Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nude teens in Vermont town

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

  • foux003
    replied
    I was in Brattleboro last weekend and I didn't see any public nudity. Not in town anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    To bring this topic back to the young Vermontians (what are they called?):

    From the FresnoBee:

    Nude teens raising eyebrows in Vermont

    By LISA RATHKE, Associated Press Writer

    (Updated Saturday, September 2, 2006, 2:22 PM)

    BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) - Nudity isn't new here. Usually it bares itself in more subtle places than a downtown parking lot, though.

    This summer, a group of teenagers has disrobed near restaurants, bookstores and galleries, igniting a debate about whether this bohemian southern Vermont town should ban a practice that has been tolerated until now.

    "Brattleboro tends to be a laid-back town and pretty accepting of the unusual, but this is really pushing limits," said Police Chief John Martin.

    "It's clearly to outrage people, it's clearly rebelliousness," he said.

    By most accounts, the stripping started on a whim in early summer when a young woman sat naked on a park bench, Martin said. Then another woman started taking her shirt off downtown.

    A music festival promoting nudity and rebelliousness set up in May in a downtown parking lot and attracted nude hula hoopers, Martin said.

    Last month, a half dozen young people bared their bodies in the lot, encircled by the backs of bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants.

    They say they're just exercising their rights.

    "It's just an act of freedom," said 19-year-old Adhi Palar. "We're just doing so because we can." Palar and the others "do not consider nakedness to be innately sexual or rude and it shouldn't be confined to that," he said.

    All the bare skin has raised eyebrows, even in a town that has seen clothing-optional swimming holes, streakers and an event known as "Breast Fest," which featured women parading topless.

    To some, a bunch of teenagers going au naturel is just harmless rebellion.

    "To most people, it's not a big deal," said Catherine Kauffman, 57, who calls Brattleboro "a don't-take-away-too-many-of-my-rights kind of town."

    Rich Geidel, 50, co-owner of Everyone's Books, said the parking lot may not be the most appropriate place for nudity, but he said he's not concerned.

    "We don't think it's bad for kids to hang out," he said. "As long as people are polite, don't block the entrance, we don't ask them to leave."

    To others, it's disturbing. Some worry it could drive business away from downtown.

    "It's a bad image for Brattleboro," said Ozzie Kocaoglu, 43, who owns Sundried Tomato restaurant at the far end of the parking lot, which has long been a teen hangout.

    Vermont has no state laws against public nudity, but communities can pass their own rules banning it.

    At least eight cities and towns have passed anti-nudity ordinances, according to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

    So far, Brattleboro has chosen not to, but the teenagers' dress-down may change that. The town is researching what other communities have done to curb their nakedness.

    The 50,000-member American Association for Nude Recreation espouses nude recreation in appropriate places, but doesn't use nudity "for social commentary, or rebelliousness or an act of civil disobedience," said Mary Jane Kolassa.

    Baring it all as a form of social protest is growing.

    This summer, nude bicyclists rode through Burlington to protest the country's reliance on oil, part of an event known as the World Naked Bike Ride. Elsewhere, nudity has been used to oppose the Iraq war and the treatment of animals.

    In Vermont, voters in another town shot down a ban on nudity after two public votes.

    Prompted by complaints about nudity and sexual activity at a swimming hole, the Wilmington select board passed an anti-nudity ordinance in 2002. But supporters of the freedom to skinny dip rejected the ban.

    "There were some ugly moments in the debate with some name calling and lots of good healthy debate about reasonable rights and responsibility under those rights," said Town Clerk Susie Haughwout. Officials weren't sure how they would have enforced a ban and to what extent, she said.

    For now Brattleboro is weighing its options. And waiting for summer to turn to fall.

    "As soon as winter comes, there won't be a story anymore," said Town Clerk Annette Cappy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    Stu:"I was making a point about what children should be able to see - and that parents determine what they consider is suitable for their own children to see."

    Yes. Parents can determine their own values within the home. But then they take them outside and expose them to other values. That is the cost of living in a free society. Now to go back to the comparisons between nudity, and depictions of graphic sex and illicit drug use.: they are generally all illegal.

