Clothing Optional Beaches

[Bookcat]

For interested readers: ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=458230&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=modesty&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=77&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

About the person who answered:

Dr. Richard Geraghty
Dr. Richard Geraghty is professor of philosophy at St. Joseph’s House of Studies, the college-level facility of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, at EWTN. Prior to coming to EWTN, Dr. Geraghty taught philosophy for 18 years at the University of Dayton, Providence College, and St. John’s College Seminary. Dr. Geraghty earned his BA in philosophy at the University of Dayton, an MA in English from Ohio State University, and his MA and PhD in philosophy from the University of Toronto, where his thesis was entitled “The Object of Moral Philosophy According to St. Thomas Aquinas.”

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

If your going to hold that it is the Catholic position that clothes-optional beaches are immoral, than the CC does need to say it.

Nope it does not…lots of things are note spelled out by the Magisterium …the Church is not a causistry book…

I should have phrased that differently. If you’re going to hold that my position is contrary to Catholic morality, there should be some sort of teaching that it in some way violates.

The CCC doesn’t say that there must always be something covered. Put it this way, CCC 2521 says that modesty means covering up something IF it should be covered up. CCC 2521 does not exclude the possibility for the body to not be covered at all.

round in circles we go…I must get off this ride…so I will refer you to my prior answers

Your prior answers don’t show how the CCC teaches anything contrary to my position. You seem to irrationally jump from “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” (CCC 2521) to “There are certain parts of the body which should always remain veiled in the presence of others, and keeping them veiled is modesty.” In other words, it seems like you project presuppositions into CCC 2521 as given.

sure…but it is NOT papal teaching…

I never indicated that it was any teaching of the Magisterium. I wanted to use him because of how much of an important and influential man he was.

…but then again you noted yourself that he would not agree with you here…

NO. I said that theologically JPII and I agree on the principles behind the virtue of modesty, but that he would probably disagree on its application, which depends on social effects of dress. JPII and I agree that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person”, but may disagree as to whether clothes-optional beaches would cause more lust (and thus play a negative role with regard to the value of the person).

The disagreement is merely in the field of psychology/sociology, NOT moral theology.

How do you know it’s not something for practice (clothes-optional beaches)? Have you done any research into the social science in this regard, or are you making assumptions? It may seem like common sense that clothes-optional beaches would lead to immorality in practice, but sometime social science disproves what was thought to be common sense.

theology…

Catholic theology doesn’t say whether or not it is something for practice. Rather, Catholic theology gives moral principles (for modesty), and the application of these principles depends on several factors.

To make a point, consider conditions for a just war laid out in the CCC. When a person uses these to say that a war is unjust, he can’t just cite them, say he knows the war is morally wrong because of theology, and walk away. Rather, there is a ton of factors he needs to consider that are outside the realm of theology. This is because these factors (listed in CCC 2309), such as “there is a serious prospect of success” has a lot more to do with knowledge of the military capabilities of both sides.

This is the same thing with modesty. The Catholic Church teaches certain moral principles, but the answers to the questions these principles give us are in the realm of social science. The types of questions I’m talking about are:

“Will this dress (or lack thereof) incite lust or prevent lust in this situation?”
“Will this dress (or lack thereof) cause any positive or negative effects in society or for individuals?”
“Will allowing this dress (or lack thereof) cause people to change their thoughts and behaviors? If so, how?”

The answers to these questions are in the realm of social science, not theology. Theology tell us what to do once we have the answers to these questions.

Actually, the CCC does not, in any way, contradict my views regarding modesty. You keep assuming that the “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” phrase means that the CC teaches that certain parts must always remain hidden (barring a greater evil). It does not.

yes it does…around and round we go…

Would you agree with me that it would not be contrary to CCC 2521 for someone to be nude in front of one’s spouse when it’s just the two of you? Now, would it be contrary to CCC 2521 for someone to be nude in public showers in front of others of the same sex? What about in front of immediate family members of either sex? What about being nude in an operating room in front of members of both sexes? What about at a beach? My point is that CCC 2521 doesn’t take a definitive stand on any of these, but rather says that when some part of the body aught to be covered, the virtue one exercises in doing so is modesty. In fact, nowhere in the CCC or any authoritative CC teaching is a position taken on any of these. Moral theology tells us that we need to properly respect the body and avoid lust, but again, one must appeal to social science to help apply these.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

and the Church also would say it is also on the person not to tempt others…but then again I also note the very fact of walking around the beach naked has already “unveiled” it all!

