do you support woman's right to choose to be totally naked in public any where?

[JaySecrets]

So a woman only has a soul, spiritual substance, and identity when she's dressed?

It's not about the existence, it's about the focus. Nudity, by its essence, is intimate. I don't get intimate, physically or emotionally, with everyone. That's reserved for very specific settings and people. I want the focus to be on WHO I am, not how I can be an object for another's pleasure. The intimacy come AFTER the relationship is established and it's no longer objectification, but shared pleasure and joy in each other. Anything less is a cheapened substitute for the real. Again, I am relatively certain that, if we were talking about your 18 year old daughter or sister, or your daughter or sister who will one day be a young woman, we'd be having a very different conversation.

 

[JaySecrets]

By the way, there's also another aspect of this. It's a known factor that men who view a lot of pornography also tend to view women in general in very pornographic ways. When you reduce women to objects in that way, what you ultimately do is not only affect that woman who chooses to put herself out there like that, that woman's behavior actually affects everybody else. Other women start being viewed in the same way. There's a ripple effect in play there. And it's not a healthy one. So my concern isn't just with that woman who dresses that way and chooses to do that, as unhealthy and objectifying as that is, My concern is that other women, My niece, my sister, my daughter... They start being viewed the same way. I have a serious problem with that. I have a serious problem with that

 

[JaySecrets]

I wouldn't consider it as a right, rather as an obligation

This response here makes my point better than anything I could say. Thank you for providing the evidence for my statements.

 

[MyBitchyExGF]

By the way, there's also another aspect of this. It's a known factor that men who view a lot of pornography also tend to view women in general in very pornographic ways. When you reduce women to objects in that way, what you ultimately do is not only affect that woman who chooses to put herself out there like that, that woman's behavior actually affects everybody else. Other women start being viewed in the same way. There's a ripple effect in play there. And it's not a healthy one. So my concern isn't just with that woman who dresses that way and chooses to do that, as unhealthy and objectifying as that is, My concern is that other women, My niece, my sister, my daughter... They start being viewed the same way. I have a serious problem with that. I have a serious problem with that

So you don't support a woman's right to choose to be totally naked in public anywhere?

 

[JaySecrets]

So you don't support a woman's right to choose to be totally naked in public anywhere?

That wasn't the question posted. That said, I will answer your question. While I don't necessarily think it's wise, if you do have those spaces where it is consensual between adults who know they're going to those places to view or do those things, And there is no risk of exposure to minors, I'm not going to say it should be illegal. What I'm saying is that it should be very specific to that place, places by the way that already exist, And not be simply cart Blanc for whoever and whatever. Again, I go back to the statement if it were your daughter or your sister or your niece or whoever the young lady is that is most precious in your life, if it were their behavior we were discussing, this would be a completely different discussion. I do Note once again that it's mostly guys saying hey. Yeah let's do that. The very fact that most women who understand human nature and common sense, And who hold their bodies as sacrosanct and inviolate, the very fact that they typically object to such things, that says more about the truth than anything else you could say. And notice the nature of the comments by a lot of the men on here. Very sexual in nature. Predictably very objectifying. And that should tell you the nature of humanity. I don't deal with things as a perfect world would have them. I deal with things as they are. Human nature is what it is. Human nature is very dark sometimes. And in spite of our best intentions, the worst comes out of us often. So no I don't think it should be something that is commonplace and just put out there. What is there already... Whether I agree with it or not is another question. But that was never the question posed.

 

[dr2brd]

This response here makes my point better than anything I could say. Thank you for providing the evidence for my statements.

 

[JaySecrets]

Sarcasm or not, that is precisely how many men DO look at it. Read the thread. So you made the point succinctly regardless.

 

[jaF0]

So you don't support a woman's right to choose to be totally naked in public anywhere?

No I don't.

Civilized societies have rules of common decency. No one regardless of who they are should be able to ignore those.

 

[JaySecrets]

.

I'll admit, I didn't quite understand the reasoning behind it, but I fully support any cause that involves women stripping down!

