Stress reliever

[jbeegoode]

Morris was discussing his hypothesis (as fact) that the leanings toward youth are leanings toward health. Health in the selective survival scheme of things is desirable, for making, supporting, and partnering babies, thus having contributing to the survival of our species, thus we are hardwired unconsciously to be attracted to healthy people of the opposite sex for procreation.

I ain't saying that the stuck in high-school idea, or the obvious cultural indoctrination we get aren't valid, but I do like his take on the youth thing. It would explain my behaviors through the years and what has physically attracted me to certain physical attributes.

Morris also has discussed the idea that peak child bearing attributes may be recognized subconsciously at any age.

He also mentions how a look of a good provider is attractive. A big wallet is as attractive as what else might be in the pants. Who know? He is all speculation, but very convincing and with common rationale.
Jbee

[JOhnGw]

Jbee - I wonder whether that scenario is why men tend to fancy younger women as they stand a better chance of living to rear any offspring.
It would also explain my subjective opinion that women tend to look more attractive after having their first child - contrary to fashionable current opinion.

[eyesup]

. . . I wonder whether that scenario is why men tend to fancy younger women as they stand a better chance of living to rear any offspring.

I will point out that there is a difference between producing and rearing offspring.

I pick up the newspaper and read some of the most mind-numbing and morally deficient behaviors by some people when it comes to children, childbirth and parenting. I wonder about whether the entire social and cultural structures regarding family have been chucked over-board and we are seeing a bizarre new ethic regarding children.

It was once a rarity, but is becoming more noticeable. Of course it could merely be an artifact of the 24 hr. news cycle.

Duane

[BlueTrain]

It's funny how we all see different things when we look at something. When I viewed the video, which is pretty good, the first thing that came to mind was "Run Forrest! Run." 

I don't imagine that was the idea, was it?

I suppose that stress relief could be an object of nudist or naturism in its broader sense. That was, in a way, the original idea over a hundred years ago. The idea was that city living was bad. One had become detached from nature. So you had to retreat to a rural location for exercise, healthy food and recreation. I think it was a few decades before someone suggested living entirely without clothes. Clothes are not unnatural. Neither are French fries, beer and home-made cornbread. Practically everyone around the world wears something most of the time. That argument carries no weight.

On the other hand, try telling someone that city life is unhealthy and see how far that gets you. The thing that makes no sense is driving twenty or thirty miles to work and back every day. Be that as it may be, the original naturists, which included nudists, were practically all city-dwellers. The rural folk were as connected with nature as anyone could want to be.

[Greenbare Woods]

I pick up the newspaper and read some of the most mind-numbing and morally deficient behaviors by some people when it comes to children, childbirth and parenting. I wonder about whether the entire social and cultural structures regarding family have been chucked over-board and we are seeing a bizarre new ethic regarding children.
Duane

It seems to me that there has been a cultural war against children and families ongoing for a hundred years or so.  The anti-family, anti-children side is winning.  Birth rates among white Europeans are way down, way below survival. 

Bob

[jbeegoode]

It's funny how we all see different things when we look at something. When I viewed the video, which is pretty good, the first thing that came to mind was "Run Forrest! Run." 

I don't imagine that was the idea, was it?

I suppose that stress relief could be an object of nudist or naturism in its broader sense. That was, in a way, the original idea over a hundred years ago. The idea was that city living was bad. One had become detached from nature. So you had to retreat to a rural location for exercise, healthy food and recreation. I think it was a few decades before someone suggested living entirely without clothes. Clothes are not unnatural. Neither are French fries, beer and home-made cornbread. Practically everyone around the world wears something most of the time. That argument carries no weight.

On the other hand, try telling someone that city life is unhealthy and see how far that gets you. The thing that makes no sense is driving twenty or thirty miles to work and back every day. Be that as it may be, the original naturists, which included nudists, were practically all city-dwellers. The rural folk were as connected with nature as anyone could want to be.

Obsession with clothing is not a construct of a human living closer to ones nature. On a hot day, by a cozy hearth, on a nice day, in a body of water, in a sweat, among your other human beings, nudity is natural. If you insist on wearing clothing in such circumstance it is unnatural. There is a consciousness in nature that is lost when clothed. It may not be evident living in an urban environment or suffocated in clothing, but it is certainly a reality. We have lost more than we have gained by polyester and prudish dictates.

The world is full of people wearing clothing, that is true. The reason for that has a lot to do with the Christian and Muslim empires and the influence of missionaries, which is the pressure of the dominate culture and survival. The fact that people are hung up on covering their bodies does not mean that the behavior is natural. For millennia people didn't have these weird behaviors. Study of human history and anthropology give us proof of a different norm. When I get naked in nature, I sense entirely differently and I'm closer to a natural being that has been lost. It has become extremely evident that nude is the nature of mankind. Clothing is a newer thing. Clothing is for social/political reasons in a tribe and to stay warm in adverse weather. These inventions have been with men for a very long time, but what we have in this world today is not that practicality, it is obsession.

