Exposing Children

[namedun]

Rocket and Stu, I am increasingly annoyed almost every time I read one of your posts due to the high amount of "Think of the children!" comments. You preach that you never want anyone to force an ideology on anyone else right? But in effect, when you talk about "sparing" a child from sight of a natural human body, you are somewhat forcing your ideology on them, even if you are not telling them outright that nudity is bad. And besides, since when is exposing a child to different lifestyle bad? Nudism in my opinion isn't destructive, and won't limit a child from growing up to be a productive member of society. There is a distinct difference between a child viewing or interacting with a nudist, and the unfortunate event of molestation, or anything with a sexual purpose.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[namedun]

Rocket and Stu, I am increasingly annoyed almost every time I read one of your posts due to the high amount of "Think of the children!" comments. You preach that you never want anyone to force an ideology on anyone else right? But in effect, when you talk about "sparing" a child from sight of a natural human body, you are somewhat forcing your ideology on them, even if you are not telling them outright that nudity is bad. And besides, since when is exposing a child to different lifestyle bad? Nudism in my opinion isn't destructive, and won't limit a child from growing up to be a productive member of society. There is a distinct difference between a child viewing or interacting with a nudist, and the unfortunate event of molestation, or anything with a sexual purpose.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by namedun:
[qb] Rocket and Stu[/qb]

---

Please don't lump Stu together with Rocket. I disagree with Stu quite a bit, but he is unfailingly polite, thoughtful and behaves in a gentlemanly manner. I think of him as the site's 'loyal opposition'.

Rocket on the other hand constantly appeals to bigotry to justify opinions seemingly similar to Stu's. I strongly suspect it is a put-on job intended to smear Stu by association. I'm not going for it.

-Mark

[namedun]

note to stu and Rocket: I do not intend to liken either of you to each other. I also must agree that I find both of you intelligent despite your opinions and polite as well. The only reason you were both put together like that is due to the fact that on several occasions, I have noticed you both give the "Think of the Children!" routine.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Boreas]

Doesn't the research say that the children of nudist parents have less problems with promiscuous sex, sexual behaviour problems and better body images?

The more open and honest people are with their children, the better adjusted the children. When parents speak openly and honestly about bodies, sex and the like, and in an age appropriate manner, children do much better. When secrecy and excessive modesty reign, the children have more shame and body image problems. The children and adolescents who have sexual behaviour problems usually come from homes with blurred sexual boundaries and too much secrecy.

So, what about the children? When they are exposed to healthy nudity it can seemingly only be a good thing.

[aunaturelone]

quote:

---

I strongly suspect it is a put-on job intended to smear Stu by association.

---

Or they are just alter egos. Not uncommon for someone to have multiple personnas in the same forum, esp. if the person is in a minority. Smart people will even give them slightly different positions and personalities.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aunaturelone:
[qb]Or they are just alter egos. Not uncommon for someone to have multiple personnas in the same forum, esp. if the person is in a minority.[/qb]

---

I don't believe Stu would do such a thing. I've got a high opinion of his integrity.

And I certainly don't think he would create an alter that undermines his own position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boreas:
[qb] So, what about the children? When they are exposed to healthy nudity it can seemingly only be a good thing. [/qb]

---

There are some very good data suggesting just that:
205 Arguments; 69-77: Naturism is healthy for the family

-Mark

[Chief78CJ7]

I know that my children as part of a nudist family:
1) Don't know they're part of a nudist family
2) Never wonder about 'why I'm undress' as those in a non-nudist family sometimes have to deal with.. seeing daddy undress, or having their parents usher them out when they get dressed. It just so much easier being a nudist. It's so much easier to not lie to the littles about life in general.