SO aside from being VERY uncomfortable with that photo - the youngest looks like she is barely 18 if that, and I have a niece and..... ANYWAY - that this comment accompanied your post of that picture tells me everything IO need to know. Please don't pretend to be some male feminist supporting women when you clearly just want to see women, apparently of barely legal status included, walking about naked for your own personal pleasure. I won't call names here, but I may or may not be implying what you may infer from this statement.

 

[jehoram]

I don't think I'm going to change JaySecrets about this, but I thought I'd add my own remarks

I have to say no for a couple reasons. First, if the gender were reversed, the answer would very likely, and should be, a hard no for most. In fact men go to jail and prison for exposing themselves in that way. And they are recognized as a danger to the public.

Exactly how is a nude man a "danger to the publc"? As long as he's behaving himself, the only danger I can see is if he sits down somewhere without spreading out a towel. Same for women.

If I leave the keys in my new car, the door unlocked, in a neighborhood known for theft, whilst the criminal does indeed bear the brunt of responsibility for stealing the car, I can't complain that I bore no responsibility in the situation. This is a very sexualized world that objectifies women on every level, putting them at risk.

That's the argument that every fundamentalist Muslim would give you for putting women in burkas... men are so lustful that they can't control themselves when they see a woman's legs or even faces. So these clothes must be worn to keep men's lusts in check. But her in my city, I see lots of legs in the summertime, and lots of faces all the time, and yet somehow I see no gangs of lustful men out of control.

Nudity, by its essence, is intimate. I don't get intimate, physically or emotionally, with everyone. That's reserved for very specific settings and people. I want the focus to be on WHO I am, not how I can be an object for another's pleasure. The intimacy come AFTER the relationship is established and it's no longer objectification, but shared pleasure and joy in each other. Anything less is a cheapened substitute for the real. Again, I am relatively certain that, if we were talking about your 18 year old daughter or sister, or your daughter or sister who will one day be a young woman, we'd be having a very different conversation.

By the way, there's also another aspect of this. It's a known factor that men who view a lot of pornography also tend to view women in general in very pornographic ways.

Is that because the more a man views porn, the more he becomes likely to view women as sex objects, or is it because the more he sees women as sex objects, the more porn he views? I think you could make an argument either way.

I've also heard that the more naked people he views, the less sensitized by it he becomes. Some call it "the nudist effect." The way we have it now, I've read, you only see nudity in sexual situations and, like Pavlov's dogs, we drool. The more you see of it, the less of a trigger to nudity it becomes. Now we're talking about nudity, not pornography, but since society conflates the two, it's easy to understand the confusion.

And there is no risk of exposure to minors, I'm not going to say it should be illegal.

That's another thing. I've seen kids at nudist resorts and nudist campgrounds, and they don't seem to be damaged by the simple sight of a naked, unaroused person. I'll grant you that perverts take advantage of children any way they can, but they do that in church or at Scouting events, too. The cure is to watch and protect the kids like a hawk at such social functions, and educate the kids so that they can be aware of the danger when you're not there. I don't see much difference between kids seeing adults naked or clothed, except that private nudist venues are very aware of their responsibility and will vet you before you even get there. And if the kids are taught to respect each other, and demand respect in return if they've earned it, then they're pretty much inoculated against the danger.

 

[JaySecrets]

I don't think I'm going to change JaySecrets about this, but I thought I'd add my own remarks


Exactly how is a nude man a "danger to the publc"? As long as he's behaving himself, the only danger I can see is if he sits down somewhere without spreading out a towel. Same for women.

That's the argument that every fundamentalist Muslim would give you for putting women in burkas... men are so lustful that they can't control themselves when they see a woman's legs or even faces. So these clothes must be worn to keep men's lusts in check. But her in my city, I see lots of legs in the summertime, and lots of faces all the time, and yet somehow I see no gangs of lustful men out of control.




Is that because the more a man views porn, the more he becomes likely to view women as sex objects, or is it because the more he sees women as sex objects, the more porn he views? I think you could make an argument either way.