Someone said that french fries, BEER and "homemade" cornbread are not natural? Never got that memo. Perhaps they were referring to McDonalds, piss water and substitutes for butter, fresh real corn, and less processed sugar. These things that they call food and drink yet barely give nutrition could be argued to not be "natural' but artificial.

So, certain foods are invention as are certain uses for clothing, but I'll disagree heartily that clothing is the natural state of man...or any animal.

Why do you think that the early naturists, I suppose that you meant Germany, were all city dwellers? This has never come up. It is interesting to think about.

I would argue that country folk are "connected to nature as much as anyone would want to be." My experience is that they are better connected, but generally greatly lacking knowledge of genuine nature. Farmers know farms and what they were brought up to know. Nature is mostly something else. Knowing nature is living in it, more primitive, less domesticated than country folk and exploitation.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

I have lived in a small town, which in many ways was much more city like than living in the suburbs today. And I have also lived in the country in an old log house (not a cabin, though) with no bathroom, no telephone and sometimes, no running water (there was no well and no city water). But it could be that people that live in the country don't really know anything about nature. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees, as they say. There is a belief, apparently widely held, that people used to know a lot more about rural living than they do now, especially in the Appalachians, where I'm from. That gave rise to the Foxfire series of books. Those books were published nearly fifty years ago. Probably even more things have been forgotten since then.

I think to say people are obsessed with clothing, aside from the fashion aspect (some certainly are obsessed with fashion) may be overstating the case. It is easy enough to tell that many people are certainly not obsessed with the clothes they wear. It is curious, though, that primitive peoples always wore some form of clothing, although often as not, less than the explorers and colonists themselves wore. It may be that the natural state of man is naked, provided he lives where it is always warm. All the same, one can become obsessed with nudity.

My comments about early nudism and naturism (not the same thing) are based on my studies of early writings and practices, including in more recent publications. City dwellers are typically more progressive than rural dwellers. The movements were started by just a few people who had various ideas about society and health, chiefly, I think, because of poor living conditions in cities at the end of the 19th century. To them, nudism, hiking and conservation were the answers to those problems. It tried to be a middle class, bourgeois movement that also included the working classes as much as possible. Naturally, I can't do justice to it in just a few sentences. It goes without saying that it had its critics then, too. But it didn't particularly try to be primitive, which would be no achievement.

[jbeegoode]

The writings about the 'primative' native peoples encountered by the Europeans tell of them being unashamed naked. The pictures were drawn by European and generally white Christian men, who added their sensibilities and added cloth in strategic areas. They couldn't give record with pictures of genitals.

Yea, I was reminded of traveling through France in the sixties and seeing card tables with fine china and silver with white table clothes on the side of the road. Those early Germans were often in similar ilk with the earlier romance period. Some kind of "civilized" natural state of being. It was to cure the crappy, polluted stressful life in the city, I have read that, too. The contrast would have been stark!

Uniforms, feeling naked, clothes make the man and naked he is less. All of th esocial games and requiements, modern man is hung up with his clothing in the closet at night. Shame, body cover, all kinds of armor, and disguse, then they belive tha what they wear is them.

Here, I describe clothing obsession, making fun of it:
https://thefreerangenaturist.org/2016/08/19/clothing-obsession-a-stab-at-humor/

Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

The writings about the 'primative' native peoples encountered by the Europeans tell of them being unashamed naked. The pictures were drawn by European and generally white Christian men, who added their sensibilities and added cloth in strategic areas. They couldn't give record with pictures of genitals.

Back in the first part of the 20th century the National Geographic Magazine commonly featured pictures of naked natives or bare breasted native women, probably teenagers.  In a time when no other magazine could be sold with naked photos it was a good way to make money by selling nude boob photos. 

Uniforms, feeling naked, clothes make the man and naked he is less. All of th esocial games and requiements, modern man is hung up with his clothing in the closet at night. Shame, body cover, all kinds of armor, and disguse, then they belive tha what they wear is them.
Jbee

The big monotheist empires have used clothing as a form of control over the masses.   They train obedience by daily habituation to obey even if its uncomfortable.   And they have a big guilt trip for anyone who won't obey. 

Bob

[jbeegoode]

When I was teaching 5th through 8th grade, I had a ton of National Geo. I meticulously went through them to weed out things that the principal wouldn't approve of. The kids could read the the mags, if they finished somethings early...they found some nudes! The stuff still attracts kids like magnets.

