Legalize Public Nudity --- Free our bodies and our minds!

[Greenbare Woods]

Its time to DEMAND freedom from compulsory clothing.

Compulsory clothing is a way the masters train, CONTROL, and own the slaves. A free person owns his body. A slave's body is controlled by the master.

We need to FIGHT them every way we can and every place we can. Throw off the forced clothing. Go FREE and naked and be seen naked as a FREE man.

[BlueTrain]

Your goal is admirable but your argument is weak. In the days when there was still slavery (and in some states there were more slaves than free), who do you think fretted about their clothes? Nobody cared what the slaves wore.

Of course, you could mean "slave to fashion," but I imagine you've overcome that constraint. Ignoring those silly dress codes in high school (mostly non-existent where I live, judging how the girls dress), the majority of laws about clothing concerned themselves with clothing you weren't allowed to wear, because they were above your station.

[jbeegoode]

Uniforms are abuse, demeaning and control. They are for slaves, too.

Mandatory clothing is a uniformity. Clothing keeps us from our nature, isolates us from our world and diminishes our humanity. It takes our true identity away and creates new artificial identities. Some of these identities are demeaning and controlled, creating conformists identifying with the dominate culture. It is a way of dominating us. Who dominates us? The owners, the exploiters. Fascism is slavery. Clothing is a prison.

Right arm Bob!

American slaves wore work clothes and the better favored, who worked in the house, like the nannys were dressed up, better than the field hands. Slave bodies were often decorated with clothing to make everything look prosperous.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

That's nonsense. We all wear uniforms, in a sense. We wear mostly what other people wear and young people (which we were at one time) are very careful to wear what our friends wear. It wasn't what the fashion world necessarily said to wear, either, just what was popular. Real uniforms make deciding what to wear unnecessary. They also give you a strong sense of pride and belonging to an organization and something big. But judging from the comments on the "factory farmed" section, you don't think like that. Even the entire forum is devoted to not belonging to anything--except the forum. You are straining to make an argument and I don't buy a single word of it. We are the culture.

Decorated bodies to look prosperous? When I was in public school, all the clothes I had hung on the back of a door. I wore clothes to school that had holes in them. We were anything but prosperous and I was painfully conscious of it. So you can take your abuse, control and domination and hang it on the back of your door, too.

[Greenbare Woods]

Decorated bodies to look prosperous? When I was in public school, all the clothes I had hung on the back of a door. I wore clothes to school that had holes in them. We were anything but prosperous and I was painfully conscious of it. So you can take your abuse, control and domination and hang it on the back of your door, too.

Yes, the training and pressure to conform is pushed hard at schools.  Many children end up with ill fitting, worn out, or non-conforming clothing and become "painfully conscious" of not having the demanded uniform appearance.  That kind of pressure and criticism is how the masses are trained to obey.  Schools are all about obedience training.  The readin' writin' and 'rithmatic are only mind candy to divert attentions while conformity and obedience to authority is being practiced day after day, hour after hour. 

We become slaves who aren't even allowed to control our own bodies, and we come to believe that obedience to Master is "freedom." 

Bob

[BlueTrain]

You argument is unconvincing. There was no training to obey, even at school. It is true that the 1950s were conformist (rather than conservative). It was the late 60s and early 70s when people went out of their way to be non-conformist, wearing ragged clothes, long unkempt hair and protesting everything. You're starting to sound like an anarchist that believes we don't have enough lawbreaking and rebellion in society, trying as best as you can to project your own idea of obedience on others. But like I say, you non-conformists are all alike.

[Greenbare Woods]

You argument is unconvincing. There was no training to obey, even at school. It is true that the 1950s were conformist (rather than conservative). It was the late 60s and early 70s when people went out of their way to be non-conformist, wearing ragged clothes, long unkempt hair and protesting everything. You're starting to sound like an anarchist that believes we don't have enough lawbreaking and rebellion in society, trying as best as you can to project your own idea of obedience on others. But like I say, you non-conformists are all alike.

Yes, sit and stand when told to do so.  Move when the bell rings no matter what you were thinking about.  Obedience to authority is repeated day after day.  And, any child who won't obey is drugged into submission.   They use drugs instead of paddles now. 

