Forgiveness Man wrote:

@ Bryce: ACTUALLY, now YOU are the one who needs fact checking. I NEVER said that kids should not be ALLOWED at nude beaches; I said they SHOULDN'T be at nude beaches. There IS a difference. I remember specifically stating that I don't believe legislation should ban it (although a beach itself has every right to).

That's a very wishy-washy (and therefore weak) answer Forgiveness Man. Especially considering the fact that your very FIRST sentence in your very FIRST response was this: I cannot see this being allowed in America. Mixed messages?

But let's say that I actually buy this (for arguments sake), while YOU may not have said that it shouldn't be allowed, NYstyle certainly DID. Because her first response was quote: "With other adults? LOL. No."

Forgiveness Man wrote:

My comments merely spoke to the merits of it, not the legality of it. So right there, your entire argument about me kinda falls apart. (I never will nor will I ever claim to speak for NYStyle) So your entire accusations that I have no facts for my "view" are based on YOUR incorrect assumptions about what I am claiming.

You're not really claiming anything then, other than the fact that you wouldn't take your kid to a nude beach. Good on you! But if you are going to suggest that it is wrong for other people to do so (which you HAVE) then you should be prepaired to back that argument up with something of substance. Just saying that it's wrong "in your opinion" doesn't cut it! That's neither a discussion nor a debate but a declaration. So if (after following NYstyles illogical argument in which she defended your position as part of her own) I inadvertently mixed your position and hers up, I apologize.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

What I was claiming was that it's probably best for kids to not go to nude beaches, not that they shouldn't be allowed there. In other words, it's what I call a Class B opposition. (Kind of like where I stand on premarital sex, although to a lesser degree.) So your entire post is kinda nullified. lol Cause I ain't arguing what you've accused me or arguing, never have.

Then let me put it another way (so that there is no confusion). You are NOT narrow-minded because you don't want to take your own kids to a nude beach. Whatever your reasons are, you have that right and it's based soley off your opinion. You ARE narrow-minded IF you think that A) children shouldn't be allowed at nude beaches OR B) you think that other people are WRONG for choosing to take their children to nude beaches (especially if you can't say why). Many of your arguments have fell along the "B" side and make you out to be narrow-minded. But if neither of these is actually your true position, then I stand corrected and we can move on.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

So I rest my case, this isn't a "fact" issue, it's an opinion issue. Both sides got their "facts" about how their view is good but it's all ultimate a preference. It may even be a "you see what you want to see" case but it's still just opinion. Again, I can't speak for NYStyle. But you did bring my name into it and in regards to what I said, you are just flat out wrong.

And I think you should let your kids go to nude beaches without you.

There weren't really any facts in your point of view but at this point it's irrelevant. I didn't bring your name into this, you brought your own name into this when you insisted that people were accusing you of being narrow-minded for "disagreeing" with them. NYstyle also brought your name into it when she quoted you and agreed with you.

BTW, I think you and I are probably closer to being in "agreement" about this issue than you realize. I think it's perfectly okay if other people choose to bring their kids to nude beaches (although I probably wouldn't). But it's your assesment of the potential "harm" it would do that causes us to disagree. I see nothing wrong with nudity or nudism (regardless of age).

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this:
*** Image Removed ***

------
Chris' note:
Sorry Cap., but I had to remove that. The server people may not be quite so liberal about images featuring nude children, no matter how innocent it is.

I made that comment cause of how America is. And NYStyle is not me. And wishy-washy? Who's trying to be slick? As I said, it's a case of preference at the end of the day.

I never said I was claiming all that much. Some people here just kind of made a lot more out of my view than was actually said. I ain't claiming that such people should be locked up. I never said that kids shouldn't be allowed there. All I said ever was that a beach does have a right to restrict who comes on. As for whether it is wrong, I ain't painting anything with general strokes here. It is NOT narrowminded to think that it's not a place for kids at all. It's just a different opinion. IMO, it's much more narrowminded to go throwing that term around cause people disagree with you. Even moreso if you think somebody is narrowminded because they find a behavior wrong, which I am not even saying I do. I just find your entire point has become less about defending nude beaches and more about attacking people who have any issues with them.