If certain locations in a culture are locations where others don’t need to go, aren’t likely to pass by otherwise, and are known to be areas where there might be nudity, than it would be purely the fault of the person with the problem. Such a location would be one which a person intentionally went to or by, knowing there might be naked people. Plus, the obligation to not tempt other only goes to a certain degree…

Take, for example, the possibility of a homosexual man in a men’s locker room (or communal showers). The other men being naked may be a source of temptation to him. However, in part because such a situation rare (3% of population being homosexual, perhaps higher at FUS), the men changing aren’t sinning by being a temptation to that man.

Of course, this would again be subject to the question of whether or not a person being naked would a temptation to others to lust in certain contexts, which is a question for social sciences.

I really think that a less puritanical view of the human body would reduce sexual sin in society. It seems that any culture which exposes parts of the human body in public which may be considered sexual in other cultures, isn’t lust-inducing in the one it is exposed in. For example, in many places in Africa, women go around in public topless. In those cultures, topless women don’t tempt men to lust. Note: I’m not saying women should walk around topless, I’m just making a point regarding the effects of casual exposure of the human body.

the ends do not justify the means (I know you are not intending this…but this is what it ends up being…it can go there easily)

Changing one’s view of social nudity from “the entire body may never be shown in public” to “casual exposure of even the entire body in public may sometimes be acceptable” is not using any illicit means to an end. This is because the exposure of even the entire human body is not evil per se, and is not necessarily an evil mean. It depends on many factors…

and we are not talking tribal groups who have always been like that…we are talking about the beach

I know that. However, studying the effects of various practices in one culture can help us better understand the effects those same practices will have in other cultures. We won’t definitively know if those same practices will have the same effects in our culture, but studying these things, as well as psychological studies, can help us come to a better understanding of human beings.

 

[nablaise]

This discussion is sounding like a Catholic - Pentecostal discussion on how sinful producing/drinking wine is.

And considering the story of Father Noah with wine…
and nudity…
perhaps there is a close relationship of interest to think about seriously.

God bless

 

[Bookcat]

Part 2/2

If certain locations in a culture are locations where others don’t need to go, aren’t likely to pass by otherwise, and are known to be areas where there might be nudity, than it would be purely the fault of the person with the problem. Such a location would be one which a person intentionally went to or by, knowing there might be naked people. Plus, the obligation to not tempt other only goes to a certain degree…

This is not consistent with Catholic Moral teaching…sorry. But one should not simply be having these places…(Beaches where one can bear all for the beach…Public nudity here is not an option…but we are going around and around…one should not expose oneself to others in this fashion…

Of course, this would again be subject to the question of whether or not a person being naked would a temptation to others to lust in certain contexts, which is a question for social sciences.

For theology…

Changing one’s view of social nudity from “the entire body may never be shown in public” to “casual exposure of even the entire body in public may sometimes be acceptable” is not using any illicit means to an end. This is because the exposure of even the entire human body is not evil per se, and is not necessarily an evil mean. It depends on many factors…

it is not permitted in this context…only in the intimacy of the husband and wife…doctor office…hospital etc…not a beach…to say "there should be these beaches so porn rate can drop (which I doubt…) is seeking to justify a bad means by a good end.

I know that. However, studying the effects of various practices in one culture can help us better understand the effects those same practices will have in other cultures. We won’t definitively know if those same practices will have the same effects in our culture, but studying these things, as well as psychological studies, can help us come to a better understanding of human beings.

Look to say it simply…Yes modesty has a cultural aspect…but us going butt naked on the beach goes beyond modesty …period.

Refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden…certainly beaches where one bares all …has gone beyond the point where modesty ends…for everything has been “unveiled” as if the world was ones spouse and so the world can see all of your body

 

[Bookcat]

I should have phrased that differently. If you’re going to hold that my position is contrary to Catholic morality, there should be some sort of teaching that it in some way violates.

Your prior answers don’t show how the CCC teaches anything contrary to my position. You seem to irrationally jump from “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” (CCC 2521) to “There are certain parts of the body which should always remain veiled in the presence of others, and keeping them veiled is modesty.” In other words, it seems like you project presuppositions into CCC 2521 as given.

I have …and I am not going to keep going in circles.

I never indicated that it was any teaching of the Magisterium. I wanted to use him because of how much of an important and influential man he was.

then you turn around and say he would disagree with you…

NO. I said that theologically JPII and I agree on the principles behind the virtue of modesty, but that he would probably disagree on its application, which depends on social effects of dress. JPII and I agree that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person”, but may disagree as to whether clothes-optional beaches would cause more lust (and thus play a negative role with regard to the value of the person).

