Nudism

[Shane Roach]

Got it for you right here:

• Marilyn Story, in the Journal of Psychology, Vol. 118, first Half,
  Sept. 1984, "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept between Social Nudists & Nonnudists"
• Marilyn Story, in Jour. of Social Psychology, 1979, 108, 49-56 "Factors
  Associated w/More Positive Body Self-Concepts in Preschool children"
• Robin Lewis & Louis Janda, in The Relationship Between Adult Sexual
  Adjustment & Childhood Experiences Regarding Exposure to Nudity,
  Sleeping in the Parental Bed, &Parental Attitudes Toward Sexuality, Arch. of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 17, No.4, 1988
• Marilyn Story in "A Comparison of Social Nudists & Non-nudists on
  Experience w/Various Sexual Outlets" Journ. of Sex Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 197-211, May 1987

If you want something to click on and read for yourself, you may do so here. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~timm/personal/n/research.html. There is a TON of evidence in this site, which I invite you to read for yourself and decide whether nudism really isn't as bad as you paint it out to be. There are no pictures on this page; I take no responsibility for any nudity in any links external to that website.

I'm using objective science here, not subjective interpretations and opinions. The facts speak for themselves.

This is getting silly and tedious. An example of why I don't want to finger through your website, but would rather you present your own argument:

Story, Marilyn D. 1979. Factors associated with more positive body self-concepts in preschool children. In The Journal of Social Psychology Volume 108, pp 49-56.
An interesting look at what influences children's self-image. The key findings are that (1) gender (whether the child is a boy or a girl) affects body self-concept - boys have a higher self-concept than girls - and (2) nudism has an even stronger effect - nudists have a higher self-concept than non-nudists. Other factors, such as race, age, family structure, area of US they were from, did not significantly affect subjects' body self-concept.

Problem? The actual study IS NOT HERE.

How is a "more possitive self-concept" defined, and by whom? This is not some sort of scientific proof, it is a study that explains how certain things bear on the development of a persons outlook on their body. The value judgements about what is better or worse, however, lie fully in the hands of the person or people who devised the study.

I may or may not agree with them, but there's really no way to tell given this sort of vague information, and I have absolutely no time for wandering through this website to find whatever it is I am supposed to be learning here.

I don't see the difficulty in people simply presenting their own arguments. I'm sorry if you don't have the time either. Perhaps that is a big part of the problem.

 

[Shane Roach]

There is a man called the "naked rambler" that recently hiked across England. He was arrested several times, but no charges could ever be levelled against him.

'Naked Rambler' Sent Back to Jail
http://cheef.com/fwd.html?1429

The website has a pic of the fellows buns, so don't go if that offends.

He was arrested shortly after having been released from a prior period in prison for committing a similar offence on the Cromarty bridge, also in Ross-shire.

 

[Shane Roach]

The fact that public nudity is illegal in the States (save for women being allowed to go topless in New York) has zero bearing on its morality.

Firstly, that's not true, and secondly, I posted this because you implied I had trouble with the facts, whereas the fact appears to be that despite whatever interpretation of the law is being put foreward here, people who run around naked in public tend to be arrested and jailed.

As for the long list of charges, look up the word "lewd" and then try to conceptualize why public nudity would tend to fall under such ordinances. Again, not a far stretch. It is amazing to see this issue dodged repeatedly and with such vigor.

 

[Shane Roach]

In the seventies, the "naked guy" attended Berkley. After the initial shock, most people just ignored him. The officials tried over and over again to have him arrested, but could not.

But eventually Berkeley kicked him out, after passing a rule against going naked on campus -- a rule specifically aimed at him. Andrew continued hanging around Berkeley, was arrested for public nudity by the city of Berkeley, fought the charges -- and won! For many months, it was perfectly legal to walk around nude in Berkeley -- until that famously liberal city, too, passed a law against it.

http://www.phdtop.com/martinez/

Website contains a nude photo of indivdual.

 

[Natman]

That's not what he's talking about, and I'm sure you know that.

