| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 10:34:50 AM
|
SailorDave,
I wrote my explanation where you voiced this concern on the Yoga Guy in SF thread. I had the exact same thing for logging in Stu experienced-so when I did, I just changed my handle. It's a coincidence about the same day.
To add further, I am in the midwest right now-hoping the winter won't get too cold. I'm married, 43yrs old (turning 44 next month!) with a wife and one son.
For recreational activities, I have went to a nude beach and some nude swims but I also enjoy camping, hiking, archery, rifle shooting, amateur astronomy.
I hope this fills in some gaps for you:)
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
 |
|
|
CoolNude72
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/24/2004 : 3:56:36 PM
|
Sorry to interrupt but I feel this 'debate' is going nowhere and it needs to stop. Everyone is going in circles and it is getting nowhere fast. I feel this 'debate' has ran its course and it is time to stop. Enough is enough.
Ray
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 207 |
|
|
|
Jochanaan
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/24/2004 : 4:52:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stu_Fox
Jochanaan
You may think it's a "higher good". Islamic fundamentalists think they are working for a higher good. So do communists, terrorists and fanatics of all persuasions. In the end it has to be the people who are affected who should decide.
I see your point. Let me try again without appealing to my own religion.
Who is more affected by the covered-breast standard than women? Especially breastfeeding women. And several women have spoken here regarding their preferences. I suspect that, if you bring women's awarenesses to their early conditioning and then pose the possibility of freedom, very many of them would jump at the chance for topfreedom.
One problem is women's natural fears that men will take an exposed chest as an invitation to unwanted sex. But a hundred years ago an exposed lower leg would have been seen as a similar invitation; now it's commonplace and not seen as such at all. Society has for the most part been reconditioned. That tells me a similar reconditioning is possible regarding women's breasts. It will take longer, because it was longer in the building; but it can happen. And that gives women, and men, much more freedom.
quote:
The "garment requirement" is merely a means by which the chances of optimising the comfort of as many people as possible who use public places is enhanced. I could argue that it is oppressive to prohibit me from swearing in public, or having sex in public, or ritually slaughtering sheep in public (which is a practice in some religions). But we rightly confine such activities to domains outside of the public gaze.
Now who's talking about right and wrong?  I know that's a slight twist of your argument; but your unspoken assumption (unspoken here, at least) is that, by definition, the majority is right. That seems as arbitrary, given the majority's fickleness and susceptibility to manipulation, as my belief in God's righteousness.
quote:
As for breastfeeding - I will meet you half way on that one. Personally, I think women who breastfeed should do so discreetly and out of public sight - just as we urinate out of general view. But I agree that it is essentially different to exposing a breast just because a woman feels inclined to do that. So, if you will compromise on this, I will. Breastfeeding in public - OK - topless sunbathing for females - banned.
That's a good start, Stu! Unfortunately your compromise creates a distinction without a difference. In either case a breast is exposed--perhaps for only a second or so, but still exposed. So you get the inconsistency of saying that exposing a woman's breast is right for feeding, but wrong for any other purpose (except for a medical examination or when men pay to see it for their own gratification ). I think I can guess what women, at least the ones on this forum, would say to that!
|
Edited by - Jochanaan on 10/24/2004 4:54:27 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 60 |
|
|
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 7:44:13 PM
|
Jochanann,
Not meaning to interrupt, but you say:
I suspect that, if you bring women's awarenesses to their early conditioning and then pose the possibility of freedom, very many of them would jump at the chance for topfreedom
I see what you are saying, but my experience is women in general are not interested in exposing their breasts for all to see. These areas are regarded as errongeous zones-private areas-and my experience I feel is greater than yours.
When I took my early nursing, one of my classes was on physical assessment-which involved listening to heart rates with a stephoscope. As one of the few males-a lot of the women where apprehensive about exposing their chests with myself in the room. I can totally understand those sentiments.
Even now, when we assess clients-a lot of women express anxiety to exposing their breasts..
My wife just walked downstairs as I wrote this-and I asked her if she would be interested in swimming without a top-as a man. She said:
"No, it's not appropriate-and I wouldn't feel comfortable."
I tend to think my wife is pretty mainstream-I am not seeing women as a whole even remotely interested in exposing their breasts .
