Cheef's Definition of Nudism
Jenny6833A
his personal answers.
To reduce Cheef's answers to stand-alone statements, I've done some editing.
That consists of merging the question with the answer, plus some editing for
brevity. I think I've done so fairly. Cheef is encouraged to identify and
correct any errors I may have introduced.
After the editing mentioned above, ch...@cheef.com would seem to say,
>1. DEFINITIONS: A nudist is one who practices nudism. Nudism is the
practice of
>social nudity absent of sexual activity or focus.
>2. NUDIST VALUES/PRINCIPLES: Nudists are a diverse lot. There is only one
core nudist value or core nudist principle: nudists regard the practice of
nudism as good.
>3. BENEFITS OF NUDISM: The benefits of nudism are too numerous to list
exhaustively. Benefits also apply in differing degrees in different
situations. Benefits include comfort, relaxation, body acceptance of self &
others, greater body self-awareness, sensual pleasure, sun exposure, leveling
of social differences, and connection with environment. The benefits of nudism
within a family are the same as the general benefits above.
>4. PROMOTING NUDISM: The best way to promote nudism is for
>individuals to testify to the benefits they find in nudism.
>Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words: bodies relaxing
>on the beach, faces smiling as they sit in the hot tub, groups
>laughing around the dinner table, etc.
>Well, there you have it. I never promised it would be anything new,
>extensive, or earth-shaking.
>
>I only make one request... before you attack my answers to these
>questions, please answer them yourself.
Cheef, I think you did a good job. I'll accept #2, #3, and #4 without comment.
Item #1, the definitions of nudist and nudism, would seem to need a bit of work
to achieve clarity. To save scrolling, I'll repeat it here.
>1. DEFINITIONS: A nudist is one who practices nudism. Nudism is the
practice of
>social nudity absent of sexual activity or focus.
Nudist: Is a person a nudist only when practicing nudism? If so, most who
claim to be nudists are in fact nudists only a minority of the time. In my
view, a politician is a politician even when asleep and thus when presumably
not politicking; similarly for most other words that describe what people are.
Thus, as I see it, a nudist continues to be a nudist when nude in a
*non*-social setting, and continues to be a nudist when clothed. OTOH, I don't
think one skinny dipping experience is enough to make a person a nudist, not
even during the skinny dipping episode itself. Thus, I'd suggest revising the
first sentence to read: "A nudist is one who *frequently* practices nudism."
Nudism: IMO, this is where the clarity problems lurk.
a) You equate nudism with *social* nudity, thus eliminating all need for such
common terms as "social nudist" and "solo nudist." I might accept that
anything short of full social nudism is an intermediate category of nudism.
However, I still regard a person who frequently hikes nude in the hills, but
does so alone, as a nudist of some sort. Similarly for a person who lives
nude, but alone.
b) I understand "social nudity" to mean "nude among other nude people."
However, all dictionaries I know of put a different spin on "social": "Living
together in communities; Of or relating to communal living; Living together in
organized groups." If that's your meaning, then "social nudity" is limited to
full time residents of nudist parks. I'm not sure what meaning you intend.
Rewording to clarify your intent seems necessary.
c) Assuming you intend social nudity to mean "nude among other nude people"
then how many in what circumstances? If a couple of college students are
routinely nude in their dorm room, but never elsewhere, are they therefore
nudists? Do a couple (or a couple with minor children) qualify as nudists if
they are routinely nude inside their home but never elsewhere?
d) What's "nudity" mean? In the United States, at least, one needs to resolve
the dictionary meaning (bare) versus the various legal meanings which focus on
specific body parts or portions thereof. I suspect that you intend neither.
Whatever you do mean, you should make it clear.
e) If nude hubby gives nude me that special look of his across a swimming pool
filled with nude people, or if I give my special look to him, are we guilty of
sexual focus? Are we thus not nudists for the duration of our secret
interchange? If we later retire to the privacy of our RV to do whatever we
sexually do, are we thus not nudists for the duration of our sexual activity?
