Journey of a Nudist: Ryans Blog

[Danee]

From: Journey of a Nudist Blog

Andrea Simoneau as many of you know, is a student and topfree activist in Farmington, Maine. She will be rallying with others on April 30, 2010 in an effort to get people exercising their rights and to try to make topfreedom a little more normal. I support her efforts but I'm going to leave those comments to all the other nudist blogs out there. I want to comment on what others have said about her.


Andrea was live on Coast 93.1fm this morning talking about her rally, and she spoke of the reactions she has received from others. And here's what pissed me off: She says the most negative reactions were from people who consider her actions morally wrong, and those who think her behaviour is bad for the children. As I write this my blood is beginning to boil so let's hope I can stay on track here.

Let me say that I am a Christian and while I don't follow a lot of traditional stuff, I still have faith and believe that we should do good as the big guy wants us to. Well my faith is where I turn for the moral grounds on which I practice nudism. And wouldn't you know it, there's nowhere in the Bible that mentions the human body should be covered, and nowhere in the Bible that mentions the human body is morally wrong to show off. Instead the Bible refers to human bodies as beautiful and wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. I mention the Bible because I don't know where else these people are getting their 'morals' from. Yes there's what your parents teach you, but are you really going to tell me that your parents told you your body is shameful and you should hide it? Did they tell you that the child they created is ugly and should be hidden? I think the confusion lies between morals and societal expectations. If you're telling me that a woman exposing her breasts is morally wrong, I think what you really mean to say is that it's societally wrong, and that is a very different thing. Yes that behaviour is societally wrong, but it should not be morally wrong and that's why people like Andrea are out there trying to change our perceptions and fight for equality. Heck, it's not even about equality, it's about people calling human bodies shameful and that societal expectation needs to change.



And that leads me into the comment about exposing children to toplessness. Are these people seriously going to tell me that seeing a woman's breasts is going to scar a child emotionally? Really are you going to condemn the human breast to that degree? It's a part of your body, for crying out loud, it's like you think you were born with two evil demons on your chest and making reference to them makes them angry. You know what that does to kids? Deep down inside it tells them that their bodies must be hidden, nobody wants to see them, and they should be afraid and ashamed to have people see their bodies. Then comes the negative body concept and then comes another generation of people who hate themselves and their bodies and that leads to a whole host of other problems. Sad. I talk about this time and time again, and I will continue to push this. We are continuing to cater to negative body concepts because we are ashamed of ourselves.

[Cabding]

i cant imagine breasts being damaging to children seeing as an infant thats where they go for food. so then does that mean breastfeeding is morally wrong? if children are exposed to breasts growing up, they just learn it to be another part of the body.

[Nude_not_rude]

I share your fury Danee. The sooner these wowsers are seen as the prudish, selfish people they are, the better the world will be. They just use the term 'morally wrong' because it's a term people recognise and seems to prove their argument without having to actually say why. Same goes for the "think about the kids" catch-cry.

[Bobbert]

...Really are you going to condemn the human breast to that degree? It's a part of your body, for crying out loud, it's like you think you were born with two evil demons on your chest and making reference to them makes them angry. You know what that does to kids? Deep down inside it tells them that their bodies must be hidden, nobody wants to see them, and they should be afraid and ashamed to have people see their bodies. Then comes the negative body concept and then comes another generation of people who hate themselves and their bodies and that leads to a whole host of other problems. Sad. I talk about this time and time again, and I will continue to push this. We are continuing to cater to negative body concepts because we are ashamed of ourselves.

"Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, yet they hide not the unbeautiful.
And though you seek in garments the freedom of privacy you may find in them a harness and a chain.
Would that you could meet the sun and the wind with more of your skin and less of your raiment,
For the breath of life is in the sunlight and the hand of life is in the wind."
-Kahlil  Gibran, The Prophet

[NickUMA10]

What does it say about a country that we get offended by a body part (s) more than police brutality, the insane War on Drugs, etc.?

How free are we?

[enertronik]

"Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, yet they hide not the unbeautiful.
And though you seek in garments the freedom of privacy you may find in them a harness and a chain.
Would that you could meet the sun and the wind with more of your skin and less of your raiment,
For the breath of life is in the sunlight and the hand of life is in the wind."
-Kahlil  Gibran, The Prophet

Amen, love that quote. That entire blog is based upon that kind of thinking.

[Danee]

"Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, yet they hide not the unbeautiful.
And though you seek in garments the freedom of privacy you may find in them a harness and a chain.
Would that you could meet the sun and the wind with more of your skin and less of your raiment,
For the breath of life is in the sunlight and the hand of life is in the wind."
-Kahlil  Gibran, The Prophet

Amen, love that quote. That entire blog is based upon that kind of thinking.

Yes, and to be clear to everyone, that blog, is YOU!  Thank-you for taking the time with it!

[prodigal_son]

I'm going to sound a bit like a 60's hippy here, but everyone just needs to open their minds and realise the obsurdity of it all 

[Cabding]

 

i think it all the time to myself for multiple occasions, "people really just need to chill"

[Eric]

I mention the Bible because I don't know where else these people are getting their 'morals' from.

Morality = social norms. People then justify these norms by looking for them in authoritative sources, such as the Bible. There's a fair bit of psychological research backing this up. But assuming that people are reading the Bible and forming conclusions based on it gets it completely backwards, so trying to argue with them over Biblical interpretations of morality is a fruitless exercise. Normal behavior is moral behavior.

