Nystyle709 wrote:

LMAO! You are fucking hilarious. You will never feel remorse because you will never make me look like an "idiot". You can TRY though dear.

No one needs to try to do that.

Shale wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:

LMAO! You are fucking hilarious. You will never feel remorse because you will never make me look like an "idiot". You can TRY though dear.

No one needs to try to do that.

You're right. Because you can't.

Fall back Pops.

*grabs popcorn

American society has always been ashamed of nudity because they see it as something only linked with sexual activity. I don't see how going to a nude beach is any more inappropriate than giving your child a toy soldier to play with.

^^^^Always? I don't believe so. I actually see it as a modern development.

Disagreed. Please review Puritan history.

Puritans aren't the only people of American history. I didn't see this big taboo on nudity until recent decades from what I can see. I'm not saying were we all nudists but nonsexual nudity was clearly not the taboo it is now.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Admittedly, I didn't read all of the post. You tend to talk a lot and it looks so convoluted so I skimmed through it. My bad. IYSS.

You DIDN'T read all the post! Surprise, surprise!

Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

I'm not confused about that at all. Of course they are different mentally. My question to you is "what does that have to do with NUDITY, or NUDISM/NATURISM?"

Uhhh, everything.

Okay. Mind you, this is pretty much a non-answer (and thus pointless) but, whatever!

Nystyle709 wrote:

Making nudity a taboo is hardly what has a negative effect on children's self-esteem. And quite frankly, I'm positive it's not one of the many reasons that does. Since you don't have a problem with children and nudity with adults, it seems to me like you're *trying* to project that fact like it's the sole reason children have self-esteem issues.

Well first let me reassure you that I'm not doing that. I never said or suggested that it was the SOLE reason for self esteem issues. Children can in fact have self esteem issues for MANY varried reasons. But we aren't talking about mental self esteem or social self esteem or anything else. Right now, we are only concerned with the type of self esteem that revolves around "physical beauty" and in how they view their bodies. Everything else, we can throw out of the discussion. With that in mind, many kids DO in fact grow up with this type of self esteem issue (girls more noticably than boys) due to the fact that we live in a sexualized society that objectifies women's and men's bodies. They are "too skinny", "too fat", "too ugly", or whatever the case may be. The association between nudity and sex in our society is what makes nudity taboo and that contributes to the physical beauty self esteem problems that are common in young people (whether you BELIEVE it or not). All you have to do is talk to teenagers about this and they usually confirm it. If nudity wasn't so taboo and we didn't objectify men and women the way we do, you wouldn't have those issues nearly as often.

Nystyle709 wrote:

All because mommy and daddy didn't let them join a nudist camp. Society doesn't make it a taboo in the traditional sense. I have plenty naked baby pictures. I've seen plenty of parents and grandparents coo and show off embarrassing naked pictures of their kids when they were babies. When they get old enough to understand their genitalia and their body parts, that's when parents decide that it's not cute anymore and they need to be responsible for their bodies. There is nothing wrong with not being comfortable with having your goods on display.

The argument from many nudists and naturists is that YES THERE IS something wrong with that. That's the whole problem right there. Naked pictures of babies is something totally different. The reason why that is not taboo (and actually it depends on who you ask) is because we don't sexualize babies in such a way. Children usually develop a sense of "modesty" right around the age when parents start enforcing it. And that pretty much PROVES that it's when nudity becomes taboo that people develop a sense that it is something sexual. And since they are shielded from it ever sense, any physical issues that person has concerning their own body is allowed to grow in that persons psyche.

Nystyle709 wrote:

And there are absolutely NO qualms with parents not wanting to subject their children to that. I don't think children should be naked with adults because they are impressionable and BECAUSE they are children, I don't feel they are mentally capable of handling it. I also don't think children should be naked around adults they DON'T KNOW for the sake of being naked.

That's still not really a good argument. Firstly, there ARE qualms about it from the nudists/naturists. Yes children are impressionable but why don't you think they are capable of handling nudity? The nudist/naturists have in so many ways PROVEN that they are by living the lifestyle that they do. So where is your evidence that they are not? If you disagree with the nudists then that's fine, but you can't use the argument that it's because "the nudists are wrong" unless you can prove that in some kind of way. So far all you've said is that you don't think/feel that children are capable of handling it. But you haven't provided any justification for that point of view and if you can't do that, then you can't say that nudists are wrong either.

Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

"Exposing" them to wearing clothes isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not exposing them to NUDITY is harmful at all, and you've yet to demonstrate that.

I don't need to demonstrate anything because I didn't say it did. You're ASSuming again. All I said it was inappropriate. Yes, I didn't give a reason as to why I said it. I don't have to.

You said EXPOSING THEM TO CLOTHES. If you read the topic at hand, you'll see that it's talking about EXPOSING CHILDREN TO NUDITY! So I'm not assuming anything at all. But you're right, you don't have to give a reason for your answer. Your lack of reason is in fact an answer for itself. If you could justify your position you would have by now. In other words, if you choose not to give a reason for your position while other people do, then you have what's called an "unreasonable argument"!

Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here because your sentence construction really doesn't make any sense (but I'll do my best to intepret it).

LOL, and you wanna call me condescending? Taking shots at people is supposedly my job, lol.

Well I'll NEVER start a fight, but I am inclined to engage in one once someone else starts. The fact is, YOU are the first person on here to use profanity or be condescending to someone. And now that you have, I feel free and justified to be just as condescending towards you in this discussion. You can't blame me for making an otherwise civil discussion into a heated, personal shouting match when YOU are the first person who curses people out.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Well, you can do that in your house.

Above sentence has a predicate and a noun. Above sentence has an interjection, above sentence has a comma, which joined said predicate and noun. Above sentence has a transitive verb. Above sentence used the correct pronoun "your" instead of "you're" I believe that makes it a complete sentence.

Very good. Unfortunately, that ISN'T the sentence that I was referring to. The sentence that made you sound like a ratard was this one: "I'm not banning nudists camps/colonies or whatever the hell they and I'm saying you're wrong for doing it are but my children will not be participants." Sorry, but this was NOT a coherent sentence!

Nystyle709 wrote:

I'm not banning nudists camps/colonies or whatever the hell they and I'm saying you're wrong for doing it are but my children will not be participants.

I should have injected the word "not" between the words "I'm" and "saying" and "are" in between the words "they" and "and" but again, it was a typo that I didn't bother to go back and fix.

No kidding! Regardless, it was unintellegeble (which was my point) but thank you for recognizing your obvious mistakes.

[quote="Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

The fact that you see relatively simple arguments as "psudo-intellectual babble" in my opinion means that you aren't really capable of defending your argument on the same intellectual level as I am.

For the most part. An opinion isn't a fact. And for the record, I'm fully capable of defending my argument with someone I had to give a third grade English lesson to.

Sorry my dear, but you haven't educated me in the least. All you did was acknowledge that YOU FUCKED UP under the guise of making it appear that I am stupid for not understanding your incoherent sentence. It's a strawman argument! You write a sentence in ratard language, I criticize it, then you try to "educate" me on grammar (which has nothing to do with your obvious errors). In your mind, THAT somehow justifies your assertion that you educated me when in reality you just wrote down something that didn't make any sense and tried to fix it by accusing me of being stupid. You are not smarter than me! And the sooner you figure that out the better off you'll be in future debates!

Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

I'll simply state this in the simplest terms I can think of:

1) Nobody has accused anybody of being narrow-minded because you have a "difference of opinion". They did it because you displayed a NARROW-MINDED point of view (one that isn't capable of thinking outside your little box).

By saying it's inappropriate? LOL!

First (to remind you of what's already been said), Dario Western indirectly accused Forgiveness Man and yourself of being narrow-minded based on the fact that me, Shale and Dario ALL gave specific reasons why the negative perception of nudity is prepetuated in our society and why children can grow up in a nude environment with no negative consequences. We even went so far as to describe how it could be beneficial citing specific examples (known nudist colonies). Forgiveness Man's response to that was this:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you. Surprised this topic is back up.

^^THIS^^ is a non-argument because that's not even what happened! And:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

And this IS narrow-minded considering what's ALREADY been said. Have a difference of agreement all you want, but if your difference of agreement is absent of any rationale and fails to contradict the logic of what's already been brought up, then its NARROW-MINDED. You are either failing to acknowledge what's been said, failing to accept what's been said, or failing to comprehend what's been said. There is a rationale for Shale and Dario's arguments because it was given in their explaination. There is no rational behind your argument or Forgiveness Man's argument (other than to say you disagree or you "feel" like one way or another). Those are narrow-minded arguments.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I injected "boners" into the conversation because that's one of the reasons why I don't feel it's appropriate for children and adults to be naked together. You asked for a reason, there it is. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt (damn, I'm 0-2 with this already) but hey, you didn't even ask.

A) I shouldn't have to ask for your rationale because that's what the point of the debate is (to assertain the reasons for the differing opinions), and B) your rationale uses circular logic. The reason you mentioned "boners" is because you feel children and adults together is inappropriate, and the reason you feel that children and adults together is inappropriate is because of "boners". Between your last 3 responses, that's basically exactly what you said in so many words!

Nystyle709 wrote:

I believe that since it's entirely possible for a grown man to have a hard on (that's an erection in lay terms by the way) at any given moment, my young, impressionable child, male or female, doesn't need to be a witness to that.

You're right, that situation is entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that other people might not believe that it's necessary to sheild children from something that is (according to nudists) very unlikely to happen in a nudist colony to begin with. It's also entirely possible that witnessing that would have absolutely no harmful effects on a child whatsoever. And even more to the point, nobody is asking you to bring your children to a nudist colony or a nude beach. The OP question was should they be ALLOWED at nude beaches (as in legally). And unless you are prepaired to say that because YOU feel its inappropriate because of boners, and because YOU wouldn't take your kids to one that laws should ban ALL children from nude beaches, it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I injected "rags" because if being nude 24/7 is what a "nudist" typical does, then a woman who is menstruating must be dripping red all day long in the name of being a 'purist'. That was my own little tongue in cheek moment and sly attempt at humor.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Who told you an opinion required an explanation?

