| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Plumb Nude
New Member
|
 Posted - 11/19/2008 : 08:27:28 AM
|
I need to jump in on this topic as I have seen first hand what happens to children who hav been subject to open erotic behavior.
My next door neighbors beacme foster parents and was given custody of four children. Their ages was 1 male 10, 1 male 4 %1female 4 also 1 female 2. They came from a family that the mother and father used drugs and had sex openly in front of the kids. Things came to light when the 4 year old female complained to the foster parents about the oldest male would send his brother in the middle of the night to bring his sisters to his bed. In the end the older boy had to be sent to a special home. He may not ever see his brother and sisters again.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 8 |
 |
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 05:36:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plumb Nude
I need to jump in on this topic as I have seen first hand what happens to children who hav been subject to open erotic behavior.
You have? Nothing you say below confirms that.
quote:
My next door neighbors beacme foster parents and was given custody of four children. Their ages was 1 male 10, 1 male 4 %1female 4 also 1 female 2. They came from a family that the mother and father used drugs ...
Ah, drugs. Is that the erotic behavior you speak of?
quote:
... and had sex openly in front of the kids.
Interesting definition of 'erotic.'
quote:
Things came to light when the 4 year old female complained to the foster parents about the oldest male would send his brother in the middle of the night to bring his sisters to his bed.
For what? Is sleeping with parents 'erotic'? Is it illegal, immoral, fattening, or contrary to good something-or-other?
quote:
In the end the older boy had to be sent to a special home. He may not ever see his brother and sisters again.
Why was he sent to a special home? You don't say. Should he have been sent to a special home? You don't say anything about that either.
I'm mystified as to the point of Plumb Nude's remarks.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/05/2009 : 06:12:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warmskin
If I were a five year old, I would want to go to a nudist resort to have five-year-old fun. What's fun for a five year old? Maybe playing games, splashing in a pool, coloring books, being on a swing, going down a slide, and the like.
But you aren't a five-year-old. You're an adult who is just guessing about what you'd want to do. And what you'd want to do isn't necessarily what other five-year-olds would want to do. In addition, school and church and baths and bedtime and a whole lot of other activities are unlikely to be on the to-do list of a five-year-old. What's your point?
quote:
I don't think seeing sexual activitiy would be on my to-do list ...
Are you telling us that five-year-olds should never see or do anything they don't want to see or do?
This thread is about seeing nude erotic behavior, not about seeing sexual activity. Do you think they're the same?
quote:
... and if I did see people engaging in sexuality, it might affect me in ways that would not be healthy for me.
Might? That's exceedingly wishy-washy. Do you have any evidence that it actually would? Note that I'm asking about evidence, not just unsubstantiated personal opinion.
The thread is about nude erotic behavior. You've talked about seeing 'sexual activity' and now about seeing 'sexuality,' but I don't think you've addressed the topic yet.
quote:
Children are people, too.
We agree on that, but the relevance of your remark escapes me.
quote:
That government governs best, which governs least - Thomas Jefferson
Do I understand correctly that you oppose laws and other rules on what children may and may not see? If so, that would seem to be at variance with your other remarks.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 4:31:18 PM
|
I am sorry, VLM34, but I cannot discern if you are advancing a proposition of your own here. In any case, it appears that you are a strict constructionalist and need a definition of "erotic" before committing to a course of action.
"Erotic" means arousing sexual feelings or desires. (Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College edition)
One could contend that a 5 year-old is incapable of experiencing adult sexual feelings or desires (they're still struggling with Oedipus complexes and the like)and, therefore, not harmed by occasional, inadvertent exposure to nude erotic behavior.
Perhaps an entire volume could be written on the impact growing up in a one-room hovel in Appalachia has on children; but the question at hand is the moral impropriety of children seeing adults involved in nude erotic behavior. Not just five year-olds.
Morality concerns itself with what a society considers to be right or wrong in conduct. One has to determine generally accepted standards of behavior. Sometimes a society's legal code reflects its morality; other times it records only what should be moral.
I aver that it is immoral to allow children to regularly witness nude erotic behavior. However, should the aforementioned inadvertent viewing happen, it is imperative that what the child might have seen be treated as nothing more than, say, having a drink of water. And if questions arise, they should be answered forthrightly and honestly without embarrassment or anger.
Eh, it also goes without saying, that I do not presume to be the morality oracle of the mountain states of the U.S.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 6:48:36 PM
|
Gee Willy offered the following:
> I am sorry, VLM34, but I cannot discern if you are advancing a proposition of your own here.
I'm trying to decode others' positions, few of which hang together.
> In any case, it appears that you are a strict constructionalist and need a definition
> of "erotic" before committing to a course of action.