I think "absent of sexual activity or focus" is more than a bit strong. It
seems to me that distinctions need to be made regarding "discreet" and
"private." And, frankly, I don't think formal marriage has anything to do with
anything here. I wouldn't ban discreet, private sexual activity among
consenting adults. For that matter, I wouldn't ban the offer-and-accept
sequence that constitutes consent or the offer-and-decline sequence that ends
the matter. I see nudist society as no different from clothed society: I
strongly doubt that the nudity inherent to nudist society requires the
imposition of any special rules. To believe otherwise would be to say that
nudity does equal sex.
f) And, of course, "sexual activity" and "sexual focus" are terms that need to
be better defined. I say this, at least partially, because I've read screeds
on rec.nude in which the screed-author objects to having seen a pat, a kiss, or
some other personal demonstration of affection that I regard as innocuous.
And, as to sexual focus, I think basic American philosophy ought to apply: we
should prohibit actions, not what someone guesses to be someone else's
thoughts.
*********
Cheef, you said, "before you attack my answers to these questions, please
answer them yourself."
I'm not attacking. I'm seeking clarification and offering thoughts and
analysis for your consideration.
You've put forward your draft, which I regard as a darn good start. I don't
want to offer a competing draft, certainly not yet.
Instead, I hope you can become the author of a statement to which all nudists
can agree.
Regards,
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
nudistfamily
"Jenny6833A" <jenny...@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20020829144547...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> Instead, I hope you can become the author of a statement to which all nudists
> can agree.
That would be nice, but you are overly optimistic.
Instead, I think we should TRY to agree, and even if not everyone agrees, give
that "type" of nudism a name and trademark it,
so that it can't be distorted. Then we could authorize certain establishments
to use that
trademark, and also designate certain public venues as meeting the standards for
that trademark.
Then we could start up rec.[insert trademark]
Those who don't agree with the statement can start up their own newsgroup...or
stay here.
STEVE
jenny...@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Keep it simple, stupid. -STEVE
gbrannan
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Keep it simple, stupid. -STEVE
Yes, I think that this is way over-analyzed. It was fun to read, but still
over-analyzed. I'll stick to Webster's definitions of nudist and nudism.
STEVE
"gbrannan" <gbra...@mchsi.spammenot.com> wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It seems like we have different ideas about what 'fun' is. ;-)
You might want to read an old interview I found that has some
interesting comments about nudism; particularly, one about not having to
name (or define) what you do naturally. Alice Thorpe knew how to keep
it simple. -STEVE
gbrannan
"STEVE" <cr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:crill-958260....@nntp.concentric.net...
I didn't like what she said about people walking nude on a beach and that
they may be offending someone. If nudity is common on a particular beach,
then people should be comfortable being nude without fear of reprisal.
Also, if nudity is common on a particular beach, others should be
comfortable seeing people nude even if they themselves aren't nude.
I like this one better.
http://www.personal.u-net.com/~tedder/nats/denial.htm
![Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUfSJ7o_FjUqoAliiC8_BE4KD7dOK87VrBXtdy5whL3kICFYKmdFg=s40-c)
Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm]
> After the editing mentioned above, ch...@cheef.com would seem to say,
<snip>
> The benefits of nudism
> within a family are the same as the general benefits above.
I think Jenny did an excellent job of editing.
This one point could use a little clarifying on my part.
In one sense the benefits of nudism are the same for a family as for
people in general. However, because each set of relationships is
different, nudism will benefit each set of relationships differently.
> Item #1, the definitions of nudist and nudism, would seem to need a bit of work
> to achieve clarity.
As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details." Since much of the
rest of what I wrote refers back to this definition, this is of course
the center of what I wrote. It is also where you and I (and others)
have had our differences in the past, and are likely to continue to
have them.
Let me also add that I have a great deal of sympathy with the KISS
crowd. (Not meaning I'm a big Ace Frehley fan, but rather that I
think it's good to keep it simple.) Plus, I think some ambiguity is
going to be inevitable because the nature of language is, as Lewis
Carrol so wisely pointed out, that (for better or worse) people make
words mean whatever they want them to.
