| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/20/2004 : 10:16:13 AM
|
Randy,
I am actually the one that used the statistic about the 12,000 arrests annually. I read it in a news story which was being done on breast feeding being legalized in some state. I did make a copy of it and if you are interested in seeing it I will try to figure out what I did with it and make it available to you.
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
 |
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 11:49:35 AM
|
Wow - lots of issues here!
I am not seeking to ban female toplessness because it is ugly, as with an overweight man who has developed sagging pectorals, but because female breasts have intimate connotations. I certainly do not like bare breasts being shown on TV, but I can always turn the TV off. The public have the same option but sometimes, for the sake of dramatic realism, they'll put up with a sight they would otherwise find unacceptable. It's the same with, for example, boxing. Boxing doesn't usually cause consternation but a street fight with comparible levels of violence certainly would.
I'm not trying to convince nudists that ladies' bosoms should always be covered. I am merely reminding them that there is a big world out there full of people for whom nudity, and even partial nudity, still has the power to shock and offend.
The fact that one is an atheist doesn't mean that person has abandoned cultural and social norms in favour of clinical rationality. Sure, human beings are just animals, but why should be define ourselves according to our lowest characteristics. You might as well say that we are just collections of molecules, and that death is just a re-arrangement of those molecules. Shakespeare is just a bunch or words, Mozart is just a collection of noises etc.
No it wouldn't scar a child for life if she saw an adult woman's breast or if she exposed her own to a stranger. But that's not the issue. It wouldn't scar her for life if she sat in a confined space with a bunch of cigarette smokers, but it's not something we would want to encourage. I agree that the form we have is not our 'fault' and it is not wrong - but that doesn't mean we have to force others to see every square millimetre of our bodies whether they want to or not. Personally, I hate seeing nudity - any nudity.
I have seen topless beaches in some countries - including France, Spain, Holland, Germany and Denmark. Last year there was a full-page article in a Danish national daily newspaper asking why toplessness seemed to be on a slow decline in Europe. The writer noted that fewer and fewer women were to be seen exposing their breasts and those who were tended to be older - topless teenagers and even twenty-somethings were few and far between. He suggested that toplessness was a fashion 'fad' that was slowly coming to an end and was becoming socially less acceptable. I hope he's right and, from my observations in Denmark, he is.
Here in the UK there is no specific law prohibiting female toplessness on any beach. Nevertheless, you would be hard pressed to see any women exposing themselves in that way unless it were either a very remote beach or a nudist beach. Toplessness, like nudity, belongs on nudist beaches.
Stu
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Stirbaby
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:03:18 PM
|
Well thought out reply Stu.
"Personally, I hate seeing nudity - any nudity."
I think that when you join this forum, you are doing yourself a disservice because this forum is for NUDISTS!
Would you join the Catholic Church and then immediately jump up and say you don’t like the idea of having a Pope?
I want to ask you how you found this site.
Were you looking for pictures of nude people to help you thru your masturbation?
I think that they allow that, membership for masturbation, based on the thousands who are members but have never made a post, but to come here looking for sexual relief by viewing these nude photos, and then condemn the nudist, well, you are a hypocrite.
Were you thinking, “I don’t agree with nudist, so I will search for a nudist site and let them know a thing or two?”
Or, were you looking for some pictures online, free, that you could view, and then you could get aroused and masturbate?
Did you do that, or did you attempt to do that and not find the wide open photos that you were seeking and take out your anger by preaching to us degenerate nudists?
I would like to see more breasts.
I think that if the mystery was taken out, then the sexiness of them would be diminished to a more natural level... AND I believe. You would see less of the surgical desecration of women’s bodies.
Listen, boobs are just boobs.
When you put them behind a curtain, they become more than breasts, and not always to the benefit of the boobs owner.
Stu, I am meaning this with good will.
I am just curious as to why you are here.
To learn?
To masturbate?
To preach and convert?
To join?
Best regards,
Stirbaby
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:25:19 PM
|
You brought up a reduction in women going topless on beaches. I don't think it's a fad and I think the author of the article is a blind stupid fool. Guess he never considered the jerks who patrol in and around beaches with cell phone cameras, digital cameras, and digital video cameras. If these jerks used such photos and videos for their own personal pleasure that's one thing. But these guys just love to share these photos and videos with the world. In some cases it doesn't matter if the woman's breast are bare or not, they still get some sick pleasure out of catching them on photo or video. The feeling these women get from such things is akin to rape or sexual assault. Wouldn't it be better for the jerk to just walk out onto the beach and actually "talk" to the lady without trying to sneak a peek in hiding? First time I came across a nude beach was by accident while visiting a Greek island for the first time. Yes, I stood by and gawked at all the nude people. But after a few minutes that got old and decided to try it for myself. I've learned that a nude body in and of itself isn't sexual. The situation in which the person is nude or getting undressed dictates if it's sexual or not.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
Stirbaby
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:34:50 PM
|
Good post dave!