If we're closer in agreement, you got reason to chill. I was merely responding to somebody else's assertion. IMO, the defenders of this have a big double standard when it comes to what constitutes narrowmindedness. Y'all do seriously need to relax. And as for what NYStyle says, I don't even read her posts 98% of the time so I wouldn't know what the heck she's saying.

As for nothing wrong with that, a part of me might even agree. (But I'd advise against posting that pic just cause of possible board rules. ) A part of me just doesn't agree as well. I ain't trying to change anybody, BTW. You seem to be looking for an argument to be honest. I'm more liberal on this issue than you realize, BTW. I do think you need to cut it with the narrowminded accusation and just start discussing with less of an accusatory tone. You'll find that you'll typically get people to talk to you more seriously that way. When you start throwing labels around at me, I lump you in the same boat as others here who can't discuss things without slinging mud.

First of all, why do you keep using the emoticon throughout your entire posts? That's kind of annoying.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

As for whether it is wrong, I ain't painting anything with general strokes here. It is NOT narrowminded to think that it's not a place for kids at all. It's just a different opinion. IMO, it's much more narrowminded to go throwing that term around cause people disagree with you. Even moreso if you think somebody is narrowminded because they find a behavior wrong, which I am not even saying I do. I just find your entire point has become less about defending nude beaches and more about attacking people who have any issues with them.

Seconly, why are you so scared of taking a FIRM stance on something and declare your true feelings about it. It is that you are afraid you will be attacked because of your belief? This topic really isn't a difficult one. Taking kids to nude beaches is either okay or it isn't okay. So which one is it? Why do you have to get all the way down to the technicalities to justify your position? Please look up the definition of "narrow-minded" before you use it again in this discussion. While you're at it look up "close minded" and all related terms. You have a serious problem of using those terms whenever you hear it used against you (without even taking into consideration what the other person is talking about). Basically you're using the terms incorrectly! Finally, I'm not "attacking" anyone based on their opinion of nude beaches (frankly, I couldn't care less what someone elses opinion is of that). I am attacking NYstyle because she in fact attacked me first with profanity. IF I have attacked you, it wasn't because of your position on this topic, it's because you're not very good at justifying your position. The fact that you position is OPINION based, means that it requires MORE justification (in order for anyone to take it seriously), not LESS.

I use it cause I am addicted! I can't stop myself. I'm sorry it's annoying. I try to stop but I just can't. I put up with your quirks. Give me the same courtesy!

Why must I take a firm stance on EVERYTHING? I have things I have FIRM stances on, and then I have things I'm kind of against but not really going to really waste too much time being AGAINST it if you know what I mean.

I'm using the terms as correctly as you are. I know exactly what they mean. I just seem how they often apply most often to those who feel the need to toss them around.

This IS an opinion based topic. As you said, you have no problem with what's in the picture. That is YOUR opinion. This IS an entire opinion topic, and that is all it ever can be unless we start getting into legal questions, which I am not doing. (And as for NYStyle, she ain't me. ) No matter how much you BELIEVE you've justified yourself, all you've really told me is a fancy opinion. (Which is fine with me, BTW.) This is an opinion topic! You have yours, I got mine. And you seem to want to complicate it beyond this, possibly because I think you are addicted to fighting and look for things you can harp on.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I use it cause I am addicted! I can't stop myself. I'm sorry it's annoying. I try to stop but I just can't. I put up with your quirks. Give me the same courtesy!

Touche! Fair enough. :

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Why must I take a firm stance on EVERYTHING? I have things I have FIRM stances on, and then I have things I'm kind of against but not really going to really waste too much time being AGAINST it if you know what I mean.

