Another Cartoon

[eyesup]

Dennis asks the obvious: Why?. And still no clear answer.
Mom’s serene smile could be a little wistful or humor at the innocent question without a satisfactory answer.

Found the link to this cartoon while checking the website of the woman in the Ocean City, MD dust-up in the forum The Legal Front. Even the cartoons see the irony!

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Bikinis are smaller than board shorts. Dennis may be hanging at the wrong beaches.
Jbee

[John P]

Agreed, in my humble opinion this "topfree equality" business coming from males only makes us look like voyeurs. Meanwhile, who's wearing the excess clothing? (Yes, it's Justin Bieber, with a friend.)

"Free the thigh" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though.

[Peter S]

What a dork! He's doubly ridiculous, as not only is he wearing such enormous "shorts", he's got them halfway over his bum with underpants underneath. The sadness of textilism strikes again

Peter

[JOhnGw]

What a dork! He's doubly ridiculous, as not only is he wearing such enormous "shorts", he's got them halfway over his bum with underpants underneath. The sadness of textilism strikes again

Peter

How many even sadder individuals are going to copy that as a style Icon?

[eyesup]

That’s a good cartoon, John.
I guess the message would have to do with the superiority of women?
Poor Justin seems to be confused about garment usage, from top to bottom.

Duane

[Patrick1951]

The young people do mimic pop music stars to silly extremes we know, so now we need these icons and 'drop-dead-gorgeous' movie people to start a new trend, being naked! Body jewellery & tattoos might become the new 'trend'?

[jbeegoode]

Yes, it certainly gets them the publicity that they seek. A few have answered, yes, I'm a nudist, yes, at home, "I have nothing to be ashamed of." Nude scenes in movies in the 60's had a significant reaction. We could use another Woodstock pond.
Jbee

[Patrick1951]

I can remember quite a lot about the 60's and Woodstock. Much of the nudity of that particular era was always referred to in the same breath as 'pot' 'hippies' 'weed' and 'free love'. There was indeed a much more casual approach to nakedness, indeed my family home was quite 'trendy' for that time.  We could do with some of the 1960's life around us now no doubt, but the "free love" and the "pot" can stay there!

[jbeegoode]

Yours is pretty much my take about the pot and free love. I have a large circle of friends that are...I'll say different. There are many of the "hippie" values among them. They haven't dropped them off. I dropped off those values for awhile, but came home to them again, a long story. The free love was experimentation that brought me to a preference for monogamy and seems to have done the same for nearly all the "old hippies" in that circle. The pot, however is prevalent. They are getting the medical stuff, these days. Some, I find, are still doing psychedelics. At gatherings, clothing still drops off casually.

That isn't quite how I remember the 60's, early 70's. Yes, there was liberation, bra burning, the innocence of Wooodstock skinnydipping philosophically, but there was still excitement for a young man seeing a bunch of "Nekkid Chicks." I submit a link to a youtube video, that I stumbled upon last night. It is California, 1972, the Grateful Dead are playing (Jerrie is still in shape), while some guy records the day on film. It starts out great, there are frisbees and dancing, then a shot of a topfree "chick." Then, more followed by more frequent shots of female nudity, until this horny young videographer seems to totally lose his cool and we just see a series of grabs to collect as many nekkids as possible. 

Aside, there is some Prankster footage, Cassidy and Kesey in stripped shirts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOVIQORfFrk
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

Most of what I did in the 60s was struggling to find a job, working, and going to college when i could save enough money.  In between I managed a week trip to Haight/Ashbury in the summer of 1967.  Didn't see any nudity in Golden Gate park or anywhere else on that trip.  Lots of tie dyed.

[Patrick1951]

Attitudes towards nakedness varied quite a lot through the 60's & 70's, ranging from the 'free love' & "flower power" genres to the stricter 'Mary Whitehouse' puritanical groups who thought we were " on our way to hell in a handcart". As always we survived an so did naturists and all the variety of "clothed-semi clothed-naked" peoples with their own dogmatic principles & their periods of 'preaching' or 'persuading'.  We are now in a brighter era (I think?) where we are generally more tolerant, the barriers between us all are being made invisible, only to surface when anyone becomes again 'dogmatic & devoutly principled'. So to summarise we all should just 'live and let live' without the domineering and dictatorial 'do-gooders'.
If your life is textile, fine. If your life is clothes optional that's fine too. If your life is naked that should be fine too.  Why can't those who oppose nakedness in public places just realise and accept there is no danger or threat to them & their children, there are no immoral dangerously deviant acts performed by every nude you see. To take a phrase from the 60's or the 70's why not just live and let live to "Give Peace A Chance"

[jbeegoode]

"Why can't those who oppose nakedness in public places just realize and accept there is no danger or threat to them & their children...?

Yea, why can't they just accept skin that is not clothed is just skin that is not clothed, not an issue, just a body. Why all of the connotations? It is just that simple. AND why are these deviate considerations that imprison us dominating over the majority who don't really have much concern? We have a few forcing their perversity upon the rest of us. We all are being sexually abused. It isn't a sexual rise that they claim the pervert, or the flasher is after, it is their want for power and shock. It isn't the sexual thrill, it is the need for recognition from others. These two things are what they are doing to us and why. It is like their projection of their own behavior onto anyone who doesn't conform and accept shame, power, control, and derision from them and recognize their authority. The simple truth IS "live and let live", "do no harm." Who's body is it? Who's choice of spirituality and worship is it? Are these not our individual human rights?

Just the simple humanity of another's body, is blown up to a huge non-proportionate circumstance and causes great harm. Shame, loss of self esteem, fear of exposure, sexualization, grossly huge industries of clothing and fashion and waste, closet voyeurism, guilt, role enforcement, sexism, confusion, incarceration and ruined lives, waste of cooling bills and consumer enslavement to pay for all the silliness. Lots of people believing that they are their clothing and what it represents, afraid to be who they are, while projecting the value of others superficially, as to how they are uniformed and adorned.

It is just a body, a curious entity, a common vehicle to navigate this life, with billions of variations that are  constantly changing.   
Jbee

[Patrick1951]

It is just a body, a curious entity, a common vehicle to navigate this life, with billions of variations that are  constantly changing.
When did anyone hear, see or know of any totally naked person (presumably male?) attack or assault anyone, least of all a clothed person in a street/park/activity area?  Unless I am mistaken I would think that a naked person is much more vulnerable to pain & harm. What is the problem with approximately 5% of the population being allowed to peacefully coexist naked  in society?

[jbeegoode]

Five in One hundred! It will grow into a movement! Soon, they will be after my daughter to get naked. What about traditional values? I don't want to see that! It is just a question of decency...Besides, its just weird.
Jbee