I've also heard that the more naked people he views, the less sensitized by it he becomes. Some call it "the nudist effect." The way we have it now, I've read, you only see nudity in sexual situations and, like Pavlov's dogs, we drool. The more you see of it, the less of a trigger to nudity it becomes. Now we're talking about nudity, not pornography, but since society conflates the two, it's easy to understand the confusion.



That's another thing. I've seen kids at nudist resorts and nudist campgrounds, and they don't seem to be damaged by the simple sight of a naked, unaroused person. I'll grant you that perverts take advantage of children any way they can, but they do that in church or at Scouting events, too. The cure is to watch and protect the kids like a hawk at such social functions, and educate the kids so that they can be aware of the danger when you're not there. I don't see much difference between kids seeing adults naked or clothed, except that private nudist venues are very aware of their responsibility and will vet you before you even get there. And if the kids are taught to respect each other, and demand respect in return if they've earned it, then they're pretty much inoculated against the danger.

Much of this I would say is hyperbole and overstatement. For example, to equate a recognition of flawed human nature, thus the need to guard against inciting the worst in others, with a Muslim fundamentalist extreme is overstatement at best. Civilized societies avoid either extreme.. There is a danger to over sexualizing or desensitizing to sex and sexual subjects in play when a person is flashing their sexual parts in public. Again, that this is ultimately a sexual thing is inherently true and true to human nature. Otherwise you would have to say there is nothing sexual in the nature of a Hooters restaurant or a strip club. It's foolish to try to blame some social programming for what our nature will do on its own.

And that you even mentioned the desensitizing to nudity at all simply bolsters my point.

But to me the most flawed argument here is that because the children in front of you don't SEEM damaged by such exposure they are not in fact damaged by it. Yes, abuse can happen or be prevented anywhere, but that's not the point. You can watch the exposure to more and more nudity or near nudity at younger and younger ages over the decades, and you will find young people sexually active earlier and earlier. There's simply nothing special or sacred about intimacy anymore. It's something to toss away. That is stolen innocence and that is about as damaging as you could get.

 

[JaySecrets]

And who was talking about nudist EVENTS anyway? The question posed was that of making it openly legal everywhere period. That nudist EVENTS HAVE to heavily vet to keep people safe says everything I could need to say to that subject. Again you are making my point for me.

 

[jehoram]

And who was talking about nudist EVENTS anyway? The question posed was that of making it openly legal everywhere period. That nudist EVENTS HAVE to heavily vet to keep people safe says everything I could need to say to that subject. Again you are making my point for me.

I don't think so. Nudist events are more heavily vetted because we live in a society where if there are ANY incidents of improper behavior, those events are more likely to be closed down due to puritanical backlash from the general populace. Has the Catholic church been closed down? Have the Scouts been closed down? This in spite of a lot of publicity about young people being seduced.

 

[jehoram]

But to me the most flawed argument here is that because the children in front of you don't SEEM damaged by such exposure they are not in fact damaged by it. Yes, abuse can happen or be prevented anywhere, but that's not the point. You can watch the exposure to more and more nudity or near nudity at younger and younger ages over the decades, and you will find young people sexually active earlier and earlier.

Yes, people may be getting sexually active at younger ages than they were fifty years ago. But I don't think it's directly related to the amount of nudity they see. But I would like to see some documentation for that claim. And I have yet to meet somebody who told me, "Yes, I saw a lot of nudity when I was a kid, and I felt damaged." The only one who came close was a woman I dated who told me that when she was a teenager, her father would accost her every time she got out of the shower, because he felt entitled to have his way with her. But that was at a time when there wasn't a lot of nudity on TV, and the internet didn't exist. He was just a perv.

Before widespread nudity on TV or the internet, were kids who lived near beaches and saw a lot of women in bikinis more likely to start their sex lives earlier than those living in Topeka or Oklahoma City? Some sociology major working on their thesis must have studied it somewhere.