> "Erotic" means arousing sexual feelings or desires. (Webster's New World Dictionary,
> Second College edition)
So if you get all turned at the sight of a teacup, is the teacup erotic? Is what's erotic to you, erotic to everyone? Are there degrees of erotic? Are they all harmful? Are any of them harmful?
> One could contend that a 5 year-old is incapable of experiencing adult sexual
> feelings or desires (they're still struggling with Oedipus complexes and the like)
> and, therefore, not harmed by occasional, inadvertent exposure to nude erotic
> behavior.
How did "nude" suddenly creep in? There was nothing about "nude" in your definition of "erotic."
The question is, are minors harmed by frequent, wholly advertent exposure to what _you_ think is "erotic" -- just because _you_ get all turned on?
> Perhaps an entire volume could be written on the impact growing up in a one-room
> hovel in Appalachia has on children; but the question at hand is the moral impropriety
> of children seeing adults involved in nude erotic behavior. Not just five year-olds.
No. That's not the question at all, unless you're suddenly switching positions mid-post. You began with "harm" (see your third paragraph) so let's stick with "harm." The question is, "Are children (minors, those under 18) harmed by seeing anyone of any age behave in a way that some would consider to be erotic?
> Morality concerns itself with what a society considers to be right or wrong in conduct.
> One has to determine generally accepted standards of behavior. Sometimes a society's
> legal code reflects its morality; other times it records only what should be moral.
You sure are belaboring morality. I guess you totally abandoned any consideration of harm. And you're messing up your morality argument pretty badly. But I'll save that dissection for another response.
> I aver that it is immoral to allow children to regularly witness nude erotic behavior.
But not clothed erotic behavior? Please review the definition of "erotic" that _you_ provided. You'll find that _your_ definition says nothing about nudity versus clothedness.
If I were to aver that seeing erotic behavior regularly is a necessary part of a child's (minor, one under 18) upbringing, do you have the right to force _me_ to raise _my_ kids according to _your_ morality?
> However, should the aforementioned inadvertent viewing happen, it is imperative that
> what the child might have seen be treated as nothing more than, say, having a drink
> of water. And if questions arise, they should be answered forthrightly and honestly
> without embarrassment or anger.
We agree on that, but I'll go further. If the child (minor, one under 18) sees that which raises your ... uh ...consciousness ... and sees it every day, it should also be treated as a normal in the real world.
> Eh, it also goes without saying, that I do not presume to be the morality oracle of the
> mountain states of the U.S.
You appear to suggest that your view of what is/isn't moral shouldn't be taken as immutable law. That's ever so good of you.
So stop talking about morality, which you seem to agree is in the eye of the beholder, and instead try to show that minors are harmed by seeing what some people might regard as erotic behavior.
I doubt you can do so, but at least you'd have a chance at making a coherent argument.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/13/2009 : 2:20:00 PM
|
VLM, if you find tea cups to be erotic, you have issues beyond the scope of this thread; if you are just trying to be obtuse or to obfuscate the point, enjoy yourself --you're entitled-- but do not be offended if you are ignored. If you are attempting to argue from the exception, your reasoning is fallacious ab initio.
The board indicates that you are from France. Yes, VLM, in the U.S. if your method of "upbringing" involves using your children daily as stars in pornographic movies, I suspect society would force you to change that "upbringing" by taking your children away from and most likely imprisoning you.
"Morality" and "nudity" did not just creep in, VLM, they are principal parts of this discussion thread. Admin began this thread with a question: "Is there something morally wrong with children seeing adults involved in nude erotic behavior?" (Emphasis added.) Thus, clothed erotic behavior is irrelevant per se. So are tea cups. Can you keep on point, VLM?
Let me lead you into understanding how "harm" ties into morality. Reread the definition of morality: ". . . what a society considers to be right or wrong in conduct." It follows quite easily that something "wrong" might also, in some manner, be harmful. See? No switching, same discussion.
