Are you disappointed?

Let me preface this post by saying that I am very socially conservative. To give you an idea, I have supported and participated in a local "grassroots" if you will effort that resulted in a shutdown of an "unofficially clothing optional" beach. The town where the effort took place adopted a VERY strong anti-nudity ordinance (if caught, you can be reported to the authorities and treated as a sexual offender), and I'm proud of having been a part of the effort.

The effort succeeded early in 2009, shortly after Obama took office, so we were quite ready for the summer.

We had a lot of support from older town residents as well as families with children and even younger couples. The prevailing sentiment was that public nudity was not welcome and considered both immoral and "predator bait" if you will.

So my question to you is this. Did you expect a "loosening of moral standards" after the conservative government was ousted? And are you disappointed that public sentiment in America is heading in the exact opposite direction (and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future)?

I am honestly looking for opinion, not to troll, but if you feel the need to call me names, have at it. Sticks and stones and all that.

 

Personally no, I'm not particularly concerned about manifestations of social conservatism on the other side of the Atlantic, as long as it stops short of trying to impose your way of life on other countries. And I didn't really expect Obama's presidency to have any immediate impact on the moral climate.

 

It's not so much that I expected it rather than hoped for it (and yes I am a little dissappointed). However, I don't think it has anything to do with the changing government. The moral standard is more or less a collective conscious. If the compass swings one way, it is not because the government made it do so, it's because the people did through their conscious and subconscious thoughts and actions.

 

Loosening of moral standards. By not having my kit on. Ha, there are some funny people in the world huh

 

There are many good things I expected upon the election of President Obama. A change in the US attitude to nudity and more nude beaches was not among them. Sadly in the UK this attitude to nudity is prevalent too.

 

During the Bush administration, there was a great deal of talk regarding the morality stance of the public being all but dictated by the government.

That's laughable propaganda of course, but I think we can all agree that general public's inclination to support (or oppose) certain things is influenced by the government's sentiment, if only through perceived encouragement. It seems to me as if this perceived encouragement came entirely too late to rescue the cause of nudism in America (which I am glad for), and I wanted to see if people here thought the same way or remained opitmistic.

On a more general subject, I believe that any and all nudity outside of a bedroom/bathroom setting is obscene and immoral. To answer Jen's question, no, this wasn't a case of crimes of any sort happening at the beach. It was simply a case of good folk coming together and declaring that we will not have this sort of thing in our backyard. We do not need people exposing themselves to each other on public property, and we do not want even a remote possibility of our children being exposed to this as well.

Good old small town democracy in action.

 

There is nothing wrong with expressing your opinions and taking action to get something done. That's what the United States is founded on. For that I will not condemn you, but I must disagree with you that nudity is immoral. I am not looking for an arugement, but I as well as most of this forum disagree with your stance on nudity. I simply fail to see how non-sexual human anatomy harms anybody.

I have a question for you. In European television and newspapers, nudity is not a big deal. Gore, however, is nowhere to be found. American television seems to be the exact opposite. So my question for you is: what is more damaging, the exposure of the human body, or the destruction of it?

 

Good question, though somewhat of a dead horse.

The "abundance of gore" on American television is vastly overstated. Apart from the news (which we cannot do much about), I challenge you to find me an example of non-watershed programming that displays egregious amounts of realistic violence and gore.

Whereas, on European television, one may tune into any programming during any time of day and be exposed to explicit sexual content.

So long as we can agree that both types of content can be extremely damaging to children, I would argue that US does a superior job protecting them from either type.

As to gauging whether nudity or violence is a more damaging subject, alas, I am not an expert. Insofar I can gather from my own experience and education, sexual content is far more insidious and dangerous if you approach it from the Judeo-Christian moral standpoint. Sexual temptation is frequently much easier to experience than the temptation to commit violent acts, and is far more easily satisfied, in most cases.

 

I respect your opinion and the right of your "good folk" to come together to enact self determination, that's fine. What I DO have a problem with is your absolute views on this particular issue. You think nudity is obscene and immoral, why?

