An eloquent essay

[BlueTrain]

What shall we discuss, then?

[jbeegoode]

Talk about anything as it relates to naturism and nudism. People get angry, people get divided, people get wholly off of the purpose of this forum. We are passionate here, which can be a problem. If you go back and reread each post after you make them, think about whether it does relate to our purpose here, it helps. I've erased many many posts that didn't fit. This isn't a place to just to hash around with friends. It is a place to hash around with friends about gettin' naked.

I'm particularly tired of hearing everywhere in my life, seemingly inescapable at times, about one person in particular. I'm tired of even bright people being scammed, conned by oligarchic think tanks and funders of media into believing that the deregulating of our way big government and a free market economy benefits anyone but the extremely rich and corporate interests in the end. I come here to escape that. I'm sickened by it.

One reason that I take up action to at least liberate everyone's body, is simply because it isn't a dialog totally controlled by the powers that be. It is important. It is spiritually wholesome. I stay in the moment and the contrast shows me how much thought control is going on. I withdraw from the onslaught of the Mussolini style fascism. I come here to do that among other reasons.

There had been regulars at TSNS that aren't so religiously open-minded, or tolerant. They sadly left us offended. When I was growing up, I was told that "it is best to ver away from politics and religion." It is an old wisdom. One needs to be careful about who you discuss these two thing with. You lose friends sometimes. 

There are many many places to find the chatter of politics and all the aspects of religion on the net. That's where I go if I need that. This isn't the place. We have plenty to talk about. Just go back and reread the older stuff. This place is rich in talking about the topic of naturism and particularly free range naturism. It is all relevant.

An ignorant demigod fluff, who thinks that he should lord over the universe doesn't have a place here. He ain't naturism. The misogynistic treatment of women might be a topic, but we don't need him to talk about the evident problem. His wife's attitude about nudity, exploiting sexuality, and fashion and her influence on culture might be something, BUT it isn't political. Those topics haven't been discussed here to completion.

We tread lightly on the global warming/climate change thing. It affects us, but it quickly becomes to contentious and off the aspect of nudity.   

So, thank-you John P. You are correct. I too think that we have veered off of the road the last few.

Please, everyone, tone it down, go back and read each post before you push the button, just to be sure that it has to do with body dignity. 
Jbee

[eyesup]

Don't you guys ever get tired of it? I certainly do.

Yes! I do.

I understand and agree with your point John, but even attempting to discuss the focus of the essay I noted in the 1st post, you eventually find yourself staring into the abyss of political posturing.

The young lady that wrote the essay sees her treatment as a result of rules implemented because of laws that regulate personal behavior. Someone questioned for walking naked on a remote beach see the same correlation. It is impossible to not run into the politics of the limits of freedom when you choose to push the boundaries. I guess it comes with the territory.  We can certainly talk about the effects of these sorts of politics without falling off the edge.

Collegial conversation is possible, and for the most part we do it here. Maybe this forum is simply in the doldrums right now and we are casting about for a breeze to push us back in motion.

I haven’t been active lately for family reasons and as a result  haven’t had much to write about, but I hope to return to my naked ramblings soon so I can focus on what we come here for. The weather has cooled and opportunity is returning so I may have some relevant discussion soon.

click,click

Duane

[Greenbare Woods]

The young lady that wrote the essay sees her treatment as a result of rules implemented because of laws that regulate personal behavior. Someone questioned for walking naked on a remote beach see the same correlation. It is impossible to not run into the politics of the limits of freedom when you choose to push the boundaries. I guess it comes with the territory.  We can certainly talk about the effects of these sorts of politics without falling off the edge.
Duane

You are right Duane.  Thank you for bringing that up.  This topic is about over control of clothing by school boards, POLITICAL bodies. The topic essay was about POLITICS, her political opinion.   

Other people are concerned about Park Police or Municipal Police harassing us for being naked on a beach or do we "dare" the Police and hide in the woods where we can be naked in secret?  Police and all those regulations are POLITICAL topics.   

