Teen nudism: your opinion.

[cantata]

I am by no means chaste, but I think nudity is something that should be reserved for the privacy of your own home, not out in public with everybody else. Be it just having a lazy day naked on the couch, if that's the sort of thing you do, or for any other purpose. I do consider it distracting to have in daily life.

Precisely what constitutes nudity?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I am by no means chaste, but I think nudity is something that should be reserved for the privacy of your own home, not out in public with everybody else. Be it just having a lazy day naked on the couch, if that's the sort of thing you do, or for any other purpose. I do consider it distracting to have in daily life.

That is, however, merely a tautology. Nudity is distracting to you because it is uncommon; were it more common it would be less distracting.

 

[RainbowLady]

Several Biblical passages imply that nudity should be avoided.

Isa. 47:3;
Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
Yes, your shame will be seen;
I will take vengeance,
And I will not arbitrate with a man.”

Ezek. 16:7-8;
7I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.
8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD.
​

That it is a state associated with shame and embarrassment. In fact, HERE is a whole article on the evils of nudity in which its author says:

"I am affirming that "Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful." Just what is social nudism? That is defined in the debate agreement as "Men and women (both married and unmarried) and their children being together completely naked for non-sexual social and recreational purposes."

"Social nudism is wrong because it can provoke lust."
​

But please take a look at the following. The pictures below were taken at a teen dance, most likely at a nudist resort.


Please note that the two photos showing teenagers at a dance while nude, and its linked source, have been removed by a moderator---hopefully, just temporarily. (Washington)


Be warned that the source contains images of uncensored adult and child nudity.

From what I can tell, this activity and the other mixed-gender activities depicted on the web site, are quite innocent in nature; lacking both shame and embarrassment, and any indication of mounting lust.

My question---which I admittedly have biased by the images above---is: Despite what may be interpreted from the Bible can nudity be an accepted practice in a modern culture, even among its developing youth?

...
Personally, I have nothing against nudism. If your a nudist, go ahead,it's your life! If your against nudism, then that's okay too. The only problem I have that concerns nudism is the way it can be portrayed on national TV. Example;A few weeks ago, I was watching CNN for no reason,as always. Then comes this story of two women living in Afghanistan who were persecuted as brothel owners and prostitutes. They were taken away but were followed by an Arab journalist who recorded their actual executions and took pictures of their bullet ridden bodies. The video was never aired, but the pictures were their in all their blood-soaked glory. Following that was a story of a teacher being fired from her job all because she had chosen to pose in her bikini for an ad! That is what gets me mad. When their is a show about women who are raped and murdered and gang murders, well gather the kids around and bring out the popcorn! But when you see a small nipple pop up out of nowhere, call the police, call the FBI, call the Army, because no way do I want my kids to see what they'll eventually see when they take their own clothes off. I really don't get why people act so nonchalantly when violence is involved in a story,but can become vicious when a buttcrack is displayed. Oh well, nothing anyone can do about that.
And that about ends my rant. Sorry that you folks suffered to read that, I just needed to put my two cents in!

 

[lawtonfogle]

Several Biblical passages imply that nudity should be avoided.

Isa. 47:3;
Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
Yes, your shame will be seen;
I will take vengeance,
And I will not arbitrate with a man.”

Ezek. 16:7-8;
7I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.
8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD.
​

That it is a state associated with shame and embarrassment. In fact, HERE is a whole article on the evils of nudity in which its author says:

"I am affirming that "Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful." Just what is social nudism? That is defined in the debate agreement as "Men and women (both married and unmarried) and their children being together completely naked for non-sexual social and recreational purposes."

"Social nudism is wrong because it can provoke lust."
​

But dressing <insert any possible style of dressing> can cause lust as well, so it must all be wrong... good one, who ever you quoted there.

But please take a look at the following. The pictures below were taken at a teen dance, most likely at a nudist resort.


Please note that the two photos showing teenagers at a dance while nude, and its linked source, have been removed by a moderator---hopefully, just temporarily. (Washington)


Be warned that the source contains images of uncensored adult and child nudity.

