|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 12:52:01 AM
Awhile back, I spent a year trying to get a definition of nudism without success.
Maybe nudism does not have a single definition, but I have come to believe it has a single, blindingly simple, underlying principle that nudists hold dear, even if they don't think about it:
Nobody has the right to force anyone else's body to be their sex object.
As nudists, we seem to have no objection to wearing clothes where clothes makes sense. What we object to is having to wear clothes because of someone else's idea of modesty. When they force us to wear a beard, burke, or bikini for modesty, they are forcing *their* sexualization of *our* bodies on us. We say they have no such right.
- As our bodies are not their sex object, nude is not lewd just because they say so.
- History shows that freedom from forced sexualization is a fragile right. Nudists and naturists are the people who cultivate that freedom in its most dismissible form. We are the canaries in the coal mine.
- Freedom from forced sexualization is the right of every human at every age (especially children), not just in private, but socially, without isolation by sex. Social family nudism flows from this as a matter of principle.
- Because this freedom is fundamental to respecting ourselves and each other's humanity, it feels good, joyous, liberating, and is blessed.
- Respect for our own and each other's humanity eventually leads to respect for the rest of nature. Nudism and naturism eventually lead to the same place.
- As this right is universal, anyone willing to respectfully eschew forced sexualization, in all its many guises, is to be welcome among nudists and naturists.
That about covers it, right? With apologies for my prose, feel free to better state any point here. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Randall50 |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 02:35:14 AM
I have a hunch that most people are private nudists. Public nudism is another step - maybe too much for most people. Unfortunately the sexual aspect of our nature has been infused into just about everything we do. For some it is probably too difficult to separate nudism from anything sexual. |
| Smithy |
Posted - 05/15/2009 : 01:40:12 AM
Tiger
I agree with you, but did you know it is also biblical? God has no problem with social nonsexual nudity, email me< i'll send you me essay on nudity from a biblical point of view. I can;t post here it's 2500 words long
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing."
-Albert Einstein |
| NudeAl |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 11:10:40 AM
I love it! I wouldn't change a thing.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. -- Robert Frost
|
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 04:45:25 AM
Thanks, Catbird. I'm not sure that accuracy isn't a good place to start. Maybe a philosophy can be erudite if it is succinct. This way nudist thinkers can express their own individual vision for nudism, KISS or not, sustaining this common, underlying philosophy.
|
| catbird |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 11:51:37 AM
Stuffed Tiger's original description of nudist philosophy is accurate. However my criticism is that it is too erudite. I am a believer is KISS, Keep It Simple Saint.
Naturally, Catbird |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 02:34:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by agde
At the very least, it suggests a catchy bumper sticker: "Clothed or not, I am not your sex object!"
I like it. Thanks. I can't wait to buy one.
|
| Phydeau |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 8:54:13 PM
As a rough draft of the nudist declaration of independence, it's not bad. The ideas are solid.
But "sex object" may not be the right term. I get what you're getting at. A lot of textiles equate nudity with sex. But "sex object" invokes a sense that nudity induces people to desire a nude body as a sexual object. The basic fear among those who object, however, is that nudity will induce "others" to think sexual thoughts (repressed as their own thoughts may be).
Good points, though.
It seems to me that the only thing holding up global nudity (on a reasonable basis, of course) is the equation to sexual activities. I may start a new thread based on this. I have to research whether it's been done before. |
| nudeisbetter |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 8:05:03 PM
I think I have the definition after spending the weekend at Solair - nudism is not wearing clothes. Seems pretty simple to me, why complicate it? |
| agde |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 5:32:03 PM
There is of course a lot of history swirling around any definition of nudism, but I think your basic point to turn the sex aspect around the other way is instructive. The first purpose of any community and the essential responsibility of a government reflecting the mutual guarantees of that community is to provide for physical safety and protection. Once overall community safety is assured, protection for and between community members gets more nuanced. Nudists essentially are caught between two aspects of a mutual guarantee to be free from imposition by others -- offense and harm (or the threat of harm). Usually we go round-n-round in debates over whether the sight of another person nude is a cause of unreasonable imposition (creating a situation of sufficient offense or potential harm).
So turning it around to argue that others are imposing on a nude person by projecting sexuality (thus creating a situation of potential harm) is quite a refreshing perspective. It is sort of the argument used by topfreedom advocates. I like the argument because 1) it puts the sexuality issue back in the lap of the complaining beholder, 2) it highlights that impeccable interpersonal respect is a fundamental aspect of being nude in social situations, 3) it clarifies that the responsibility to show interpersonal respect in a community is absolute (ie. not dependent on race, colour, creed, gender or fabric), and 4) it puts community authorities on notice that their responsibility for individual safety is primary ( ie. the "beheld" may be the one in danger, not the "beholder").
At the very least, it suggests a catchy bumper sticker: "Clothed or not, I am not your sex object!" |
| EuroTim |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 12:36:11 PM
That's a lot to think about, but at first reading it looks reasonable. Thanks for doing all this work. I'm sure we will all benefit from it.
My one immediate thought is that perhaps there is too much concentration on 'forced sexualization' albeit a very important aspect to consider. |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