I have no fear that anyone is sneaking any pictures of me, so it was good that you reminded us all that digital camereas, aand the internet, have put additional pressure on women, and added new and exciting tools for the creeps.
There are not less women on the beachs, they are just finding more secluded beachs.
Sunshine and breast will always be searching for a place to meet each other, creeps be damned!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:41:47 PM
|
Stirbaby
I am absolutely aghast that you even suggest that I might have come here with a prurient motive. I told you that I don't like seeing nudity. I don't find it sexy or appealing in any way - quite the reverse. If I did I'm sure this site would be the wrong place to find such titilation.
Why do I come here? A friend who regularly posts here knows I like a good debate and suggested I take a look. So I came. By the way, the fact that I hate nudity doesn't mean I don't like nudists. I have nudist friends and they are lovely people (when they're dressed!!)  By the way, I hope you weren't thinking of me when you mentioned the 'creeps'.
Dave
The Danish journalist was simply speaking what he observed in Denmark - and what I have observed also. He had no reason to lie about it and if he had done that, everyone wpould have known and he would have been discredited.
Fifteen years or so ago, a woman wearing a top on a Danish beach was the exception. Nowadays about three quarters are wearing tops on most beaches in Denmark. Don't take my word for it - go and see for yourself. Even the once uninhibited Germans are gradually becoming more bashful in recent times about nudity - especially since the collapse of the Iron Curtain. This is a real issue of concern to the many German nudists who holiday in the resorts in the former East Germany.
Stu
|
Edited by - StuFox on 10/20/2004 1:53:58 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:45:06 PM
|
Stirbaby,
Some of those questions and comments to Stu are uncalled for.
Who cares why he's here-I never saw a sign that says "Only nudists Allowed"
Anyone is free to come to this site-and exchange their opinions. Stu's opinion is that female breasts should be covered in public areas. He doesn't want to be imposed up-what's the problem with that? I agree with him-many others do-and from what I have seen-the women with the breasts do as well! I am not seeing women running around topless at community parks-swimming pools-beaches-ANYWHERE.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
Stirbaby
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 1:58:32 PM
|
"Personally, I hate seeing nudity - any nudity."
This is the root statement that Stu posted and that I responded too.
I said that it was a well thought out post.
But, that one statement, "Personally, I hate seeing nudity - any nudity.", does invite, might demand the question, and the speculation, as to why Stu is on a nudist site.
If he does hate seeing nudity... any nudity, si Stu typing with his eyes closed when he postes to this site?
You have a contradiction Stu.
I stand by my post.
Stirbaby
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:17:47 PM
|
StirBaby,
Perhaps I am missing something...but I haven't seen nudity on this site.
Anyway, Cheri's comments got me to do some researching regarding topless laws, and so far, I really haven't found legal text to support her suggestions and points.
I did find this:
http://www.tera.ca/legal.html#Vogt
It says, in part:
Ordinance 3-2.6, upon which Arlene was convicted, states:
Indecent or Nude Exposure. It shall be unlawful for any person to appear or travel on any street, avenue, highway, road, boardwalk, beach, beach front or waterway located in the Township of Lower, or to appear in any public place, store or business in said borough in a state of nudity or in an indecent or lewd dress or garment, or to make any indecent or unnecessary exposure of his or her person.
And a group of nudists had unsuccessfully taken this matter to court before:
In Tri-State, an organization of nudists sued to invalidate the same ordinance as involved here which was adopted in 1986 by Lower Township to ban nude sunbathing. The suit was prompted by the fact that several of the plaintiff's members had been arrested under the ordinance on Higbee Beach.
Judge Gibson rejected the plaintiff's various constitutional challenges, including those based on the freedom of _expression, right to privacy, freedom of association, vagueness, and protected liberty interest. Tri-State Metro Naturists, supra, 219 N.J. Super. at 108-15. In refuting the vagueness theory, the judge adopted the reasoning of Belmar. Id. at 112. While conceding that "certain portions of this ordinance are arguably vague, particularly with respect to dress," the judge reaffirmed the Belmar court's view that "there is nothing vague about the prohibition against public nudity." Ibid.
And:
Notwithstanding its upholding of the validity of the ordinance, the court held that the ordinance could not be enforced on Higbee Beach, a site that "is state-owned and regulated and therefore immune from local control under state sovereignty grounds." The latter obstacle to enforcement has been removed by L. 1999, c. 141, effective June 28, 1999, by which the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 40:48-1(9) to allow municipalities to enforce ordinances prohibiting nudity on state-owned lands.
And the defendant argued and a decision made:
We agree. It is ludicrous, as Judge Garafolo stated, to argue that toplessness does not constitute nudity within the meaning of the ordinance. Arlene notes that the ordinance does not define "state of nudity," leaving her on August 7, 1999, to speculate as to whether her partial nakedness would violate the ordinance. Thus while we consider the argument settled by both Belmar and Tri-State to lay to rest any remaining vestige of doubt we hold that the ordinance is not vague as applied to the partial nudity of a topless female sunbather..
