Nude Camping, It's not just for adults anymore

USA News and Views ^ | 07/26/03 | Paul Walfield

[westgirl123]

The Times points out that parents who enroll their pre-teen and teen age kids to the nation’s growing number of nudist camps geared for that age group aren’t very concerned about it and in fact find it a wholesome and safe environment. Actually, according to the Times, “‘The Nudist Association, the larger of two nationwide, sees this as a place to train ‘youth ambassadors’ to what nudists call the ‘textile’ world.”’ Apparently, there is a movement to convert or at least desensitize us all to nudity. Perhaps they even want us all to be so desensitized that we also stop seeing the connection between nudity and sex.

[elfman2]

"I would have to suggest that much of the hysteria over naked teens hanging out with other here is cultural and stems from bad ideas about sex, nudity, and the body. "

I think you're seeing things that don't exist, at least not frequently, perhaps because you've been exposed to people promoting that in as the opposition/justification to their own extreme behavior.

I've given you reasoned objections to sending your kids to nudist camp, not hysteria. Yet you insist on claiming that the objections posted here are "hysteria" from "bad ideas about sex, nudity, and the body". Where's your evidence? If you have none, I suggest you form a new conclusion based on what evidence exists.

And FWIW, I think that if there is 1% that conform to your image of the sexually repressed conservative, they probably exist at 10 times that rate here.

[breakem]

I fail to see how one can have sex while clad!

You really need to get around more!

[garbanzo]

I've given you reasoned objections to sending your kids to nudist camp, not hysteria.

My objection to your "reasons" is that you present your "reasons" as universal norms with absolutely no justification, when in fact they are simply artifacts of our culture. I've said it earlier that it's a simple objective fact that the justifications you present are not universal among all human populations and hence the problems you cite stem not from the activity (naked teens being around each other) but the cultural context in which the activity is occurring (a society which regards nakedness as wrong or shameful) - which I think illustrates a problem with our culture.

Now you may have a point that I hang around FR too much and tend to think that the views here are normative of mainstream American culture - but at the same time I can easily compare modern mainstream culture to eras in the recent past and understand that it's more restrictive now - perhaps not as much as say the 50s but certainly more than 70s - you think a movie like "Last Tango in Paris" would be made in today's PG-13 Hollywood?

[Drago]

IIRC, it was with respect to the LA Times/Wash Post or any newspapers/companies they might own.
AFA "where was the rule posted?" when you get ready to post an article, a screen comes up that says as much. Anything from the LA Times or the WP must be excerpted and a link provided.

OK...just go easy on people that excerpt, I will exerpt every time just to be safe. The LAT/Wash. Post list of "affiliated companies" is pretty large, and better safe than sorry. Also, there is nothing to prevent another newspaper group/magazine/website from suing JimRob, other than excerpting under "fair use".

[ModelBreaker]

Some degree of discomfort is necessary. Even in primitive tribes you do have to gather food. But the process is usually not onerous and in many places pretty easy and doesn't take up most of the day. The question is the degree of discomfort and the price we pay and who pays it. Perhaps insanity is the price you pay for modernity. I'm just asking if it's altogether worth it.

I understand. I realize (as I reread the posts) that I exaggerated your point a bit to make mine and apologize for that. That said, I still believe that the notion that there have ever been societies that are relatively comfortable compared to ours is a primitivist illusion. For example:

How 'bout losing all your teeth by 25 and dying of a nasty infection by, generally, 35? Or infant mortality of 50% in year one. Or the natural mortality that happens when primitives 'celebrate' natural childbirth. I'm guessing that losing half my kids before they are one and then losing my dear wife in childbirth would be pretty uncomfortable.

Since the fall, mankind's lot has been uncomfortable. When we solve one set of problems, something else comes up and we get uncomfortable again. The only reason we (modern society) seem uniquely uncomfortable (and neurotic) is that we experience OUR problems and they seem especially big to us. And, the oprahization of our media encourages us to dwell on them. So they get even bigger and our neuroses grow. We see primitives avoiding the rat-race ('textiles' if you will) and think they have it easy, they were comfortable.