The ironical thing is that nudism has come under fire from people who think that organized nudist organizations are more puritanical than other social associations, because they make a sharp distinction between simple nudity and voyeurism/exhibitionism.

 

[JaySecrets]

I don't think so. Nudist events are more heavily vetted because we live in a society where if there are ANY incidents of improper behavior, those events are more likely to be closed down due to puritanical backlash from the general populace. Has the Catholic church been closed down? Have the Scouts been closed down? This in spite of a lot of publicity about young people being seduced.

Their venues are heavily vetted because with nudity there is a much higher likelihood of improper behavior. That's just common sense. The fact that culturally we've started denying common Sense and going with feelings is a huge problem. As for the question of the scouts or the Catholic church not getting shut down, That's because they are not essentially sexual in nature. When you had Cults that were very abusive and sexual in nature, they did get shut down. When you walk around parading your naked body for the whole world to see it is to some degree always going to be sexual. Because the very parts of you that are sexual are on display. Once again, this is common sense. It's only those who want to be the apologist for things that defy all common sense that would deny this.m

 

[jehoram]

I think you've made your point. I hope I've made mine. But let me ask two more questions: If there was a movement to have a local swimming hole or beach designated as a nude-friendly area, and you were on the board of that community, would you vote in favor or it or against it? I'm talking about an area where signs would be posted "Clothing optional beyond this point" or "Warning: you might see nudity."

If there were already such areas in your community, would you circulate a petition to have them shut down?

 

[ParkerSteve66]

Their venues are heavily vetted because with nudity there is a much higher likelihood of improper behavior. That's just common sense. The fact that culturally we've started denying common Sense and going with feelings is a huge problem. As for the question of the scouts or the Catholic church not getting shut down, That's because they are not essentially sexual in nature. When you had Cults that were very abusive and sexual in nature, they did get shut down. When you walk around parading your naked body for the whole world to see it is to some degree always going to be sexual. Because the very parts of you that are sexual are on display. Once again, this is common sense. It's only those who want to be the apologist for things that defy all common sense that would deny this.m

"with nudity there is a much higher likelihood of improper behavior" - OPINION, not a fact!
"As for the question of the scouts or the Catholic church not getting shut down, That's because they are not essentially sexual in nature." - OPINION, not a fact! My opinion is that they were not shut down because they are very powerful and have a lot of wealth.
"When you walk around parading your naked body for the whole world to see it is to some degree always going to be sexual." - OPINION, not a fact!
"this is common sense" - OPINION, not a fact!

You are entitled to YOUR OPINIONS. However, you state your opinions (beliefs) as if they are facts - just as I did above.

 

[JaySecrets]

"with nudity there is a much higher likelihood of improper behavior" - OPINION, not a fact!
"As for the question of the scouts or the Catholic church not getting shut down, That's because they are not essentially sexual in nature." - OPINION, not a fact! My opinion is that they were not shut down because they are very powerful and have a lot of wealth.
"When you walk around parading your naked body for the whole world to see it is to some degree always going to be sexual." - OPINION, not a fact!
"this is common sense" - OPINION, not a fact!

You are entitled to YOUR OPINIONS. However, you state your opinions (beliefs) as if they are facts - just as I did above.

These are not just opinions. These are fact facts. I find it a little exhausting that the only ones so vehemently defending what you're trying to defend, are men. If you notice there are some women who will agree with you here, but most will not. Your goal isn't some Noble freedom of the body. You just want to see more boobies and asses naked and that's all you want. Stop pretending this is anything else other than that. Because really it's just another way to oppress and to objectify women.

 

[JaySecrets]

I think you've made your point. I hope I've made mine. But let me ask two more questions: If there was a movement to have a local swimming hole or beach designated as a nude-friendly area, and you were on the board of that community, would you vote in favor or it or against it? I'm talking about an area where signs would be posted "Clothing optional beyond this point" or "Warning: you might see nudity."

If there were already such areas in your community, would you circulate a petition to have them shut down?