> >1. DEFINITIONS: A nudist is one who practices nudism. Nudism is the
> practice of
> >social nudity absent of sexual activity or focus.
>
> Nudist: Is a person a nudist only when practicing nudism?
No.
> Thus, as I see it, a nudist continues to be a nudist when nude in a
> *non*-social setting, and continues to be a nudist when clothed. OTOH, I don't
> think one skinny dipping experience is enough to make a person a nudist, not
> even during the skinny dipping episode itself. Thus, I'd suggest revising the
> first sentence to read: "A nudist is one who *frequently* practices nudism."
How about "regularly" instead of "frequently"? This, of course, still
leaves some ambiguity. However, that's inevitable unless you want to
choose a specific frequency, such as "a minimum of twelve days
annually", which I don't think we want to do. After all, what happens
when one year a death in the family means a person can only make it
out 11 days that year?
> a) You equate nudism with *social* nudity, thus eliminating all need for such
> common terms as "social nudist" and "solo nudist." I might accept that
> anything short of full social nudism is an intermediate category of nudism.
> However, I still regard a person who frequently hikes nude in the hills, but
> does so alone, as a nudist of some sort. Similarly for a person who lives
> nude, but alone.
I am an example of someone who made the transition from one to the
other. In elementary school I normally went nude at home when nobody
else was present. Starting in junior high, I regularly went nude
sunbathing and hiking solo. However, I don't think I was fully a
nudist until I first went to a nude beach where there were other
people present.
I would say that I had previously been an "aspiring nudist", although
at the time I did refer to myself using terms such as "solo nudist" or
"closet nudist".
> b) I understand "social nudity" to mean "nude among other nude people."
> However, all dictionaries I know of put a different spin on "social"
I checked several dictionaries, and while they all had the "living
together" definition you mentioned, they also had additional
definitions which talked about human interaction. So when I say
"social", I merely mean "with other people" as opposed to alone.
> c) Assuming you intend social nudity to mean "nude among other nude people"
> then how many in what circumstances?
Good assumption. :)
Now, answering the rest of your post becomes unreasonable in my view,
because it mostly involves exceptional cases rather than standardized
ones.
There's an old saying in jurisprudence that "difficult cases make bad
law". To place it back in the nudist context, I would say that in
defining nudists and nudism "We should look at what is typical, rather
than what is exceptional. We should look at what is at the center of
expected practice, rather than what is at the fringes."
Thus, I would put what a typical nudist should "look like", without
necessarily excluding those who do not fit the full description.
This all takes us back to my original definition.
All of that said, I would add one more thing, which is that I do think
the "offer and accept sequence" is indeed outside the bounds of
nudism. I would certainly not push for a government ban of it, but I
do think that those participating in nudist activities should expect
that they will not be asked to engage in sexual activity. [and, of
course, I am not talking about pre-existing relationships here]
Allen
then Jenny wrote some:
Then CHeef followed:
>However, I don't think I was fully a
>nudist until I first went to a nude beach where there were other
>people present.
>
I somehow disagree. Nudism need not be practiced with people or without. For
one to be a nudist, he or she should only have to go nude by choice, whether
in the presence of people or not. I agree there should be a limiting factor to
exclude people that go nude for purient reasons, or are forced to by
circumstances.
To me, a nudist is a nudist not for the sake of being naked, but because their
internal souls allows them to be naked, regardless of whether there are people
around or not. I am just as much a nudist when at home naked in my hot tub
alone as I am when good friends are with me. If I had no one to be nude with, I
would still be nude.
Think of the lesbian and gay scenario. Are they straight if they never reveal
to others that they are gay? Must they let the world know that they are gay to
be gay?
>I would say that I had previously been an "aspiring nudist", although
>at the time I did refer to myself using terms such as "solo nudist" or
>"closet nudist".
