiting a crime.

                              Of course, generally speaking, being "disorderly" is not a crime. In a free society such charges are seen as authoritarian oppression. A good measure of a society's respect for liberty is the number of charges against people for victimless crimes and, especially, for being "disorderly".

                              The nude boys in Vermont are also not being "disorderly", and the police are to be commended for not trumping up charges against them. Apparently Vermont is one of the vanishing list of places were Liberty still means something.

                              -Mark

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by sportkid:
                                How can you catagorize nudity with racism, sex, and drugs. Racism, sex, and drugs can cause a psychological harm. There has been no report of nonsexual nudity causing any harm.
                                I do not think that anyone is catagorising nudity with racism, sex, or drugs. They were being used as an example. And the arguement as been made will seeing nudity, racism, sex, or drugs cause any harm, not if participation in those activities will cause any harm.

                                Hey nimrod, there has been reports of social nudity being a positive influence on children. I think it was 7-10 year study. And there were quite a few that were 5 and up. There was either no effect or a positive effect.
                                Can you lead me to any web sites? I have found some, but more cannot hurt any.

                                Here is a question. Lets say that a child (steve) is being taught that the body is a natural thing and that the penis and such is normal like a hand or an arm, considering it is made of muscles, bone, cells, and such. As well as the breast and stuff.
                                Now there is another child (we shall call him Sam) who is taught not to be nude or to see others nude, and that those select body parts are sexual and are different from the rest of the body.
                                Now lets say they are both friends and are walking down the street and see a picture on the ground or see someone walking by naked. A female perhaps. Which child would be more curious, sexually aroused, and bring more attention to the image?
                                Your question above has little to do with nudity, it has to do with sex and sexual perspectives. If you teach a child that elbows are objects that should only be seen during sex, the kid is going to become aroused every time he sees a naked elbow.

                                Stu and Nimrod, Do yall not have mirrors in yalls bathrooms?
                                if you do, you should take them down cuz your kids might see someone naked in them.
                                Stu is a self confessed textile. I, on the other hand, am a nudist/naturist and would not care if my children saw me or anyone else nude, if I had any children. I do not believe the way Stu believes, but that does not mean I will not defend his right to his beliefs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X