Naturism and discrimination

[debs]

I was thinking through the whole issue of discrimination - we have laws that prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, disability and so on. All very well and good. This thne made me wonder if we should have laws that prevent discrimination on the grounds of nudity - if a person wants to be nude in public, and work then no one should discriminate unless of course it is sexual, or there are good grounds for health and safety and what not! It seems the textile world discriminates against nudist. I am a committed life nudist who believes that being nude is a lifestyle and not just a part time experience - therefore I should be able to do this freely with fear of discrimination or harrassement - I should be able to be nude wherever and whenever!

[debs]

I think where discrimination against any nude activity - breast feeding for example should be both encouraged and action taken against those who practice discrimination! It should be an equal playing feild for all!

[jeep]

I whole heartedly agree with you debs, it is discrimination of a way of life. After all we can not discriminate against people for religiion or sexual preference (Unless that preference is kids or animals) or in NZ against those maori who wish to continue various ancient rituals such as facial tattooing etc so why discrimintae against people who want to be as we were ALL born and intended to be. Maybe the only way to change it is to get nudism accepted as part of a religious practice

[Wolf]

I whole heartedly agree with you debs, it is discrimination of a way of life. After all we can not discriminate against people for religiion or sexual preference (Unless that preference is kids or animals) or in NZ against those maori who wish to continue various ancient rituals such as facial tattooing etc so why discrimintae against people who want to be as we were ALL born and intended to be. Maybe the only way to change it is to get nudism accepted as part of a religious practice

But can not a way of life be directly linked to a religion? After all, many choose to live a certain way to accommodate their religion.  People live life how they believe it should be lived. Doesn’t that also mean they are living by their own religion? Isn’t a way of life a religion in itself? There for shouldn’t a nudist lifestyle be protected as any religion is?

I believe so.

[Wolf]

practice and enjoy nude recreation within the confinements of a nudist clubs, resorts, and nude beaches

I believe this is her entire point.

[jeep]

Actually Wolf, you have a good point re a practice being a part of your religion and therefore protected somewhat or at least accepted or tolerated. For example the more hard core islamic belief that women HAVE to be covered from head to toe in a burkha, and in many western countries this way of life is respected to the point where even borders are crossed with out demanding the face being shown to acertain the wearer is who the passport says it is. So therefore if a western society has to respect a person who wishes to show no skin at all in every day life within a textile world (Except when she washes i supose) where much more being shown is the norm, then why not respect those that wish to be completely nude in everyday life except when they are cold.

[tcsrg384]

But can not a way of life be directly linked to a religion? After all, many choose to live a certain way to accommodate their religion.  People live life how they believe it should be lived. Doesn’t that also mean they are living by their own religion? Isn’t a way of life a religion in itself? There for shouldn’t a nudist lifestyle be protected as any religion is?

I believe so.

Very well put. anything you believe in is your religion, in my opinion. even those who say they have no religion, i believe have a religion--their religion and belief system just happens to be built around the fact that they choose not to believe in anything \'religious\' (which i suppose would be impossible, now wouldn\'t it?)

if a person believes in the natural benefits of nudism as being good for your health or your soul, then i don\'t see why it isn\'t a part of a person\'s religion. it\'s what they believe in, why should they be discriminated against?

anyway, yes i agree with you Wolf. very well said.

[Wolf]

Thanks.

Problem is, and the loophole that isn’t told is that when they say “freedom of religion” they actually mean “freedom of a religion we don\'t have a problem with”.  There are some religions Americans just will not tolerate because they either see it as a threat, or its so far out of their box of understanding they think it’s a threat.

 Tis why I hate the constitution in this day and age. It seriously needs to be revised and worded as to eliminate loop holes that the original general wording has created. That wont ever happen of course due to the government taking advantage of these loop holes the most.

Basically if your not part of a mainstream/popular religion, the government doesn’t recognize it.

[Anonymous]

Very insightful post debs!

To my way of thinking, the special beaches should actually be for those who remain clothed. They are doing the unnatural thing by bathing in swimsuits if one thinks about it. I haven\'t been naturist long but I\'m truly committed to this lifestyle and believe it\'s an essential part of who I am. To have the entire outside world deny me the ability to freely practice it because they\'re \"offended\" by my nudity is somewhat frustrating. Who has the problem, really? The one who goes nude or the one who has a problem with others going nude? There is no reason really other than ignorance or fear of naturism that one would be against it. And I can even say, my \"religion\" or I prefer to say, my faith, as I\'m not overly \"religious\" but do have a sincere faith in Christ, is that my entire view of the world as God\'s creation leads me to the inevitable conclusion that a naturist lifestyle is the way I was created to be, and to live.

[Wolf]

Well, given that nudity isn’t discriminated at a nude beach or resort, it just seemed logical that she meant places where currently, nudity is a punishable offence.