YOU DID, the minute you offered an explanation for your first comment AND when you required an explanation for the opposing opinions. Recall:
"Sometimes 'being liberal' needs to have its boundaries. No one is saying that children shouldn't have esteem or feel bad or awkward about being naked." In addition, the typical rules of "debate" also tell me that an "opinion" requires an explaination because if there is no explanation then that opinion cannot be justified and if your opinion is unjustifiable, then why should anyone take it seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

BTW, if you don't trust wikipedia I'd be happy to provide you with an alternate source that deals with the art of debate! Pretty sure you'll come away with the same thing though.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Cuss? You remind of me of Granny. Bless her heart, lol. How many times I gotta tell you people? I like cursing. It's apart of my everyday vernacular. Adds charm and quite a bit of emphasis and effect. Which will grab your attention the most? "I'm going to knock you out" or "I'm going to knock you the FUCK out"?

I don't know if you realize it yet, but you didn't come off as very "charming". You actually came off sounding like an ass because your comments were initially insulting. So you get zero points for tact. The point I am making is that I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable, rational debate without "name calling". When someone else crosses that line, then all civil standards go out the window as far as I'm concerned.

Nystyle709 wrote:

captainbryce wrote:

and you are the first person to respond with a condescending attitude.

Not always. You do a good job of it yourself. Since you think you know every fucking thing.

I don't think I know everything. I just think I know more than you. And yes, I am being condescending NOW, because YOU started it. The key words in my sentence was "FIRST", not "ALWAYS".

Nystyle709 wrote:

You will never feel remorse because you will never make me look like an "idiot".

Cause THAT makes a lot of sense.

Nystyle709 wrote:

You can TRY though dear.

Well in this case I didn't have to. You took care of that yourself!

^^^^^There is NO rationale behind their arguments either because it ALL stems down to what the individual is most comfortable with. What has ALREADY been said is merely OPINION! That is ALL this discussion can EVER be. You either think it's a good idea or you don't, and why you do doesn't really make much of a difference because it's just opinion at the end of the day. Calling people narrow-minded for disagreeing is just narrow-mindedness itself. (And yes, I did get that vibe from Dario's post) So yes, I was going by what HAS been said.

We can argue all day back and forth but this isn't an issue that can really rely on many facts. It's all a bunch of hypotheticals and opinions. Therefore the fact that people get so touchy about it is actually kind of, what's the word...I'll say funny to be nice!

captainbryce wrote:

[quote="Nystyle709 wrote:

For the most part. An opinion isn't a fact. And for the record, I'm fully capable of defending my argument with someone I had to give a third grade English lesson to.

Sorry my dear, but you haven't educated me in the least. All you did was acknowledge that YOU FUCKED UP under the guise of making it appear that I am stupid for not understanding your incoherent sentence. It's a strawman argument! You write a sentence in ratard language, I criticize it, then you try to "educate" me on grammar (which has nothing to do with your obvious errors). In your mind, THAT somehow justifies your assertion that you educated me when in reality you just wrote down something that didn't make any sense and tried to fix it by accusing me of being stupid. You are not smarter than me! And the sooner you figure that out the better off you'll be in future debates!

I made TYPOS. I type fast. That's why that ONE sentence was grammatically incorrect. Like I said before, if that's the one you had a problem with...then that's the one that you should've highlighted and asked me to elaborate instead of trying to insult my intelligence and imply that the whole paragraph was grammatically incorrect. You think you're slick? LOL. I'm slicker. And you are in NO position to criticize someone of making such typos because you (and everybody else) does the same exact thing. So yes dear you WERE stupid for that. And I'm not accusing you of it. I saying it.

Nystyle709 wrote:

By saying it's inappropriate? LOL!

First (to remind you of what's already been said), Dario Western indirectly accused Forgiveness Man and yourself of being narrow-minded based on the fact that me, Shale and Dario ALL gave specific reasons why the negative perception of nudity is prepetuated in our society and why children can grow up in a nude environment with no negative consequences. We even went so far as to describe how it could be beneficial citing specific examples (known nudist colonies). Forgiveness Man's response to that was this:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^IMO, it's much more narrowminded to call somebody narrowminded merely for disagreeing with you. Surprised this topic is back up.

^^THIS^^ is a non-argument because that's not even what happened!

Okay. But I do agree with that the statement that it's narrowminded to call somebody else narrowminded simply because they don't agree with you. That declaration is true. Like I told you before, if he didn't adhere to that statement, I don't care. It's still true.

And:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It's hardly narrow-minded to feel kids should not be going to a nudist beach. But we all thing we got monopolies on open-mindedness, don't we?

And this IS narrow-minded considering what's ALREADY been said. Have a difference of agreement all you want, but if your difference of agreement is absent of any rationale and fails to contradict the logic of what's already been brought up, then its NARROW-MINDED. You are either failing to acknowledge what's been said, failing to accept what's been said, or failing to comprehend what's been said.