The distinction Arlene argues fails both under the strict reading of the words of the ordinance and under the circumstances surrounding her flouting of the ordinance. First, the ordinance forbids appearing in public in "a state of nudity." While toplessness is not the complete nudity that defendant assumes is necessary, it is "a" state of nudity, namely, partial nudity in the form of bare female breasts. Arlene makes much of the fact that her dictionary does not define nudity or nakedness to include partial nudity or toplessness. But the unabridged version of the same dictionary, Webster's International Dictionary 1500 (3rd ed. 1981), defines "naked," a synonym of "nude," as including the following: "inadequately or partially clothed esp. so as to be socially unacceptable." Applying that definition, a Missouri appeals court rejected a child-pornography defendant's argument that his victim was not "nude" because she was missing only her top when he photographed her. State v. Foster, 838 S.W.2d 60, 68 (Mo. App. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 994, 113 S. Ct. 1607, 123 L. Ed. 2d 169 (
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:22:11 PM
|
Stirbaby
Look above this posting and count how many nude bodies there are. I can't see any. If I were aroused by the odd thumbnail-sized still picture of a nudist then I would seek help. Having said that, such pictures don't worry me inordinately.
I come here because:
1. I love a debate,
2. I know nudists do too, and
3. It's a VERY interesting topic.
I hope you will take me on face value and accept my word that I come here to discuss the issues. Think about it. If all I were interested in were the pictures - why would I bother to formulate lengthy posts? After all - anyone can come here and look at the pics - and say nothing. Your theory doesn't make any sense, does it? 
Stu
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Stirbaby
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:26:10 PM
|
"Perhaps I am missing something...but I haven't seen nudity on this site."
Well, i think those are breasts on the top left of this page, and did you notice the avatars, or the photo galleries, or the photos on personal profiles, just to mention a hundred or so examples of nudity on this site.
It might be my computer.
I did purchase the nudity option with this new computer, so it could just be me that sees it.
Keep smiling; someone may be taking your picture!
Stirbaby
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:27:50 PM
|
No stu, my remarks about creeps lurking around beaches with digital cameras was not refering to yourself. It's a fact that at many pubic beaches; whether nude, topless, or neither of the first two; there are many creeps lurking around with hidden cameras looking to catch a peek of skin to get personal pleasure and or share with friends on the net. That was one reason why a lady friend said she didn't want to go to a nudist or topless beach. She was afraid some jerk would take her photo, post it on the web, and someone at work seeing her photo. There have been people fired from their job for having nude photos of themselves on the web and being found by or reported to their boss. I just think that just bare breast should not be a crime. Baring breast in an inappropriate manner causing a disturbance is a separate crime involving creating a disturbance or disturbing the peace. Do you feel a woman laying out topless within her back yard should be arrested as well simply because some of her neighbors may have seen her bare breast? From her back yard, she can't be seen from the street and she's within her own property. She's not doing anything to try to create a public disturbance on public property. What about if a woman is on a little alcove type beach away from the main beach and away from the main road? Should she be arrested for going topless in such an area as well?
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:38:24 PM
|
I'll agree that if it's not legal then the woman should not bare her breast nor people going nude. But this topless and nudity law is different from state to state, county to county, city to city, etc. Morality laws have been changed in the past. At one time drinking alcohol was illegal in this country and that law was repealed. Bare breast should be decriminalized. Removing the part of the law which makes bare breast illegal would not mean the state and local police cannot act upon a woman creating a public disturbance by baring her breast in public.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
Stirbaby
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 2:49:17 PM
|
Stu says, “Look above this posting and count how many nude bodies there are. I can't see any."
Oh. The nude couple is not on your computer monitor screen?
I see two nude bodies.
Stu asks, "Your theory doesn't make any sense, does it?"
Me; “I think that when you join this forum, you are doing yourself a disservice because this forum is for NUDISTS!"
Still holds water.
This website that is called.... NUDIST RESORTS.
Now, you tell us, and yourself, that you have searched for and found a web site that is called NUDIST RESORTS to find a debate, with nudist, on this very interesting topic.
It doesn’t pass the smell test, Stu.
You may like a debate, and nudist may like a debate, and this may actually be an interesting topic, but all that happened after you, who says he doesn’t like nudism, traveled to this website called NUDIST RESORTS.
If you can’t see what your motives are, and if some are so excited to have a new person who actually posts that they are not willing to look a gift post in the mouth, then that’s really not my problem.
I would never have called you out if you had not stated "Personally, I hate seeing nudity - any nudity."
You can’t be that guy and then find this site and jump into a, and all puns are intended, a titillating thread.
Here is my theory Stu;
You wanted to see some nude people, for sexual stimulation, and you didn’t want to pay a fee, so this site became a choice.
You do like to debate, and you saw a topic that titillated you.
Explain to me where I am wrong.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 3:12:14 PM
|
Oh..geeze..
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Topless Equality
