Are you disappointed?

You sir, are a fucking moron.

 

Not in the least, because you're wrong. Dead wrong. Even in a liberal cesspool like Massachusetts, public nudity is something regarded as "not in my backyard" by family people and church-goin' folk.

 

If you're not just trolling, then what's with the evocative thread title ("Are you disappointed?")? I mean sure, you might be here for a reasoned discussion, you might have a genuine interest in what other people think, but you might also be here to antagonise, and if you're not, then what's with the thread title?

Maybe you should edit the original post and rename it? Because maybe you're sojourn into the world of democratic power and its impact was because of an irrational fear? And maybe if you pretend to be genuinely inquisitive on a nudist forum whilst actually being subtley antagonistic you can get a few nudists pissed off at you, and then you can convince yourself you did the right thing banning their beach afterall. And God is real. And you'll live forever. And then you can sleep better at night in your smug, conservative bubble.

 

Furthermore if you're not just trolling for the reasons I stated above ^^ Then how can you be so absolutely convinced of your righteousness on such a contentious issue? one that's in such a legal "grey-area"?

Your banning of nudist behaviour will clearly have a negative effect on genuinely good people with ambitions and desires as pure as your own on this thread (har!). It's impossible to be so brazenly confident of your own righteousness unless you're either trolling us or a complete fucking idiot. Personally I'd say you're both.


If you want my advice (and you should, since you're a complete fucking moron who shouldn't be trusted with scissors, let alone democratic power), you need to start living life before you take it away from others.

I'm interested in what age you are. I'm working in conjunction with my University writing an academic paper entitled "The Selfish Generation". It's title is provocative, like your thread title, and it deals with the fact that the Baby Boomers are the "Selfish Generation", having always been the majority age-group as long as they've been alive.
In the 60s, when the Baby Boomers were young and free and experimental, the entire Western World was characterised by youthful freedom, experimentation and, appropriate to this thread, relaxed attitudes to nudity.
The 70s are seen as a transitional period.
By the time the 80s came along, most Baby Boomers had realised they were getting older, life was rolling on, and they wanted to make money. And therefore the 80s are characterised by massive boom and bust as the Selfish Generation made and lost its millions.
The 90s are seen as a further transitional period, with the emergence of the Selfish Generation's children as teenagers - that's me.
Since 2000 the Western World has become more and more paranoid, and as the Baby Boomers keep aging, so to do their beliefs, and so to does the character of the Western World. Their children are just growing into their most liberal epoc, which further riles the oldies who can only talk about the bad state of their country and how they need to fix it.

But to get to the crux of my dissertation's arguement; the Selfish Baby Boomers are enforcing their now paranoid, aged beliefs upon their childrens generation. Thereby stopping their childrens generation from enjoying the freedom they lapped up like selfish mindless bastards in the 60s.

So, what age were you again?

 

If by 'loosening of moral standards' you simply mean public nudity, I think your premise is ridiculous. Neither Obama, nor as far as I know any Democratic national figure have ever been an advocate for public nudity. Why do you think anybody would expect the current government to take issue with this one way or another?

If by 'loosening of moral standards' you mean a generally more liberal approach to what rights the State is allowed to infringe upon, the type of things that might be anethema to a person who considers Obama an ultraliberal and uses Judeo-Christian principles as a justification for enforcing morality then, yes, that's what I and I assume many other liberal minded people hoped for. And that's exactly what's happening. It's slow, but it's inexorable and if you and people like you want to be speed bumps in the way of progress go for it. You can slow us down but our nation will get over the hump eventually.

Racism is still strong, but it's lost a lot of ground over the last decades. Women have the right to control their own bodies and they slowly edge closer and closer to economic parity with men. Sexual harassment is recognized as an action deserving of punishment instead of a wink and a high five. Gay rights have made progress in leaps and bounds over just the last couple decades with gay marriage approved in some states and DADT likely to be repealed in the next couple years. Marijuana is effectively legal in some states. And someday, not in the near future but someday, the ridiculous supernatural and superstitious justifications you use to oppress a harmless gathering of like minded people won't be tolerated either.

We've got a long way to go but we're going to get there whether the Urod's of the world want us to or not. So go ahead and gloat about the meaningless victory your small town managed to win over a harmless fringe group. Hold tight to it like a shipwreck survivor holding on to a hidebound life preserver, never mind the fact that you're alone in the middle of the ocean and no matter how long you hold on, you're doomed to drown eventually.

