| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Admin |
Posted - 01/20/2004 : 5:22:58 PM
Nudism Bashing - is it confusion or malice?
Are these nudism bashers confused, or just plain malicious? Read through and see how they paint a fearful picture with skillful innuendo. Count them, and see how many totally wrong ideas these writers are openly promoting about the nudism lifestyle.
From usanewsandviews.com
Nude Camping; it’s not just for adults anymore
“It makes me a bit freaked out that people would think of nudity as a sexual thing,” said Michelle Jones, a 15 year old nudist from Texas. Michelle is among a number of girls and boys, ages 11 through 18 who are happy little campers at one of America’s nudist camps for kids. According to the New York Times article entitled, “Old Enough to Make a Lanyard, and to Do It Nude,” children running around nude playing volleyball, pudding toss, mini-golf and a campfire sing-along, is like any other “family-like environment.”
The Times points out that parents who enroll their pre-teen and teen age kids to the nation’s growing number of nudist camps geared for that age group aren’t very concerned about it and in fact find it a wholesome and safe environment. Actually, according to the Times, “‘The Nudist Association, the larger of two nationwide, sees this as a place to train ‘youth ambassadors’ to what nudists call the ‘textile’ world.”’ Apparently, there is a movement to convert or at least desensitize us all to nudity. Perhaps they even want us all to be so desensitized that we also stop seeing the connection between nudity and sex.
So just how long do you have to be nude to start believing that being clothed is what brings out a person’s sexuality? Not to be glib, but if the kids who are enrolled in nudist camps and the parents that send them see no connection, perhaps not liking clothes is just a symptom of a far greater difficulty.
While most people would like to believe they have something special about them, something unique that places them far away from the maddening crowd; the nudists seem to be the maddening crowd.
The Times article explains that up to just recently, preteens and teens had no place to express their abhorrence for clothing, at least not in groups and out in the open. Not anymore though, Haile who was named “camper of the day” because she braved a bee sting on her foot can now say, “I've spent my life around nudist resorts; this is the first time I've ever been around kids my own age.” It has to warm the cockles of your heart to know that young teenage girls, especially brave ones can now romp in the fields and dance in the meadows with others her own age, boys included, nude and free from any heretofore human realizations or understanding of why that is not a good idea.
It seems the nudists view themselves as “progressives” in a prehistoric, pre-civilization kind of way. You see, people were not confined or controlled by the “textile” industry tens of thousands of years ago. They were free to frolic with the mammoths and giant sloths, never having to worry about catching their cuffs on a tusk or fang. Though, they probably had other things to worry about.
The bottom line is that there are large numbers of people who have children that think nothing of placing those kids in summer camps so that the kids can parade around sans textiles, with other teens. Not being a prude by nature, it is especially difficult understanding why these nudists are incapable of seeing the accident just waiting to happen.
In fact, why is it that the attorney generals or state legislatures are oblivious to the potential and very real distorting of the mindsets of these young people by their mothers and fathers who apparently don’t have the parenting skills of ally cats? Though, Congressman Mark Foley of Florida is an exception and is in the process of trying to stop the insanity of a clothes free camp for teens.
More importantly, this doesn’t have to be a question of morality, but rather of child safety and child endangerment. What parent of a preteen girl would like to see their child prancing around nude in the woods or bouncing around a volleyball court with a bunch of teenage boys who are also so attired? The folks from the skin-only side of the playing field would like you to believe that because they hate clothing, they are above human impulses and desires. It may be possible that some are in actuality quite to the contrary of their ranting, and now seem to be bringing children into their world and throwing that fact into everyone else’s face.
Not being a libertarian, the notion of allowing people to be who they want to be without governmental interference or even private interference, so long as they are not hurting anyone, is still usually a good one. However, in these circumstances, where children are involved, someone else is getting hurt and it should be stopped.
While some of the teens involved may find it not harmful, even wholesome to be running around nude with other teens and supervised by adults, “watching” their every move; it is not. If anything, the fact that a group of teenage boys think the idea of a camp full of nude teenage girls is where they want to spend their summer vacation, only adds to the reasons why it is not a good idea.
----------------------
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and an attorney with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now practicing law and writing political commentary. Paul has his own website at www.usanewsandviews.com.
Paul can be contacted at paul.walfield@usanewsandviews.com
©2003 Paul Walfield All Rights Reserved |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| old hippie |
Posted - 09/18/2007 : 11:12:35 PM
And now you will find that his website is no longer functional. If you click on the link in the article, you see a message that the page is not available - and asking the website owner to call the service. Think he forgot to pay his bill?
Looks like another scam-of-the-week that found a button that would get the public to send in the bux.