[Ren]

I wish I had the exposure as a kid. I was very self-conscious, but didn't mind nudity, actually. Except I felt like a freak for wanting to be naked. I never discussed it with anyone, because it didn't seem right. Even though pops would walk around in underwear and mom never told us to cover up when we weren't dressed up so much. In fact, nudity wasn't discouraged, but I was strongly Catholic as a kid (my own doing and fears) and that was enough to turn me into the most-dressed thing around. It also gave me an unhealthy view of the body, and it was a titillating thing to be nude. I have worked past that finally, but it took some work.

[Bob S.]

Politicians love to use the phrase "It's for the children" when passing legislation. For me, it is a cop-out for legitimate reasoning. That's how I feel whenever I see that phrase coming from stu or Rocket. "What about the children?"

Children are created to be very adaptable. Upon seeing nudity, they will rely on their parents' reactions to determine how they should feel about it, even though it is usually a neutral experience.

Bob S.

[Guest]

Children will generally treat nudity as a non-issue unless they've been taught that it's something shameful. Even then they will be more curious than damaged, because they will want to know WHY it's so "shameful".

Just like all the boys and girls who saw me nude when I was married (mentioned in another post) and had no problem with it, most kids will have no problem with it. The few who do will quickly get over it if they see it's no big deal to the person they see nude. I am, of course, talking about non-sexual nudity. Most children are not emotionally prepared to view other people having sex, or some pervert masturbating in front of them, although they may just be curious about what the man is doing. When I was 10, I watched one of brothers with a girl (need I say what they were doing?), and I thought it was fascinating. I wasn't tramatized by it, nor did it make me want to do it. Of course, a 10-year-old can probably handle seeing something like that easier than a much younger child.

[RalphVa]

Only here in US and a few other places is there a concern about kids viewing naked adults. I once drifted into a kiddy area from the rocks to the right side of Fontane Bianche beach in Sicily. No problem. Whereas, here in the US some kid would yell, "Look, there's a nekkid man!" This would probably be in a loud enough voice to start an earthquake.

I rigged my sailboat wearing a thong for a year at my sailing club in Singapore. Only when they had a rigatta with a bunch of kids about did someone ask me to cover up, "for the kids".

Kids, unless they're taught human body shame, won't show any human body shame in their language or attitude. It's just not natural. It has to be taught, to my mind by the devil in the adults.

Ralph

[Guest]

Exactly, Ralph. Children are natural-born nudists. No one is born with body shame or fears. They are taught by adults to children.

[Bob S.]

"because they will want to know WHY it's so "shameful".

There's the key. The parents are uncomfortable with talking to their children about the birds and the bees, that a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina. In fact, many parents use "nicer names" for them like, weewee and peepee. They are just uncomfortable with the very concept of having to talk with their children about this basic fact of life.

So, because of that, they want to protect their children from it. They go to the government and ask for laws that take away their rights as parents. Remove all nudity and maybe the parents won't have to talk with their children about it. Have the schools talk about it, that way, they don't have to do it.

That is the basis of many of our "protecting the children" laws. Some parents over here lack the responsibility to be raise their children in the manner that they need to be raised, answering all questions age-appropriately. It has gotten so bad that Anheiser-Busch (I'm sure I spelled that wrong) has ads out teaching parents how to talk with their children about underage drinking. The cigarette companies are putting out messages of how to talk to your children about underage smoking.

Parents need to be given back most of the resposibility that they allowed the government to usurp. It isn't helping anything and, in my opinion, is actually making matters worse.

Bob S.

[Nude\'n\'happy]

I agree with you Bob. Many parents are either unwilling or too lazy to take responsibility for raising their own children. Every parent has the responsibility to teach their children. Even when they are not comfortable with the subject. To try avoiding talking to your children or pushing it off on someone else only makes the child more uncomfortable and less likely to be open in talking to the parent on other subjects as well. In my opinion, this is one of the factors leading to a communications gap between the parents and the child. If the child feels the parent won't answer their question or that they try to change the subject, the child soon will quit asking. The child then must turn to other sources to get answers. Often from peers who may or may not know the correct answer. Or this cloud of mystery will lead to expirementation to find out for themselves.