I don't know what was said. Didn't I tell you I didn't read the thread? You know what's funny? That you assume that because I actually agreed with FM with that one specific statement, that I must encompass all and every declaration that he made in said thread. It's been made well aware that me and him have different views on just about everything. So I co-signed him on one post and all of sudden.....me and him are buddies. LOL, that boy gets under your skin that much huh? (Good job FM!)
There is a rationale for Shale and Dario's arguments because it was given in their explaination. There is no rational behind your argument or Forgiveness Man's argument (other than to say you disagree or you "feel" like one way or another). Those are narrow-minded arguments.

Which is exactly what I did. Disagreeing is narrow minded? Mmkay.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I injected "boners" into the conversation because that's one of the reasons why I don't feel it's appropriate for children and adults to be naked together. You asked for a reason, there it is. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt (damn, I'm 0-2 with this already) but hey, you didn't even ask.

A) I shouldn't have to ask for your rationale because that's what the point of the debate is (to assertain the reasons for the differing opinions),

That's ascertain. Okay man. Here's my opinion, for the record: Children shouldn't be allowed at nude beaches that are for adults. I think it's inappropriate for naked children and adults, especially strangers, to congregate together. The reason why I feel this way is because I don't think children are mentally capable of handling it. And I personally wouldn't want my child exposed to "boners" and other sexual related things that are associated with nudity. I feel it's best for them to wait until they are older. My reason for feeling this way? I just do. If you feel differently, no problem. I disagree. My opinion won't change.
and B) your rationale uses circular logic. The reason you mentioned "boners" is because you feel children and adults together is inappropriate,
I said that, lol.
and the reason you feel that children and adults together is inappropriate is because of "boners". Between your last 3 responses, that's basically exactly what you said in so many words!

Same thing applies IMO.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I believe that since it's entirely possible for a grown man to have a hard on (that's an erection in lay terms by the way) at any given moment, my young, impressionable child, male or female, doesn't need to be a witness to that.

You're right, that situation is entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that other people might not believe that it's necessary to sheild children from something that is (according to nudists) very unlikely to happen in a nudist colony to begin with. It's also entirely possible that witnessing that would have absolutely no harmful effects on a child whatsoever.
That's great. I still feel it's inappropriate. I don't have to raise other people's children.

And even more to the point, nobody is asking you to bring your children to a nudist colony or a nude beach. The OP question was should they be ALLOWED at nude beaches (as in legally). And unless you are prepaired to say that because YOU feel its inappropriate because of boners, and because YOU wouldn't take your kids to one that laws should ban ALL children from nude beaches, it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

They shouldn't be allowed at adult nude beaches. Because they are children. Yep, I would be in favor of that law. Simply because they are children. Children aren't supposed to be allowed at places that are mandated for adults.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I injected "rags" because if being nude 24/7 is what a "nudist" typical does, then a woman who is menstruating must be dripping red all day long in the name of being a 'purist'. That was my own little tongue in cheek moment and sly attempt at humor.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Who told you an opinion required an explanation?

YOU DID, the minute you offered an explanation for your first comment AND when you required an explanation for the opposing opinions. Recall:
"Sometimes 'being liberal' needs to have its boundaries. No one is saying that children shouldn't have esteem or feel bad or awkward about being naked." In addition, the typical rules of "debate" also tell me that an "opinion" requires an explaination because if there is no explanation then that opinion cannot be justified and if your opinion is unjustifiable, then why should anyone take it seriously?

Facts are meant to be taken seriously. Not opinions. I made a declaration and kept it moving. It wasn't meant to entice anyone into debating with me about it. Because quite frankly.....I.don't.care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

BTW, if you don't trust wikipedia I'd be happy to provide you with an alternate source that deals with the art of debate! Pretty sure you'll come away with the same thing though.

No need. I didn't request nor did I bother to read that information.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Cuss? You remind of me of Granny. Bless her heart, lol. How many times I gotta tell you people? I like cursing. It's apart of my everyday vernacular. Adds charm and quite a bit of emphasis and effect. Which will grab your attention the most? "I'm going to knock you out" or "I'm going to knock you the FUCK out"?

I don't know if you realize it yet, but you didn't come off as very "charming".
Really? Tsk. I need to revv it up a little then.
You actually came off sounding like an ass because your comments were initially insulting.
For real?
So you get zero points for tact.

I've never had tact.
The point I am making is that I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable, rational debate without "name calling".

Me too!
When someone else crosses that line, then all civil standards go out the window as far as I'm concerned.

Permission to be facetious?

Nystyle709 wrote:

Not always. You do a good job of it yourself. Since you think you know every fucking thing.

I don't think I know everything. I just think I know more than you. And yes, I am being condescending NOW, because YOU started it. The key words in my sentence was "FIRST", not "ALWAYS".

Keyword. And it's okay. You can be condescending if you like. I can take it as well as dish.

Nystyle709 wrote:

You will never feel remorse because you will never make me look like an "idiot".

Cause THAT makes a lot of sense.