When any of us discusses freedom to be naked, how to be naked without getting arrested, or why clothing laws are restrictive we are talking POLITICS. 

We live in a political culture. Maybe that's the essence of any human culture.  I don't see how we can talk about most of our concerns regarding nude freedom without the political implications being important to the conversation.

[BlueTrain]

I guess we'll just have to try and let it go at that.

[jbeegoode]

As long as there are laws against a body's nature, then there will have to be a political discussion around it, what to do, its absurdity, etc. When the politics siece to be about the politics of nudity, and become other political issues, then we will fall down. It is that simple, but grey, a line, but flexible.

The police and how they enforce, the law makers, their motivations and how we might go about fixing the problem are fair game and relevant to nudity. What is generally in the daily news isn't, except what we can find to put in "Nudes in the News."
Jbee

[jbeegoode]

I went back to read the essay by the teenager. It brought me back to when I was involved in the school system by employment and also fatherhood.

I remember the girls wearing provocative dress, to be provocative. Some of it a distraction from anything, on some young healthy bodies this is nature and their intent. They liked the attention. They felt sexy, worthy of attention. That was obvious. I had a difficult time keeping my facade of disinterest, then they would open their mouths and I'd realize that these were actually children. They were also telling the other kids that they were more liberated from their youthful position, more grown up, in their own way.

There was the other extreme young women dress in bland and black and baggy pants and t-shirts. These were after some other kind of recognition. They seemed to me that there was often body shame involved.

Junior high are kids just learning to find an identity. They see that dressing the part is the part. Then they find individuality and know more of the world. They realize that it take more than dressing up as to be as.

In high school, it is often more self expression and less peer influence, or trying to express sophistication.

Then the teachers and especially administrators a would step in wanting to level all to one boring standard, uniformity and desexualization of people of an age more obsessed with sex than the rest of us. To me they were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Destroying growth by trimming and being orderly. Well, that's what administrators do. They want order, not growth, individuality, self expression, etc. It is 1984 tactics.

When a group of administrators, P.E. teachers, and catholic school graduates tried to impose uniforms on my son, I went to war. My girlfriend of the time had won in court the right to wear pants. She was adamant. Together we stopped the move. I was to be the token person in the group to make it look good. They didn't expect lawsuits, letters to their bosses, information and studies two inches high, and informed passionate people.

Same ol' stuff. We are here to learn and it is a distraction. Dress for success. They got some changes to the code, hinging on these silly issues about exposed shoulders and the width of the straps. But self expression and experimentation is still happening at that school.

Still, naked would make it better, but people need to express themselves. People need to be able to opt out.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

We go to great efforts to be different and to express our individuality. Then we seek out others who happen to be the same way so as to assure ourselves that out non-conformance is normal. Hence the existence of forums like this.

[jbeegoode]

We go to great efforts to be different and to express our individuality. Then we seek out others who happen to be the same way so as to assure ourselves that out non-conformance is normal. Hence the existence of forums like this.

We go to great efforts to be different, OR to express our individuality. Then we seek out others who happen to be the same way so as to assure ourselves that out non-conformance is normal. Hence the existence of forums like this.

Interesting point that you have made. Sub-cultural bonding? We seek both individuality and approval. Generally dropping clothing gives us reprieve from all of that. So, is this a subculture of ours, or an anti-culture? Is it not normal to declare against a dominant culture that is oppressive, or...just plain stupid? Are we not here to help each other with the difficulties that are being put upon us unjustly? Is this also a shelter from a sh**t storm? Is it not also a forum with an interest in social and cultural change?
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

We merely seek out others of like interests to validate our chosen lifestyles (not that I have a lifestyle) so that we don't think we're crazy. Others do the same thing, sometimes, I suspect, to prove to themselves that they're sane and everyone else is crazy. Think of "survivalists", for example. Nudism is, I suppose, a subculture, one that most people see as harmless, like Civil War reenactors. It isn't anti-culture, if in fact anything can be.