He's talking about mixed gender social nakedness in environments away from showers and bedrooms. He is asking you whether going to nude beaches and clubs is behaviour that is characteristic of a typical Christian - especially when we are in a movement that has largely Pagan and atheist attitudes and origins. What makes a Christian nudist somehow 'better' or more 'enlightened' than a Pagan nudist for example?

By "typical Christian" I believe you are referring to "current Cultural Christian". I am reading through "The Man in the Mirror". The author has a chapter distinguishing between "Biblical Christians" and "Cultural Christians". Although non-sexual public or group nudity is generally not accepted by "Cultural Christians", I am hoping this discussion will eventually lead to it's acceptance by "Biblical Christians".

You might be interested to know that today I'm doing a newspaper interview about Christianity and nudism for my local rag 'Northern News' after a reporter stumbled across my Yahoo! group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brisbane-Christian-Naturists

It's rather low on content at the moment, but you are most welcome to join if you wish.

Crashedman

I would be very interested to read your interview. Would you please PM me when and if it is available?

Thanks and Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Natman]

'Naked Rambler' Sent Back to Jail
http://cheef.com/fwd.html?1429

The website has a pic of the fellows buns, so don't go if that offends.

[/color]

I didn't say he wasn't arrested. He was arrested SEVERAL times along the way, but there was never any charges that related to his nudity that stuck so he was always released. He completed his trek as he had planned.

 

[Natman]

This is getting silly and tedious. An example of why I don't want to finger through your website, but would rather you present your own argument:


Problem? The actual study IS NOT HERE.

Yes. Unfortunately, these studies are not available on line, so they will have to be researched at public libraries.

Nate

 

[Shane Roach]

I didn't say he wasn't arrested. He was arrested SEVERAL times along the way, but there was never any charges that related to his nudity that stuck so he was always released. He completed his trek as he had planned.

The website said he was convicted and sent to jail. About the only thing he achieved is to take advantage of the delay a trial takes to "complete" his trip, apparently.

 

[immersedingrace]

I am hoping this discussion will eventually lead to it's acceptance by "Biblical Christians".

Are you saying that to be a Biblical Christian one must accept public nudity?

 

[Shane Roach]

I didn't say he wasn't arrested. He was arrested SEVERAL times along the way, but there was never any charges that related to his nudity that stuck so he was always released. He completed his trek as he had planned.

Stephen Gough, 44, was found guilty at a trial at Dingwall Sheriff Court...

This is important because part of the argument going on here is that somehow those who feel nudity is lewd or sexual in nature or otherwise just bad on its face are being presented with so called proofs that society doesn't hold that view, yet closer scrutiny shows that repeatedly, society reacts against public nudity except in limited circumstances, and furthermore, the laws seem to indicate that it is precisely because of the relation to sex that has been argued pretty much from the beginning of this thread.

Can we now all at least agree that there is a strong, general consensus that public nudity is not acceptable and that in general that is because of its relationship to sex, i.e., "lewdness"?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

The Naked Rambler was charged with indecent exposure but they couldn't pin anything on him.

 

[Shane Roach]

The Naked Rambler was charged with indecent exposure but they couldn't pin anything on him.

Stephen Gough, 44, was found guilty at a trial at Dingwall Sheriff Court...

 

[crashedman]

[/i][/color]

Hi Shane,

Gough was eventually acquitted for one specific reason: he was not going naked as a means to harrass or cause any undue inconvenience to others. He was not drunk or under the influence of drugs whilst on his walk and not verbally abusing or threatening others.

What he had essentially done was expose certain loopholes in the Scottish legal system where public nudity is concerned.

By contrast, it is now legal to go nude in London if one wishes as long as the anus is not prised open. Therefore, one cannot bend down in public whilst nude.

The relationship towards nakedness and direct sexual behaviour is not specified for all cultures. For instance, the naturist-christians website contains photos of tribesmen who are quite relaxed at being naked in front of the camera. They are not in a stage of excitement and neither do they behave in an overtly anti-social or threatening manner towards the females.

There is actually a novel that came out recently called 'Life One' which is about an alternative world which is clothing optional set in the future. The women are able to wear topless dresses and families can walk naked down the main street in the summertime without being arrested or sexually harassed. In this world, there is no military war, pornography, rape, sex crimes or any violence whatsoever.