WTL<insert letter of choice>? You didn't actually post those type of images, did you?

I mean, I don't know a forum on the web which will allow those to be posted, which does make it hard to get a discussion going on them, since some of them can be considered child porn.

From what I can tell, this activity and the other mixed-gender activities depicted on the web site, are quite innocent in nature; lacking both shame and embarrassment, and any indication of mounting lust.

My question---which I admittedly have biased by the images above---is: Despite what may be interpreted from the Bible can nudity be an accepted practice in a modern culture, even among its developing youth?

If I remember correctly, back in the Victorian age, a woman showing her knee was a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], and that caused a number of men to lust after her. Lust is an extension of sexual attraction, and outside of the act of sex, sexual attraction is defined by the culture. In some 'bush tribes', women do not cover their breast, and so they are not seen as sexual. As such, if you are raised in nudism, nudism is no where near as sexual, though a number of people don't realize this. But nudist groups have one big problem, and that is child predators who get in.

All in all, I don't think it is wrong, though I personally don't think I could be a nudist without lusting. I guess I could try to erase the cultural programming in me, but I have other things to do with my time.

 

[Washington]

Since when did the bible decide what accepted practices in modern culture are?

Since people decided to let it be. I know you've heard people justify their decisions based solely on scripture. It's done all the time.

 

[jcook922]

Precisely what constitutes nudity?

I guess by the general social standards we live by now, I would be very distracted if I had to go on patrol and women were walking around with their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] hanging out. I think todays considerations are pretty accurate as to what is nudity and what isn't.

 

[Washington]

WTL<insert letter of choice>? You didn't actually post those type of images, did you?

I included two photos of 20 to 30 nude teenagers who were obviously enjoying themselves at a communal dance. A few adults, nude as well, were also visible. However, I placed black rectangles over all the butts, genitals, and the breasts of the females. Also, I included a link to the site---also removed by the moderator---which is the reason for the rather odd green warning you see standing all by itself. In all, nothing more was visable than if they had been wearing swimsuits, which is why I am surprised at the moderation.

I mean, I don't know a forum on the web which will allow those to be posted, which does make it hard to get a discussion going on them, since some of them can be considered child porn.

It's a nudist forum---there are several on the net---none of which are considered to be pornographic because it is recognized that nudity in of itself does not constitute pornography. (Sorry that CF won't allow mentioning their web address, but a Google search should work if you're interested.) That some yahoo might look upon a nude child as pornographic is really their personal perception, and certainly not that of the photographer or those appearing in the photo. To the web's credit, it recognizes this distinction and allows people to freely share their innocent pleasures. Personally, I don't see what nudists get out of being naked, but as long as it does no harm I think it's depiction is quite justified.

If I remember correctly, back in the Victorian age, a woman showing her knee was a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], and that caused a number of men to lust after her. Lust is an extension of sexual attraction, and outside of the act of sex, sexual attraction is defined by the culture. In some 'bush tribes', women do not cover their breast, and so they are not seen as sexual. As such, if you are raised in nudism, nudism is no where near as sexual, though a number of people don't realize this. But nudist groups have one big problem, and that is child predators who get in.

From the little I've read about it, this really doesn't seem to be a problem. One account I read described quite a screening process for prospective members, some of which required at least one sponsor, and kept a very close eye out for any signs of inappropriate behavior, which would mean immediate expulsion.