I found your other comment interesting:
Society has for the most part been reconditioned. That tells me a similar reconditioning is possible regarding women's breasts. It will take longer, because it was longer in the building; but it can happen. And that gives women, and men, much more freedom.
As I pointed out, with an accepted medical text, womens breasts compared to male's breasts are different-so comparing women's legs to men's legs represents a false analogy. A women's breast, in fine, is an accessory reproductive organ-and used for sexual stimulation. Our society dictates sexual organs be covered for a number of reasons-I hardly think to not do so give "more freedom" to both genders.
All in all, bottom line, it comes down to this:
Public areas are to be enjoyed by everyone. Walking around topless changes the public area and doesn't meet the balance of fairness. It's justifiedly banned on that basis.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
|
|
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 10:30:00 PM
|
Stu,
I was looking at Cheri's group..and was impressed!
Travelites was founded in 1987, and is a non-landed or travel club of the American Association for Nude Recreation - Eastern Region, one of the regions of the American Association for Nude Recreation. Our ages vary from infancy to over 65. We travel to members' homes (some have pools, hot tubs, volleyball court, trails), to area lakes when available, and to landed nudist clubs in our area and in other states. We also have clothed events such as being a part of community service projects, outings to restaurants, museums, and the zoo. Our members are all sincere people. It's great having so many best friends.
That's the way it ought to be..reaching out to the community..getting additional members-not this public nudity stuff and insisting people tolerate it.
Good work...Cheri!
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
|
|
|
Bob S.
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 11:15:57 PM
|
Hello, I am new to these forums. My name is Bob and I hope to contribute more in the future. Right now, let me settle a bit of confusion.
Dave, stu is both foxes. He is not Doug, but Doug and Datona are the same in my opoinion. I know stu from the INA (www.clothesfree.com) forums. He is a confirmed prude who will not change his spots.
Datona and Doug are the same person and, for all those who are also regulars from the INA (Jochanaan for one), will recognize that person as Rocket/Sandy. This person (I am not sure what gender pronoun to use as Rocket/Sandy was a female at the INA and seems to be male here. I recall Doug also being the name that was used at stu's old yahoo group where that person posted as Doug King.
It is Doug/Datona that should be looked at carefully. He/She/It was kicked out of the INA about five times for his/her behaviour and condescending attitude. He/She was very abusive and posted many, many flames.
I recognized the name Datona as that was also the name that he/she used on Netnude to try to start something there as well. Fortunately, his/her time there was very short as I recognized his/her posting style and immediately let the wonderful moderator there know of the potential trouble.
I hope more trouble can be avoided here as well.
Bob S.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 39 |
|
|
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 08:36:17 AM
|
Bob,
I don't know who you are, but you're mistaken.
Anyone reading my posts can see I have been a perfect gentleman.
Your very first post here, is an attempt to create bad feelings towards another poster. We don't need that. We have been having a pleasant discussion here regarding should women be allowed to go topless.
I suggest you go back to Clothesfree-this is a respectable site.
|
Edited by - DougK on 10/25/2004 08:50:57 AM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
|
|
|
Stu_Fox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 11:31:46 AM
|
Jochanaan
"And several women have spoken here regarding their preferences.."
Well this is a nudist site .
"..a similar reconditioning is possible.."
Reconditioning is always possible When it is done without people's consent it's called 'social engineering' and even 'brainwashing' and is morally indefensible.
"your unspoken assumption..is that, by definition, the majority is right"
When it comes to how the public environment is regulated, it is a reasonable to start with the presumtion that the majority IS always right. After all, people know what they find acceptable and what they don't - and they both own and are forced to use public places.
"Unfortunately your compromise creates a distinction without a difference. In either case a breast is exposed--perhaps for only a second or so, but still exposed. So you get the inconsistency of saying that exposing a woman's breast is right for feeding, but wrong for any other purpose"
That's correct. But this isn't something new. A neighbour of mine called Jeanette is blind and has a guide dog. She can take her labrador into shopping malls, restaurants, public buildings - in fact, almost anywhere she goes. My sister also owns a labrador that is no less clean and well-trained as Jeanettes. But my sister can't take her pet into these places because there is a general rule (no dogs allowed) and a special exception (guide dogs only) created for special need. When nudists cite this exemption for breastfeeding, they are exploiting a concession made for people who have a real need merely to serve their own preferences. That's rather like my sister complaining to the staff at the mall etc "Hey! That other woman was allowed in with her guide dog and nothing bad happened, so what's the problem we me bringing my dog in here too?"