Dum vivimus, vivamus! |
| asmodee |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 11:27:56 AM
Man, I am so glad this post got dredged up! I LOVE responding to statements made by morons!
First of all, I would like to point out the if you read the whole thing, you would see that the writer heralds Mark Foley as a champion of child protection. I don't know anything about what's going on in the world around me and even I know what has become of Mark Foley. It's no wonder that man has thought long and hard about camps full of nude teens and it has nothing to do with protecting them, unless he wanted to protect them from people like himself.
Next, you will note that there is not a single point made in that article that was not a "what if" point. "What if the teenage boys had bad ideas; what if sex and nudity are the same thing; what if the reason the teenage boys wanted to go there just to be with nude teenage girls." It is a testament to a monumental ignorance of the subject matter the writer is writing about. Every point about what could go wrong was an assumption of the worst. That says something about the writer. If there is a thief among you, watch for the person who most closely guards their possessions because thieves are usually the most worried about theft. The fact that this man, with no evidence whatsoever, is so terribly worried about what could happen to a camp full of nudist teens, with particular interest for the wellbeing of the girls says a lot about the true nature of the writer, just like Foley's interest in protecting children was eventually revealed for what it really was.
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe that everyone who calls for the protection of children, especially nudist children, has hidden, dark intentions. As a father, the protection of my own children is top on my list. But there are obvious signs when something is wrong. This man had a perception of danger to nudist teenage girls, but no perception of danger to nudist teenage boys. In fact, in his testament to his ignorance, the teenage boys were one of the perceived dangers. Other than the boys, however, no example was given in exactly what way it could be dangerous. This is a walk through a dark mind. This man thinks of a nudist camp for teens and sees imminent danger to the girls while ignoring the boys altogether except to say that they may be a danger to the girls. The article mentions and quotes two girls, but boys are an afterthought. The article says things about girls such as suggesting they, "prance around", "romp in the fields" and "dance in the meadows." There is no mention of boys prancing, romping or dancing, which sounds more like a Wiccan ceremony than nudist activities to me. This suggests that this man is drawing, not on actual knowledge, statistics or stories, but his own dark thoughts and desires to visualize what dangers may lurk. Not once does he mention a danger to the boys, but he is very adamant about the danger to the girls, even from the camp directors who are '"watching" their every move'. I am not a psychologist, but I am usually very good at reading people. Based on an admittedly amateur psychological evaluation, I would say this man may have an unnatural attraction to teenage girls which shames and excites him at the same time. Just like Mark Foley fought to close down teen nudist camps to protect the teens and, at the same time, was trying to set up sexual meetings with teenage boys, this man may be paying penance with this article for the skeletons in his own closet.
I would like to point out that I am not accusing this man of anything. This is simply a "what if" scenario, just like the entire article I am posting about. I welcome comments from anyone with a degree in psychology. |
| imnude2 |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 10:27:13 AM
Mnstnz:
Your comment...
"For me it seems safer to keep my child away from congressmen, and priests."
Stereotyping is the problem.
|
| Mnstnz |
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 12:41:41 PM
I read every day the arguements about nudism and sexualliy. People against nudism claim they want to protect the children and that somehow being nude will cause some kind of harm to them. People who promote nudism in its true form argue how that nudism is a healthly way of living. (Something I also beleive). But no one ever gives staistics to support their ideas, especially those against nudism. It seems to me that since the "majority" of people are against nudism, then why are the majority of harmful things done by non-nudists? (per-capita that is). For me it seems safer to keep my child away from congressmen, and priests. (Just an example. I know there are many good people in both areas)
Until people learn that how we behave, clothed or not, is what makes us what we are, the debate will continue.
People use clothing to mask flaws, both physical and mental. It is something to hide behind for many reasons, not just protection from the elements. For some no matter how good the reasoning my be they will never accept anything other than their side of things.
I am sorry I have rambeled on again. Please forgive.
Dan
Peace and Long life to all |
| NakedAmbition |
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 12:01:03 PM
What's important to do when responding to an article like the one reproduced at the start of this thread is to not come off as someone from Mars or like some alternate species of human who is above the normal drives we all have. Here's what I'd say: A male teen will of course get a small spring in his step and a smile on his face when anticipating going to a nudist event where nude teen girls will be present. Nudists aren't asexual extremists who don't notice the physical beauty around them. But you'll be surprised about how quickly such feelings become secondary to just enjoying wholesome nudist activity. Nudist events are less sexually charged than many non-nudist events because of the lack of sexy, busy-enhancing bathing suits, thongs, etc., encouraging one to take in a person's whole body not just certain parts. Yes, the boys will look (as will the girls at the handsome teen boys) but nudism encourages more of a healthy admiration than lustful leering. And so on.