Then why comment on it at all? What's the point of saying that you're mostly against it (in theory), but at the same time "not really"? It almost seems like a waste of time to me. It also seems like kind of a copout to me. Whenever someone isn't willing to take a firm stance on something it's like they are a "tap dancer" (just waiting to see whether or not their position can be justified or not before deciding to change it just in case it can't be). I really hate it when people dance around like that because it suggests that they just don't want to be wrong. They'll say whatever is necessary to make it seem like their answer was ALWAYS right to begin with. Take a stance on something and if you discover that you are wrong, just admit that you were wrong and change your mind. Don't go back and forth or hide behind technicalities ("well I really only meant that....").

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I'm using the terms as correctly as you are. I know exactly what they mean. I just seem how they often apply most often to those who feel the need to toss them around.

So you think that whenever someone accuses someone else of being narrow-minded it means that they are in fact the narrow-minded one? It's NEVER because the person is actually narrow-minded? The term is always pretty much just completely baseless and comming out of left field?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

This IS an opinion based topic. As you said, you have no problem with what's in the picture. That is YOUR opinion.

What's your problem with the picture may I ask?

I am tempted to do a print screen.

Well I see your nitpicking as a waste of time. I like commenting. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING in life I need a firm stance on. You act like I'm not opinionated on just about everything else. lol Some things in life, a person just doesn't really feel THAT strongly about. As for it being a cop out, hardly so. You just set me up as this big prudish opponent to the issue and me not being that makes your case kind of pointless. I actually find the issue somewhat fascinating, so I don't mind discussing it. But you don't do discussion, do you? You need to win so you always gotta find something to fight over! (And if there isn't something there, just make something up to fight over, like why the person doesn't want to fight. ) Maybe you just gotta realize that sometimes I like a more chilled discussion than you offer.

I wouldn't say WHENEVER! It's just merely an observation I've noticed quite often.

You may ask! Whether I will answer or not is a different story. (Or I might only answer in a PM since I did not actually claim that HERE. ) The point of my sentence was that YOUR opinion is that it's okay. Whether I agreed or not, it'd still be an opinion. That's what this is, a topic of opinions.

I am really not into nudity myself, except in the shower. I have never gone to a nude beach, and I wouldn't take kids there. I don't think kids should be at a nude beach.

But I also believe in the parents of children doing anything they want when it comes to the care and raising of their own children, so they can go ahead and take them to nude beaches if they want to.

Anything within the law, go right ahead. Just don't make me pay for it.

Shale wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this:

*** Image Removed ***

------
Chris' note:
Sorry Cap., but I had to remove that. The server people may not be quite so liberal about images featuring nude children, no matter how innocent it is.

How about a link to an innocuous Nudist Site that does not send out XXX cookies?

When it comes to images that feature nude children, I'm going to have to say none whatsoever; the point is going to have to be argued without a visual aid. This goes beyond the conversation at hand, and falls square into the realm of server rules and legalities.

Chris wrote:

When it comes to images that feature nude children, I'm going to have to say none whatsoever; the point is going to have to be argued without a visual aid. This goes beyond the conversation at hand, and falls square into the realm of server rules and legalities.

Point taken (by me).

I think the point I was making still stands even without the imagery.

Thank you Chris for removing the link. I am here in work, and if I had opened it (I didn't) I might have been in some trouble. Zero tolerance, you know.

Perhaps if anyone is going to post any link, if it might contain matter that could be troublesome, they could add a warning. Nothing elaborate, just 'explicit image'.

DanaShelbyChancey wrote:

I am really not into nudity myself, except in the shower. I have never gone to a nude beach, and I wouldn't take kids there. I don't think kids should be at a nude beach.

But I also believe in the parents of children doing anything they want when it comes to the care and raising of their own children, so they can go ahead and take them to nude beaches if they want to.

Anything within the law, go right ahead. Just don't make me pay for it.

Kinda what I've been saying. Not looking to punish, just speaking to general wisdom. People get too defensive of things not really under attack.

I knew Chris would have to remove said image. Server rules afterall.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I think there is a difference between infantilizing them and setting rules. Following rules is a part of growing up after all.