[Aymz]

to play devil\'s advocate for a moment...

currently, debs seems to be arguing, naturists are discriminated against because if we were to be nude away from specially-designated areas (clubs, beaches, resorts, our own homes and land), we would face arrest.

her ideal would be a society where if someone were to leave their front door naked and go into town, no law could punish them.

so, the status quo is that the part of society that does not want to see naked people in public has control through law, discriminating against those who prefer to be able to choose to be nude at all times.

now (this is the devil\'s advocate part)... supposing the situation were reversed, and we could all go to school, the shops, and play golf naked, if we so wished.  could not the portion of society (a minority, as mst surveys show, but no less of a minority than naturists) who is mortally offended by the sight of naked human beings, argue that they were facing discrimination, by having nowhere to go where they could escape sights they find offensive?

i\'m not suggesting that this is a reasonable opinion to have, but i think we have to recognise how society behaves as much as argue about the role played by nudity laws.

i think the situation debs wants will only be achievable when everyone in society ceases to see nudity as either something sexual, or something obscene, and/or somethign which must be kept hidden and private.

it is more than just the law which prevents me from walking naked down the street.  it is the knowledge that i will instantly become sexualised by some, and ostracised by others.  it is the knowledge that i could be assaulted by someone offended by the sight of me, or raped by someone excited by the sight of me.  it is the knowledge that i will almost certainly be refused entry to shops, restaurants, places of business because i am not wearing clothes - that by embracing freedom of the body, i am conversely giving up freedom to go where i please.  

but that is more than an issue of law, it is the mood of society, and currently i am at a loss as to how to change it short of allowing time for gradual change (such as the difference between the amount of clothing considered acceptable in Victorian society, versus the amount acceptable today) to develop.

[Wolf]

now (this is the devil\'s advocate part)... supposing the situation were reversed, and we could all go to school, the shops, and play golf naked, if we so wished.  could not the portion of society (a minority, as mst surveys show, but no less of a minority than naturists) who is mortally offended by the sight of naked human beings, argue that they were facing discrimination, by having nowhere to go where they could escape sights they find offensive?

Is that not currently the case with religious groups? There is no one religious group that is accepted by all. Some people are offended by these groups, but know by law, can do nothing about it. So they just ignore them, (or in some cases make comments to themselves) and move on.

I doubt very seriously that the world would ever get to a point were it is either totally for, or totally against nudity, but having one group simply be offended, vs. one group not even allowed the freedom to do certain things, I think its clear which is more fair. I believe if nudists were allowed to do as they wish like everyone else so much where it would be the norm, not nearly as many people would be offended by it, and those that would be offended by it, proly wont be offended that much, knowing that they cant do anything about it.

 I truly think that law, gives an excuse for most people to be offended. That is there little slab of power and they take it every chance they get. Once its gone, I don\'t feel it would be nearly as bad as one might think.

[jeep]

Brilliant post aimz very well put. I also may be able to create a better understanding of where this anti-nudity thing stems from, if it seems to go off topic bare with me as you will see the relevance.
    We do have to remember though that the belief that it is wrong or immoral for people to be nude has been tought by paternal based religions followed in both the east and west for about 2000 years now since the change in general belief in the UK & Europe and the east of the old pagan (Maternal) religions to the newer one God (Paternal) religions that spread into Europe from North Africa and the middle east. So it is going to be very hard to shift this point of view.
    Innitially these pagan (Mediteranean such as Egyptian, Roman, Greek, and European such as Celtic, and Norse) and newer single god religions (Such as Islam, Hebrew Judaism and Christian) co existed side by side or at least there was a fair overlap of adhearents to most of them, with the expected arguments as we have today about what is the true or correct faith.
    As the single God religions got a foot hold in the minds of more and more men (People) obviously the Paternal aspect became more important, which meant there had to be no doubt as to paternal parentage. Of course these religions felt that the sight of nakedness would make promiscuity irresistable and therefore the resultant births of unknown fathers would upset the whole cart. So casual sex had to be stopped at all costs.
   The first step was to oppose and demonise the pagan practices that involve nudity or sex (Ie: the Hieros Gamos or sacred marriage rites where intercourse is performed. The new age version is the Great Rite in Wicca) and then of course the religions themselves. Just as we demonised the Germans and Japonese during WW2 or islam is demonised now somewhat, so did the prophets of those religions all those years ago demonise thier opposition and everything they stood for. And that which could not be demonised was \"re-worked\" or intergrated into thier own religion such as Easter (Named after the Tuetonic Goddess Eostre). They had power and control at stake after all and then more than now that meant survival.
   The Hebrew prohphets were most strongly opposed to it but it was for political not ethical reasons in fact. The Goddess (Maternal) worship that most ordinary Hebrew families still followed for centuries along side the official Yehweh worship, threatened the patriarchal system they were trying to enforce. Unless women were considdered a chattel of her husband and virgin on marriage, paternity could not be certain and unquestionable paternity was the keystone to the whole system. Hence the biblical death sentence for adulteresses, for brides found to be non virgin and even rape victims (Unless they were niether married nor betrothed in which case they had to marry the rapist).  This belief continues in the more fundimental Islamic following and the remnants of it is still evident in most Christian following.
    From that ancient political battle evolved Judaism and then Christianity which in its various forms is the dominant religion in the west and (out doing even Judaism and Islam) inherited enthusiastically the hatred (or is it fear) of nudity and sex and a contempt of women that has bedevilled it from St Paul onwards and although this attitude is improoving with Christian Nudist groups it is still far from dead.
    I hope those of various religions on the board will not take offense as none is intended, but the above is just the historical fact in a very abbridged form of why nudity is shunned by many cultures and should illustrate the depth of the belief nudity is immoral or wrong by many. Thanks to Janet and Stewart Farrar for much of the info.

[Aymz]

i don\'t see how anyone here could be offended by that, jeep, very well put and very well researched!

[Anonymous]

dont get me wrong i luv being naked its awesome... but we hav to respect those who dont like nudity... its only fair