Obscene. adj.
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.


1. Which standards of morality and decency have you adopted? I don't think people that have less qualms with their body than most do so as an attack against decency.

2. If the sight of a human body really causes uncontrolled sexual desire then you should have had reports of massive orgies that had no end.

3. Let's hope for the day when our heads are put into jars atop of mechanical bodies. Then we won't have to see those vomit-inducing flesh and blood bodies again!


Immoral. adj.
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.


1. It used to be a moral duty to cast heretics into fire. Our morality evolves as we do, it is not some magical set of principles set in stone. "Do No Harm" should pretty much cover most things.

2. Again, nudity is only sexual when put into the context of a sexual environment or situation. It is a contextual filter. Nudity in and of itself is just what it is, a lack of cloth.

Then we get cries of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" as an argument against nudity. If people really thought of their children they would provide them with the tools to become honest and genuine individuals, able to make decisions on their own and take care of themselves. I think it is a much better alternative than purposefully blinding them to the realities around them.

Let me restate that I have no problems with a town of people deciding for themselves what they want done on their public lands. That is fine. I just think it was a waste of energy that could have been put towards more meaningful endeavours.

I'm not dissapointed. A "loosening of morals" is not what I am looking for, and I don't think the community at large is looking for that either. What I do have a problem with is people who claim to have the authority to decide what is wrong and what isn't.

Take pride in at least taking part in something, most people are resigned to apathy (which I think is worse). Just don't expect me to agree with you.

 

I suppose you have a point about gore on American television, my mistake.

Indeed, nudity is abound on European television. I have been in Germany for the past three weeks and have seen it myself. However, you have labeled that nudity as “explicit sexual content” while many, including native Europeans, regard it as simply nudity. The point is that nudity does not necessarily have to equal sex. And I think exposing children to nudity in a non-sexualized way is a great way to help them distinguish the two. For example, I previously noted that I have been in Germany for some time. Two friends came with me and we are staying at a German teenagers house who is the same age as us. While walking past a pharmacy, we saw a picture of a woman’s breast. The other two Americans got very excited about this display of nudity while me (a long time nudist) and the European (exposed at an early age) saw it as nothing special.

So in the end, if this comes down to whether or not the naked body in and of itself is a destructive force, then this discussion is at a stalemate. I simply do not see the connection between non-sexual nudity and immoral behaviors. To bolster your argument, perhaps you could offer some examples of real world occurrences of non-sexual nudity harming a person.

 

UROD,

If you so firmly believe that nudity is offensive and immoral, then I have to ask "Why are you here on this forum". The vast majority of us who are participating or reading this particular forum either embrace nudity in our lives, are curious about it, or are interested in hearing why it interests so many people. In your comments, I don't hear any of that. While you have the right to your opinions, I highly doubt that your posts will change the way others think and feel.

 

@noodist_jen: you assume too much. In the group sex thread, I was merely bemoaning some of the less pleasant memories of college life that the thread evoked. I'm not saying I wasn't ever tempted - everyone is - but I never even had the option of falling to the temptation (thankfully, in retrospect).

By the way it is spelled "hypocrisy".

I also am not terribly "religious", I guess I could call myself largely agnostic. However, the US was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian principles (which I happen to find very much relevant in this day and age). Therefore, a lot of public sentiment, moral standings and laws can be explained by approaching them from Judeo-Christian standpoint. I hope that clears things up for you.

@Story Buff: I am sure you are a renowned expert on childhood psychology, as well as parenting. You also must be a prominent community leader or a sociologist, who has observed societal dynamics over a number of years and published recognized works on the subject. Or, at the very least, you are a family man who raised his children to be decent persons and know right from wrong, or moral from immoral.

Unless least ONE of the above applies, you are utterly unqualified to make any of the pronouncements you have made, no matter how many times you quote the dictionary. This may sound harsh, but your view represents a fringe minority outlook, and in order to be considered valid, it needs to be backed up with some solid evidence or credentials. You have none.