 

[Washington]

...
Personally, I have nothing against nudism. If your a nudist, go ahead,it's your life! If your against nudism, then that's okay too. The only problem I have that concerns nudism is the way it can be portrayed on national TV. Example;A few weeks ago, I was watching CNN for no reason,as always. Then comes this story of two women living in Afghanistan who were persecuted as brothel owners and prostitutes. They were taken away but were followed by an Arab journalist who recorded their actual executions and took pictures of their bullet ridden bodies. The video was never aired, but the pictures were their in all their blood-soaked glory. Following that was a story of a teacher being fired from her job all because she had chosen to pose in her bikini for an ad! That is what gets me mad. When their is a show about women who are raped and murdered and gang murders, well gather the kids around and bring out the popcorn! But when you see a small nipple pop up out of nowhere, call the police, call the FBI, call the Army, because no way do I want my kids to see what they'll eventually see when they take their own clothes off. I really don't get why people act so nonchalantly when violence is involved in a story,but can become vicious when a buttcrack is displayed. Oh well, nothing anyone can do about that.
And that about ends my rant. Sorry that you folks suffered to read that, I just needed to put my two cents in!

I absolutely agree. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident being another good example of over reaction and misplaced priorities.

 

[cantata]

I guess by the general social standards we live by now, I would be very distracted if I had to go on patrol and women were walking around with their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] hanging out. I think todays considerations are pretty accurate as to what is nudity and what isn't.

How telling!

I dare say in Saudi Arabia, women's hair on display is encompassed by "nudity". And in other parts of the world, the naked feet are included in "nudity". Essentially what you're saying is that the sight of the body parts that you have been culturally conditioned to consider "nudity" would be distracting to you. That's pretty much tautological. The fact that we're not distracted by bare ankles is not because, in some ultimate sense, bare ankles do not constitute "nudity". It's the other way around. We are not distracted by bare ankles because society says they do not constitute "nudity". Clearly, if you had not been conditioned such, what would and would not be distracting to you would be different. You could find bare ankles quite obscene, if you had never seen one and had been told that a bare ankle is "nudity" and needs to be censored.

So I can't see any inherent reasons to cover up breasts or bottoms or genitals. If social opinion of what constitutes nudity were to change, these things would no longer be distracting.

 

[Verv]

Cantata, in order for me to answer your question I would have to have lived in a different world, so to speak. I just cannot put myself in such a world. I can't speculate.

But I imagine they are still sexual in nature - perhaps less the breasts, but the genitals are indeed genitals, and most societies do keep them covered up even if they are 'nudist.'

What do you think of this? Do you agree that the genitals, at a minimum, are inherently sexual when displayed?

 

[cantata]

Cantata, in order for me to answer your question I would have to have lived in a different world, so to speak. I just cannot put myself in such a world. I can't speculate.

But I imagine they are still sexual in nature - perhaps less the breasts, but the genitals are indeed genitals, and most societies do keep them covered up even if they are 'nudist.'

What do you think of this? Do you agree that the genitals, at a minimum, are inherently sexual when displayed?

That's an interesting question.

The penis is also used for urinating. I do not think the sight of a flaccid penis is particularly sexual. I think it's likely that the penis is usually covered because it is vulnerable, not because the mere sight of it is inherently sexual. Women's genitals, meanwhile, are not on display unless she actually spreads her legs.

I can certainly look at a naked person, genitals and all, and not think about sex. You must have seen Michaelangelo's David? I must say that when I saw it in the "flesh" in Florence, despite its exquisiteness, sex was a long way from my mind.

I would also point out that nudists do not seem to find they have a problem of sexualising one another because they see one another's genitals.

 

[sidhe]

That's an interesting question.

The penis is also used for urinating. I do not think the sight of a flaccid penis is particularly sexual. I think it's likely that the penis is usually covered because it is vulnerable, not because the mere sight of it is inherently sexual. Women's genitals, meanwhile, are not on display unless she actually spreads her legs.

I can certainly look at a naked person, genitals and all, and not think about sex. You must have seen Michaelangelo's David? I must say that when I saw it in the "flesh" in Florence, despite its exquisiteness, sex was a long way from my mind.

I would also point out that nudists do not seem to find they have a problem of sexualising one another because they see one another's genitals.

QFT.

Also, I spent about a year and a half with a coven that worked skyclad. Nudity is not inherently sexual in any way, shape, or form. People all have the same bits, and a tit is a tit.

 

[lawtonfogle]

QFT.

