| Author |
 Topic  |
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 07:48:07 AM
|
Tom
I will not object to any topless woman who I cannot see. If I avoid nudist places, as I do, I should be able to avoid seeing naked people.
Cheri
If a topless woman is laying in her own yard, and out of the view of others, then she is doing nothing wrong. My objection would arise if she were visible in that state from a public place, or from my own premises or premises I had to use.
Randy
I support the rights of nudists to have plentiful beaches and other venues that are accessible and have good facilities. I just want them to be out of the view of those of us who are less than comfortable with seeing nudity. Nudists have to ask themselves what they want from society – and what society is prepared to accept. The amount of human body that it is acceptable to expose in public has increased over many decades since the Victorian era. I think we pretty much reached the limit sometime around the late 1960s. I think now nudists should focus their energies on getting more and better places to be nude rather than seeking to change the rest of society in a direction most of us really don’t want to follow.
Datona
Thanks for your input. Your comments are, as usual, well formulated and wise.
James & Born nude
When I was talking about a ‘significant minority’, I was talking about them being numerically significant. You really can’t draw a parallel between the rights of women and black people on the one hand and nudists on the other. Being female or black is an inherent characteristic – something we are 100% of the time from conception to death and didn’t choose for ourselves. Being a nudist is to identify oneself as a person who enjoys a certain lifestyle or recreational activity. Almost all nudists spend the vast majority of their lives clothed – they choose when and where to be nude – and non-nudists spend some of their time naked (e.g. in the shower). Nudists choose to belong to a minority, and it is their chosen behaviour that determines their membership.
Mark
The fact that people can be desensitised towards something doesn’t mean they should be. I could desensitise my kids to hearing obscene language by continually using it, but would that be a positive thing to do?
Whether or not a public desensitisation of female breasts, or of complete nudity for that matter, does harm is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it changes our environment in a way that I don’t want it to be changed. And I am far from being alone in that view. Public places belong to all of us. How they are and what is allowed to happen in them should be determined by maximising the comfort of those who use them and have to pay for them. If any behaviour causes a significant number of people to feel discomfort then it should be prohibited. Examples of such behaviour include, in my view, foul language, drunkenness, solicitations by prostitutes, public sex, litter and nudity (partial or otherwise).
Stu
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
 |
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 08:21:22 AM
|
Stu, I don't like looking at ugly homes, let's make them illegal. I don't like looking at hairy sweaty men wearing a white tank top with tuffs of hair sticking out from the arm holes so let's make that illegal. There are plenty of things some people don't want to see but that isn't an excuse to make them illegal. Some women want to go topless on the beach or when sunbathing due to the nature of bathing suit tops. Several women I've talked to say the tops are about as comfortable as having a knive cutting into your skin just under the boobs. Some have said the problem is they find one that fits well in the store but when water is added it seems to dig in. Buy one a size larger to prevent the digging in and everything seems to pop out. About the only thing that wasn't digging in was a large T-shirt but when wet it defeated the purpose of covering up unless it was to protect from the sun. Here in Louisiana, the law against nudity includes bare breast. But for some odd reason that law isn't enforced during the New Orleans Mardi Gras. So for roughly two weeks out of the year it's perfectly legal to show bare breast but a woman laying out topless in a city park or back yard a few minutes a day is a danger to other people's morals.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/21/2004 : 10:31:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuFox
Randy
I support the rights of nudists to have plentiful beaches and other venues that are accessible and have good facilities. I just want them to be out of the view of those of us who are less than comfortable with seeing nudity. Nudists have to ask themselves what they want from society – and what society is prepared to accept. The amount of human body that it is acceptable to expose in public has increased over many decades since the Victorian era. I think we pretty much reached the limit sometime around the late 1960s. I think now nudists should focus their energies on getting more and better places to be nude rather than seeking to change the rest of society in a direction most of us really don’t want to follow.
Stu
Stu,
I do appreciate your stand that we should have places that we can go to enjoy our practice. I just take exception to the idea that it would be in some way harmful to people or detrimental to society if ladies were afforded the same comfort luxury that we men enjoy.
I guess I would have to take a middle ground (perhaps surprisingly) on the issue and say that there are some places that I don't think it would be appropriate. Restaurants and bars for example. Places that for health and safety reasons prohibit it for men too. But in the yard or a stroll in the park or on the beach? Let it out. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Randy 
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 11:02:47 AM
|
I am in the medical field, and did a bit of research on breasts:
"The male and female breasts are similar until puberty, when the female breast tissues enlarges in response to hormones-estrogen and progestrone-released from the ovaries. The female breast is an accessory reproductive organ with two functions, providing nourishment, and to aid sexual stimulation. The male breasts have no functional cabability"
QUOTE: Health Assessment in Nursing Weber & Kelly page 283
So, they aren't the same.....another quote:
"Breast tissue can loose its elasticity if vigorous excercise (running, aerobics) is performed without support for the breast. A well fitted, supportative bra can reduce discomfort to the breasts during exercise"
QUOTE: Health Assessment in Nursing Weber&Kelly page 288
and..