People who practice nudism would unlikely have a problem with it, so there'd be little point in asking them. I am asking those in this thread who support kids going to nude beaches. I am trying to see if they'd put their money where their mouth is and let their kid go, without them there as supervisor.

Well, my "kids" are 19 and 16, and I think they are perfectly capable of making the decision as to whether or not to go to a nude beach. I think you need to clarify what age of kids you're talking about, because as I said, going to the mall and going to a beach entail different levels of safety, clothed or not.

And who in the world ever suggested that there should be no rules? Where's the straw-man smiley....?

captainbryce wrote:

First of all, why do you keep using the emoticon throughout your entire posts?

Kind of looks like someone trying to toss a salad or perform cunnilingus.

^^^^^^The answer is No loverboy!

2xy wrote:

Well, my "kids" are 19 and 16, and I think they are perfectly capable of making the decision as to whether or not to go to a nude beach. I think you need to clarify what age of kids you're talking about, because as I said, going to the mall and going to a beach entail different levels of safety, clothed or not.

And who in the world ever suggested that there should be no rules? Where's the straw-man smiley....?

Well, I hardly think 19-year-olds are really included in the "kids" debate. Even by 16, most don't really see them as "kids." So if your kids are that old, they're kind of already a bit older than the scope of this thread.

I didn't say somebody suggested it. I was merely commenting on the "deciding for themselves" bit, in the context of younger kids at least.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well, I hardly think 19-year-olds are really included in the "kids" debate. Even by 16, most don't really see them as "kids." So if your kids are that old, they're kind of already a bit older than the scope of this thread.

Then perhaps you should narrow down for us the age range you are talking about. What age do YOU consider to be a "kid" (as it pertains to your question)?

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well, I hardly think 19-year-olds are really included in the "kids" debate. Even by 16, most don't really see them as "kids." So if your kids are that old, they're kind of already a bit older than the scope of this thread.

Then perhaps you should narrow down for us the age range you are talking about. What age do YOU consider to be a "kid" (as it pertains to your question)?

What age does the thread starter consider to be a kid?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

What age does the thread starter consider to be a kid?

You tell me? Since you seem to be the one who knows what age/ages are within "the scope of this thread". The OP didn't define a specific age and didn't set any restrictions to the question, YOU did. The "legal" definition in the US varies somewhere between 18 and 21 usually.

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

What age does the thread starter consider to be a kid?

You tell me? Since you seem to be the one who knows what age/ages are within "the scope of this thread". The OP didn't define a specific age and didn't set any restrictions to the question, YOU did. The "legal" definition in the US varies somewhere between 18 and 21 usually.

The connotation of "kid" typically excludes those over 18 since they are legally adults by then. That was my main point. This isn't about adults going to nude beaches. 15-18, I consider "minors" but not really "kids" anymore since they are high school age. If they're not yet at high school age, they're still widely considered "kids" and IMO, they'd be the ones I'd be curious to know. (Although I obviously don't expect people to let kids under 10 go anywhere together, hence my prior exclusion of kids who aren't allowed by themselves anywhere)

I actually thought of another question I'm even more curious to hear the answer to. If you'd let your kid go to a nude beach(with or without you), would you allow them to be featured nude in a photograph like the one Bryce posted? He sees nothing wrong with that, so I'd be curious to know if y'all would go for your kids being one of the future representatives of "good nudity" in such a picture. Yes, I like coming up with these weird questions. I like asking questions like this!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The connotation of "kid" typically excludes those over 18 since they are legally adults by then. That was my main point. This isn't about adults going to nude beaches. 15-18, I consider "minors" but not really "kids" anymore since they are high school age. If they're not yet at high school age, they're still widely considered "kids" and IMO, they'd be the ones I'd be curious to know. (Although I obviously don't expect people to let kids under 10 go anywhere together, hence my prior exclusion of kids who aren't allowed by themselves anywhere)

Most "kids" start HS at 14 years old. If you are excluding high school aged "kids" AND "kids" under the age of 10 (who can't go anywhere by themselves) then I must assume by "kid" you mean any minor between the ages of 11 and 13 years old right?