My experience is that the only way out is to live my life in the presence of the Lord. When I do that, I am comfortable. When (as is more often the case) I forget, I am not. It's really that simple.

[ModelBreaker]

Great verbalization of common sense conclusions of an informed mind. It's mind-boggling that in the 21st century, many still are unaware that art, leisure and "activism" are artifacts of a society where creativity has elevated us beyond the necessity of spending every waking hour surviving.

Thank you for your kind words. I agree. Also, dwelling on our feelings and level of comfort and on whether things like 'textilization' opress us would strike me as similar artifacts. We have too much time on our hands and our culture derides the only thing that makes any sense out of this stuff--God. This stuff is just silly and completely misses the meaning of life.

[garbanzo]

That said, I still believe that the notion that there have ever been societies that are relatively comfortable compared to ours is a primitivist illusion.

I agree - see post #24. Primitive society is no eternal picnic. But it's the sort age-old question of would you rather have short relatively happy life or a long miserable one. Sure we don't die of curable infections at 35, but do we consider the extra 30 years of working in a mentally stultifying job worth it? I'm just asking the question - not presuming an answer.

[hellinahandcart]

OK...just go easy on people that excerpt, I will exerpt every time just to be safe.

With that attitude, the LAT/Washington Post will have won, instead of settling. You've been around as long as I have, don't you remember all the discussions on the NECESSITY of posting complete articles here, for a host of reasons?

If we actually have to go to 20-50 sites per day for our news, there's not much point in coming here for it, is there? So FR will be destroyed as a news forum, if only excerpts are posted here, and destroyed as a discussion forum, since most people will refrain from clicking the link and will only comment on the excerpted portion, and destroyed as a media watchdog, since the stories will no longer be taken apart line-by-line, AND destroyed as a resource, since no substantial record of any of it will be preserved in the archives. I would not confuse that with being "safe".

Anyway, of all the names on the pages of LAT/Washington Post subsidiaries, only a handful actually publish news stories that would get posted here. It's not an intimidating list:

LA TIMES
Washington Post
Newsday
ChicagoTribune
Newsweek
MSNBC
Baltimore Sun
Hartford Courant
CT Times Mirror
Orlando Sun-Sentinel
WPIX (and probably any Tribune Broadcasting station, by inference)
blackvoices.com
*International Herald Tribune (now it's owned by someone else and may be okay not to excerpt)

[sauropod]

Sure there is. The LA/WP lawsuit was a hit because of the effect that FR had on X42's "presidency" and impeachment prospects.

I recall stories on FR at the time about this.

Besides, if you continue excerpting, hell on earth (hellinahandcart) shall visit thee. ;-)

[sauropod]

Whoops, I see she already has ;-).

[hellinahandcart]

You're gonna get such a pinch...

[MeekOneGOP]

LOL !

[elfman2]

"My objection to your "reasons" is that you present your "reasons" as universal norms with absolutely no justification, when in fact they are simply artifacts of our culture"

There's "absolutely no justification" for claiming that my reasons for not sending kids to nudist camp are "artifacts of our culture". Yet you persist.

I think that I mentioned that for boys it would contribute to the sexual distractions that they have at a formative time of life. What's cultural about that? Zero. Teenage boys in all cultures spend most of their time focused directly or indirectly on teenage girls. It's genetic. In every culture, that obsession would be enhanced or at least feed if they were sent off to spend a couple of weeks at the lake with naked teenage girls?

You are very very slow to recognize this. Nudism is frequently (perhaps generally) sexually charged. Not all of it, motives vary. It certainly doesn’t turn participants into sexed craved werewolves, but there's at least a low hum of sexuality in the background that's publicly denied (and probably personally denied by some). That's not specific to a repressed culture, it's an artifact shared universally. It's what makes us procreate. Cultures and subcultures lean to manage various public levels of it, from zero in Islamic, a little more in Latin American to Asian, the US and them parts of Europe, but it's rarely truly abstracted from sexuality.