    And that is why people are so much against nudity. It is illegal. Think about when racism was accepted and legal in terms of separating the different groups. It led to hatred to be accepted against those who held those racist beliefs.

    Wen society deems something illegal, it is exponentially harder to turn the tide of public opinion. All that needs to be done is to continually make laws to further punish the lwabreakers. Nude beaches are always targets.

    Legal racism (in my defintion above) only became illegal when things got extreme and society could not ignore it anymore.

    Oh and Stu, look for a PM from me.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stu2630
    replied
    Maybe nothing important, but one has to ask how something can be awful to one person and lots of fun to another, given that nothing and nobody is being harmed, or turned into a bug or anything like that.
    To some people, hunting foxes with hounds is a fun sport - and even children participate. To others, it is a pointless and diabolically cruel way to treat a wild animal.

    "Harm" is subjective. Some adults think it is good for kids to see naked bodies, while others are horrified at the prospect. Different strokes, as they say. Simple answer is to be careful about choosing your time and place to do something you already know has the potential to offend or to cause annoyance.

    Stu

    Leave a comment:


  • John P
    replied
    I remember Mark Storey, a naturist activist from the Seattle area, talking about an annual event (I think it's an Art Parade) they have out there which in the last few years has featured a group of cyclists wearing nothing but paint. Mark said that among the families in the audience, some parents put their hands over the children's eyes and some hold the kids up so they can get a better look.

    I'm not sure what this proves. Maybe nothing important, but one has to ask how something can be awful to one person and lots of fun to another, given that nothing and nobody is being harmed, or turned into a bug or anything like that.

    At the end of the pre-Disney Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red-hot shoes until she falls dead. It's been a well-loved story for generations, eh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.
    The study that spurred the inference of a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia found that marijuana use caused "transient (temporary) schizophrenia- like symptoms ranging from suspiciousness and delusions to impairments in memory and attention". It did not conclude that marijuana caused actual schizophrenia.

    There has been some speculation that cannibis use while the brain is still developing (teen years) may alter brain development such that schizophrenia is more likely.

    Drug and alcohol abuse is common among schizophrenics - it often leads to attemps to self medicate, so it would not be surprising if those with predispositions (genetic or otherwise) for schizophrenia would choose to use cannibis at a rate greater than the general population. Studies that show increased risk of schizophrenia among cannibis users do not typically account for this. What is known is that cannibis use is not a reliable indicator of schizophrenia, any alledged contributory effect is fleetingly small.

    I'm not sure what that has to do with the Harmony Parking Lot kids, except I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally used cannibis too. I doubt banning nudity in Brattleboro would reduce marijuana use, or vice versa.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Stu2630
    replied
    BobS

    I passed on your happy birthday wishes from my youngest daughter, and she asked me to send her thanks. They just seem to grow up so fast these days and it's so hard to know what they should and shouldn't be exposed to! A few minutes ago I realised she had been quiet for a while so I checked on her only to find her reading on her bed, and had almost finished the book. "What's that you're reading?" I asked her. "Oh, it's one of your old books. It's called The Metamorphosis," she said, "It's a brilliant story about a man who turns into a beetle." So I said, "OK" and left her to it. A few moments later it dawned on me that The Metamorphosis is a novel by Franz Kafka. I mentioned it to my wife, and she assured me that it would be OK for her. Although I recall there is nothing of a sexual or gratuitously violent in it, and it is a literary classic, I'm not entirely sure it is suitable material for children of such tender years.

    Petrus

    It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.

    P.S. I would much rather encounter somebody driving in the nude than a driver under the influence of cannabis!
    I'm afraid the context has got lost somewhere along the line. I was not comparing drug use to nudity: it goes without saying that most parents don't want their children to use drugs and that drugs are harmful.

    I was making a point about what children should be able to see - and that parents determine what they consider is suitable for their own children to see. All parents do their best to shield their children from some sights. One example is that some parents don't want their children to see people using drugs - or even depictions of drug use on TV etc or even on billboards or in kids' comics. Such imagery is therefore permitted only for adult consumption, even though some parents may not have a problem with their kids seeing somebody smoking a joint or shooting up heroin. Similarly, some parents don't want their children to see adult nudity.