It seems you disagree more than that…for one must remember that things are different now since the fall…concupscience and all…one must take everything he is writing…

The disagreement is merely in the field of psychology/sociology, NOT moral theology.
moral theology would say :NO to baring it all on the beach…

Catholic theology doesn’t say whether or not it is something for practice. Rather, Catholic theology gives moral principles (for modesty), and the application of these principles depends on several factors.

To make a point, consider conditions for a just war laid out in the CCC. When a person uses these to say that a war is unjust, he can’t just cite them, say he knows the war is morally wrong because of theology, and walk away. Rather, there is a ton of factors he needs to consider that are outside the realm of theology. This is because these factors (listed in CCC 2309), such as “there is a serious prospect of success” has a lot more to do with knowledge of the military capabilities of both sides.

This is the same thing with modesty. The Catholic Church teaches certain moral principles, but the answers to the questions these principles give us are in the realm of social science. The types of questions I’m talking about are:

“Will this dress (or lack thereof) incite lust or prevent lust in this situation?”
“Will this dress (or lack thereof) cause any positive or negative effects in society or for individuals?”
“Will allowing this dress (or lack thereof) cause people to change their thoughts and behaviors? If so, how?”

sorry this is a “please don’t eat the daisies thing”…this is well beyond the limits of modesty…

The answers to these questions are in the realm of social science, not theology. Theology tell us what to do once we have the answers to these questions.

wrong …theology and moral teachings all the way…the other sciences can contribute…info etc…

Would you agree with me that it would not be contrary to CCC 2521 for someone to be nude in front of one’s spouse when it’s just the two of you? Now, would it be contrary to CCC 2521 for someone to be nude in public showers in front of others of the same sex? What about in front of immediate family members of either sex? What about being nude in an operating room in front of members of both sexes? What about at a beach? My point is that CCC 2521 doesn’t take a definitive stand on any of these, but rather says that when some part of the body aught to be covered, the virtue one exercises in doing so is modesty. In fact, nowhere in the CCC or any authoritative CC teaching is a position taken on any of these. Moral theology tells us that we need to properly respect the body and avoid lust, but again, one must appeal to social science to help apply these.

hum…it is a given that spouses can be naked in front of each other…lets not be silly here…but this does not mean they can do so on the beach…“Circumstance” is one of the aspects that need to be good for something to be good…the moral object, intention and circumstance…all three must be good…so even spouses should not bare it all on the beach…

" My point is that CCC 2521 doesn’t take a definitive stand on any of these, but rather says that when some part of the body aught to be covered, the virtue one exercises in doing so is modesty."

---- come on are you serious? that is just silly …if ANY parts are to be not unveiled…certainly to unveil all the parts is beyond modesty!!

again such public beach nudity goes WELL BEYOND any modesty…it is a “don’t eat the daisies” thing…

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/3

If certain locations in a culture are locations where others don’t need to go, aren’t likely to pass by otherwise, and are known to be areas where there might be nudity, than it would be purely the fault of the person with the problem. Such a location would be one which a person intentionally went to or by, knowing there might be naked people. Plus, the obligation to not tempt other only goes to a certain degree…

This is not consistent with Catholic Moral teaching…sorry. But one should not simply be having these places…(Beaches where one can bear all for the beach…Public nudity here is not an option…but we are going around and around…one should not expose oneself to others in this fashion…

There’s nothing inconsistent with Catholic Moral teaching here. One reason why it isn’t is because there are solid pieces of evidence that show that in places where casual, social nudity (as opposed to say voyeurism or exhibitionism) is accepted, the nudity doesn’t arouse lust (psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1933-02865-001&CFID=9249663&CFTOKEN=16651498 , scribd.com/doc/30328401/Sexual-Modesty-Social-Meanings-And-the-Nudist-Camp , versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf , accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34711618_ITM ). Another reason is because this scenario would be a remote occasion for sin (considering the link between sex and nudity is learned, not innate, and thus nudity isn’t a near occasion of sin by its nature).

Could you point out how you think it is inconsistent with Catholic Moral teaching?

Of course, this would again be subject to the question of whether or not a person being naked would a temptation to others to lust in certain contexts, which is a question for social sciences.

For theology…

Theology does NOT tell us if “X” is going to make people be more or less likely to do “Y”.