You said you'd have no remorse about making me feel like an idiot. I'm telling you you will never have any because you will never do so. What's so hard about that?

Nystyle709 wrote:

You can TRY though dear.

Well in this case I didn't have to. You took care of that yourself!

Lame. Clearly you could've came up with sometthing better than that, lol.

Question I thought of that I might've asked before. Those who ARE in favor of kids at nude beaches, would you let your child go there(naked, of course) unsupervised? (Assuming they can go somewhere else, like school, the mall, or the store unsupervised already)

Children at school are not (or shouldn't be, anyway) unsupervised. There are people there in charge of them. My kids could go to the store/mall unsupervised by the time they were 12 or so. I wouldn't let them go to any beach unsupervised at that age. Going to the mall and swimming in the ocean are two very different activities that need different levels of supervision.

White as I am, I was raised by my mother and an Asian stepdad in a largely Asian culture. The Japanese attitude towards nudity is quite different, and nobody made a big deal about being naked in my family. Communal bathing was common; my grandparents had a huge ofuro (Japanese hot tub) and we would all shower and then soak in the tub.

I hope Americans eventually relax about the human body. It's this same attitude towards nudity that causes mothers to be harassed for daring to feed their infants in public. For a culture who spends bazillions a year on porn, we sure do have some hangups, eh?

It's been said time and again that children are most often molested by people who they know and trust. The "creepy guy" at the nude beach is probably just an aging hippy who wants to get some sunshine on his ass-cheeks. It's really Uncle Joe or Cousin Bill you have to worry about.

^^^^Let's assume they weren't going in the ocean. They were just going to get a tan. They can go alone then? And I didn't mean supervised AT school as much as going to school. I know kids are supervised AT school but not always when GETTING there. Going to the mall and beach aren't all that different for an older child in terms of needed supervision, IMO.

And maybe the million a year on porn is the reason Americans got so many hangups. Maybe if people weren't so obsessed with porn, there'd be less taboo on nudity. Of course, we can't say that just because one culture does something that all cultures should just suck it up and accept that. I am sure there are plenty of American cultural trends that Japan would consider equally as weird as Americans would consider communal bathing.

Anyway, I'm curious as to the other responses my question may get. I'll think of more to spice it up after I get more satisfactory answers.

It may have been said but "most often" doesn't necessarily mean much in the grande scheme of things. Besides, it isn't as if pedos are the only motivation for not taking kids to nude beaches.

I think that a kid who is old enough and capable enough to travel to the beach on his own is capable of making the decision as to whether to go to a nude beach. A child that old and capable should also, by that age, know to be cautious with strangers and what constitutes inappropriate behavior. However, I feel that kids are capable of much more than most Americans give them credit for.

Of course, your question also paints nude beaches as dangerous dens of debauchery, which I don't believe they are. I'm answering your question based on the way you're asking it.

I tend to think that it's American hangups which cause the spending on porn, and not the other way around.

Well, it's less about what kids are "capable" of doing. (Although there's a lot of debate, I'm sure, about the adolescent's decision making capabilities)

I never called it a dangerous den of anything. I merely seeing if people would want their kids at a nude environment if they weren't there to supervise it(again, assuming they don't already supervise their kids everywhere else as is). That is all.

Nah, the porn causes the hangups. If there wasn't such a sexual obsession, people wouldn't be so touchy at the site of nudity in a nonsexual context.(As has been the case in the past) The porn extremism breeds the uptight nature of the modern world. We used to take pictures of every baby naked on a hug and now you can get arrested for taking a picture of your kid getting out of the tub with a towel around their waist. The rise of porn, IMO, has made people touchier about it.

Of course the adolescent brain is still developing, but I do think that many of the poor decisions adolescents make are because people infantilize them for too long. I've known 12-13 year old kids who still aren't allowed to cross the street alone. No joke.

I think that in order to get an honest answer to your question, you would have to target people who practice nudism. People who don't frequent nude beaches/camps are going to have trouble wrapping their brains around their children lounging at a nude beach. My kids would have no desire to go to a nude beach, so my opinions are merely theoretical ones.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^^There is NO rationale behind their arguments either because it ALL stems down to what the individual is most comfortable with. What has ALREADY been said is merely OPINION! That is ALL this discussion can EVER be. You either think it's a good idea or you don't, and why you do doesn't really make much of a difference because it's just opinion at the end of the day. Calling people narrow-minded for disagreeing is just narrow-mindedness itself.

No it isn't (for the reasons already given). But I'll try to explain it yet AGAIN. One side (you and NYstyle) have given your opinion that children should not be allowed at nude beaches. Your opinion wasn't backed up with anything of substance however. No facts, no reasoning and not even any anecdotal evidence. All you did was say that you think it's wrong (in so many words). The other side (me, Shale and a few others) are saying that children SHOULD be allowed at nude beaches (if their parents choose to allow them there) because there is no reason why they should not be. That opinion HAS been backed up with the evidence that there are often children in nudist colonies and not only is it perfectly legal, but there are generally no negative consequences by allowing that. So if you don't think it's a good idea to bring YOUR OWN kids to a nude beach, good on you. But saying that it should not be allowed (an opinion based on absolutely NOTHING, no facts whatsoever) is NARROW-MINDED, and it has nothing to do with the fact that other people "disagree" with you. I've already said that several different ways but for some reason you seem to be the only one who still doesn't understand that.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

We can argue all day back and forth but this isn't an issue that can really rely on many facts. It's all a bunch of hypotheticals and opinions.