I found some girly stuff in my brothers bottom drawer. I visited a couple of times after that. Early socialization to sexualize the nude.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

That was the theme in the late 1960s. One could even say you were encouraged to be a non-conformist, to rebel against the corporate-consumer culture. It really wasn't difficult to do, either. All you had to do was be like all the other non-conformists. We all knew who we didn't want to be and that was our parents, living out their dreadful lives, getting up and going to work everyday in the 1950s, coming home and eating TV dinners while they watched I Love Lucy.

Our problem was that we wanted to rebel against all that conformity and to cast off our white shirts (at least until we went to work for IBM--white shirts not permitted at Microsoft). Instead we wore paisley. Ultimately we discovered that we were rejecting everything our parents were about, no matter what, and imitated our friends, never knowing who was setting the trends. Somewhere along the way we even discovered sex, something our parents knew nothing about, as far as we could tell.

And thus endeth the golden age of nudism.

[jbeegoode]

Yea, the factory farms were uptight. I started going free range naturism with my friends, pals and with my girlfriends.

AND yes, there was quite a bit of sexual experimentation in the mix. I began to read the articles in Playboy, too, but still the stereotypes generated in the pictures had an affect upon what I saw as attractive and the preference of a hot young thing.
I was in my mid-40's before I went to bed with the first woman over thirty. Slow learner, mellowing with age, or something washed out the fixation.
Jbee

[eyesup]

It's funny how we all see different things when we look at something. When I viewed the video, which is pretty good, the first thing that came to mind was "Run Forrest! Run."

Reminds me of a skit I saw at a Boy Scout Summer Camp once, which was pretty funny.

Some run for the endorphin high. Some for the simple achievement of a personal best. Physical exertion does reduce stress. It’s one of the benefits of hiking. The others? Being out in nature au natural, feeling the heat and breeze from sources other than the heat island effect and engine exhausts.

For me, it is the silence of the remote location. And the solitude adds to that.
Even though, in reality, I am only a couple hours from my car.

There were several of my uncles that had farms in central Louisiana. Never once did I ever get the impression that they “lived next to or with nature”. It was more of a choice of a simple life in the country that they knew from their youth, were familiar with and had the expertise to live. It was not a moral code, it was more along the lines of  “maintaining a tradition” activity.

At any rate, reaching a point where you throw off whatever is irritating you (in this video that was clothing and the city) and taking off to points unknown as a response to the city’s effects, is what the video is about. It’s what I responded to.

This is not a video about nudity! It’s not about babes or non-babes!
It’s about shackles in your head!

Duane

[BlueTrain]

When it is really quiet, I just hear the ringing in my ears more. But some city sounds I like hearing, such as early in the morning when the city seems to be waking up and picking up speed. It usually happens just around the time the sun is coming up. The same thing happens in the woods, if you're far enough from town and highway not to hear those sounds. Only the sounds are different, usually of bird calls.

Farmers in particular should be more in tune with nature, you would expect. It might be presumptuous that they lead a simple life. Simple in some respects but hardly worry-free. My father grew up on a farm and kept a garden all his life. He believed in planting things "by the signs." I knew what he was talking about but he never explained it enough for me to understand. In my wife's family, they talk about planting something on Washington's birthday, but I can never remember what. Peas, maybe. All my wife grows are flowers, and you can't eat flowers. The deer can, though, and do.

I did like the video, although I must admit that I fast-forwarded it (lack of patience). I'm not much for running, not at my age and with my feet. Most of the time I'm not out for parts unknown, though. There are plenty of places I like to go because I enjoy those places so much and have never been able to go often enough to satisfy myself. On the other hand, the trail I take out my back door, which is about two miles round trip, is the same every time I go out, generally about once a week. It's never boring. There is a good view of a lake at the end where I turn around. It's challenging to stand there on a windy day and unfortunately, it's also a place where wild geese hang out. But I generally see something different every time. If I'm lucky, I'll see deer. If I'm really, really lucky, I'll see a fox. But they always see me first.

I enjoy being out in cold weather as much as nice weather and if I'm in a place like Shenandoah Park, I'll usually see as many other people in cold weather as in hot weather. So others must think the same as I do. One thing I get out of these outings, short and long, is a chance to forget, however briefly, all my troubles. Even my foot doesn't hurt that much. I don't worry about chores at home, taxes, the cars, the yard, or any of that stuff. I guess there's some escapism in it. It is pure re-creation.

[Wenedo]

Yea, the factory farms were uptight. I love HGH-X2 and started going free range naturism with my friends, pals and with my girlfriends.

AND yes, there was quite a bit of sexual experimentation in the mix. I began to read the articles in Playboy, too, but still the stereotypes generated in the pictures had an affect upon what I saw as attractive and the preference of a hot young thing.
I was in my mid-40's before I went to bed with the first woman over thirty. Slow learner, mellowing with age, or something washed out the fixation.
Jbee

I was the same way preferences wise until a few years ago. And then I just started seeking different things. I think that's normal, right?