The only thing that they have in common with the earth people is that they do not reproduce by means of intercourse. It got a lot of attention in the naturist press because of its outlook on what could happen if naturism became accepted by the mainstream according to their philosophy of it being a non-sexual activity.


Crashedman

 

[Shane Roach]

Hi Shane,

Gough was eventually acquitted for one specific reason: he was not going naked as a means to harrass or cause any undue inconvenience to others. He was not drunk or under the influence of drugs whilst on his walk and not verbally abusing or threatening others.

What he had essentially done was expose certain loopholes in the Scottish legal system where public nudity is concerned.

By contrast, it is now legal to go nude in London if one wishes as long as the anus is not prised open. Therefore, one cannot bend down in public whilst nude.

The relationship towards nakedness and direct sexual behaviour is not specified for all cultures. For instance, the naturist-christians website contains photos of tribesmen who are quite relaxed at being naked in front of the camera. They are not in a stage of excitement and neither do they behave in an overtly anti-social or threatening manner towards the females.

There is actually a novel that came out recently called 'Life One' which is about an alternative world which is clothing optional set in the future. The women are able to wear topless dresses and families can walk naked down the main street in the summertime without being arrested or sexually harassed. In this world, there is no military war, pornography, rape, sex crimes or any violence whatsoever.

The only thing that they have in common with the earth people is that they do not reproduce by means of intercourse. It got a lot of attention in the naturist press because of its outlook on what could happen if naturism became accepted by the mainstream according to their philosophy of it being a non-sexual activity.


Crashedman

Everything I have read so far on the fellow has him convicted at least in some areas, and one where he even says himself he now has a criminal record. It is all find for him and others to say that what they are doing is perfectly ok and everyone accepts it, but when for Example Berkely passes a law specifically to prevent pubic nudity, it sort of puts the idea that people don't mind it a little to the side as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Gough also mentioned that he had hoped others would join him, but this had not happened. Further evidence I think of him being considered a harmless nuisance, rather than an example others feel the need to follow. If more people were to join in, then it would progress to the point where he was causing a public nuisance of a size and ferocity necessary for the authorities to be forced to confront this growing organized nudist harassment.

You all repeatedly say no one minds, then one someone tells you they mind, you change and say they shouldn't, and when confronted with the idea that it is only natural and a lot of people are bothered, you suddenly go from the harassed minority into speaches about prejudice, again calling up the comparison, from what I have been reading in studying Mr. Gough, of racism. It is exactly the same tactic homosexuals are using right now! Why am I not surprised?

It may well be that nudism will come into vogue and be mainstream. Certainly, the Bible tells us there will be a time when people will, en masse, turn their backs on God. But for now, it still appears as if most people understand and would appreciate not being harassed by nudists in public.

 

[Shane Roach]

Here's where he says he has a criminal record.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/dorset/3430347.stm

 

[Natman]

Here's where he says he has a criminal record.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/dorset/3430347.stm

Shane,
A person may be arrested and charged with anything, at any time. The mere fact that an arrest occured means that there will be a "criminal record", whether or not charges are dropped later in court.

The police may charge you with murder of your next door neighbor, in which case they typically have a limited amount of time to release you or file charges. Even if they file charges, they have to prove in a court of law that you are guilty.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[kurabrhm]

Public kissing itself is quite rude, let alone nudity.

 

[Natman]

Are you saying that to be a Biblical Christian one must accept public nudity?

To be a "Biblical Christian" we must accept what the Bible says as well as what it does not say as truth. We may not add our own limits, constraints or freedoms beyond what is explicit in scripture.

(Isa 5:20) “but woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."


(2 Tim. 3:16) “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

(1 Thes. 5:21) "Test everything. Hold on to that which is good."

(Acts 17:11) "Now the Bereans were of more noble character then the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."


(Rev 22:18-19) "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."



​

"Cultural Christians", on the other hand, will try to reshape the messages of the Bible to reflect the current culture or their own world view. This has happend throughout time (even back to Adam and Eve) and was the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation.