So if you're asking me if I would vote for something, now you're talking about my personal application of what I believe wisdom is. Because I think it's unwise to have these places, I would vote against them. Because I think it's unwise to have those places, I would vote or sign the petition to see them shut down. I would also vote to see the local abortion clinic shut down, because I support the freedom of babies to live. But I'm not going to burn down or blow up the local abortion clinic, nor am I going to shoot the doctor murdering those babies.

Questions about how someone would vote are totally different than questions about the legality of what is supported. If given the choice, I am not going to support the majority of liberal causes. But I also recognize that people have the right to function and act according to those beliefs.

The biggest problem becomes when we start defying the common sense norms that have always been part of civilized society because it's civilized. When we start redefining what truth is and redefining what common sense is. That's when we have problems.

Again, I do go back to a pretty obvious observation. It's guys not women who are saying this is a good idea. You know why women generally don't support these ideas? They understand there's something sacrosanct and special about the female form, about the naked former general. They don't want to be walking around being ogled and being treated as objects. They don't want to be walking around and be reduced to what their skin looks like. Yes, there are some women that are willing to be like that, but they are by far not the majority. That's because it defies common sense.

If we were talking about your 18-year-old daughter or sister or niece..... We would be having a completely different conversation. Or at least I hope we would because I hope you don't have some weird desire to see them naked.

 

[ParkerSteve66]

These are not just opinions. These are fact facts. I find it a little exhausting that the only ones so vehemently defending what you're trying to defend, are men. If you notice there are some women who will agree with you here, but most will not. Your goal isn't some Noble freedom of the body. You just want to see more boobies and asses naked and that's all you want. Stop pretending this is anything else other than that. Because really it's just another way to oppress and to objectify women.

Your OPINIONS about my intentions are totally incorrect. Simply stating that an opinion is a fact DOES NOT make it a fact.

It is obvious, at least in my opinion, that you do not wish to have a rational discourse about our different views.

Therefore, please continue to simply talk to yourself.

 

[JaySecrets]

Your OPINIONS about my intentions are totally incorrect. Simply stating that an opinion is a fact DOES NOT make it a fact.

It is obvious, at least in my opinion, that you do not wish to have a rational discourse about our different views.

Therefore, please continue to simply talk to yourself.

Because you are just a noble feminist fighting for women's liberation from those oh so restricting clothes. Whatever.

 

[jehoram]

Thanks for you answers. I'm delighted in being able to have a discussion between reasonable people who make the effort to understand each other's positions, even when we disagree with them.

So if you're asking me if I would vote for something, now you're talking about my personal application of what I believe wisdom is. Because I think it's unwise to have these places, I would vote against them. Because I think it's unwise to have those places, I would vote or sign the petition to see them shut down. I would also vote to see the local abortion clinic shut down, because I support the freedom of babies to live. But I'm not going to burn down or blow up the local abortion clinic, nor am I going to shoot the doctor murdering those babies.

Questions about how someone would vote are totally different than questions about the legality of what is supported. If given the choice, I am not going to support the majority of liberal causes. But I also recognize that people have the right to function and act according to those beliefs.

You would respect that people have a right to function according to those beliefs, as long as they don't practice them anywhere you might happen to be. So if simple nudity offends you, you would like to see the world as if everybody agreed with you. You see a sign on the beach that says "Clothing optional beyond this point. Please be considerate." You could accept this as either a suggestion that some people beyond that point would be naked, although they wouldn't take offense at your being in clothes and they're not keeping you from using the entire beach. Or you could take it as an affront, thinking "I want to go beyond this point, and I want to see the whole beach, and I don't want to be looking at naked people, either. So this sign has got to go."

In my view, questions on how someone would vote are not totally different than questions about the legality of what is supported. They cannot be separated. In fact, it is votes that determine whether something is legal or illegal, subject only to a higher law that contradicts the result of the vote.