Also, I spent about a year and a half with a coven that worked skyclad. Nudity is not inherently sexual in any way, shape, or form. People all have the same bits, and a tit is a tit.

I will say when I am in a medical setting, such as Body Worlds, nudity isn't sexually attractive, but then I have always assumed that is because you half of the 'nude' figures are missing their skin as well as their clothes.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I included two photos of 20 to 30 nude teenagers who were obviously enjoying themselves at a communal dance. A few adults, nude as well, were also visible. However, I placed black rectangles over all the butts, genitals, and the breasts of the females. Also, I included a link to the site---also removed by the moderator---which is the reason for the rather odd green warning you see standing all by itself. In all, nothing more was visable than if they had been wearing swimsuits, which is why I am surprised at the moderation.

Ok, I can see how you thought they would allow the images since you censored them. Anyways, I once did the search because I didn't believe someone else when they told me that google had stuff considered child pornography which just happened to be allowed because they claimed it was nudity, not pornography.


I bet if you send one of those pictures out to a 'friend' who is actually FBI, you will be expecting a soon to follow pickup and being charged as a child molester even if you were sending it around as just nudity, not pornography.

It's a nudist forum---there are several on the net---none of which are considered to be pornographic because it is recognized that nudity in of itself does not constitute pornography. (Sorry that CF won't allow mentioning their web address, but a Google search should work if you're interested.) That some yahoo might look upon a nude child as pornographic is really their personal perception, and certainly not that of the photographer or those appearing in the photo. To the web's credit, it recognizes this distinction and allows people to freely share their innocent pleasures. Personally, I don't see what nudists get out of being naked, but as long as it does no harm I think it's depiction is quite justified.

I personally don't find the prospect of explaining to my roommate that this is nudity, not child pornography, a very exciting prospect. Same for the night in jail that would probably soon after follow... to most Americans, nudity is by default sexual, so child nudity is by default child pornography.

From the little I've read about it, this really doesn't seem to be a problem. One account I read described quite a screening process for prospective members, some of which required at least one sponsor, and kept a very close eye out for any signs of inappropriate behavior, which would mean immediate expulsion.

It wouldn't surprise me if the respectable one don't do that. Personally, those I have heard about don't allow unmarried males above 15 in, unless they grew up as part of the community. More so, I am referring to when a honest nudist organization isn't infiltrated by one child predator, but a network of them. I can't actually offer proof that this has ever happened, but then again, I never looked so there could be 10s of cases out there.

 

[YamiB]

This talk about pictures with nudity in them pornography makes me think of a semi-related case.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/henson-show-charges/2008/05/23/1211183060208.html

 

[Washington]

I once did the search because I didn't believe someone else when they told me that google had stuff considered child pornography which just happened to be allowed because they claimed it was nudity, not pornography.

Just who considered this "stuff" to be child pornography, this someone else you didn't believe? And, I find it difficult to believe the site actually "claimed it was nudity, not pornography."

I bet if you send one of those pictures out to a 'friend' who is actually FBI, you will be expecting a soon to follow pickup and being charged as a child molester even if you were sending it around as just nudity, not pornography.

So you think this site, which has existed since 1999 has been able to eluded the FBI for nine years all while publishing child pornography? Not likely.

I personally don't find the prospect of explaining to my roommate that this is nudity, not child pornography, a very exciting prospect. Same for the night in jail that would probably soon after follow... to most Americans, nudity is by default sexual, so child nudity is by default child pornography.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the difference between an unposed picture taken of people having fun who happen to be nude, and a picture of naked people posed to elicit a sexual response.

It wouldn't surprise me if the respectable one don't do that. Personally, those I have heard about don't allow unmarried males above 15 in, unless they grew up as part of the community. More so, I am referring to when a honest nudist organization isn't infiltrated by one child predator, but a network of them. I can't actually offer proof that this has ever happened, but then again, I never looked so there could be 10s of cases out there.

