Nudism

[Shane Roach]

And I know a beach here in Sydney (not nude) which is known for attracting homosexuals. And on a beach here I witnessed a man and a woman engaging in some light foreplay.

Sorry, but isolated incidents aren't at issue. What is at issue is whether the environments promote this sort of thing. They don't.


Yes, there are a large number of nudist communities, particularly in Europe, which cater for families. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the children of these families suffer in any way, and I find the implication above regarding taking children to them incredibly narrow-minded. Putting children in an environment where nudity is commonplace can only be good for them - it will help prevent them from adopting the baseless nudity taboo that you evidence, which so many have.

There are many bars that attract mostly alternate lifestyle crowds because they have to in order to meet. I am talking about a disproportional attraction here.

The amount of foreplay I was discussing may have been observable on non-nude beaches, I'll grant you, but it certainly takes on a whole new sexual tone when the arousal is that graphic.

Fundamentally, it just seems that the objections being raised here lack context as to why people would find nudity a taboo, and sexually risque in public. I see no indication here of even moderate understanding on your part. Your skewed ideas on the subject are precisely what frightens me about children being exposed at an early age to that lifestyle, because it is just a whole new level of disregard for simple normalcy. Whatever you might consider "damage" being done to those children is completely undefineable. It is truly disturbing to me, however.

I am at this point I think mixing my response to two posts. There is one about the normalcy of family nudism that brought up that last comment.

Anyhow, spooky to me, and I am by no means I think any minority in that.

 

[Shane Roach]

Please support this. Can you cite any instances of where public nakedness has led to 'immorality'?


Firstly, public nudity is not forcing the nudity on anyone; the only way to do that would be to force everyone to be nude, which nobody is advocating. You have claimed that nudity is something that more or less automatically entices on toward sin, but have not supported this claim in any way.

Sorry, it's not a 'handful of backwards cultures'. Many advanced cultures throughout history have legitimized nudism in various situations - modern examples include Sweden (mixed bathing).

Many does not equal most or even "a large number compared to other cultures" apparently, as I have been to "many" places in Europe and am not familiar with the "many" places where nudity is accepted. Even in Greece, sort of vacation spot for Europeans, the nude beach was isolated and seemed to appeal to a rather select crowd of people. Sweden and several of the other Northern European cultures are well known in their recent turning away from common morality, but for example the red light districts are still avoided by families. I don't know much about public bathing there, but I somehow doubt it is a situation very far removed from the normal.

Your continual refusal to even so much as admit the obvious will not be lost on the average reader as well. Your continual insistance in the face of a world full of people who wear clothes and know exactly why nudity is related to sexuality, believe me, is not lost on most people. The depth of your self-deception on this subject says something about where such ideas as legitimizing public nudity come from in the human psyche, to say nothing of spirituality, if indeed spirituality has anything at all to do with it.

 

[The Bellman]

There are many bars that attract mostly alternate lifestyle crowds because they have to in order to meet. I am talking about a disproportional attraction here.

Great. Then evidence such a disproportional attraction. So far, you haven't.

Fundamentally, it just seems that the objections being raised here lack context as to why people would find nudity a taboo, and sexually risque in public. I see no indication here of even moderate understanding on your part. Your skewed ideas on the subject are precisely what frightens me about children being exposed at an early age to that lifestyle, because it is just a whole new level of disregard for simple normalcy. Whatever you might consider "damage" being done to those children is completely undefineable. It is truly disturbing to me, however.

This paragraph is just a tirade, with no substance. I find no validity in any of your objections, either. So what? I find YOUR ideas skewed, and am concerned about children being around you, lest they absorb your disturbing ideas.

There. Now we've both got that off our chests, perhaps we can just debate?

 

[Shane Roach]

Please support this. Can you cite any instances of where public nakedness has led to 'immorality'?

I'd have to know what, if anything, you find immoral in the sexual realm before I can accurately answer that question.

 

[The Bellman]

Many does not equal most or even "a large number compared to other cultures" apparently, as I have been to "many" places in Europe and am not familiar with the "many" places where nudity is accepted. Even in Greece, sort of vacation spot for Europeans, the nude beach was isolated and seemed to appeal to a rather select crowd of people.

Umm...so what?

Sweden and several of the other Northern European cultures are well known in their recent turning away from common morality,

No, they're not. YOU might think they are turning away from common morality; they don't. Nor do I. And these are nations, let us remember, with far lower sex crime rates than the good ol' USA.

but for example the red light districts are still avoided by families.