As a simply proof of this, consider that the Bible has remained (for the most part) unchanged for the last 1600 years. Morality, on the other hand, has continually evolved. Slavery was once the norm, and there was ample Biblical justification for it. Abolitionists used the Bible to justify their point of view. These days you'd hardly find someone who didn't think that slavery is one of the most immoral acts imaginable, let alone someone who'd use the Bible to justify practicing it. What changed in that time wasn't the Bible, but social norms, fueled by our evolving sense of humanity. The same thing happened when it came to civil rights, feminism, or any of the other social movements of the 20th century.

Or to get more relevant - we've definitely seen a trend towards greater body freedom. 60 years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a woman to show leg above the knee, or her belly button (or wear bikinis or miniskirts). Premarital sex, divorce, homosexuality - these things are no longer seen as immoral by mainstream America simply because they've become moral. And in the other direction, behaviors which were once acceptable - marital rape, smoking around children, among others - are now thankfully widely viewed as immoral.

So I think she's exactly correct in what she's doing. It's societal expectations that need to change. And the way to go about changing them is by normalizing the behavior, exactly as she's doing - activism, campaigns, practicing it. If we managed to create a generation of people where topfreedom is normal, then it would cease to be immoral in the minds of that generation. And then claim that it was in the Bible (or where ever they think they're getting their morality from) all along.

[Danee]

Ryan wrote an interesting piece this month.  Check him out, at http://nudistjourney.blogspot.com/2010/06/are-children-unsafe-in-naturist-setting.html?zx=3a28f05564db2eb5

Are Children Unsafe in a Naturist Setting?

his is a very important question, and one that was asked of me at one of the local nude swims this weekend; aren't children more at risk of being victims of predators when they are nude?

The argument made was that if you take your children to one of the family nude swims or the World Naked Bike Ride, your child's nudity will encourage the presence of pedophiles. I obviously disagree with that, but only in regards to naturist events, not when it comes to public events. Let's talk about naturist events first.

When you take your child to a genuine naturist event, I argue that they are likely safer than most public events. At nudist resorts or a nude swim, nudists form a bond between each other that creates a very tight security net. Children are always under watchful eye by not only their parents, but by every other genuine naturist there. I don't want to sound like naturists are more paranoid, but they are definitely aware of what is going on around them. Any inappropriate behaviour is always dealt with swiftly and usually ends in the suspect being removed from the premises. I don't think a pedophile would have much of a chance at a real nudist event. I also question how often a pedophile would make their way into such an event in the first place. Most resorts screen people, and the smaller events mean that it's hard for someone with ill intentions to go unnoticed.



Now when it comes to public nude events, I may not be quite so in favour of bringing children there. It's a little sad and unfortunate for those children who have been raised in a naturist environment, but public places like the World Naked Bike Ride are probably not places for children. The only reason I say this is because of the number of textiles staggeringly outnumbers the nudists at an event such as this. The nudist security net cannot possibly be present at such an event, and thus it is probably not the safest place for a child. And while a parent may feel they have an adequate eye on their child, photography is something that cannot be regulated at such an event, and nobody wants to think that nude photos of their child may be used inappropriately. It's too bad this is the case because family friendly naturism is really what we want to portray to the world, and often the WNBR is the only event textiles may see when it comes to naturism.

That all being said, the world has bad people out there, and we all know it. These people might be at the textile beach, they might be at the mall, they might be outside the school! We have to be watchful of our youngsters anywhere we go, maybe even more so in the textile world, since pedophiles can blend in easier there. I think those who believe children are more at risk at a nudist event are still relating nudity to sex, which of course isn't what nudists do. Yes, a pedophile definitely relates nudity to sex, but those intentions are easily easily spotted by a true naturist.



It is important that we continue to keep nudist resorts and events family friendly. Age discrimination only supports the perception that nudity and sex go hand in hand. That of course, is not true and healthy family-friendly nudity is beneficial to both adults and children. Children should be allowed to practice healthy nudity with their families, and families should feel safe when this is practiced in a true naturist setting.

[King Pizza]

Well my faith is where I turn for the moral grounds on which I practice nudism. And wouldn't you know it, there's nowhere in the Bible that mentions the human body should be covered, and nowhere in the Bible that mentions the human body is morally wrong to show off. Instead the Bible refers to human bodies as beautiful and wonderful and nothing to be ashamed of. I mention the Bible because I don't know where else these people are getting their 'morals' from. Yes there's what your parents teach you, but are you really going to tell me that your parents told you your body is shameful and you should hide it? Did they tell you that the child they created is ugly and should be hidden? I think the confusion lies between morals and societal expectations. If you're telling me that a woman exposing her breasts is morally wrong, I think what you really mean to say is that it's societally wrong, and that is a very different thing. Yes that behaviour is societally wrong, but it should not be morally wrong and that's why people like Andrea are out there trying to change our perceptions and fight for equality. Heck, it's not even about equality, it's about people calling human bodies shameful and that societal expectation needs to change.

I completely agree with the above paragraph and many times people confuse morally wrong with culturally/societally wrong. It is certainly the case here.   

[Cabding]

Breasts are not immoral! they are flesh just like on your arms or legs. its just another part of your body that serves its purpose and doesnt shoot daggers at people because they were let out of the bra for a little bit.