BobS
Welcome to the site - nice to see you here! 
I don't know whether Doug is a new manifestation of Sandy, but I hope you will give him/her a clean sheet here and let's start afresh. Doug has been polite here and flamed no-one so far. Everyone deserves a chance, a new begining, don't you think?
Stu
|
Edited by - Stu_Fox on 10/25/2004 11:34:53 AM |
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 11:58:09 AM
|
Stu,
Thanks
I found this comment of yours informative, and I admit, I had never thought of it that way:
My sister also owns a labrador that is no less clean and well-trained as Jeanettes. But my sister can't take her pet into these places because there is a general rule (no dogs allowed) and a special exception (guide dogs only) created for special need. When nudists cite this exemption for breastfeeding, they are exploiting a concession made for people who have a real need merely to serve their own preferences. That's rather like my sister complaining to the staff at the mall etc "Hey! That other woman was allowed in with her guide dog and nothing bad happened, so what's the problem we me bringing my dog in here too?"
If nudists expect to get respect and be listened to-rather than just being written off they need to be reasonable and see the other side-especially when the other side outnumbers them by such a wide margin.
I have no argument with a women going topless at a nude beach/resort but to do so elsewhere imposes something not wanted.
I agree with these words from the Board of Supervisors Marin County :
a) It is the policy of this county that the public beaches, parks and places hereof shall be available for the use and enjoyment of the public to the maximum extent possible.
(b) It is further the policy of this county that members of the public are entitled to use the public beaches, parks and places hereof without being subjected to offensive conduct by other members of the public
That says it all-someone who wants to go topless or nude can go to a nude beach or nude resort-it's appropriate there.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
|
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 3:29:00 PM
|
Back on track. Reasons for toplessness include the following.
Dougk, just for you. While breast stimulation can be erotic and while some people find them sexually attractive not all do.
Additional medical facts
Breasts that are not confined are healthier as documented by several published studies. This information is well documented in a book who's title is "Dressed to Kill." Movement of the breasts results in increased lymphatic flow. Most but not all breast cancer and problems are in the lymph system. In addition the temperature of the breasts also seem to have a lot to do with the propagation of cancerous cells. While more research needs to be done, the current evidence is quite compelling.
Doug and Stu,
While we as nudist do not want to offend people such as yourselves this is a debate and I would like some facts other than it offends me, that toplessness has a detrimental effect on a society.
Our side of the story.
People who practice toplessness and or nudism
have:
Less dermatitis, as the sun is the best cure for this condition. (This information directly from a dermatologist)
Have an overall lower percentage of depression than the non topless non nudist group.
Have less self acceptance issues and better self esteem than the general population.
The teenage pregnancy rate is lower in the toples/nudist society than in the general population.
The age before having sex is 1 1/2 years older in the group that goes topless and or nude, than in the general population.
New and current statistical data shows that women who practice toplessness and or bralessness are more likely to be both physically and emotionally healthier. Women that want to go topless and are comfortable with it should be allowed to without having to be concerned about what somebody might like or dislike.
Stu you in particular have made it very clear that you are well versed in the law. I don't know what the situation is in Denmark but here in the United States, the statement "I don't like it is not a valid legal defense. Can you give me any compelling evidence that this practice would hurt anybody.
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
DougK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 4:17:32 PM
|
Hi Mark,
You raise some interesting points..I have to go to work right now. It's is very interesting you have brought up the lympathatic system of the breast because I was just reading that.
I'll respond as soon as I can.