I'm not against public nudity. I think a young people are missing some of the most interesting experiences of their life if they never drag their significant other to a clothing optional beach or resort. I simply think that "as a universal norm" it's a big distraction to teenage boys. Sure, there's bound to be exceptions in individuals, but it's universal across cultures.

Regarding the girls, most people in virtually all cultures value chastity, sweetness and innocence in young women (a universal norm). It's part of their attraction, it's instinctual, the draw of cuteness and purity. That quality gets spent as she gives up her sexuality, and her personality is significantly molded by the experience and by the other person. Again, not cultural, universal. That's the way we're wired, that's how we generally fall into relations with one another. Sure there's a percent that are nothing like this, but this male/pursuit female/submission thing dominates almost everywhere. It's identical except for details and degrees in virtually all cultures.

I don't know how much of a girl's innocents would be given up at a teenage nudist camp. It would probably vary greatly by camp, session and individual, but it's certainly accelerated. Hell, it's a little accelerated at camp in general, more at nudist camp. The question's then, is that the place, people and time for it?

What kind of girls do you think will go to a place like that? Inner city lower economic class girls needing sexual control?. Those of the ultra puritanical parents needing sexual liberation? If not them, who? How do you think it'll be good for them?

I've spent way more time on this than intended, but I hope your now recognize that my argument is based on reason not culture. You on the other hand have given no evidence to support your assertion that our culture would benefit from this. From what I see, you are the one who is espousing closed minded clichés regarding "sexless nudism" without any evidence. You're the one promoting your culturally biased accusations of wide spread "body hate" and "sex hate", empty of any evidence to support it.

You're doing exactly what you accuse others here of doing - disassociating yourself from reason and the "universal norms" of the nature of boys and girls.

[inquest]

I think some brands of social conservatives look out and see a pit of depravity, but even in comparison to recent history, say the 1970s, today's media is actually fairly tame.

This is a highly startling conclusion you've come to. Flip through the channels that are available to the average household today, and you'll come across plenty more skin being flaunted and various other types of titillation than by performing the same experiment in 1978. That I can guarantee you.

The same, by the way, goes for walking down the street and observing people.

[elfman2]

"you'll come across plenty more skin being flaunted and various other types of titillation than by performing the same experiment in 1978. That I can guarantee you. The same, by the way, goes for walking down the street and observing people."

I don't think that I'd agree with the second part of that, the more skin on the street part.

I remember virtually none of the college girls wore bras in Bolder in 1980. The thin skin tight short shorts and body suits of that time have given way to ultra low rider jeans, but in my recollection there were more halter and tube tops, underwear outerware, translucents and low necklines given peep shows in the 80s and early 90s. Even male attire was designed to show off muscles and highlight "packages". Today baggy everything works, or it that on the way out as well?"

[inquest]

What you're saying may have been true of certain environments such as colleges, but there are three main trends when it comes to this kind of dress: One is that it's been moving to younger and younger ages; the second is that it's been moving into more mainstream suburban-type environments; and the third is that it's not even being confined to warmer weather, but can be seen all-year round. It's getting to the point where parents even encourage it, and where it's rather difficult for girls to find clothing that doesn't reveal underwear, cracks, suprapubic regions, etc.

Now I'll grant that this isn't the same as "nudity" in the sense that a completely naked person actually looks more respectable than someone wearing these types of clothing. The fact remains, however, that if nudity was of no consequence at all, then selective nudity such as our culture is experiencing wouldn't be taking the kind of toll that it is.

[Terriergal]

Get ready to puke.

[Terriergal]

sick... sick...

[Terriergal]

Pedophiles maybe?

[Terriergal]

Ya gotta wonder why anyone would go into the woods with millions of stinging/biting insects without any protection? What a bunch of imbeciles.