    Stu

    Leave a comment:


  • Petrus
    replied
    Stu:"The vast majority of drug use in the UK involves cannabis, and I am not aware of anyone becoming violent after smoking a reefer"
    It is suspected that drug users are causing as much danger on the roads as drink drivers. There is convincing evidence that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia which has lead to many random attacks and murders.

    P.S. I would much rather encounter somebody driving in the nude than a driver under the influence of cannabis!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    Stu:"It's perfectly possible to hold and even voice strongly racist views without any hint of violence."

    Yes. But racist language is more apt to lead to violence than non-racist language. Not necessarily by the speaker, but perhaps by those who listen and agree.

    Stu:"The vast majority of drug use in the UK involves cannabis, and I am not aware of anyone becoming violent after smoking a reefer"

    Yes. I was friends with marijuana users in college (I never partook, but I was around them while they did). I agree that they were very much non-violent. But the violence is not in the drug taking, but in the drug acquiring. Many people are killed over drug deals. Another person I knew in college who was the biggest pothead stole money from the vending machines while he restocked them. Crimes committed while trying to procure illicit drugs can sometimes lead to violence.

    Mere nudity has rarely led to violence by the naked person. It has, however, led to violence against the naked.

    nimrod:"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."

    For the record nimrod, the man killed a woman who molested him when he was younger, not his mother. He never found his mother before he killed himself.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    Stu, first I want to wish your precious angel a Happy Birthday! Let her know that a nudist hopes she gets everything that she wants this enxt year, including those things that her Mom and Dad don't want her to have. May she never grow out of her naked proclivities

    Stu:"I will happily tell you about why I don't want my kids to see nudity - if fact, I'm sure I have done so before, and that's because I engage with nudists. But I don't believe most other textiles have any interest in doing the same, and they can't be forced to. If textiles give you reasons, are you going to say "OK, fine. We accept your reasons and we'll make sure we never get naked in your presence"? Somehow, I don't think nudists will do that. Instead, nudists will judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them."

    I know about the story of your children, but again, that is not the point. The question that is asked is not [I]What about my children?[/B] but rather What about the children?" Notice the difference? The debate ender is not asking personal questions, but about asking a general question about all children.

    And why do you assume that nudists will judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them while giving textiles a free pass? What about nudists who give our logical reasons and textiles who judge the reasons given as being illogical, misinformed or otherwise invalid, and seek to challenge them? That happens too often to count. The VA legislature heard nudist leaders before voting overwhelmingly to ban nudist summer camps.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stu2630
    replied
    Stu, I was going to ask you questions on how you were raising your own children on the subject of nudity, then I realized that it is none of my business how you raise your children. It is no ones business how you raise your children. Unless you are raising them to deliberately harm others, as thieves, as murderers, or you if you are abusing them, no one has the right to question you on how to raise your own children.
    Nimrod. I don't mind you asking me, and I don't mind telling you.

    I have three children. We have a daughter aged almost 22 years. She is a 4th year medical student and is presently working/studying in a hospital in the gynocological ward at a hospital about 60 miles from our home. We have a son aged almost 19 years and he is a trainee electrical engineer and lives with his girlfriend. We also have a much youger daughter who is 11 TODAY! None of our children saw either my wife or me naked, nor did we allow them to see any other adult nudity. Similarly, they were brought up to understand that being naked in the home was allowed in the bathroom or their own bedroom, but with the door closed, and they were always to ask before opening anyone else's bedroom door. We did not encourage them to believe that the human body is dirty, and certainly not "sinful" (we are atheists, so we don't even acknowledge that there is any such thing as "sin"). We simply taught them that certain parts of the body were deeply private and not to seen by other people except in very particular circumstances.

    My youngest daughter knows about nudists and what they like to do because I have explained it to her. I have told her that nudists are ordinary people, but who feel differently about the "private" parts of the body to ourselves, and that was fine. She comprehends that, just as she understands that some people are Jewish, and some people are vegans and so on. We have also instilled into her that people who are "different" to us in what they believe and the way they live help make the world such a colourful place.