Of course they are. Red light districts are about sex; nudity per se is not.

I don't know much about public bathing there, but I somehow doubt it is a situation very far removed from the normal.

Then you are wrong.

Your continual refusal to even so much as admit the obvious will not be lost on the average reader as well. Your continual insistance in the face of a world full of people who wear clothes and know exactly why nudity is related to sexuality, believe me, is not lost on most people. The depth of your self-deception on this subject says something about where such ideas as legitimizing public nudity come from in the human psyche, to say nothing of spirituality, if indeed spirituality has anything at all to do with it.

Just another tirade basically saying "you don't agree with me, so you're wrong." Thanks for trying, anyway.

 

[Shane Roach]

Great. Then evidence such a disproportional attraction. So far, you haven't.


This paragraph is just a tirade, with no substance. I find no validity in any of your objections, either. So what? I find YOUR ideas skewed, and am concerned about children being around you, lest they absorb your disturbing ideas.

There. Now we've both got that off our chests, perhaps we can just debate?

The evidence is that the two places I have personally been to that were all nude HAD a demonstrable and very, very obvious appeal to alternative lifestyle people in the sexual realm.

The evidence that most cultures consider public nudity something to be avoided is all around you, and if you can't see it, that is something that no amount of text quoting would ever help.

 

[Shane Roach]

Umm...so what?

So, your use of "many" here is meaningless. It is obvious an overwhelming number of people wear clothes in public, like to wear clothes in public, and are not fond of people who refuse to wear clothes in public or who exhibit some sort of artificial resistance to wearing them in most situations.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, they're not. YOU might think they are turning away from common morality; they don't. Nor do I. And these are nations, let us remember, with far lower sex crime rates than the good ol' USA.


Of course they are. Red light districts are about sex; nudity per se is not.

Interesting how almost in the same breath you are saying they are not turning their backs on common morality while distancing your stance from the practice of having open red light districts. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that the red light districts are not in necessaril the trendiest part of town either, are they? I am just guessing...

 

[Shane Roach]

Heh, in trying to research the public baths I was blocked as I am in a public place and the server apparently has the topic "nudism" blocked.

Not that most people find public nudism offensive or innapropriate or anything.

On a tangent, the Swedish public access laws about their beaches are something I actually wish we could emulate here.

 

[The Bellman]

The evidence is that the two places I have personally been to that were all nude HAD a demonstrable and very, very obvious appeal to alternative lifestyle people in the sexual realm.

Sorry, two places isn't evidence of anything but those two places. Hey, I once met two christians who were rude...so I can say all christians are rude?

The evidence that most cultures consider public nudity something to be avoided is all around you, and if you can't see it, that is something that no amount of text quoting would ever help.

Except that nobody has ever disputed this. What has been repeatedly stated is that there are SOME cultures that do not find this, and there is no evidence that those cultures are any worse than ours.

So, your use of "many" here is meaningless. It is obvious an overwhelming number of people wear clothes in public, like to wear clothes in public, and are not fond of people who refuse to wear clothes in public or who exhibit some sort of artificial resistance to wearing them in most situations.

No, it's not. "Many" is perfectly accurate. Yes, an overwhelming number of people wear clothes in public, etc. That does nothing to say that "many" don't prefer to be nude.

Interesting how almost in the same breath you are saying they are not turning their backs on common morality while distancing your stance from the practice of having open red light districts. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that the red light districts are not in necessaril the trendiest part of town either, are they? I am just guessing...

Every town of a decent size has a red light district...including those in the good ol' USA. So what? The fact that, for example, Amsterdam has a red light district is no evidence that the country is 'turning their backs on common morality', any more than the same is true of every other city with a red light district.

 

[Shane Roach]

Every town of a decent size has a red light district...including those in the good ol' USA. So what? The fact that, for example, Amsterdam has a red light district is no evidence that the country is 'turning their backs on common morality', any more than the same is true of every other city with a red light district.

No sir, they do not. Not in the sense I am speaking.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, it's not. "Many" is perfectly accurate. Yes, an overwhelming number of people wear clothes in public, etc. That does nothing to say that "many" don't prefer to be nude.

I will let your own logic speak for itself here...

 

[The Bellman]

No sir, they do not. Not in the sense I am speaking.

Yes, they do.

 

[Natman]

Yes, they do.