Actually that's not true. We DO have facts! We have the fact that children grow up perfectly healthy in nudist environments where nudity isn't taboo or sexualized. We also have the fact that children often grow up with self esteem issues resulting in "body image" and that those stem from society's "sexualizing" the human body into one expected mold. Those are facts and it is those facts that my opinion stems from. What facts do you have to support your opinion that children should be banned from nude beaches if their parents see nothing wrong with it?

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL. And if that was the sentence that you were talking about, then that was the one that you should have pointed out instead of implying that the entire paragraph was made up of improper sentences.

I didn't imply any such thing. I said quote: "your sentence construction really doesn't make any sense" (and of course it DIDN'T). I didn't say anything about "the entire paragraph" and the particular sentence in question happend to be the very LAST sentence in you quote (which should have given you a GIANT clue). You made an incorrect assumption (just like you have oh-so-many times throughout this thread). FIRST Read, THEN comprehend, THEN quote!

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Question I thought of that I might've asked before. Those who ARE in favor of kids at nude beaches, would you let your child go there(naked, of course) unsupervised? (Assuming they can go somewhere else, like school, the mall, or the store unsupervised already)

. No, I wouldn't.

captainbryce wrote:

... I'll try to explain it yet AGAIN. One side (you and NYstyle) have given your opinion that children should not be allowed at nude beaches. Your opinion wasn't backed up with anything of substance however. No facts, no reasoning and not even any anecdotal evidence. All you did was say that you think it's wrong (in so many words). The other side (me, Shale and a few others) are saying that children SHOULD be allowed at nude beaches (if their parents choose to allow them there) because there is no reason why they should not be. That opinion HAS been backed up with the evidence that there are often children in nudist colonies and not only is it perfectly legal, but there are generally no negative consequences by allowing that. So if you don't think it's a good idea to bring YOUR OWN kids to a nude beach, good on you. But saying that it should not be allowed (an opinion based on absolutely NOTHING, no facts whatsoever) is NARROW-MINDED, and it has nothing to do with the fact that other people "disagree" with you. I've already said that several different ways but for some reason you seem to be the only one who still doesn't understand that.

You've done an excellent job of explaining this in no uncertain terms from many different angles - And Yet - those without ears fail to hear. I admire your persistence in trying to teach good debate skills to the unskilled but you (and I for taking that snipe) will only garner more insulting crude words.

Anyhow, I know this is futile for the some adversaries in this debate who will not even read or comprehend a post before commenting on what they thot it said, but for any others, here is one of many accounts of children not being harmed by seeing adults nude, but have actually benefited from it.

It was written by Mark Storey, a long-time naturist and was published in Nude & Natural, a national nudist magazine where much of my own stuff has been published. But it is objective and has a bibliography at the end if you want to check it out. It also cites studies by non-nudists.

Children, Social Nudity and Scholarly Study

By Mark Storey

Nearly every mother will attest to her toddler's readiness to scamper about the house and backyard naked. Children feel at ease in the nude until parents teach them that it's "wrong," "indecent," or "shameful." Children must also be taught that it is somehow inappropriate to see their family nude, for such ideas would not come to them naturally.

Popular authorities on child-care from Benjamin Spock to advice columnists Ann Landers and Abigail van Buren have often warned of dangers to children should they see others naked. For Spock, this ill-formed message arises from his early reading of Sigmund Freud (Storey 69-70). Syndicated advice columnists read Spock's counsel in his Baby and Child Care (420-21), and accepted his word as academically reputable.

Legislators have taken the claims at face value, and, without checking to see what scholars have actually said, pressure North American parents to blinker children from ever viewing the human form. Bob Morton, Chair of the Naturist Action Committee, points to a trend in North America for proposing legislation banning family social nudity on the basis that the "offending" adult may be "grooming" the child to be more receptive to sexual abuse in the home. According to Morton, the U.S. based National District Attorneys Association is now saying that a potential child molester can be identified as one who "aims to get the child comfortable seeing nudity" (16-17).

The fear that seeing naked people in some way harms children is not supported, however, by academic research. The small handful of studies on this topic in psychology and sociology have shown, instead, that children reared in an atmosphere containing family social nudity may benefit from the practice. If this is true, then proposed laws outlawing either social nudity in the home or children's participation at naturist (or nudist) settings are unjustified.

