2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I cannot believe I am the first to comment when this was posted as long ago as Jan 13th! No matter...

I believe it is wrong to assume that children and nudity don't mix. Children only have a problem with nudity if they are taught to by adults. Often, far too often, this leads to body shame; being told to cover their bodies, to hide their bodies away as something shameful. Equally if their only impression of what adults look like naked comes from the air-brushed pictures in the media, they will grow up with a poor view of themselves which cannot be a good thing.

It is interesting to note that those nations where nudity is accepted as a part of everyday life, have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy, abortions and STI's. Germany and Denmark are just two examples where nudity is common in parks and on beaches whenever the weather is warm enough and they have one-tenth the teenage pregnancy rate of the US.

I have also come across this comment posted elsewhere by the author of a book about nudity in childhood:

"I spend eight years researching the effects of nudity on children and found that one of the most positive things you can do for your offspring is leave them with a feeling that the body is not evil. Because of what we found while writing the book, we called it Growing Up Without Shame. That is one of the greatest advantages of a clothing-optional lifestyle: Having no body shame."

I think that says it all.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

It is a great shame that the only way a person can be naked in Oregon is to call it a protest.  For naturists, the purpose of being naked is to relax without the discomfort of clothes; protest is not normally a relaxation!

It also send a very negative message about acceptance of our bodies.  Apparently Oregon views the human body in its natural state as something to be used to shock or disturb others. To me and any other naturist this is a very perverse view.

Here in the UK we have been busy writing down our beliefs as naturists. This does not make naturism a religion and it in no way conflicts with most religions in this world, but it does show how passionate many naturists are and how positive we believe our lifestyle / hobby is.

Laws such as those passed in Oregon are always based on prejudice without the benefit of any kind of objective research into the true effect [benefits] of social nudity.

I guess your only hope is to use your votes to remove the individuals responsible for these dubious decisions.  Good luck!

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context