>
In some respects, I am still a closet nudist. Because of my job and especially
my wife's job, we can not reveal being nudists to everyone. I think that a
closet nudist is one that keeps it a secret, just as a closet homosexual keeps
that fact a secret.
>So when I say
>"social", I merely mean "with other people" as opposed to alone.
>
I agree with this. I would term the "social nudist" to mean one that is
practicing nudism in a social setting.
>There's an old saying in jurisprudence that "difficult cases make bad
>law"
This is true, and unfortuantely, becomes necessary. Tough times call for tough
measures. When the tough play strip poker, I end up nude. I won!!!!
Just a thought.........Allen
nudistfamily
"Allen" <topf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020905151506...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> CHeef wrote some:
> then Jenny wrote some:
>
> Then CHeef followed:
>
> >However, I don't think I was fully a
> >nudist until I first went to a nude beach where there were other
> >people present.
> >
>
> I somehow disagree. Nudism need not be practiced with people or without. For
> one to be a nudist, he or she should only have to go nude by choice, whether
> in the presence of people or not. I agree there should be a limiting factor to
> exclude people that go nude for purient reasons, or are forced to by
> circumstances.
>
> To me, a nudist is a nudist not for the sake of being naked, but because their
> internal souls allows them to be naked, regardless of whether there are people
> around or not. I am just as much a nudist when at home naked in my hot tub
> alone as I am when good friends are with me. If I had no one to be nude with,
I
> would still be nude.
I don't get this "internal soul" baloney.
A "nudist", using the COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD definition, goes nude
among others (not including bathing, doctor's offices, etc, and not
including spouse/kids/parents/etc). That is, amongst strangers or
semi-strangers.
Sorry, but I don't think sitting in a hot tub naked and alone triggers "nudist"
in the minds of MOST people. To most people, "nudist" IMPLIES social
nudist.
>
> Think of the lesbian and gay scenario. Are they straight if they never reveal
> to others that they are gay? Must they let the world know that they are gay to
> be gay?
>
> >I would say that I had previously been an "aspiring nudist", although
> >at the time I did refer to myself using terms such as "solo nudist" or
> >"closet nudist".
> >
>
> In some respects, I am still a closet nudist. Because of my job and especially
> my wife's job, we can not reveal being nudists to everyone.
What KIND of jobs are those?
Weenie teachers?
CO British Columbia
"nudistfamily" <nudist...@hotmail.killspam.com> wrote:
> "Allen" <topf...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020905151506...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> > CHeef wrote some:
> > >However, I don't think I was fully a
> > >nudist until I first went to a nude beach where there were other
> > >people present.
> > >
> >
> > I somehow disagree. Nudism need not be practiced with people or
> > without. For
> > one to be a nudist, he or she should only have to go nude by choice,
> > whether
> > in the presence of people or not. I agree there should be a limiting
> > factor to
> > exclude people that go nude for purient reasons, or are forced to by
> > circumstances.
> >
> > To me, a nudist is a nudist not for the sake of being naked, but
> > because their
> > internal souls allows them to be naked, regardless of whether there are
> > people
> > around or not. I am just as much a nudist when at home naked in my hot
> > tub
> > alone as I am when good friends are with me. If I had no one to be nude
> > with,
> I
> > would still be nude.
I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with Nudist Family here... :-)
> I don't get this "internal soul" baloney.
He lost me there, too.
> A "nudist", using the COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD definition, goes nude
> among others (not including bathing, doctor's offices, etc, and not
> including spouse/kids/parents/etc). That is, amongst strangers or
> semi-strangers.
>
> Sorry, but I don't think sitting in a hot tub naked and alone triggers
> "nudist"
> in the minds of MOST people. To most people, "nudist" IMPLIES social
> nudist.
I agree, but that doesn't mean it *isn't* a nudist activity. I don't
think you can look at one instance and make a determination.
Are you a jogger because you jog to the bus every morning? Maybe. Or
maybe you are eternally late.