Naturist parents have long expressed the value of raising their children in a home environment in which optional nonsexualized nudity is casual, informal, and nonthreatening. For five years, Dennis Craig Smith and William Sparks studied the effects of social nudity on children. Their book, The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame, is written in part from their personal experience with naturism, and remains a solid piece of descriptive self-reporting on the effects of social nudity on children. They conclude that "the viewing of the unclothed body, far from being destructive to the psyche, seems to be either benign and totally harmless or to actually provide positive benefits to the individuals involved" (183). Scholars publishing in academic journals have come to the same conclusion.

In 1995, UCLA psychology professor Paul Okami published a review of existing clinical and empirical studies of childhood exposure to parental nudity. In his review, Okami expresses concern over an increasing number of behaviors being redefined in terms of childhood sexual abuse. More and more social scientists are referring to parental nudity in front of children, for instance, as a form of "subtle sexual abuse" (51-52). The problem as he sees it is that there is simply no clinical or empirical evidence to support this concern and the attendant desire to turn naked parents into outlaws.

Okami cites the three studies of Robin Lewis and Louis Janda, M. S. Oleinick et al, and Marilyn Story as the sum total of empirical research addressing the consequences of childhood exposure to parental nudity. Other writings in academia consist of "experts' relatively short commentaries nested in articles related to various other aspects of childhood development and experience" (54).

Oleinick et al examined 160 psychiatric outpatient children and compared them to nonpsychiatric hospital inpatient children to determine if the two groups differed as to early socialization experiences. No significant difference was found between those children who had seen their parents naked and those who had not (Okami 1995, 55).

Story hypothesized that early exposure to parental nudity would improve the body self-concept of preschool children. She examined 264 children and their parents or guardians, noting that some families were nudists while others were not. She found that the children from nudist households had a more positive body self-concept than the non-nudist children. She determined from her findings that coming from a nudist family played a more significant role in the children's positive self body-image than their race, gender, or area of the country in which they lived. Moreover, she found that those children whose families practiced social nudity at home and at naturist camps scored higher in terms of self body-image than those who practiced social nudity only at home (Story 53). The causal relationship between family social nudity and high body self-image was thus also supported by concomitant variation.

Lewis and Janda surveyed 210 male and female undergraduate college students to determine, in part, what effect childhood exposure to parental nudity had on them as young adults. The results of the study suggested that "childhood experiences with exposure to nudity and sleeping in the parental bed are not adversely related to adult sexual functioning and adjustment. In fact, there is modest support that these childhood experiences are positively related to indices of adjustment" (349). In their discussion, they conclude that "for boys, exposure to nudity in early childhood appears to be modestly related to greater comfort levels with regard to physical contact/affection" (357).

Okami believes that clinicians, legislators, and social workers who automatically assume that parental nudity per se is harmful to children have little or no reason for their stand. "Surprisingly then-especially considering the vehemence with which these behaviors have been condemned in much of the clinical literature-there is little evidence to support dire predictions [of harm to children]. In the case of exposure to parental nudity, the very scant available evidence points to generally neutral or perhaps even positive correlates, particularly for boys. […] [N]o empirical evidence links such experiences with subsequent psychological harm" (1995, 59-60).

In 1998, Okami published the results of his own study on early childhood exposure to parental nudity. Working with Richard Olmstead, Paul Abramson, and Laura Pendleton, Okami's 18-year longitudinal study followed 200 male and female children from birth to age 17-18. Okami's study was the first to use the longitudinal design in examining the long-term effects of parental nudity on children. The research team hypothesized that given the paucity of empirical counter evidence, children would experience no "deleterious main effects of early childhood exposure to either nudity or primal scenes" (1998, 365).

The results of the study were clear: "Consistent with the cross-sectional retrospective literature (and with our expectations), no harmful main effects of these experiences were found at age 17-18" (376). Okami continued: "Exposure to parental nudity was associated with positive, rather than negative, sexual experiences in adolescence, but with reduced sexual experience overall. Boys exposed to parental nudity were less likely to have engaged in theft in adolescence or to have used various psychedelic drugs and marijuana. […] Thus, results of this study add weight to the views of those who have opposed alarmist characterizations of childhood exposure […] to nudity" (377).

Okami gives voice to what many naturist parents ask. "Why is it so widely believed in the United States and certain European nations that these practices are uniformly detrimental to the mental health of children? [….] Such notions, certainly where exposure to parental nudity is concerned, are perhaps better conceptualized as myths. Whereas any of these behaviors of course may be experienced in an abusive context-and may also occasion harm under certain circumstances for certain individuals-their appearance per se does not appear to constitute cause for alarm" (379).

Okami's study focuses on childhood exposure to parental nudity in the home. Given North American legislators' brouhaha over the New York Times coverage in June 2003 of the "youth camps" hosted by the American Association for Nude Recreation, many opposed to childhood exposure to nudity may be more concerned with such exposure taking place outside the home at nudist camps. Scholars have provided even less insight on the effects of nudist camp experience on children than they have on mere exposure to at-home parental nudity.

City College of New York professor Lawrence Casler, however, offered some interesting observations at the end of one of his studies on nudist camps. Casler wrote "Some Sociopsychological Observations in a Nudist Camp: A Preliminary Study" in 1964, when North America had more nudist camps than today. The study is based on interviews and questionnaires Casler conducted over six alternate weekends at a New York nudist club. The study was intended to provide a reliable and quantified description of the ages, backgrounds, occupations, marital status, and motivations of adult nudists.