This was an area in which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees. They had steeped so much "tradition" on top of scripture, that they were blind to true message of the Messiah. They relied on strict observance of their traditions over a close, intimate relationship with their God.

(Matt 23:13-33) "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it. 23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
​

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[immersedingrace]

To be a "Biblical Christian" we must accept what the Bible says as well as what it does not say as truth. We may not add our own limits, constraints or freedoms beyond what is explicit in scripture.

I agree wholeheartedly. What we so obviously DO NOT agree on, is what exactly the bible says. I am a biblical Christian. I accept what the bible says and does not say as truth. I have not added my own limits, contraints or freedoms beyond what is explicit in scripture. One can make all the judgments they want and it will still come out the same: GOD will be the judge. We're humans. We all make mistakes. Until GOD tells me that public nudity is OK, I will stick with the facts as presented in scripture. Believe me, I hate getting up in the morning and trying to figure out what to wear. I hate doing laundry. I hate shopping for clothes. I would MUCH prefer that public nudity NOT be a sin. I would much prefer living in the Garden as it was originally intended. Since that's NOT the case, I'll live as I feel God has instructed us.

"Cultural Christians", on the other hand, will try to reshape the messages of the Bible to reflect the current culture or their own world view. This has happend throughout time (even back to Adam and Eve) and was the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation.

This was an area in which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees. They had steeped so much "tradition" on top of scripture, that they were blind to true message of the Messiah. They relied on strict observance of their traditions over a close, intimate relationship with their God.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly.

What I, and other's do not AGREE on, is that public nudity is perfectly ok.

You can say that I, and those Christians who agree that public nudity is a sin, are puritanical. You can say that we're allowing culture and tradition to influence our interpretation of the bible.

I would say that those Christians who believe public nudity is perfectly fine are using popular, liberal culture to join the world. To enmesh themselves into the system of worldly culture which says that whatever feels good is ok.

I'm reminded of a saying from my 10th grade English teacher. I'm not sure who it's originally attributed to, but she used it frequently: "What is right isn't always popular, what is popular isn't always right"

I stand firm in believing that the bible tells us that public nudity, or ANY nudity outside the prescribed settings - between husband and wife, childbirth, bathing (and other personal hygiene needs), dressing, medical exams, and possibly in your own privacy - is a sin.

In my opinion, this has been explained satisfactorily on this thread and by my own personal studying of it.

Blessings

​

 

[Natman]

I agree wholeheartedly. What we so obviously DO NOT agree on, is what exactly the bible says.

Right. That is why this thread has gone on for so long.

Until GOD tells me that public nudity is OK, I will stick with the facts as presented in scripture.

And, until God tells me it is wrong, like He has done in all other cases of sin throughout scripture, I will stick to the facts, and only the facts, presented in scripture.

Believe me, I hate getting up in the morning and trying to figure out what to wear. I hate doing laundry. I hate shopping for clothes. I would MUCH prefer that public nudity NOT be a sin. I would much prefer living in the Garden as it was originally intended.

So do my wife and I.

I would say that those Christians who believe public nudity is perfectly fine are using popular, liberal culture to join the world. To enmesh themselves into the system of worldly culture which says that whatever feels good is ok.

And I and thousands of others would say exactly the opposite. I'm not saying "whatever feels good is OK". I'm saying, "unless God Himself calls something 'sinful', it's not 'sinful', and if God Himself calls something 'good', then it's 'good'". That is the case for nudity in an of itself.

I stand firm in believing that the bible tells us that public nudity, or ANY nudity outside the prescribed settings - between husband and wife, childbirth, bathing (and other personal hygiene needs), dressing, medical exams, and possibly in your own privacy - is a sin.
In my opinion, this has been explained satisfactorily on this thread and by my own personal studying of it.

We've been asking you to PROVE it SCRIPTURALLY, not based on YOUR OWN opinion. (Basing our decisions on "our own opinions" is part of the definition of a "Cultural Christian".)

So far that hasn't happened.

Son-cerely,
Nate