@everyone in general: Have you ever stopped to consider that your desire to expose yourself in public (or even go barefoot in socially unacceptable settings) may simply be the result of not learning the art of disciplining yourself at a young age? Perhaps those who are able to adhere to traditional morality and behavior standards are better at handling their own urges?

 

I can see that this is going nowhere. Urod, I only ask you to remember that morals are relative. You wouldn't like it if we forced ours upon you, so please don't do the same to us.

 

That doesn't answer my question, though.

 

Which aspect would you like us to be disappointed in?

 

Yes it does, because there is no need to discipline oneself against things which do not harm other people and that one does not find to be morally reprehensible. The non-sexualized nude body, in and of itself, does not harm anybody other than perceived harms based on misguided preconceptions about what the nude body means. Furthermore, I do not find the practice of being naked within my own home and in designated areas to be immoral, thus, there is no need to “discipline” myself to abstain from such behaviors.

 

The original post (about the shutting down of a clothes optional area) shows some of the difficulties that happen in the US (and I would argue the UK too) in seeking areas for nude sunbathing and swimming. There is an element of 'not in my back yard', especially in the UK, and even to get a few more beaches or other areas may be a struggle. Many of those who would oppose or remain silent on a proposal for a nude area local to them would not feel the same if it was elsewhere, and indeed some may go nude in other places themselves.

There are many people who view nudity in any context outside the home as immoral or somehow wrong and who will not change their views, even though I disagree with them.

 

Are you any of these things?

This is what we would call a logical fallacy. Ever heard of an Ad Hominem attack?

Quote, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

You sir have just revealed to me that you don't care about having any kind of logical debate. You have even assumed that I lack credentials to explain to you a viewpoint. My viewpoint was invalidated from the start instead of being taken to task. I am only 21 sir, but if you must know I actually am studying clinical psych, almost finished (with a piece of paper that will say *GASP* I AM qualified, imagine that!). You can imagine this takes many papers and a lot of material to cover. But that is beside the point, because you did not address the substance of the argument.

Yet, I think it is YOU who has the burden of proof. When you use words like obscene and immoral you have to be damn sure about what you are talking about, and back it up with (as you say) facts and credentials. You have provided none. The burden of proof is on YOU because you made this thread, in this place, about this topic, while dealing in the language of absolutes. So instead I quoted to you those two specific words because words mean something, and those are mighty strong words.

Since when does a minority status invalidate an outlook? I have been a part of some kind of minority ever since I can remember, sometimes self imposed and sometimes not so. Ironically, at least in this thread it seems that YOU might have a minority outlook. It's not so bad, really.

Considered valid by whom, you? Your judgements were invalidated the moment you refused to take responsibility for your claims, and your words. As for society at large all I can say is that this country (specifically) is only as good as how well it adheres to its constitution. I think the words "pursuit of happiness" were in the Decleration of Independence for a reason. That is an inclusive phrase, because most people are for what that means regardless of the dimensional distinctions we have made across all the peoples that make up this country.

I'm not saying the US has historically followed that to a T, but no society is perfect. Besides, I don't think Obama will come out with an executive order anytime soon outlawing all nudity everywhere, and I think most of our legislators are worried more about the next election or the mighty dollar. I think they are too preoccupied to deal with something as trivial as nudity.

People who adhere to traditional moral values and behavioral standards without actually thinking about what they mean, why they came about, and the purpose of such standards have no moral right to impose those standards on those who might have an alternative view. Legal rights, mainly pertaining to self determination are a given. If you can't beat them with arguments, just exclude them by force, right?

Exposure is only a dirty word if you will it so.

"Expose -Idiom
Expose oneself: To exhibit one's body, esp. one's genitals, publicly in an immodest or exhibitionistic manner. "

Which means...
"Offending against sexual mores in conduct or appearance; indecent:" when referring to the word immodest.

as well as

Exhibitionism -n.
1. The act or practice of deliberately behaving so as to attract attention.
2. Psychiatry A psychosexual disorder marked by the compulsive exposure of the genitals in public.