Many people who are not nudists use their hot tubs naked. But they do
it with the knowledge that they have privacy. Or maybe for the thrill
of potentially getting caught. They may do it with their sexual
partners. They may do it with their family. Maybe even with close
friends. But if they aren't nudists they will probably draw the line
before including acquaintances and strangers. They may only do it in the
dark. Or when they are drunk. Or horny.
The truth is that there is some overlap between non-nudist and nudist
activities. They do some of the same things, but for somewhat different
reasons.
Are you a jogger because you jog to the bus every morning? Maybe. Or
maybe you are eternally late.
Bill.
--
Clothing-Optional British Columbia
http://members.shaw.ca/co-bc <<<<<<<<<< new URL <<<<<<<
============== "The future is not what it used to be" ===============
nudistfamily
"CO British Columbia" <co...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:co-bc-217670....@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <EDPd9.9639$LI2.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "nudistfamily" <nudist...@hotmail.killspam.com> wrote:
>
> Are you a jogger because you jog to the bus every morning?
Only if you do so while wearing skimpy little nylon shorts* or baggy sweatpants*
and $85.00 Nikes.
*optional for nudist joggers
Allen
>What KIND of jobs are those?
>Weenie teachers?
>
The kind that you get fired from if you are a nudist.
Just a thought.........Allen
Allen
>I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with Nudist Family here... :-)
>
>> I don't get this "internal soul" baloney.
>
>He lost me there, too.
>
Sorry....
I think that nudism is a state of mind, not a thing that one dose. If just
being nude around other people is nudism, there are a whole lot of people in
operating rooms that are nudists. Just being naked is not an indication of a
nudist. And a person who is a nudist in still a nudist when he is dressed.
In short, we were mental nudists long before we were physical nudists.
And yes, some of us were just mental, whether nudist or not. : -P
Just a thought.........Allen
CO British Columbia
topf...@aol.com (Allen) wrote:
like I said:
> The truth is that there is some overlap between non-nudist and nudist
> activities. They do some of the same things, but for somewhat different
> reasons.
You say:
> And a person who is a nudist in still a nudist when he is
> dressed.
True, but if you've never been nude in a social situation, it's
questionable whether you really qualify as a "nudist".
Bill
Georgia Richmond
> jenny...@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in message
> news:<20020829144547...@mb-cl.aol.com>...
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Item #1, the definitions of nudist and nudism, would seem to need a
> > bit of work to achieve clarity.
>
> As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details." Since much of the
> rest of what I wrote refers back to this definition, this is of course
> the center of what I wrote. It is also where you and I (and others)
> have had our differences in the past, and are likely to continue to
> have them.
>
> Let me also add that I have a great deal of sympathy with the KISS
> crowd. (Not meaning I'm a big Ace Frehley fan, but rather that I
> think it's good to keep it simple.) Plus, I think some ambiguity is
> going to be inevitable because the nature of language is, as Lewis
> Carrol so wisely pointed out, that (for better or worse) people make
> words mean whatever they want them to.
Cheef is certainly a chalenging option. :-)
Stay Natural...
Georgia Richmond
--
"If someone were to accuse me of something.... the responce is to
accuse them right back." - Kenneth R. Dyson <kdy...@ddminc.net>,
rec.nude post <unh2e3j...@corp.supernews.com> (Fri, 6 Sep 2002
06:20:29 -0700)
"I do not consider what little peter [Peter Riden
<Affi...@the-grand-barn.com>] offers as nudism is the future of the
lifestyle. He encourages all types of sexual lifestyles without
regard (pedophilia, incest, orgies) just as long as they are nude." -
Kenneth R. Dyson <kdy...@ddminc.net>, rec.nude post
<ujqgrdd...@corp.supernews.com> (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:48:23 -0700);
at that time, neither Riden nor any other 'Barner' had accused Dyson
of encouraging pedophilia, incest, or orgies - let alone all three of
these
A simple challenge that Kenneth R. Dyson refuses to accept...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3845CEAB.31E0DC57%40hotmail.com