"Yes the do. No they don't. Yes the do. No they don't. Yes the do. No they don't. "

Come on boys. You can do better than that.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Sidebar: Somebody really oughta form an all inclusive nudist homosexual creationist thread just to speed things up.

 

[crashedman]

I've just become a pooster boy for Chriatian nudists in Brisbane onthe front cover of my local Quest newspaper.....check it out at:

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

I think that I've stirred up a hornet's nest with the first two phone calls I got. Added to the fact I currently don't have any work, or any close friends that I fellowship with on a regular basis.

How many will join it, I don't know....


Crashedman

 

[crashedman]

There are many bars that attract mostly alternate lifestyle crowds because they have to in order to meet. I am talking about a disproportional attraction here.

There are also many other places that do. It's not just in Europe either.

The amount of foreplay I was discussing may have been observable on non-nude beaches, I'll grant you, but it certainly takes on a whole new sexual tone when the arousal is that graphic.

Depending on the countruy's general sexual climate it can differ. There is a site called nudepeace.com which has copped tons of flack from conservative nudists because of some imagery of people doing Kama Sutra-ish positions on the beaches. Frankly, I don't think that beaches are appropriate places for
people to indulge in sexual activity.

Fundamentally, it just seems that the objections being raised here lack context as to why people would find nudity a taboo, and sexually risque in public. I see no indication here of even moderate understanding on your part. Your skewed ideas on the subject are precisely what frightens me about children being exposed at an early age to that lifestyle, because it is just a whole new level of disregard for simple normalcy. Whatever you might consider "damage" being done to those children is completely undefineable. It is truly disturbing to me, however.

It's all to do with the behaviour.

Usually, children don't tend to be that bothered about adults mingling nude on the beach or at clubs. They tend to take it in their stride. As a result, naturist teens don't tend to have half the worries about body shape and size as those in the 'Christian' nations do.

How do you think that children who grew up in tribal families who were pretty much nude and/or the women going bare-breasted coped?

Most legit nudists tend to have a disdain for pornography and 'men's' magazines for a good reason: they tend to stereotype women and show the human form as use for one basic concept or train of thought. I'm also concerned about the sexualised nakedness in the popular media used to sell unrelated products such as football and food, especially the stuff that is designed to reach a younger target audience.


Crashedman

 

[Clarity]

Job 22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.

• 
  
  
  
  Note they were naked before they were stripped.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Isaiah 20
A Prophecy Against Egypt and Cush
1 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it- 2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot.
3 Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, [1] 4 so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared-to Egypt's shame. 5 Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will be afraid and put to shame. 6 In that day the people who live on this coast will say, 'See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?' "(2) The LORD gives Isaiah a sign to act out.

At the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.


from matthew henry commentary
a. Remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet: Before this, Isaiah wore an outer garment of sackcloth - clothes of mourning. Now, God tells him to remove his outer garment of sackcloth, and to take his sandals off.

i. "God would sometimes have his prophets to add to their word a visible sign, to awaken people's minds to a more serious consideration of the matters proposed to them." (Poole)

b. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot: We shouldn't think that Isaiah was nude, completely without clothing. Instead, he only wore the inner garment customary in that day - sort of like wearing only your underwear or a nightshirt. The message wasn't nudity, it was complete poverty and humiliation. Isaiah dressed as the poorest and most destitute would dress.

i. "One need not imagine that Isaiah walked around stripped for the entire three years or that Ezekiel lay on his side for 390 days without getting up (Ezek. 4:9). Perhaps part of each day was used for those designated purposes." (Wolf)

ii. "Not stark naked, but stripped as a prisoner, his mantle or upper garment cast off." (Trapp)




I would like to point out that most biblical scholars agree that isaiah was not naked and the same applies to saul in both cases they were just not wearing their outer garment.

In terms of the song of solomon it refers to the relationship between a husband and a wife not between strangers at a naturist club it refers to things that are acceptable in marriage but not elsewhere and Many Christian commentators interpret the Song of Songs as a picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ and so it cannot be twisted to support nudism.

 

[dudeoffaith1]

Yes, I think public nudism is wrong.

 

[Epaphras]

Yes, I think public nudism is wrong.

I do too. We are no longer clothed in the Shekiah glory that clothed Adam and Eve before the fall. Let's note what they did after "the eyes of them before were opened and they knew that they were naked". And yes, in Biblical times, if you walked outside without your outer garment, you were considered to be naked.

Just my opinion.