"The older client may notice a decrease in the size and firmness of the breast as she ages because of a decrease in estrogen levels. Glandular tissue decreases whereas fatty tissue increases. A well fitted supportive bra can reduce breast discomfort to sagging breasts."
QUOTE: Health Assessment in Nursing Weber&Kelly Page 286
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 11:40:11 AM
|
Dave
I’m not supporting the law against topless women because breasts are ugly – plenty of things are ugly. I agree with the law because the sight of naked female breasts causes offence. Now we can speculate why that is the case, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Nobody is requiring women to wear painful bras of bikini tops. They can wear tee-shirts, sweaters, crop-tops or any other kind of covering – so long as the naked breasts remain out of general view then I’m happy.
I do agree that there is some inconsistency with regard to such things as the Mardi Gras in your city. That’s one of the reasons I opposed this form of celebration in my own city and we managed to ensure that we never have them.
Randy
Of course it is detrimental if it inflicts a change upon society that changes the environment for everyone and that society doesn’t want. The only people who want this are nudists – a minority group comprising about 5% of the population. A park is a public place paid for by all and to be enjoyed by all – especially children and their parents. Nothing must be permitted in that park that is likely to cause shock, offence or discomfort to those who are likely to use it. The sight of a naked breast can cause such offence.
The equality argument doesn’t cut much ice with me, I’m afraid. The female breast has both a sexual connotation and a practical function, neither of which are applicable to the male pectoral area. Relaxing of laws prohibiting the display of female breasts are, in my opinion, examples of insane political correctness.
Stu
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/21/2004 : 11:47:38 AM
|
Just got into this topic.
Stu is that you? INA Stu?
Members of Nudist-Resorts.org, if this is the same person... I'll let you all make up your own minds.
Administrator,
I too will let you make up your own mind on this person. If this is in fact the same INA Stu, this boards moderator has got his work cut out for him. You'll be moderating your tush off!
I ignored all of this person's posts on the INA boards as I will here.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 12:10:56 PM
|
"The only people who want this are nudists – a minority group comprising about 5% of the population."
Not only nudists I'm afraid. In Florida, there is a large movement by women, many of whom are not active "nudists" who are lobbying and marching for top-free rights, some of them who don't even want to go top-free themselves. They just think they should have the right.
"The female breast has both a sexual connotation and a practical function, neither of which are applicable to the male pectoral area. Relaxing of laws prohibiting the display of female breasts are, in my opinion, examples of insane political correctness."
I agree that the female breast serves 2 funtions and only one is practical. But I know plenty of persons, both male and female for whom the male chest is sexualy arousing. (Go figure.) So, men and women are different after all, but in this case, only in shape. The way I see it, their 2 functions to our 1 function makes them superior in that way to us .
On the top-free issue, I think it's OK and you don't. I doubt we'll ever see totally eye to eye on it, but I do understand your apprehension. As for me, if a woman feels "brave" enough to do it, more power to them. It takes a certain amount of bravery even to go to an official nude venue at first.
Also, I understand how you feel about political correctness sometimes being absurd. To me the term "politically correct" is an oxymoron. 
Randy
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 12:22:26 PM
|
Randy
I bet these women in Florida who are “lobbying and marching for top-free rights” are generally regarded as extremist feminists by most ordinary people. There is a considerable difference between the sexual arousal of the female breast – which is generally seen as arousing in isolation – and the male chest – which is only usually thought of as ‘sexy’ if it is just a part of an otherwise toned physique. The ways males and females perceive and sexualise each other’s chests are quite different. But, as you say, we’ll have to agree to differ on that.
As for political correctness – don’t worry about that too much because it is widely despised and it’s on the retreat. I hope I live long enough to see it buried along with the other forms of dogmatic ideologies that some people wish to use to repress humanity.
Stu
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 12:50:15 PM
|
Stu, I was watching a show on the medical channel one night with my wife, called Berman & Berman. Dr Laura Berman is a very respected medical professional who has devoted her practice to female issues. On the show that I saw they were interviewing women about what they found to be sexually stimulating. I was quite surprised by the fact that 3 out of the four didn't even really care if their breast were touched. One liked to have the back of her neck kissed to turn her on. One of the others wanted the back of her knees kissed while rubbing her calfs. The point being that if something might be arousing then maybe we better cover it up. But then if it's not arousing do we uncover it? I mean where does it end?
???????????
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 12:54:50 PM
|
Stu, in parts of Miami, it is common to see topless women on the beach and it's legal in that part. Since Miami is such a major summer beach vacation stop for people within the state and from outside the state, could it not be possible that in state visitors to Miami (the most frequent beach visitors other than people living in Miami) have come to enjoy swimming and suntanning without their tops and would like to do so in beach locations near their own Florida home.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 1:13:20 PM
|
stufox wrote:Dave
I’m not supporting the law against topless women because breasts are ugly – plenty of things are ugly. I agree with the law because the sight of naked female breasts causes offence.