The definition I will use is

"Expose -verb
No 3. to uncover or bare to the air, cold, etc.:"

Note: I use the dictionary because it is a source of fact.

You might be surprised, but I don't expose myself to ANYONE. I only expose myself to the elements: air, water, light, lack of light, A/C, etc. The purpose is not to expose myself and become naked in front of other people, the purpose is to just BE NAKED. If there happens to be other nude people around then great! If they happen to be comfortable with me but choose to be clothed, great! Hell I am clothed a lot as well. But when I am not I do not believe I am exposing myself, much like when I am clothed.

This is why context is important when you choose your words.

My goodness, from that context you have already injected kernels of what your thought process might be regarding nudity in general. All in just the beginning of a question. So much for wanting accurate opinions with that kind of language. What you really mean is...

NOTE: CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. That (the above) is how many will perceive it, as they should. Words have meaning.

Assuming that we are undisciplined based on the random criteria of preferance for clothing requires the assumption that wearing clothing is a symbol of discipline. Most people that enjoy being free momentarily from certain societal bonds (threads, if you will) do so in private areas, or in private company. People are aware of context. We dress when we have to. So there is a degree of discipline involved due to societal limits. On top of that, if you don't think we are disciplined in any aspect of our lives, well sir, you haven't shown any evidence to prove that.

Frankly your language exposes you more than you believe. Even your questions lean towards certain answers.

Better at handling their own urges? Not learning? Those who are able to adhere to?

It's even within the questions, how insulting. Language like that makes your question into something called a leading question, look it up. You pat yourself on the back about gaining a victory for judeo-christian principles, and how you have triumphed against temptation. These are not qualities exclusive to you. This may sound harsh, but your words drip with a sense of self-perceived moral superiority from the get go. You are shooting yourself in the foot sir.

Even though I have no idea where you came from or your qualifications I still tried to show you a point of view. I didn't disregard your words outright, and I took them to task. You have not done me the same courtesy and it just shows me disrespect. Hell, you didn't even TRY.

Yep. But she used the word Hypocrite as a name. Which I think might be a comfortable fit. Make sure you don't expose that fact to anyone if you want to be treated as a decent human being.

 

Story Buff: Hahaha! Did you... did you just try to blitz me with semantics?

Oh, that is too CUTE.

By the way, I said FRINGE minority. That means a minority of the same kind as the environmentalist wackadoos who torch cars, or Bill Ayers-like anti-establishment protesters. Poll people even in a liberal city like, say, Boston and the sentiment will be overwhelmingly against you.

Learn to read, then learn not to furiously type.

 

For everyone else, I suppose I should explain myself a bit more.

As noodist_jen correctly pointed out, I did post in the Group Sex thread earlier. It was a less-than-fond recollection of my years in college.

I was brought up to value self-discipline, and with a firm understanding that a capacity for shame was one of the things that differentiate a decent person and an indecent person.

During college years, I was horrified to observe my peers completely go off-track. There was talk of hooking up, nudity parties, multiple partners, orgies even. And between my own moral standpoint and my own limitations, all I could do was be "on the outside looking in". At the time, it caused me a great deal of anguish, and I didn't realize how much I actually GAINED by not falling to temptation until some years later.

When the public action to shut down the nude beach in my town started gaining steam, I didn't have much hope for it (see first post - I thought that pro-nudity wackadoos would start coming out of the woodwork and overwhelm the good church-goin' folk). When we succeeded... I didn't just feel pride, I felt an enormous sense of schadenfreude.

You see, the pro-nudity, pro-sexual freedom movements will only survive with support of young people. Basically, if we deny you your places to go and run wild, you'll give up, and some day - we can only hope - grow up.

America isn't destined to become a cesspool like Europe, and every little bit counts. You're fighting a losing battle for public opinion, even after getting an ultraliberal in the White House.

Are you disappointed?