Our society, VLM, is the beholder in whose eye morality is determined.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
Randall50
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/13/2009 : 7:25:18 PM
|
The logic behind this argument is beyond my mental powers, but I do have an observation: Children are not erotic beings. Adults are. Aside from the definition of eroticism and what age constitutes a child, I doubt children would recognize erotic behavior. In sexual abuse cases, children often report a "funny" feeling when they are drawn into inappropriate sexual behavior. They cannot identify that feeling. I know this thread is focusing on children "observing" erotic behavior, not "involved" in such behavior. I do not know what difference that would make for a child because I've never heard children conduct a conversation on this level. I doubt they have the capacity to understand. The stakes for children are different and higher than for adults. As I said, I'm really not able to discourse on this subject - anyone will be able to find all kinds of holes in this argument.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 117 |
|
|
|
Charged
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/13/2009 : 8:22:29 PM
|
The age of the said child is really what counts as to whether or not the child understands as one's behavior to be erotic or not. For example, a five year-old may not see two people kissing or hugging each other in the way an 11 year-old boy would. It does not have to do anything with hormones. The 11 year-old may have more exposure to certain behaviors and any derivative as erotic because he watches MTV or VH1 while the 5 year-old is limited to his Disney.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 17 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2009 : 2:04:44 PM
|
Gee whiz, Gee Willy, I must have got your goat. I said nothing about me being turned on by teacups, and I didn't suggest that you were either. However, people do vary as to what turns them on. The teacup example wasn't far fetched. (Do you recall the case of Imelda Marcos' shoes?)
Please answer my questions: Is what's erotic to you, erotic to everyone? Are there degrees of erotic? Are they all harmful? Are any of them harmful? Please give reasons for each answer. Cites would be appreciated. I mean cites of scientific studies. I'm not interested in what Jerry Falwell thinks.
I'm not "from France," although I often post from that country. Next week I'll be in Spain, but anything I post from there won't make me "from Spain." After that, England, but just for a day or two. You should try reading profiles. Mine is quite detailed.
I said nothing about using my (or anyone's) children in pornographic movies, daily or ever. You're making stuff up. BTW, French law and American law are quite similar on what parents may and may not do with their children. I'd say, however, that the French are far less given to hysteria.
Yes, Bossman did begin this thread with a question: "Is there something morally wrong with children seeing adults involved in nude erotic behavior?" The only possible (sane, non-hysterical) answer to that is, "It depends." The answer depends on, among other things, the degree of eroticism and the variety of eroticism. I make a distinction between nude ballroom dancing and a nude five-some engaging in all known varieties of sexual intercourse on the pool table. Perhaps you don't make distinctions of that sort, or at all.
Please answer the questions above.
The answer also depends on _personal_ views of what is/isn't moral. In the United States, and in countries with even greater freedom than in the United States, those personal views vary widely while remaining within the law. As one example, most Americans regard any household or beach/resort nudity as immoral, whether or not kids are present, yet many other Americans don't find that immoral at all. As another example, I'm not aware of any law prohibiting parents (or other adults in a household) from leaving all doors open at all times. The kids see whatever they see, and see closely and frequently whatever interests them. I'm also not aware of any _evidence_ that such children turn out any worse than children raised by body-secretive and/or sex-secretive parents. If you have some _evidence_ on that score, please trot it out.
I suspect I could easily find lots of evidence that kids from open-door families have far fewer hang-ups as teens and as adults. But then, you may regard hang-ups as good, especially sexual hang-ups. You see, morality does vary widely with the individual.
Gee Willy, you say, "Reread the definition of morality: '. . . what a society considers to be right or wrong in conduct.' "
Hmmm. I checked Random House and Webster, and found nothing (not even in the fine print) to support your quote. All the definitions say some variation of, "conformity to the rules of right conduct" but none say a word about "what a _society_ considers to be right or wrong in conduct." Did you make your definition up?
Gee Willy, you then go on to say, "It follows quite easily that something 'wrong' might also, in some manner, be harmful." Sure, it might. Then again, it might not. As long as you keep "might" in that sentence, you've cleverly contrived to say nothing at all.
Gee Willy, you end with a humdinger: "Our society, VLM, is the beholder in whose eye morality is determined." Nope. In the USA alone, we have several thousand Christian religious sects each proclaiming a different "one and only true morality." Several dozen other religions do that too, and a few secular groups get their oar in as well. There are more moralities floating around in the USA than a buxom beaver has hairs.
Now you may say that by "morality" you're talking about the law. But there is no single law in the USA. There are the federal statutes, fifty sets of state statutes, and in many states every county gets to make its own laws on everything from booze to nudity to the allowable hours for hitching a horse on the main street of town.
Each of the thousands of "moral codes" floating around prohibits stuff that's just hunky dory under every one of the thousands of USA legal codes. For example, divorce, homosexual intercourse, working on Sunday (or Saturday), alcohol consumption, fornication (which might lead to dancing), cussing, and so on. And, oh yes, erotic behavior -- whatever on earth that may mean.
We're a (moderately) free society and a highly diverse one. There's no common moral code at all. The law is all we have, and there's not much that's common about that either.
Is there something morally wrong with children seeing adults involved in nude erotic behavior? Some say Yes, and that's fine as long as they focus on their own damn family. Some say No, and that's fine as long as they do the same.