    Runner

    And I feel that it is our duty to dispell the common misconceptions about nudity that seem to be repeated most often by non-nudists.
    Textiles don't have misconceptions about nudity. They know what it is and what it looks like - their own and other people's - and they are even nude themselves at certain times. Textiles get naked in the bath, with their sexual partners, and even with other adults of their own sex in locker rooms etc. Textiles get close to being naked every time they go on a beach in swimwear! The only real difference between textiles and nudists is that most textiles don't feel comfortable exposing their groin area and buttocks or being around other people who are exposing theirs. It's not a question of "misconceptions".

    To tell me that it is a gross offense to see me nude an effort to control my behavior via guilt. To say I have a moral obligation to someone opposed to nudity is also an attempt to use guilt to change my behavior.
    To appeal to a person's conscience is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If anything, it should be taken as a compliment because it means that you are believed to be a person of sensitivity towards the feelings of others - someone who can empathise even though the other person has different perceptions and values to yourself. It is certainly not dishonest nor manipulative.

    Imagine if the textile majority says to the nudist minority: "Please don't expose your naked groin area in certain public places because it really does upset us - especially when we know our children can see you. We will, however, provide you with places where you can enjoy your particular form of recreation", then I would argue that you have a moral obligation at least to negotiate - and that means being willing to compromise your own particular "principles".

    The major problems of the world today exist because factions are unwilling to compromise. Be it for reasons of religion, nationalism or politics, they are committed to the concept that they are right, the other fellow is wrong, so why should they concede anything? When small minorities take such a hard line against a majority, they antagonise, get labelled as "extremists" and then they get marginalised and ignored. Nudists aren't going to win by trying to drag an unwilling majority kicking and screaming into a nudist's utopia.

    Stu

    Leave a comment:


  • Nude_Dude_Runner
    replied
    Nimrod,

    So would you agree that some beliefs are wrong? And if so, do those who recognize the belief as wrong have an obligation to humor those with the wrong beliefs?

    If nudists do not stand up and say "No, Nimrod, nudity is not a gross offense", am I not giving you an implicit agreement that maybe it is?



    And I feel that it is our duty to dispell the common misconceptions about nudity that seem to be repeated most often by non-nudists. To tell me that it is a gross offense to see me nude an effort to control my behavior via guilt. To say I have a moral obligation to someone opposed to nudity is also an attempt to use guilt to change my behavior.

    If nudists do not speak up about all of these wrong statements, who will?

    If you are not already a member of AANR, you should join. Read the monthly paper. See what is going on across the country. Learn about the politicians who are now seeking support of nudists as they run for office.

    NDR

    Leave a comment:


  • nimrod
    replied
    Originally posted by Nude_Dude_Runner:
    Nimrod,

    Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange.

    Comparing the gross offense of stacking nude male prisoners on top of each other(which may or may not be a gross offense) to social nudism is a big stretch, don't you think?

    What makes nudity a gross offense to you? Maybe if they were raised to "believe" nudity is wrong, is it not possible their belief is wrong?

    The world was once thought to be flat. Believing so did not make it so. But those that thought otherwise were persecuted when possible, as are nudists today.

    Nudity is not a gross offense.
    NDR
    I understand what you are saying, but, because someone believes that something is a certain way, it is that way for them. I know some people that would rather enjoy being stacked with a bunch of nude men, and I know people who are homophobes and that would be a gross offense. We are talking about ideals here, not physical truths.

    Leave a comment:


  • nimrod
    replied
    Stu, I was going to ask you questions on how you were raising your own children on the subject of nudity, then I realized that it is none of my business how you raise your children. It is no ones business how you raise your children. Unless you are raising them to deliberately harm others, as thieves, as murderers, or you if you are abusing them, no one has the right to question you on how to raise your own children.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nude_Dude_Runner
    replied
    Nimrod,

    Calling an apple an orange does not make it an orange.

    Comparing the gross offense of stacking nude male prisoners on top of each other(which may or may not be a gross offense) to social nudism is a big stretch, don't you think?

    What makes nudity a gross offense to you? Maybe if they were raised to "believe" nudity is wrong, is it not possible their belief is wrong?

    The world was once thought to be flat. Believing so did not make it so. But those that thought otherwise were persecuted when possible, as are nudists today.

    Nudity is not a gross offense.
    NDR

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X