You missed my point. All the things I listed are things that cause offence in someone at some point or another. When you legislate because of someone being offended, at what point do you stop? There are neighborhoods and cities actually legislating how homes and yards can look even going to the point of regulating home color, window dressing, and in some cases type of plants in yard requiring prior approval of a board. I'm offended by children wearing low rise pants, by people wearing pants so big they hang half way down their backside, people with gold caps on their front teeth, and shirts with profanity so let's make them illegal. I don't want to see them so I'll lobby the city government to make them illegal because I don't want to see them. Or I can do like you mentioned and try to file an injuction or was a lawsuit against them. I'd rather shove a knive in my own heart than participate in a waste of taxpayer money in a worthless lawsuit enriching a leech of a lawyer in the process. I'm offended by the smell of cigars so maybe I'll file an injuction against anyone near me with a cigar.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 1:23:11 PM
|
I have a question for you stu, what is it about the female breast that causes you offense? I'm against genital and anus nudity in many cases that aren't appropriate for many reasons. Cases like shopping, eating at public restaurants, walking down a public street/side walk, etc. Reasons including public health (why nudist carry towels to sit on) and trying to create a public disturbance. Some do this anyway but for sexual reasons including exhibitionist (a sexual reason) or masturbation while watching other people (like child predators). But except in the case of breast producing milk, there's nothing potentially unhealthy about women's breast.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 2:07:12 PM
|
Mark
I note what you are saying – and it is correct that different people have different erogenous zones. But I am sure that not even your Dr Berman would dispute the fact that, to most women, their breasts are ‘intimate’ and to most men women’s breasts are erotic.
Dave
I am not the least bit surprised that, on some Florida beaches, it is possible to see topless women. The same thing happens on many European beaches – and many Europeans take their holidays in Florida. I would avoid such beaches because I am not comfortable at seeing toplessness – and I should be able to avoid it if I wish.
There is a vast difference between something we don’t want to see and something that causes us offence. We may not like a particular advert on TV because it irritates us – but how many people would demand that it be withdrawn? If, on the other hand, a TV advert contained a scene of pornography then people would complain. They would also complain if it contained nudity. I don’t accept that the things you mention cause offence in the same way as nudity, obscene language or sex (real or simulated). They are things that are aesthetically displeasing and nobody would advocate legislating on that basis. But few people would argue with banning people openly indulging in sex acts in public or flashing or even full nudity. Toplessness is, I accept, a grey area. There are people who, whilst objecting to full nudity, take no issue with the sight of a topless woman. Personally I would draw the line further back and say that should be illegal also – at least in public places not allocated for nude bathing.
"there's nothing potentially unhealthy about women's breast."
The main reason why people find the sight of certain parts of human anatomy, be that the female breast or the male scrotum or any other part, shocking or a source of discomfort has nothing to do with health or hygeine. In Thailand it is considered very rude to expose the sole of one's foot to a stranger!
The objections to nudity are based on deep-seated cultural conditioning. Of course, in this respect we are masters of our own destiny. If humankind decided to normalise the exposure of these parts of the body then we could do so fairly easily. The question is - do we want to? Do we want the female breast to become as mundane as the big toe, the penis as mundane as the elbow or the vulva as commonplace as the nose? Personally, I don't think we do - not in advanced cultures anyway.
Naturists are, of course, free to go to their own places with people like themselves and do what they like doing. But when surrounded by others who have chosen to retain their different levels of sensibilities, nudists should respect that and conform. In general, that's exactly what they do.
Stu
|
Edited by - StuFox on 10/21/2004 2:16:39 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 6:24:26 PM
|
Stu,
These are just body parts you mention, and yes, they are mundane body parts. Each has its own uniqueness though. Your hands are different from any other as are your feet, your chest, your pubic arch. The body is only the vessel for the person. I don't care what the body looks like; it's the person inside that counts.
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
Edited by - Cheri on 10/21/2004 6:26:16 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
|
|
|
NudeAl
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 6:42:03 PM
|
Hi there Stu! I once again I disagree with you but you are so polite in your discussions it seems a shame to do so. However, womens breast should carry no more social stigma that a mans bare breast. Our society at one time did not tolerate a mans bare breast either but times change societies view changed as it will regarding womens breast in due time.
I do agree that we need many more and better nudist venues. In fact we should have them in proper proportion to the nudist population of a given area. Perhaps durring elections they should have a spot on the ballot where you could indicate if you were a naturist and keep a proper talley of how many there are in the county at any given time. Cheers!
"The best dress for walking is nakedness." Colin Fletcher
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 457 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Topless Equality
