Taboos

[eyesup]

Wasn’t sure where to put this. It isn’t directly about nudity but about the same obstacles we are often concerned with. Fear and censorship, which walk hand-in-hand with taboos. Casual nudity is certainly taboo in many places.

The thought police are alive, active and open for business in this town.

We have always dragged (drugged?), possibly both, our kids into museums. All types. We didn’t care. If it looked in the least like someone had put effort into it or it was about something interesting, we stopped and took a look. Usually there would be nothing remarkable, but occasionally we would be surprised. We also love to stop at those roadside “markers of interest”. Past a certain age the kids began to get antsy when we would engage in these “broadening” activities. We smiled and continued.

While on a vacation in Austin, Texas, somewhere around their grade school or Jr. High years, we were wandering the streets in the downtown area and walked into a museum and then an art exhibit. We had always heard that the downtown district was an interesting place. We weren’t disappointed. The art exhibit was, I admit, a little bit beyond the edge. It was in an old dilapidated building that probably had once been a retail enterprise of some sort. It desperately needed some “fixin’up”. The art dealt with some eye opening issues about death, life’s unexpected surprises and how the artist saw the effects these type of events had on people. Very interesting. Not sure I would have wanted it in my house, but interesting.

The museum was an art museum and had in one of it’s galleries an odd collection of paintings that, after seeing several, my wife and I decided were varied and abstract depictions of the vagina. For a moment we discussed whether to continue the visit and then decided they were too young to comprehend the subject matter, so we kept on walking. I don’t recall the name of the artist or the name of the exhibit, but it was clearly a statement about how we (human beings) have turned the human body, females in particular, into products for consumption. At first I remember being a little put off by the display but the longer I wandered the hall I eventually came around and decided it was a legitimate statement.

We didn’t go into any graphic detail with the kids about what was depicted but we didn’t pretend that they were fun watercolors either and answered their questions matter of fact. The subject was a beyond their understanding for their age but we also didn’t cover their eyes and rush them out onto the street trying to protect their innocent eyes. They had no idea what they were looking at anyway. They thought it was just a bunch of art.

Had we reacted in that manner it would have had a message we disagreed with. That there are subjects that they don’t need to hear about. Any subject can be discussed amongst adults. If properly organized the same can be done with children as long as they comprehend the concepts. 8th graders are a hop, skip and a jump from, if not already in, the hormonal haze. If a child asks a question it is a signal they have been thinking about that question and it’s time to discuss it. If they don’t get it from you they will likely get it from someone you don’t know or trust.

The message sent by this school was the equivalent to covering the eyes of our kids in a panic. There are times when the actions of “responsible” people are so baffling that no words come to mind to explain them. How you get from paintings of flowers to “pornography”, which is exactly what all the buzz words and euphemisms are referring to, is beyond me.

Duane

[JOhnGw]

The aspect of your post relating to children and innocence reminded me of an incident early in our camping trips to France - and before we were exclusively on naturist sites.
I was chatting to a British lady on a nearby emplacement about wine and similar things when I used a favourite W.C. Fields quotation: "Never drink water. Fishes fornicate in it" when a young teenage boy emerged from behind the tent with the question "What's fornicating?"
For once I thought of a suitable answer which, not knowing his level of sexual awareness was "Something adults do and don't talk to you about" at which point he responded with "Oh, bonking."
Exit JOhn, defeated.

[jbeegoode]

Generally, school administrators claw their way up after they realize that they want more money than to teach, or they find that they suck at, or dislike teaching. They are terrified to get grief from any parent. A substitute who gets any kind of negative from any student is generally a throw away, not a real employee and not union. A sub gets dismissed for any reason to protect the administrator. It is a risky business. I was a sub for a few years. I was loved at some schools and relieved by some of the most ridiculous feedback from teachers and students at others. It's like throwing craps, luck of the draw.