As well as 10s of cases of pedophile ministers out there. Or 10s of cases of pedophilic gym teachers out there. Or 10s of cases of pedophile piano teachers out there. Or 10s of . . . . .

This talk about pictures with nudity in them pornography makes me think of a semi-related case.

Interesting that the article has a picture of the photographer with the caption " . . .his work is studied in schools." Obviously the photographer has serious artistic abilities. I also see he was to be charged with publishing an "indecent" article, and not pornography, which, as I understand it, are not the same thing, at least in the USA.

I wonder how the whole thing turned out.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I think the less nudity is associated with sex, the less lust it will provoke. Do you think that the women in remote tribes in parts of Africa who tend to go topless are forever being ogled by the men? Or do you think that their attitude that breasts are not particularly or uniquely sexual means that naked breasts are not particularly noteworthy?

I agree. Something becomes normal then it becomes uneventful. This is why I DON't want to have open nudity. I like keeping excitement saved for what's underneath the clothes when you find that special person

 

[Verv]

That's an interesting question.

The penis is also used for urinating. I do not think the sight of a flaccid penis is particularly sexual. I think it's likely that the penis is usually covered because it is vulnerable, not because the mere sight of it is inherently sexual. Women's genitals, meanwhile, are not on display unless she actually spreads her legs.

I can certainly look at a naked person, genitals and all, and not think about sex. You must have seen Michaelangelo's David? I must say that when I saw it in the "flesh" in Florence, despite its exquisiteness, sex was a long way from my mind.

I would also point out that nudists do not seem to find they have a problem of sexualising one another because they see one another's genitals.

I think the people who sign up to be nudists probably have something unique going on for them already.

And with David and in the case of a lot of that art -- it is not even a picture of a person but an artistic rendition and it misses a lot of the coloring, etc. I would imagine you need a lot more to get turned on by it, having it appear as real life, etc.

 

[cantata]

I think the people who sign up to be nudists probably have something unique going on for them already.

Perhaps. But it nevertheless indicates that this notion of the inherent sexuality of the sight of genitals is a nonsense.

Do you think doctors get distracted by genitals?

Do people changing babies' nappies get distracted by genitals?

And with David and in the case of a lot of that art -- it is not even a picture of a person but an artistic rendition and it misses a lot of the coloring, etc. I would imagine you need a lot more to get turned on by it, having it appear as real life, etc.

Well, I disagree. I think that the response to actual naked people can be similarly of sexual indifference, if one is not obsessed with seeing sex in everything in the first place.

 

[MarcusHill]

I'm not a nudist, but I am entirely comfortable with nudity, and don't necessarily consider it to be sexual. I'd wager that most people in a long term sexual relationship, especially when they live with their partners, frequently see their partners naked without any sexual connotations. That doesn't (JCFantasy23) mean that you no longer find your parner sexually attractive, merely that nudity in and of itself isn't necessarily sexual in nature. In situations where nudity is the norm, I suspect that the mental link between nudity and sex is also absent.

On the other hand, in terms of social nudity in general, we have the aspects of any large scale societal change - you can't force it, and it's bound to be slow. We can't suddenly enforce laws that say it's OK to wander around naked, because this will cause genuine discomfort to some people. The fact that this discomfort is due to social conditioning doesn't make it any less real.

I can't really think of any genuinely comparable societal changes that have already happened completely. One in progress that is very loosely similar could be the acceptance of homosexuality, notably of gay people kissing in public (it's the only one I can think of right now, though I'm loath to use it and endanger derailing the thread!). There was a time when it would lead to criminal charges, later there were many gay people who were out but wouldn't be comfortable kissing in public*, even today it makes some people uncomfortable and it's still socially acceptable for them to say so, but soon enough the sight of same sex couples being affectionate in public will be as commonplace as the same practice among heterosexuals, and this will in turn lead to far fewer people feeling discomfort (and those that do being seen as odd).

*ETA: Due to thinking it was socially wrong for homos but OK for heteros to do so, rather than just feeling uncomfortable kissing in public at all, which is experienced by gay and straight people alike.