In other words, when you talk about how nudism isn't about sex, lean more towards the idea that nudism isn't about sexual activity, and less about what's going on in people's minds. Because young nudists WILL think about sex, at least a little, but for the reasons stated above such thoughts will likely remain under control and subordinate to the non-sexual pleasures of nudism. Remember, when you respond to critics, tell them things they will actually believe! |
| Kimberly |
Posted - 01/25/2004 : 04:12:16 AM
I agree with you skinnydipper, it amazed me the first time I saw full frontal nudity on TV in Europe, and people causually sun bathing nude in the parks. It will probably never take hold here like it has in Europe, just a different way of thinking between Europe and North America.
Kim =^.^= |
| skinnydipper |
Posted - 01/22/2004 : 9:38:45 PM
I eschew words like "textile"... think of people as either being open-minded or close-minded. Many of the closed minds are woefully repressed. Probably not their own fault. A lot of this comes from upbringing & religious instruction. Opening a closed mind is not easy. Takes an inquiring mind. That notwithstanding, there will always be at least a dashed line in the USA between nudity and sex, since the pervasive repression of social nudity leaves occurrences of nudity as perceived to be part of or prelude to sex. Most movies with nude scenes associate them with sex. Gentlemen's clubs with nude dancers reinforce the linkage. So in minds of most Americans, these two words become welded together. But times are changing. Nude recreation is growing more popular, and eventually the stigma will fade, just as it already has towards divorce and unwed mothers. However, I doubt the USA will ever be as liberal about nudity as Europe, where it's common on beaches and TV -- so common that it's no longer a big deal.
Grin & bare it ;) |
| Kimberly |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 10:08:34 PM
I think they already have it in their minds that nudity is wrong and they do not want to hear anybody elses opinion.
Kim =^.^= |
| calmnude |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 10:02:06 PM
and kimberly, some people just have no sense of fun or a sense of humor and playfulness in their lives. yuk. |
| NUDKIWI |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 8:13:58 PM
The big difference between most "textiles" and most "nudists" is that most of us know what it is like to wear clothes or go nude.Most textiles don't have the same experience so their ideas and opinions are formed in ignorance,which as i have stated in other threads is the cause of misunderstanding,prejudice and even,in extreme cases,fear.
This persons blurb is only a result of this ignorance,most textiles can't seperate nudity and sex,how can they when it is used continuously to sell products and movies,and so can't understand how people can go around naked without getting the urge to jump on top of each other in one big orgy....misunderstanding.
Another thing they keep complaining about is our attempt to make the naked human form more acceptable,well whats wrong with that,we all have a naked body,most of us live with someone that has a naked body,hell i have friends that have naked bodies,why should we be afraid of them,what harm does a naked body do.
Education + exposure = understanding + acceptance.
Sorry about the long post,but this is a subject i am VERY passionate about.
Naturally KIWI |
| Kimberly |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 11:14:18 AM
I think your right about that Calmnude. Some people have their minds made up with out even looking at the otherside. I had the same fight with people over the Harry Potter books. This woman was criticizing me because I let my kids read the "Harry Potter" books. She said the books were evil because they taught kids about witchcraft. I asked her if she had read them and she said no. I told her I had and read them with my kids and found the fun and entertaining. She just left hasn't talk to me since.
Kim =^.^= |
| bornnude |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 08:21:32 AM
Maybe he would take and post a rebuttal from someone on this site. You would get his true intent if the rebuttal were not posted. The site, however is, "USA NEWS AND VIEWS" and many of us here are in the USA. |
| calmnude |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 07:10:56 AM
melisssa, i dont really know if he would see anything differently. he might be one of those people who would look for things to justify his position, as small and insignificant as they might be to the whole picture.
to comment, yes this man appears to be a "conservative for cash".
and he would probably be a " (fill in the blank) for cash" if it paid better. |
| melissastarr |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 06:33:59 AM
I hate to say it, but I think this guy actually believes he is right and a few months ago I would have agreed with him heartily. If you don't truly understand that nudism is not a sexual thing, and if you've never experienced this, you worry about what our teens would be doing at a nudist camp. I'm sorry to say, his arguments made sense to me to some degree because I shared them so short a time ago. The problem is people just don't understand what nudism really is and they feel like they need to protect kids from it. Perhaps this guy really is well-meaning, just uninformed about the truths of nudism. If he spent a day at a nudist resort he'd probably see things differently.
Melissa
___________________________________________________________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss |
| nudeisntlewd |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 05:10:46 AM
If not reliable, at least respected sources. And he has credentials which look impressive on the surface, such as being an attorney.
Randy |
|
|