The arc, it bends.

 

I saw this link: http://www.alternet.org/story/106551/

And I thought of this thread.

 

Charming, Urod. Part and parcel of robbing naturists of their own recreational space. Up yours!

From 2006 a the council here in Victoria, lead by a vociferous conservative incumbent, locked horns with a newly formed nudist group that fought tooth and nail to keep their beach open and legal. In the end, we won, because fellow councillors rebelled against the one dissident, residents looked at him as a liar (as we all did) and accusations that rampant sex, drugs, gay activities and masturbation and "immoral activities" were taking place under residents' noses were completely unfounded heresy: the police proved it was rubbish, the council was unimpressed with having a liar in its midst, the residents could not believe the mess one councillor could cause and at the end of the day, the nudists won. We now have "guardianship" of our beach and even patrol it against undesirable sexual activities.

Funny that now we also have the blessing of conservatives (retirees, elderly as well as new settlers) who were something in awe of our letter writing in papers, mobilising local MPs, liaison with police and environmental stakeholders and the council. We now have the ear of the council on planning and environment matters that directly affect our naturist beach.

So, Urod, just a few quick words: don't pat yourself on the back, then or now, for having pursued a course of action that resulted in the loss of amenity. Once you stir the hornet's nest of nudists facing the loss of their amenity, you better watch out.

 

Its not really going to make any difference in the end.

In much the same way Prohibition is useless, trying to govern morality is also useless

Prohibition doesnt work becuase if you try to outlaw alcohol everything just gets pushed underground, people set up their own backyard distilleries outputting a more dangerous and concentrated version of alcohol, the end result; more harm to society via alcohol poisoning, more people getting drunk quicker and a lot less government revenue to pay for things like police to monitor the situation.

Its the same thing with this situation, outlaw a nudist beach, nudists are going to go elsewhere, you local government and businesses loose valueable tourist dollars or nudist are going to set up a scene in on someones farm / property that isnt going to be monitored by the local authorities, making it easier for the predators to prey.

This action is going to have zero effect on morailty

 

Victoria as in Victoria, Canada? Why am I not surprised? After all, you people are trying so hard to be European, you would build a bridge there if it were possible

In other words, what happens in Canada doesn't apply to the US. The good guys here are winning

 

Victoria, Australia. We are Australian.
Our operational activities are not based on US, Canadian or European models; the laws and processes are quite variegated.

 

What happened in Victoria, Australia shows the need to campaign when the few spaces for nude sunbathing are threatened, and to disprove myths and lies about what happens at places where nudism is accepted. Without campaigning naturism will be reduce to being a home only activity for many people.

 

Very true. So very, very true.
We (the Samoan councillor tarred all naturists with the same filthy brush) were actually portrayed as sexual deviants, "pink poofters" (he was severely censured and abused by fellow councillors for that) and sex trawlers. Thankfully, he's history now but recently observed trumpeting his imagined "voice for the people against nudists, parking meters and deviants". Yeah, and we're still watching you, sport.

 

Buss-teed

This weekend the formerly nude beach I mentioned has received some visits from folks that apparently can't read the LARGE, PROMINENTLY POSTED signs prohibiting nudity.

Result: revenue for the town in form of fines, plus 5 (FIVE! Count 'em!!) arrests on the grounds of general lewd behavior and lewd behavior towards a minor (one of the groups included three children). Put a BIIIG smile on my face

Thought you'd enjoy the report

P.S. Australia, Canada, who cares. It's called "not United States".

 

Your point of this being...?

 

Schadenfreude, my friend. Schadenfreude.

 

Methinks this gentleman is the kind that will be caught in a compromising position one fine day.It's fairly well known that those who worry about others morality over much, harbor a deep--very deep desire for what they profess to loath.This person is obviously not the intellectual equal of you other posters and you also know that you will never,ever convince one of these blue noses of anything ,when the high and the momentary feeling of power over others is so very important to them.They revel and gloat in their misguided self righteousness.A small person.A very small person ,indeed.

 

Indeed. I have found that the best way to hurt these people is to give them no attention. Hard to do in a setting like this, but it deprives them of what they want most.

 

I agree,NDY,but it's so tempting to nail pompous ones ,isn't it?

 

It takes a truckload of self-discipline to walk away.

 

No one really believes this crap, the majority dont trust those most repressed.

Urod sounds like the kind of guy thats going to get his computer taken away by police