[John P]

BlueTrain, you seem to be in a bad mood today. It may be true that some people here like to deliver manifestos about how we're all oppressed and how they claim to be rebels, and you can take them seriously or not (most of us live pretty comfortable lives, and don't plan to change). Maybe you're still remembering growing up poor, and having that show in your clothes for everyone to see, and if so I'm sorry, but that was a long time ago. We have to think about what we're going to do now--get our clothes off and go for a swim, or raise rebellion. Maybe first one, then the other.

Speaking of uniforms, I've always thought it was interesting how much more we men willingly dress in constrained ways, versus what we allow and expect from women. That's especially true in summer, when you can see it on every street! Yet when naturists think about the differences, all they can come up with is "topfree rights" for women. It wouldn't be about boobs, would it? No, surely not.

A couple of illustrations. As a reminiscence about the late Barbara Cartland, the incredibly prolific author of incredibly bad novels, an interviewer recalled asking her about some of her plots. He pointed out that she was very fond of heroines dashing across windy moors in torn nightgowns, and asked if she would ever put a man in such a situation. And she said "Certainly not! A man is most attractive fully dressed, preferably in uniform."

And then there was the Australian TV news anchor who wore the same suit every day for a year, though his aim was to demonstrate how his female colleague's outfit was commented on but his wasn't noticed. But you could also ask how much choice he had, especially anything that might offer less than full coverage.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/tv-anchor-same-suit-sexism_n_6170900.html

But it's true that while a uniform is constraining, it's freeing in a way. Every day you get up, and you don't have to worry about what to wear. You don't have to shop (or at least you know what to buy) and as long as you wear the uniform properly, you'll never be criticized about what you have on. There's some attraction to that kind of life!

[jbeegoode]

Yea, Blue train, we seemed to have bumped a button. But that's okay.

After my divorce and loss of my business I was faced with raising a son alone, no support, and he had some special needs to overcome. We did that, he's stable and now making six figures a good man. I made sure that he had cool clothing he felt that he could identify with, good clothing, no labels, he was proud not to be "a walking billboard" for someone else and he may have been the kid with the poorest family in his upper middle class school. The administration wanted to equalize everyone, and put them in demeaning school uniforms, right when kids are developing non-kid identification, when peer pressure conformity of clothing is at its greatest and one must learn the character of individuality. It was being railroaded into the school. I got active, pissed off some dicks that thought that it would be easy to control the situation, and got support. One support was my then girlfriend who had been a veteran of sexist rules requiring dresses and she wanted easier pants when she was in school andn then afterward at work. She fought with a lawsuit which coated the rest of the country in rights, when it was decided. I myself went through a haircut requirement fight, contributed to starting a school-wide walkout in protest and made changes. DF hates the new policy of demanding uniforms at her work. She is a proud professional and it is demeaning to get dressed like some kid at Taco Bell.

The same excuses were always given. Pride in belonging, dress for success, leveling the playing field by destroying individuality.
All is lots of crap, a lie. It has always been a way to control, and it suppresses our humanity, choice and pride in our free thinking and sense of freedom of expression. Being a part of something like for example the army and a uniform like that has to be out of choice. Otherwise, it is slavery, the draft, a control issue.

Any requirement of clothing is of the same. Lack of clothing would be the ultimate statement of free expression, unless someone required it. Clothing shuts us off from our very nature, our god given interaction with earth and the sense of being what that gifts us. Clothing is also a social costume, sometimes manufacturing a fake construct and the oppression inherent in social games.

Non-conformist says anti-conformist in most lingual context, but back in the day, my long hair was kept combed, My look was more natural and less plastic, my attitude was self expression, individuality, ala Ralf Waldo Emerson and my protests were justified, by my own free thinking, feeling and conscious. Individuality is not just non-conformity. Individuals are not all alike. It is better to be for something, constructive, not just against something, or running with a part of a herd.
Jbee

 

[Greenbare Woods]

And then there was the Australian TV news anchor who wore the same suit every day for a year, though his aim was to demonstrate how his female colleague's outfit was commented on but his wasn't noticed. But you could also ask how much choice he had, especially anything that might offer less than full coverage.