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I actually thought of another question I'm even more curious to hear the answer to. If you'd let your kid go to a nude beach (with or without you), would you allow them to be featured nude in a photograph like the one Bryce posted? He sees nothing wrong with that, so I'd be curious to know if y'all would go for your kids being one of the future representatives of "good nudity" in such a picture. Yes, I like coming up with these weird questions. I like asking questions like this!

I think your question is rather futile and pointless due to the fact that so far with the exception of Shale, nobody here is a nudist or from a country where nudity is common and not taboo. That being the case, most people here were raised with clothes being the norm, so it's unlikely that anyone else would answer affirmatively to this question. So in reality, what is the relevance of this question?

It's highly unlikely that my kids would have been at any large body of water, unsupervised, between the ages of 11-13...even though they had quite a bit of freedom to go other places on their own if they desired. Swimming is dangerous.

^^^^Well, "unsupervised" is likely a bad term; I apologize. It's more like unsupervised by YOU, their parent. Most beaches that have high numbers of people have more than enough lifeguards with proper training to help them out of a dangerous situation. (Now I don't know if you also have that training cause I don't know you. But assuming that a parent doesn't have the training a lifeguard would, they'd be pretty much useless should their child come into a dangerous situation in the ocean, in which case the presence of several trained lifeguards is ample supervision for their safety.) And with that in mind, it returns us to the question at hand.

captainbryce wrote:

Cut for space.

Well, 14-year-olds also aren't yet at high school at age 14. It's a bridge age, I lump it with the other group. So 14 and under is to me, easily called a "kid."

The relevance of the question is merely to question those who think it'd be okay to bring kids to a nudist beach. If we're going to put down American culture for it's view towards clothes, we should be prepared to embrace alternatives. Thus I am merely seeing where everyone's "line" is in regards to this issue. Afterall, if you see NOTHING wrong with that picture you posted, why not let your kids be in one if they wanted to be? It's not futile cause I am not expecting affirmative answers. Of course NUDISTS would answer in the affirmative; but what about those non-nudists fighting with me about how right it is to be one? That's who I wanna see answer!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The relevance of the question is merely to question those who think it'd be okay to bring kids to a nudist beach. If we're going to put down American culture for it's view towards clothes, we should be prepared to embrace alternatives. Thus I am merely seeing where everyone's "line" is in regards to this issue. Afterall, if you see NOTHING wrong with that picture you posted, why not let your kids be in one if they wanted to be? It's not futile cause I am not expecting affirmative answers. Of course NUDISTS would answer in the affirmative; but what about those non-nudists fighting with me about how right it is to be one? That's who I wanna see answer!

Basically let me put it like this: I for one don't know of any "nude beaches" in the United States. Maybe they exist, but I've never heard of one. The only place I've ever seen nude beaches before were in Spain (and I've heard they exist in other parts of Europe too). That being said, if we were in Europe where the culture embraced nudity and it was not considered taboo, then I'd feel perfectly comfortable if my 11-14 year old "kids" decided to go to the nude beach, so long as they were going with a group of people (not alone) and that the beach was safe. I simply doubt that they would WANT to go to a nude beach being that they would likely be raised in America with a greater sense of modesty when it came to nudity, but the decision would ultimately be theirs. I don't think they should be barred from going to a nude beach just because they are 11-14 and in principle I see nothing wrong with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with other peoples kids being on a nude beach if that's what they chose to do.

^^^^^I find it funny you were making a big deal of my comment made way back but have just basically acknowledged my point. lol

I actually do believe there are a few scattered nude beaches in the US. Don't know their child policy though.

Well wrong or not, I haven't said that other people's kids should be barred from them. So you'd LET them go if they wanted to, what about appearing in pictures nude? If they wanted to do that, would that be okay? (Again, I understand that they probably wouldn't WANT to do it. It's a hypothetical about what you'd allow so what they WANT in REALITY, isn't really relevant to the question.) There's nothing wrong with it. So it must be all good!