What makes Casler's study of interest to the discussion of childhood experience is found at the conclusion of his article. In the process of interviewing the adults, he also encountered and talked with many children. Many of them, he reported, were members of "a children's nudist camp, purportedly the only one in the Untied States, which was then located within the confines of Sunshine Village" [Casler's fictitious name for the New York camp serving as the basis for his study] (321). Since Casler was not himself a nudist, his description of the nudist youth camp and the reactions the children had to attending it, should be of interest to those who are trying to ban all such activities for children.

"The members of the camp-all children of Sunshine Village-would spend the entire three- or four-week session living in tents, swimming, doing arts and crafts, and performing other typical children's-camp activities-except that the members usually did these things unclad. (Boys and girls slept in separate tents.) The age range was approximately 5 to 16. For the older children, there were occasional lectures and discussion groups on the nudist way of life. When the children's parents came to Sunshine Village on weekends, family activities partially supplanted camp activities, but the children still ate and slept in their own camp area. I was able to interview several of these children, in addition to a number of older children who visited Sunshine Village with their parents but were not involved in the children's camp. For the younger children, nudism chiefly meant nude swimming, having fun without getting one's clothes dirty, being with friends, etc. For the older children, nudism seemed also to have a more serious meaning. These adolescent boys and girls seemed unusually alert and aware of the impact nudism had on their lives. With only one exception, they stated that they would like to be nudists even if their parents were not. In addition to the usual 'fun' reasons, many of the teen-agers referred to the benefits in mental health and emotional stability. Many of them recognized that nudism was giving them a more 'realistic' outlook toward sex than their nonnudists friends possessed. When with these friends, or out on dates, they could only feel sorry for people whose attitude toward the human body was not as healthy as their own. Unlike the responses of some adult camp members, these seemed completely genuine and spontaneous. Furthermore, the impression was inescapable that these children, taken as a group, were extraordinarily well-adjusted, happy, and thoughtful"
(321-322).

What Casler wrote about childhood experience with naturism in 1964 applies just as well to children a mere forty years later. There is nothing harmful with either being human or appearing fully human. Children's welfare must be safeguarded, but so too must they be given the chance to learn to respect their own bodies and those of others. There is no evidence that children are harmed by nonsexualized social nudity, and there is good reason to believe they are benefited by it. Proposals for laws banning to children the innocent experience of being human, appearing human, and seeing others as such are unwarranted, unfounded, and have no scholarly basis.
_________________________________

• Casler, Lawrence. "Some Sociopsychological Observations in a Nudist Camp: A Preliminary Study." Journal of Social Psychology 64 (1964): 307-323.
• Lewis, Robert J. and Louis H. Janda. "The Relationship Between Adult Sexual Adjustment and Childhood Experiences Regarding Exposure to Nudity, Sleeping in the Parental Bed, and Parental Attitudes Toward Sexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 17.4 (1988): 349-362.
• Morton, Bob. "NAC Legislative Update." Nude and Natural 23.3 (2004): 16-17.
• Okami, Paul. "Childhood Exposure to Parental Nudity, Parent-Child Co-sleeping, and 'Primal Scenes': A Review of Clinical Opinion and Empirical Evidence." Journal of Sex Research 32.1 (1995): 51-64.
• Okami, Paul, Richard Olmstead, Paul R. Abramson, and Laura Pendleton. "Early Childhood Exposure to Parental Nudity and Scenes of Parental Sexuality ('Primal Scenes'): An 18-Year Longitudinal Study of Outcome." Archives of Sexual Behavior 27.4 (1998): 361-384.
• Oleinick, M. S., A. K. Bahn, L. Eisenberg, and A. M. Lilienfeld. "Early Socialization Experiences and Intrafamilial Environment: A Study of Psychiatric Outpatient and Control Group Children." Archives of General Psychiatry 15.4 (1966): 344-353.
• Smith, Dennis Craig and William Sparks. The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame. Los Angeles: Elysium Growth, 1986.
• Spock, Benjamin. Baby and Child Care 4th ed. New York: Pocket Books, 1976.
• Storey, Mark. "Dr. Spock and Family Nudity." Nude and Natural 18.3 (1999): 68-80.
• Story, Marilyn D. "Factors Associated with More Positive Body Self-Concepts in Preschool Children." Journal of Social Psychology 108.1 (1979): 49-56.

@ 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). 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.

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.

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.

2xy wrote:

Of course the adolescent brain is still developing, but I do think that many of the poor decisions adolescents make are because people infantilize them for too long. I've known 12-13 year old kids who still aren't allowed to cross the street alone. No joke.

I think that in order to get an honest answer to your question, you would have to target people who practice nudism. People who don't frequent nude beaches/camps are going to have trouble wrapping their brains around their children lounging at a nude beach. My kids would have no desire to go to a nude beach, so my opinions are merely theoretical ones.

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.