Wearing clothes is hardly abnormal and those who do wear clothes do not constitute an oppressive, dominant culture. You're reading too much into the everyday practice of wearing clothes. Those are simple statements for something that exists in a complex social structure that is constantly changing and is a little different everywhere, even on the other side of town. And even though nudists might seem to be the ultimate non-conformists, a certain degree of conformity is expected.

There's also the simple social aspect of nudism, which is, I believe, no different than any other interest or activity.  Let's say you like square dancing. So you go to the weekly meeting to enjoy a couple of hours of dancing but you just as much want to be around those other people whether or not you're actually doing anything. The established "free range naturism" aspect is mildly problematic in that respect. You can go bowling along and I suppose you can dance by yourself, too.

[jbeegoode]

Clothing is an integral piece of the dominate culture, any culture for that matter. Yup, a very complex social issue.

Obsession with clothes and complete rejection of mere nudity is the issue, the problem, the radical silliness. Being constantly clothed/covered as necessity is sickness. The body issues, self esteem, the social rejection that covering and inhibition give to us is also a wrong that needs to be righted. Commercial fashion is an imprisonment and pollution is a very stupid human error.

The dominate culture has always been in the middle of defining public education and wrongly so, most often. Clothing and fashion control are a uniforming tool.
Jbee

[John P]

As you say, any culture. In fact if you look around the world, or back into the past as well as we can, you can see that there have actually been very few places where people have felt that clothing is unnecessary. I wouldn't call it "obsession with clothes" but something that's inherent in humans, to want to cover up part of the body, and let's be honest, it's the genitals that are the major concern. Sometimes it's men who need to be covered and more often it's women, or most often of all, both sexes. It seems as if once a culture makes any artifacts at all, some amount of clothing is pretty much the first thing they produce. It might be minimal, but people do feel that it's important. This is so universal, even in groups which have never had any contact with anyone else, that you have to ask what it is in humans that makes it so important to us.

I think naturists might approach this situation not by talking about "radical silliness" but by trying to get an idea of what makes covering the genitals, and thus creating a "taboo" area of the body, such a strong instinct. Could it be that we have a sense that that our sexuality is outside our rational control, and we have to cover up the parts it involves in order to prevent any embarrassing or dangerous things from occurring? That would fit with what naturists say, that genitals are used for sex, and sexuality is part of a human life, but we don't need to declare genitals to be disgusting and unfit to be seen for that reason. We can be rational and sexual at the same time, and sex happens when we're ready for it: we don't always need to hide the parts that we use just occasionally! Not that I'd dwell on sexual issues when we talk about nudity, but I'm trying to get an idea of what it really is about complete nudity that makes it so universally unwelcome. I read an interesting book a couple of years ago, Under the Mountain Wall by Peter Matthiessen. It's about several months spent with a tribe in the Baliem Valley of New Guinea in the early 1960s. Now it's become a minor tourist destination, but then every tribe lived in a state of constant war with their neighbors--not exactly paradise at all. Anyway, the men there wear (or did then) a penis gourd, as in the picture. On one occasion, the author was watching a group of men build a watch tower (used to detect their enemies approaching). One man waded across a river to get some bamboo that was growing on the other side, and on the way back he lost his penis gourd. He continued working with the group, but apparently he felt that he "wasn't decent" (I'm pretty sure that's the wording in the book). He kept trying to turn so that only his side or back was visible to the other men. When clothing is reduced to just a penis cover, how could it be that lack of it is embarrassing? But that's the way it seems to work.

[jbeegoode]

Suddenly his penis wabn't a foot long? He maybe thought that he was fooling everyone?

Dunno!
Jbee

[John P]

Don't get distracted. Weird (to our eyes) though it may be, that thing is what they consider important in New Guinea. Just about everywhere, there's something that you have to wear if you want to be accepted. So why's that, and how can we persuade people that they don't need it?

[BlueTrain]

One could be fooled into thinking that nudism is just about the genitals.