As a regular teacher, I once was not asked back by the new principal to be. He had a conservative political background and information restriction ideas wishing to paint a false picture of the world. My mistake was to teach the children to think, giving them many sides and letting them form their own opinions and see thru manipulations. State law requires that curriculum be based on free thinking, but don't go too far. Just that simple CYA on his part cost me the job and the hassle to find another. There was no union at that rural school. The school systems like that, that can be anywhere, have this flaw.

This doesn't surprise me at this level, but still ticks me off. One of the prime resources for teaching that I had was "People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. The book is renowned. I used it at least once a week to give another side. Kids all made up their own minds, while I diligently stayed neutral with no opinion. This book has since been banned by the Arizona State Board of Education, with the advent of a new law (new, maybe 5 years). I'm still in disbelief that this happens in America. The book burners are everywhere. This article is an example of book burning by ignorant people who are offended by the truth and free minds that don't conform. It is rampant everywhere. And they totally freak out about anything to do with bodies. It is just too dangerous for an administrator and left up to kids own devises and influences. Teach your children well. The schools certainly don't.

I went to some Jr. High and high school in Battle Creek and still have friends there. She won't get another job there. Perhaps in the state, because two ratty kids mentioned something and the principal threw her under the bus as expendable.

There's many reasons why people are afraid of their bodies and equate skin as sex. Schools are certainly a major contributor.

Yea, don't get me started....
Jbee

[nudewalker]

I don't want to jump in with both feet but Jbee there is agreement that most administrators are such because they suck at teaching or can't handle it. Same with those who make up the standards or so it seems. I hear it all the time from my teacher friends, many of whom retired as soon as they could fed up with the whole game.

Then I hear of the school boards or worse the state level administrators trying to change the textbooks and curriculum to match political or religious views. And following Jbee's lead I will quit before starting.

[jbeegoode]

I don't want to jump in with both feet but Jbee there is agreement that most administrators are such because they suck at teaching or can't handle it. Same with those who make up the standards or so it seems. I hear it all the time from my teacher friends, many of whom retired as soon as they could fed up with the whole game.

Then I hear of the school boards or worse the state level administrators trying to change the textbooks and curriculum to match political or religious views. And following Jbee's lead I will quit before starting.

[eyesup]

Then I hear of the school boards or worse the state level administrators trying to change the textbooks and curriculum to match political or religious views.

As Joseph Goebbels said when at the peak of his influence:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Creepy stuff!

Duane

[nudewalker]

Not knowing where to add this read I felt this was as good as place  as any. http://www.alternet.org/story/50732/why_are_americans_afraid_of_being_naked/ kind of sums up what we all surmised. Despite the influx of European immigration it still seems we gravitate to those old Puritan ideals from centuries ago.

[eyesup]

Good article. Unfortunately it's 9 yrs. old. It's long and has ideas and that make you think and uses very few sound bites. Today's cliff notes, social media culture doesn't allow detailed examinations of ideas. Many may not be able to stay focused long enough for the thrust of the article to fully form in their heads.

Three quotes from the article caught my attention. They seem to be related.

“the ad contributed to the further commercial sexualization of women”

This is beginning to be a knee jerk reaction. Not everything is a plot to sexualize women. That is not to say such things don’t happen, but that it is not an explanation for everything. It seems there is more going on than simple aversion to nudity. There is a real fear in people that shows up wherever there is activity that is outside their comfort zone. I am coming to wonder if has anything specific to do with nudity. It has to do with the unknown or unfamiliar. Some feel threatened because they may have to explain themselves to those “like them” in a defensive move to justify a natural curiosity.

"Because our associations are often limited to porn, hippy naturalists, or the $400 million a year nude recreation industry, nudity is either seen as sexual or a gimmick."

There is a natural inclination to avoid being associated with any group that doesn’t adhere to the “normal” ideals or beliefs. We may not want to be seen as supporting or providing tacit approval to their beliefs. I don’t have a problem with this as long as I understand the other’s point of view and I can clearly explain my position, which may be in opposition, and my actual association with the group because of being perceived as being in their company. 