The bottom line in that AU TV news experiment is NOBODY CARES ABOUT MEN.  We are the background, the furniture.  As long as men are fully covered from neck to feet nobody gives a shit about us.  Far to many teen boys commit suicide when they find out that girls matter, girls a are special, girls are the princesses, but nobody gives a shit about boys -- or men. 

You can see the same thing on the media awards shows like the Oscars.  Women all have fancy expensive creative outfits, and often a lot of flesh showing.   All men are covered in black UNIFORMS from neck to feet.   You can see the same thing at the shopping mall.  Women have many large stores selling row after row of fancy expensive outfits.  Men have a very few stores or a small space in a large women's store where they sell a few rows of drab, durable, uniform, and cheaply made body covers. 

The psychological effects of MEN ARE FURNITURE, AREN'T SEEN, AND DON'T MATTER is a major part of why many more men are nudists, and many more men commit suicide. 

Bob

[jbeegoode]

I don't know about the stats for your suicide statement, but that is an interesting idea you present about why more men would be nudists. I've got to ponder that one.

Jbee

[Peter S]

I think the stats about male suicides outnumbering females is right, certainly in the UK, but working out the why still seems to elude us. After centuries of so-called male domination we (this seems a predominantly male discussion group) have had to face the switch to feminism which has, it is said, left men looking for our position in society, searching for the meaning of masculinity. But why that should lead some of us to the extremity of suicide is still unexplained - perhaps the two are not related after all.

Peter

[BlueTrain]

Having a different opinion which I freely share should not indicate that I am in a bad mood. It shouldn't, should it? Or does the unwillingness to go along with everyone else's (here, that is) ideas rub people the wrong way?

Concerning suicide, I have my own ideas but it's probably not the place to take this thread. By the way, I've been away for a couple of days, accounting for my absence. I went to a place that I suspect none of you would dare set foot in.

I don't agree with the current fad of knocking men (and boys). It simply doesn't exist. Of course, if you think women should be second-class citizens, I suppose you might see it that way. Chances are, the main reason Mrs. Clinton lost the election was because she was a woman. Both candidates were probably too old, though I'm younger than President Trump only by two months. But when five percent of the population controls over half the wealth of the country and most of that is old white men, why worry about men. They're doing okay. I was married in a kilt and didn't wear anything black. The bride wore the usual white dress. I don't understand why you say men aren't seen. Something wrong with your eyes? As for more men being nudist (than women), the question is, why aren't there more women nudists? Here we may be assuming that more men than women are nudists. Either way, what's the problem? Of the six (I think I said) people I knew who had committed suicide, half were women. I will admit that the sampling is small but I have personal knowledge of those incidents. In any event, I suspect that those who run around talking about the war on boys or how men are unimportant and so on, have an agenda of their own and probably something to do with making money. I assume that you aren't suggesting that men become more fashion conscious  and worry more about clothes, like women.

I don't think clothing shuts us off from anything, much less our interaction with the earth. If that were so, those most closely interacting with the earth would more likely to be nudists--or would it? Although I suppose clothing could be part of self-expression and if there are social games to be played, there's no reason you have to play along. And judging from the people I see, both male and female, few are.

[jbeegoode]

This conversation has become very disparate...Where and how to begin a response?

Suicide among teenagers and adults is generally about pressure. Social pressure, peer pressure, the "I ought to be this, or here ,but I'm not." The pertinent suicide reason to be discussed on this forum might be body image, which happens. There have also been teen suicides in concern with being exposed, seen naked, publicly humiliated because it is supposed to be humiliating to be seen as ourselves, without our disguise. These are bizarre to me, a human behavior that causes this kind of pressure is just bizarre dangerous behavior. The obsession with clothing and image is unhealthy. We have taken our tribal traits and gone haywire, clearly to a lethal extent.

Addressed more to my comments by Bluetrain, we DO have to play along with the social games or face penalties. Making a living, having a rounded group of friends, business opportunities, being arrested, being branded a social deviate, branded a slob, a freak, being set aside in cages, or reservations because you don't play the games. There is a tremendous pressure to conform to wearing clothing, keeping ones nudity a secret and wearing the correct clothing. The sexual connotations and behavioral "norms" around nude natural human bodies are an enormous hassle. I'm saying that it all needs to change. Yes, the people here on this forum do feel these things, see these things and know these things, they are not blinded and turned to sheep, like the textile obsessed.