Hey, anyone..how do you do those smiles and other expressions? I don't know.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 24 |
|
|
|
Stu_Fox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 4:19:18 PM
|
Mark
You are on dangerous ground citing medical 'facts'. I have seen zero hard proof that wearing a bra causes, increases the risk of or aggravates cancer (http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=385&btnid=2&depid=20). On the other hand, exposure of sensitive skin areas to sunlight is a known and recognised cancer risk. Nudists possibly do have lower levels of depression, perhaps because they spend more time outdoors than the average person. But you don't have to be nude to get sunshine and fresh air! And the issues about nudists having better 'self-acceptance' and lower teen pregnancy are highly questionable. Many studies that come up with such results do so because they fail to take account of other factors such as level of education, income and other demographics. The results are also open to interpretation.
Women who want to go topless are able to do so in private places, very secluded places and nudist beaches. We all have to be concerned about what others like and dislike because there are several billion of us sharing this planet. We are not mechanoids; we are feeling and emotional creatures who invest much in our cultural heritage and value systems. We, perhaps irrationally, balk at hearing obscene language or overtly racist language and we get even more upset if our children encounter it. Why? They are only words after all. We balk at the idea of open displays of graphic pornography. Why? They are only pictures after all. We would get upset if we encountered a dozen men engaging in a gay orgy in the local park whilst we were taking our kids to play ball. Why? Sex is a natural human instinct and behaviour. The answer to all these whys is that we are acculturated human beings and we have developed sensibilities. I respect the sensibilities of Iranians and so I would not my eldest daughter to walk the streets of Tehran in a miniskirt. I respect the sensibilities of the Thai people and so I would not expose the sole of my foot in public to passers-by. But I have sensibilities too - as do millions like me - and that alone should be sufficient 'compelling evidence' for you. The tiny minority of women who wish to expose their breasts should respect the sensibilities of the many and confine this behaviour to appropriate private, secluded or nudist places.
From what I hear, the US overall is no less strict about public exposure than is the UK - in fact it is probably more strict. First, there was all the commotion over Janet Jackson's little stunt. Then we saw a student who did a streak at his college on graduation day was sent to prison for at least six months (http://www.thedailyreview.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13077050&BRD=2276&PAG=461&dept_id=465049&rfi=6) He would have got off far more lightly here - in all probability he would have got away with a warning or a modest fine.
I can fully accept nudists wanting more and better places to practise their chosen activity. Don't think this is aimed at you, Mark, but I have found some nudists have a "let's make 'em have it" mentality. Why are they so intent on foisting their nakedness on textile a population who really doesn't want to see it? Beats me! 
Stu
|
Edited by - Stu_Fox on 10/25/2004 4:38:28 PM |
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/25/2004 : 4:22:35 PM
|
At the top of the page you'll see a blue bar. Inside the blue bar is a link that says, "reply to topic". Click this and you'll get the html version of the reply including a selection of smilies and a message icon to show your mood with the post itself.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 4:34:17 PM
|
The nature of the uproar over Janet Jackson wasn't so much the brief moment her breast was bare but rather was the event in which it was bared. The Super Bowl game and half time show is normally a family affair and is regularly a big TV ratings winner every year it's played. In my case, my temper was already being raised by the actions of the previous acts, one of which included women dressed as cheerleaders having part of their costume being literally ripped off then begin simulated sex acts. Had Janet been wearing something somewhat revealing and her breast came out during a dance number, the outcry would not have been what it was. But she came out with the intention of having Justin Timberlake rip off part of her costume. First off, what did that have to do with the show as a whole? Secondly, some feminist didn't like it because of it's violent nature of a guy reaching across and ripping off a woman's outfit. There have been bare breast and nude bodies on our broadcast television in documentaries and some movies like the miniseries Roots and Shindler's List. There have been other examples but I can't think of them off the top of my head at this time.
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 4:44:07 PM
|
Stu,
If you will reread my post it clearly says, "While more research needs to be done".
As far as medically speaking a dermatologist/oncologist treating my father for a melanoma told him that suntans had not caused the cancer. It was in fact sunburns that had happened years ago as skin cancer is very slow in developing. He told him flat out that he also had dermatitis and that he needed to use lots of suntan lotion and to either take up going to the tanning booth or to nude sunbathe when weather permitted.
You stated that I am on dangerous ground and I do not believe that I am, in that I freely admitted that not all of the evidence was in yet. You however have again used as your only defense the statement that "I don't like it".
I will ask one more time. Who or what are women that want to go topless harming.
????????????
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Topless Equality
