| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| iamanudist |
Posted - 08/14/2006 : 12:53:23 AM
Clothes with less coverage for a positive image |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Admin |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 9:51:28 PM
Thanks for alerting us to the problem. Looks like classic troll to me.
iamanudist is locked from posting until the moderators decide otherwise. If iamanudist would like to email me, I'll be happy to discuss removing this restriction.
(And thanks Balto Bob for quoting the original post, since Martha seems to be a bait-and-switch troll, deleting her original post.) |
| Balto Bob |
Posted - 10/06/2007 : 11:28:10 AM
I am very glad I quoted that first post. If, iamanudist has 2 daughters I could understand encouraging an 18 year old to wear very little during the summer (just wear a bikini or would that be too easy) and being worried that the 16 year old now wants to take the nearly nude act year-round including school. There are times when I wonder if someone is real or fake. I trust that the many Guests that read these posts will benefit from the responces. Trying to delete the earlier thread seems to answer the question. Where is Jenn (ALLNATURALWIFE) when we could use her expertise. She has 3 daughters who, as I recall, often went to school without underwear.
Bob
Have a nice NUDE day !! |
| Balto Bob |
Posted - 10/04/2007 : 11:44:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by iamanudist
My daughter only wears outfits that provide for minimal coverage to her body and therefore I appreciate cover-ups because they really are a big deal for her. She is 18 already and I am thankful that is very positive of her physical appearance. I fell that the less she covers her body in clothes, the more confident she becomes. Seeing her put away her summer clothes and seeing her go nude all summer would be great but she can only go so far. Therefore we sat down, and talked and I made rules that she agreed to follow and I had her put them in writing. Now she has to follow the rules or she has to move out. The rules she must follow involve her limiting her clothes to those that provide the least amount of coverage to her body. In fact, as soon as school let out for the summer, I helped her box up all but all her summer clothes except for those that provided minimal coverage and she was already much more comfortable with herself. I think this was greatly because she could see my positive attitude about how her body looks better more unclothed. Now she doesn’t even have underclothes (bras, panties, socks) any more and her only choice in clothes are short skirts, low-rise short shorts, sleeveless bra style tube tops, and low cut spaghetti string camisoles. She only has gym shoes so she can go to the gym. Otherwise she just wears flip-flops. If she goes out on a date, she gets to wear a tailored low-cut open-back and fairly short (down to mid thigh) dress but still once again with no under clothes.
Now she doesn’t have to worry about clothes when out of school and this is great because she shouldn’t have to worry about clothes anyways.
The bottom line is she loves to go out in public with minimal coverage and laundry is now a breeze.
Last week she was at an amusement park with her friends in just the smallest sleeveless bra style tube top, a pair of very short and low-rise wicked weasel hot shorts and a pair of flip-flops. It was like she was only wearing a bikini and a few years ago she would have been a little nervous but now she proudly does it, she is the least girl dressed, and I never saw her happier. It is for this reason that she is setting a great example of how to be confident with her body everywhere she goes, and I would just like to know if I am doing a good job for my daughter and being a good parent in limiting her clothing in this way.
Thank you,
Martha
Now I am confused. I found this thread when I clicked the profile regarding A new thread about a 16 y/o daughter. Not sure what is going on here. Personally I hate when someone starts a thread and never replies to that thread.
Bob
Have a nice NUDE day !! |
| Moderator |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 12:17:27 PM
Let's not resort to name calling here and keep it a friendly place to visit. All that could be said to and about the original poster has been said. Why not let this topic die a natural death?
Moderator |
| ah2benude |
Posted - 08/19/2006 : 09:49:17 AM
Martha's lack of a response to all these replies says it all, don't you think? |
| Rodders |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 5:09:51 PM
Well said Leo.
Rod |
| leo 50 |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 3:58:19 PM
why i don't post much here,i must say this:
that post of marthas daughter reads like a "pulp sex" book from the 50's and 60's. my daughters were taught the "body beautiful", not how to dress like a sunset strip hooker.
it's bogus.
if you reach for the stars ,you shall hold them in your hand. |
| Rodders |
Posted - 08/17/2006 : 12:55:19 PM
12 responses (including mine previous) Marty! Well done.
Rod |
| FireProf |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 6:22:15 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by JustJim ....mindlessly gulllible? I hope not.
JustJim
I totally agree with you here. I didn't read or see any of this in the responding posts. Maybe you were just giving posters a heads up not to go in that direction. |
| JustJim |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 07:35:34 AM
Civil yes....mindlessly gulllible? I hope not.
JustJim |
| FireProf |
Posted - 08/16/2006 : 01:36:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JustJim
The one thing that drives me nuts on this forum (and I enjoy most of it so I'm not being negative) is that everyone is "too polite" to point out when they think a bogus message has been submitted by some 14 year old kid playing on his computer. "Martha" is obviously just that.
JustJim
Does it really make sense to "go off" and be impolite, so to speak, at everyone else's expense? We are hoping that whoever wrote this read a few of the replies and knows they didn't fool anyone, so hopefully they'd stop posting and go play somewhere else.
It makes no sense to be abusive and durogatory just in case some real naturist newbie comes to visit and reads this stuff. We'd like them to think we're at least civil! |
| EuroTim |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 07:36:40 AM
"This whole discussion seems highly bogus from the get-go. We're supposed to believe that "Martha's" rule for her daughter is: dress like a ho, or get kicked out of the house? Please. "Martha" writes more like a porn-happy middle-aged guy than a mother of an 18 year old daughter. I"m not buying it." AMEN !
|
| JustJim |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 07:36:39 AM
The one thing that drives me nuts on this forum (and I enjoy most of it so I'm not being negative) is that everyone is "too polite" to point out when they think a bogus message has been submitted by some 14 year old kid playing on his computer. "Martha" is obviously just that.
JustJim |
| bornnude |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 06:55:42 AM
And here I was thinking this was "only" an abusive situation for the daughter to be in.
|
| Rodders |
Posted - 08/15/2006 : 03:48:16 AM
It really does stretch the imagination to believe that an eighteen year old WOMAN would allow herself to be dictated to house rules that enforce her to go out wearing mid-thigh length skirts without underwear. Short skirts ride up (delightfully) when the wearer sits down and so this girl is constantly risking flashing her pudenda when taking a seat, getting out of cars walking upstairs, walking down the street in a stiff breeze and other normal everyday activities. We as nudists are used to seeing the entire body but dressing like this with quite healthy, predatory young males about is risking the kind of attention no woman regardless of age need expose herself to. Yes, women do go without any underwear but for reasons of comfort not just to ensure the very minimum of coverage to the body, which in this case clearly means the pubic area. All smacks of male masturbatory daydreams to me. So, Martha if you are genuine you certainly are radical and given the current social climate, your daughter is either a pioneer or taking unnecessary risks. I assume that you enjoy doing the same?
Rod |