Bluetrain, you tell us that you prefer without around the house. You prefer without on a hike. When out on a hike naked, what else is there but to notice the liberation in ones body? What does that mean, if not feeling closer to the earth? I'm confused that you could write such a statement and actually have been out on a nude hike, or any occasion nude in nature. What could be more apparent? Why do you do it? Are you just a lie, messing with the nudists, a poser playing a role? This makes no sense.

As for the plain clothing of men and frill of women's, I think back to the sixties corporate uniform. A highwater-cuff, off the rack suit and hat, in dark blue, gray or black and the conformity, yes sir behavior associated. Owned by the system, completely locked into job, nuclear family, image and more. Men were in control, everyone revolved around them, wives were in their roles. Things changed. We are finding our way through change. White glove sales are down.

This natural and nude change needs to happen. It has effect on broader social meanings, it has lessons to teach, to solve things like some suicides, rapes, oppression of expression, sexuality, sexist behaviors, self identity and environmental and spiritual concerns. the nude body has been integrated into the larger social illnesses and used to enforce these ills to such an extent that body liberation could produce powerful change. Change that I would like to see and change that I have yet to foresee. For now, looking uphill, I appreciate just the ability to live my life nude as best that I can, UNDER the circumstances.

Its 109F out there today. Stay naked, in shade, in water, in shelter. Clothing obsession IS insanity on this day. Naked is as surely a practicality as shoes on the hot asphalt. Clothing needs to be seen as a practicality, or a frivolous fun, nothing more. A nude body needs to be, just that, what it is. There is so much to gain from nudity and so much that can be shed with the clothing.

Check this out. This is the extreme of what is going on with clothing. This is using the same principles as the basic body oppression in America and throughout the world. It is more than a nude walk in the forest. It is more than clothing oppression.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAyZxii?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

"Addressed more to my comments by Bluetrain, we DO have to play along with the social games or face penalties. Making a living, having a rounded group of friends, business opportunities, being arrested, being branded a social deviate, branded a slob, a freak, being set aside in cages, or reservations because you don't play the games. There is a tremendous pressure to conform to wearing clothing, keeping ones nudity a secret and wearing the correct clothing. The sexual connotations and behavioral "norms" around nude natural human bodies are an enormous hassle. I'm saying that it all needs to change. Yes, the people here on this forum do feel these things, see these things and know these things, they are not blinded and turned to sheep, like the textile obsessed."

None of those things are games. Making a living is serious. "Correct clothing?" What's that? You're the one sounding :"textile obsessed." Or it may be obsession with nudity. Either way, it sounds like an obsession.

I'm not sure what you mean by poser. I'm an old man, like many of you. I really don't do much of anything these days, to be honest. But when I have hiked nude or been nude at home, conditions permitting, I certainly don't feel any closer to the earth. Sure, I like the feeling of being naked but closer to the earth? Please explain. The closest I ever got to the earth was working on a tobacco farm. I started nude hiking when I was in high school and was in a situation that afforded some good opportunities. It was years before I had more opportunities like that but mostly the opportunities have slipped away. That is, to do nude hiking. As it is now, I see more wildlife on my local hikes in the woods than I ever have. But hiking nude is out of the question without a long drive away from home and I'm trying to cut back on my driving for financial reasons.

Maybe I am messing with you all a little. You need to be shaken up now and then. Go back and read over some of the posts. If you want to encourage more people to be nude for some reason, saying things like "clothing kills" is going to get some funny looks. Suggesting that clothing is the source of the world's problems is not going to get you anywhere. Something wrong with a nuclear family? Or the old version, the atomic family. Not many of us really live in such a situation. Usually there are relatives. I keep seeing words like pressure, obsession, bizarre, conformity, locked into, control and so on. Make your argument without using any of those words, if possible.

Different people react differently to perceived pressures. Some don't even notice it. Others create it. Most play no games. Maybe you're projecting you own reactions and feelings onto everyone else. On another forum I frequently trade barbs because that person's point of view is that everyone did what he did and thought the same in the past and if they didn't, then they don't count. I guess because I didn't share his experiences (or vice versa), then I wasn't liberated or something. Anyway, he also seems to base his ideas on the way things were (or they way he thought they were) in a narrow window of time.