"Nudity is tough for law enforcement because it involves the concept of indecent exposure. There's no good definition of what's indecent about the human body."

Most frequently law enforcement is caught in the middle of several warring factions, all which are claiming their “rights” are being violated. There are also instances where law enforcement actually becomes a part of the problem. But by definition law “enforcement” means they enforce the laws on the books. The laws cannot be arbitrarily enforced. If the law is confusing you will get confusing enforcement. Plod has to answer to a higher-up, and they have to answer to a higher-up till they answer to a lawmaker who answers to, you guessed it, the voter. At the end of the day the citizens, no matter their level of involvement, are ultimately responsible which brings us back to the “fear factor”.

Laws that reflect the prevailing ideals are those that make it onto the books. As long as there are more people comfortable with the status quo, things will remain the same. It’s not the only thing that brings this reaction. We Americans pride ourselves and our heritage in how accepting we are to people from other cultures. Yet we ask all those that seek to come here to embrace American culture. When we see that culture changing as a result you see the same sort of reaction out of fear.

Why is there this split personality with regard to nudity? We have an unhealthy obsession with sex and nudity. Nudity should be seen as natural but we are raised to believe that it is wrong. Being blessed with the gift of new friends from foreign lands should be natural but we are raised to believe that change is wrong. Too many beliefs are rooted in fear. Beliefs should be rooted in the comfort of your own confidence. One that isn’t threatened by any belief that is different.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

In regard to this article. Well, this Naked Gardening Day, we might remember how far we have come and be grateful. From the activity being construed to be the evil of witchcraft and being burned at the stake, to merely the act of a dangerous sexual predator whose life deserves to be ruined.

I'm confused by the "not in the streets" caveat. If your tulip garden is next to the street where all can enjoy....?

From the rooftops, "IT'S OKAY. RELAX, YOU ALL!"
Jbee

[John P]

Duane, I pretty much agree there. Although we do have a heritage, which we're slowly forgetting, of male nudity in locker rooms and school swimming pools and the like. In that context, nudity was normal and objecting to it was deviant. In country districts, there was the old swimmin' hole where boys (much less often girls) swam naked.

I don't think I'm going to read a long article which uses the word "naturalist".

[jbeegoode]

I'm with you eyesup, except where you wrote,"Laws that reflect the prevailing ideals are those that make it onto the books. As long as there are more people comfortable with the status quo, things will remain the same."

State government lawmaking does not reflect the prevailing social attitudes. It is a rigged system, dominated by special interest and not monitored by the "we the people" part of the equation. Most people don't even know who their state reps are, or where they come from. This is particularly so in Arizona. At best, there is an effort to be "reasonable." That has actually happened in our nudity statutes, but it has left a very vague spot, invoking the term, "reasonable person." Like you say, "If the law is confusing you will get confusing enforcement."

Didn't your state just pass a harsh law recently that doesn't reflect the "norm."
Jbee

[eyesup]

I'm confused by the "not in the streets" caveat.

I think they are referring to a tendency by lawmakers to placate activists by stating a purpose in the law without clearly stating a meaning. Many state laws, my state included, have this caveat in the nudity statutes. Nudity is ok on private property unless it can be visible to the public. Here is a prime example of a confusing law. As a former president of ours was fond of doing, "that would depend on what the definition of public is". A neighbor looking out the window of their 2nd story? A person walking down the street? One person? Two? Twenty? The law doesn't say, which puts law enforcement and sometimes the judiciary on the hotseat to make these decisions.

Although we do have a heritage, which we're slowly forgetting, of male nudity in locker rooms and school swimming pools and the like. In that context, nudity was normal and objecting to it was deviant. In country districts, there was the old swimmin' hole where boys (much less often girls) swam naked.

I don't think I'm going to read a long article which uses the word "naturalist".

I agree with you. My post was getting a bit long winded. Maybe it's our place to remember these old practices and keep them alive. That's one purpose for maintaining a heritage.