Others, the ones with a brain, say "Damned if I know. It depends on a given individual's moral code and what that particular individual considers erotic, which in turn depends on what turns that particular individual on.
Gee Willy, please answer my questions: Is what's erotic to you, erotic to everyone? Are there degrees of erotic? Are they all harmful? Are any of them harmful?
And, while we're at it, answer this one too: If some individual gets all turned on at the sight of a teacup, does that make teacups erotic?
LMAO !
VLM34
PS: I won't be posting much for the next two and one-half weeks. We're heading west from VLM early next week to Spain, Andorra, then back into France for a week at La Jenny and a day or two at Euronat. We'll get to meet Lucy and her bezzie mate, who will at La Jenny too.
Gee Willy, please note: If I post from Andorra, that doesn't mean I'm "from" there.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
rkitek
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2009 : 2:22:55 PM
|
quote:
I'm not "from France," although I often post from that country. Next week I'll be in Spain, but anything I post from there won't make me "from Spain." After that, England, but just for a day or two. You should try reading profiles. Mine is quite detailed.
I not sure why anyone would think you're from France. Your profile list your location as "Villeneuve Lès Maguelone, Hérault (34)France". I never once thought France was France. I guess people need to pay closer attention.
|
Edited by - rkitek on 08/14/2009 2:24:18 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 109 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2009 : 3:30:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkitek
quote:
I'm not "from France," although I often post from that country. Next week I'll be in Spain, but anything I post from there won't make me "from Spain." After that, England, but just for a day or two. You should try reading profiles. Mine is quite detailed.
I not sure why anyone would think you're from France. Your profile list your location as "Villeneuve Lès Maguelone, Hérault (34)France". I never once thought France was France. I guess people need to pay closer attention.
Did you read the rest of it?
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
rkitek
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2009 : 4:57:14 PM
|
I did this time. First time I nodded off half way through. So you're posting from France, but you're not from France. In the words of the great thinker Radar O'Riley..."ahhh Bach".
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 109 |
|
|
|
VLM34
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2009 : 5:47:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkitek
I did this time. First time I nodded off half way through.
You're funny.
quote:
So you're posting from France, but you're not from France.
Yeah. Born in Iowa, spent most of my life on the west coast. I married a Frenchwoman ever so long ago. Now that we're both retired, she gets her four months a year in France. I kinda like her, so I tag along. She kinda likes me, or so she says, so she serves as Native Guide. The rest of the year, we're either home in Portland or RVing around the warmer half of the USA.
On boards like this one, I have the advantage of having spent a lot of time at beaches and resorts in a dozen countries, and of having a perspective on the USA that most Americans lack. We could learn a lot from others, but we don't want to.
The whole world isn't like Peoria, nor is the whole USA.
|
|
Country: France
| Posts: 154 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/21/2009 : 11:56:23 AM
|
VLM, I'd suggest you hire a research associate if you feel a need to cite studies that support your contentions. But then we've yet to see you contend anything? How easy it is to just tear into the valid opinions of others.
It seems you hold a secret, personal definition of the word, "erotic." Maybe stems from a defensive need to preserve you own private balance? Or you're like Forrest Gump: Erotic is as erotic does! No matter.
The issue in this discussion board concerns the effect that witnessing nude, erotic behavior might have on children. The question, VLM, of what might be erotic is wholly irrelevant! That the behavior in question here is erotic and occurs while the participants are nude is a premise of the discussion. So we need not delve into what "nude" means either.
Defining what is meant by "children" is clearly necessary. I submit that "children" for purposes of this topic should be old enough to have a capacity for sexual feelings or desires to be aroused, yet immature enough that their quality of judgment is, at least, inconsistently able to rationally deal with that arousal. (Yeah, could define a thirty-something? Oops, arguing from the exception . . . sorry.)
Yes, VLM, I agree; there are times when I am annoyed that others would tell me how I should behave. Doesn't matter whether they are right, does it? Too often we seek justice just for us.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
tgg
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/24/2009 : 09:46:19 AM
|
I think it comes down to a cultural thing really. In some cultures and societies parents do couple in the presence of their children, and the children are not mentally or emotionally harmed by it. There is an article by Bill Paris on the Net called "The Cult Of Childhood Repression" in which he talks about the issues surrounding by making sex off-limits for children. However, he is adamant that he does not condone adult-child relationships.
Children are susceptible by both family and cultural attitudes to nudity and sex alike, so if sex is considered a 'taboo' thing for them to think and talk about when they're young they will likely adopt that attitude.
'Fear wraps our bodies in clothing, love allows us to stand naked' - Neale Donald Walsch (Conversations With God 1)
|
|
Country: Australia
| Posts: 66 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Children seeing nude erotic behavior
