| Author |
 Topic  |
|
aaardvark
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 12/01/2008 : 2:27:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by old hippie
Actually, I think Doc and Honeysuckle may be looking at the connection in reverse: it might not be that naturism leads to Utopia, but that a utopian society would endorse naturism. This seems to me a completely consistent view. As Honeysuckle indicated, any Utopia worth the title would include a full tolerance of any practice that is harmless to others ("live freely and happily with a group of like-minded adults, who are grownup enough and responsible enough that there is no need for imposed restraints, whether external or internal").
So, if the direction of correlation is inverted, we might find a good correspondence of utopianism to naturism. Have you considered that, Eric?
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
Excellent points Old Hippie good sir!
Maybe then this can be taken further. If utopia is a place where naturism is endorsed as just another optional mode of living that co-exists among other modes of living then maybe naturism ceases to exist. The way I see it, I call myself a "nudist" or a "naturist" because I am part of a minority group and the society I live in effectively forces me to justify my way of life by underpinning it with a philosophy of some sort, labelled "Nudism" or "Naturism". This label is as much other-imposed as self-claimed and I'm in a continual fight to try and get their idea of what naturism is to align with mine. In a utopian society, there would be no need for Honeysuckle, Naturistdoc, me, you or anyone else here to justify ourselves. We would simply go about our totally unclothed business as and when we saw fit (and clothe ourselves when we choose to).
When I was in Munich, I sunbathed nude among others in the Englischergarten. There were other people around me who had come from offices and were in various states of (un)dress. Some people stripped off to get some rays while having their lunch then put their business clothes back on to return to the office. I doubt if any of them would have been considered nudists or naturists because they simply blended into the landscape where something like this was seen as normal.
This is a great topic - thanks to all who have contributed.
|
|
Country: New Zealand
| Posts: 40 |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
|
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 02:06:32 AM
|
Interesting ideas from everyone :)
The "philosophy" behind my vision of utopia is simple ... it's just the Golden Rule. I sometimes wistfully remark that I could have been happy living in a tribal unit during the Stone Age. Perhaps that would have only lasted until the first time I broke my leg, but I do believe that most of the social problems in modern societies are consequences of the loss of the social cohesiveness that is found in tribes and clans. In that sense, urbanization did not represent an advance for human society, it represented a step backward, despite the economic advantages that may have been gained.
I have studied anthropology, and I well realize that Stone Age peoples' lives were not necessarily happy, carefree frolics in the sunshine. Some of them were "nasty, brutish, and short", as the saying goes. Nonetheless, they were not obliged to devote a significant portion of their energy dealing with crime, delinquency, drug addiction, mental illness, or divorce.
Generally speaking, Stone Age people were well-fed and had more leisure time than we do today. They knew who they were and what their place was in the world. They did not have to concern themselves with drive-by shootings, children going to bed hungry (unless everyone went to bed hungry), domestic abuse, undrinkable water, unbreathable air, suicide bombings, or the spectre of nuclear annihilation. One person's problems were everyone's problems, and you took care of your own. If you didn't, you didn't last long in your tribe. Or your tribe itself didn't last long.
Which gets us back to the Golden Rule as the only "law" that should be required or desired.
What does this have to do with nudism? I remarked in an earlier post that I dream of living without the need for imposed restraints, including the requirement that I cover my nakedness. But that would only work in a society of responsible adults who do not selfishly impose on the rights and needs of others.
I don't think nudism itself "leads" to utopia, nor is it the other way around. I do think that the utopia of which I dream would have no need of clothing as status indicators or as moral keepers. Clothing would be for decoration or environmental protection. Either way, clothing would be your choice, including the choice of no clothing at all.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 254 |
|
|
|
pilot
Forum Member
|
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 04:22:29 AM
|
Perhaps a different way to approach the question is to ask precisely what purposes are served by clothes.
Worn for protection or warmth, clothes are a practical response to environmental stresses or threats. Even devoted nudists know that clothes are necessary sometimes ("We're nudists, not idiots.").
Worn by convention or to signify a role, clothes are also a practical response to various social needs. Even in a perfect society, we expect to identify some roles by appearance.
Beyond that, there are personal issues of adornment and concealment. The two can be hard to separate. And those decisions strike me as matters of personal preference.
My sense is that those who prefer to be nude prefer to do so in the context where clothes make little if any sense. At home. Outdoors on warm/hot days. When bathing/swimming/sunning. When sleeping.
All of this strikes me as more pragmatic than idealistic.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 294 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Nudism as a form of Utopianism???