Given your responses to my viewpoints, would I infer that if there was a private nudist resort in your neighborhood, outside of common view, and there was a measure on the ballot to have it shut it down, you would vote for the measure or not? What about a measure that would forbid the future creation of private nudist resort in your community... would you vote for it or against it?

The biggest problem becomes when we start defying the common sense norms that have always been part of civilized society because it's civilized. When we start redefining what truth is and redefining what common sense is. That's when we have problems.

Society is all about changing norms. For millennia, human slavery was commonplace in civilized society, animal sacrifice to various deities was routine in most parts of the world, and spreading your religion with the sword was a holy duty owed to God. Women and children were seen as something little more than chattel, with no rights and no protection against being bought, sold, and traded. None of those things are mainstream anymore. I don't think that aversion to nudity was hardwired into our systems, either.

Again, I do go back to a pretty obvious observation. It's guys not women who are saying this is a good idea. You know why women generally don't support these ideas? They understand there's something sacrosanct and special about the female form, about the naked former general. They don't want to be walking around being ogled and being treated as objects. They don't want to be walking around and be reduced to what their skin looks like. Yes, there are some women that are willing to be like that, but they are by far not the majority. That's because it defies common sense.

I agree with you here to some degree. To the extent that women are treated as sex objects, and valued according to their figures, hair styles, makeup and clothes, I totally appreciate their reluctance to be devalued as human beings. That's mostly on us men, who are trained to regard women this way by the value systems of their parents. As long as we raise boys to be assholes, we're going to have a good supply of assholes poisoning the well for the rest of us.

But if you've talked to women who are nudists, you'll find that they consider nudism to be a repudiation of all those values. They say, "Here I am without clothes or makeup on. I am what I am." And most of them do not have beauty-queen figures. They're older and heavier, but they have a natural beauty that they're proud of. I don't consider this as a defiance of common sense. It makes perfect sense to me, anyway.

If we were talking about your 18-year-old daughter or sister or niece..... We would be having a completely different conversation. Or at least I hope we would because I hope you don't have some weird desire to see them naked.

I don't have an 18-year-daugher, but I've had plenty of sisters and nieces and female cousins. I would have no problem at all seeing them naked. Not for sexual kicks, but because I'd appreciate their nudity as much as that of my brothers and nephews and male cousins, and myself.

 

[Submissivepat]

Women should have the choice to do what they wish with their bodies!

 

[MaxwellSmart86]

do you support woman's right to choose to be totally naked in public any where?

to ruthlessly cock tease men

http://thehairylady.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/118.jpg

https://hwcdn.voyeurweb.com/albums/3164192/large/5153055-bri-pantiless-in-heiligenberg.jpg

https://img-hw.xnxx-cdn.com/videos/...16e1d/e689fe1ad3b5a7d24a186913ee816e1d.26.jpg

https://bootyoftheday.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/thick-argentinian-public-nude-1.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzYRuakW8AEhZRI.jpg:large

https://www.amateurscrush.com/wp-co...y-public-flashing-curvy-booty-supermarket.jpg

https://static-ca-cdn.eporner.com/photos/257256.jpg

http://adultxxxarea.com/all_img/93ozn7daewyquwa4nla74zd37suth2tb5bj34efyg4j6tq9r3z.jpg

https://imgur.com/OelBlLK

Not sure I would encourage anyone to be "totally naked", mostly for hygiene and safety purposes. I mean, would you really want to put your naked backside on a chair or booth in a restaurant, knowing that it likely hasn't been wiped down in while? But that is up to the individual woman to decide what they would be comfortable with. I would certainly appreciate seeing a woman walking around naked (either partially or completely).

 

[Stef2424]

Not sure I would encourage anyone to be "totally naked", mostly for hygiene and safety purposes. I mean, would you really want to put your naked backside on a chair or booth in a restaurant, knowing that it likely hasn't been wiped down in while? But that is up to the individual woman to decide what they would be comfortable with. I would certainly appreciate seeing a woman walking around naked (either partially or completely).

Agree. Always nice to see a naked woman.
They may have no will to go naked in public but it should be their right to choose freely.