A point just occurred to me as I write. We had fewer things to fear back in those days. Or maybe the things we did fear were so far removed we didn't have them in our face on a daily basis to remind us to be afraid.

I wonder if the reporter took the time to look into the differences in the words, naturist, nudist and naturalist? It's difficult to tell from this article.

State government lawmaking does not reflect the prevailing social attitudes. It is a rigged system, dominated by special interest and not monitored by the "we the people" part of the equation. Most people don't even know who their state reps are, or where they come from.

As long as we voters sit on our hands and don't make a move to correct problems, the status will not change. If a law is perceived as not being particularly fair but not so egregious that it motivates large scale action, it will remain in effect as the "status quo". Until it has large scale impact it won't change, even if it doesn't precisely reflect the "will of the people". The fact that no effort is supported by a sufficient  majority, implies widespread acceptance. Not out of a belief, but out of an unwillingness to be inconvenienced. It's one of the warts on democracy.

It is a rigged system all right. And the ones making absolute use of it are the special interests.
If you were able to generate enough interest to attract enough influential people to push an agenda you see as vital, you would be a special interest. The system was designed to make it easy to change, but only if you can generate a required majority. There in lies the challenge. Those that wish for change must get up and do instead of demanding others do for them. The risk, as I pointed out earlier, is associating with undesirables, "politicians".

Didn't your state just pass a harsh law recently that doesn't reflect the "norm."

Are you talking about the law making it a crime to expose yourself to a minor in a public restroom?

Where men, as we have for centuries, happily demonstrated to our boys the man's way of taking care of business? Where, in a natural environment for and a natural method of taking care of said business, a young boy will observe a natural part of a grownup man?

You talking about that law?

Another example of a blurry confused law. They were after the pedophiles, not men just taking a whiz. But someone with an agenda could have a man arrested for taking a leak.

Yeah, that one made it through. It's a puzzle. To make it impossible to break that law, men's restrooms would have to basically be redesigned to the same way women's are. Everyone with their own stall. Errrrrr!!!

Thanks for reminding me. I shall have to check on that. Here in Nevada, some laws voted on have to pass muster in two successive elections. If it fails on the second try the process starts over. That's not a wart on this process.

Duane

[eyesup]

Something I forgot to mention that was in the article is the “Dove Pro-Age” advertising campaign.  I looked it up. It reminded me of that one from, what was it, CVS or Walgreens? The one with the mature women that went to the nudist beach after buying sunblock?

I seem to remember seeing this ad once or twice and being pleased at the response it generated with me. I don’t think highly of “fashion” advertising. It places emphasis on all the wrong parts of our lives. A need to make ourselves and others sexy in a way that aligns us with the young and the beautiful.

This ad states simply that being attractive by taking care of yourself in a healthy way and, yes being sexy, is not limited to the young and the beautiful. A spectrum of women in their prime, I realize this is implied, are just as attractive if not more so than a bevy of young beauties. In fact they are more attractive because they are so diverse and by implication, successful. The confidence displayed by them in the ad is what I found attractive.

Duane

[nudewalker]

I remember that commercial for Dove in much the same way. And the Walgreen's ad still resonates with me I only wish they had a better follow up but purple hair at a class reunion? It was good to see the confidence continued after the nude beach. It appears that both had their haters as witnessed by the comments on the website that rate those things. The comment that got me with the Walgreen ad was the person who assumed the two were lesbians.

Much like the point I tried to make in the website thread; we need to be more all inclusive and accepting. And it's all about confidence and that projects sex appeal. That's when the clothes no longer make the man (or woman)!

[jbeegoode]

In our den of snakes, there has to be lots of "the people" in majority and very upset to change law, or a court challenge. It is run by a small group. I've lobbied there, a few legislators have been friends before and after their ordeal in Phoenix and through the years, their stories corroborate. Fortunately, or maybe not, they are focused on other agenda for moneyed political interest, etc. Just clarifying.
Jbee