Changing one’s view of social nudity from “the entire body may never be shown in public” to “casual exposure of even the entire body in public may sometimes be acceptable” is not using any illicit means to an end. This is because the exposure of even the entire human body is not evil per se, and is not necessarily an evil mean. It depends on many factors…

it is not permitted in this context…only in the intimacy of the husband and wife…doctor office…hospital etc…not a beach…to say "there should be these beaches so porn rate can drop (which I doubt…) is seeking to justify a bad means by a good end.

What’s the “bad means” you are referring to. I think you are coming into this subject with the presupposition that nudity itself is a bad thing, then fitting that into what you read from the CC’s teachings.

Nudity is not evil per se.

Look to say it simply…Yes modesty has a cultural aspect…but us going butt naked on the beach goes beyond modesty …period.

Refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden…certainly beaches where one bares all …has gone beyond the point where modesty ends…for everything has been “unveiled” as if the world was ones spouse and so the world can see all of your body

Modesty, in short, means being dressed appropriately. This means covering things up when they should be covered up. This does NOT mean certain things should be covered up in public regardless of other circumstances.

There’s no continuum in which wearing less clothes is less modest (the virtue) and wearing more clothes is more modest. In different scenarios, exercising the virtue of modesty means taking on various types of dress. It would be extremely immodest and uncharitable to wear a swimsuit at Mass, but not so at a beach. On the other hand, it would be out of place (although usually not immoral) to wear a suit and tie in the middle of a men’s locker room.

When you were writing this, did you ever get the sense that you might have been making the assumption that nudity was an inherently sexual thing? I don’t intend to sound mean in asking that, but it does seem like that is a presupposition that is influencing your interpretation of CC teaching on the matter. This notion is very strong in America, and I see that it becomes largely a self-fulfilling prophesy psychologically/socially (holding this will lead to less non-sexual nudity, which will lead to the sexualization of nudity). It was a presupposition I had for most of my life. If you didn’t make this assumption, than why would you throw the word “spouse” in there?

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/3

I never indicated that it was any teaching of the Magisterium. I wanted to use him because of how much of an important and influential man he was.

then you turn around and say he would disagree with you…

NO. I said that theologically JPII and I agree on the principles behind the virtue of modesty, but that he would probably disagree on its application, which depends on social effects of dress. JPII and I agree that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person”, but may disagree as to whether clothes-optional beaches would cause more lust (and thus play a negative role with regard to the value of the person).

It seems you disagree more than that…for one must remember that things are different now since the fall…concupscience and all…one must take everything he is writing…

No. JPII and I don’t disagree when it comes to theology, but rather when it comes to the psychological effects of various things in practice. Consider how JPII would answer the following theological or psychological questions:

Theological: When is immodesty present? He says: “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in position of an object for enjoyment.” (Love and Responsibility, page 190). JPII and I agree.

Theological: What does the application of this principle depend on? He says: “The principle is simple and obvious, but its application depends on the individual, the milieu, the society. Dress is always a social question, a function of (healthy or unhealthy) social customs.” (Love and Responsibility, page 190, emphasis added) JPII and I agree.

Theological: May there be circumstances in which nakedness is modest? He says: “There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment,(even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness (immodesty of feeling), not the other… [If] we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve.” (Love and Responsibility, pages 190 and 191) JPII and I agree.

Psychological: Would acceptance of clothes-optional beaches in non-metropolitan areas likely to cause more arousal of concupiscence? I would suspect he’d say yes, while I would say no. However, this would be a disagreement outside of theology. Concupiscence, when being used as a term in moral theology, refers to man’s inclination to sin (CCC 2515). While it’s in the realm of theology to say that the Fall is the cause of concupiscence, social sciences can tell us under what circumstances one will be most lead toward certain behaviors, and thus, it is for social science to tell us whether or not something, in practice, will arouse concupiscence.

 

[BobObob]

Part 3/3

The disagreement is merely in the field of psychology/sociology, NOT moral theology.
moral theology would say :NO to baring it all on the beach…

If moral theology does say that it is immoral to be naked on the beach regardless of whether or not it arouses concupiscence, please show me some teaching of the CC that is contrary my opinion (that being naked on a beach might not be sinful).

The Catholic Church teaches certain moral principles, but the answers to the questions these principles give us are in the realm of social science. The types of questions I’m talking about are:

“Will this dress (or lack thereof) incite lust or prevent lust in this situation?”
“Will this dress (or lack thereof) cause any positive or negative effects in society or for individuals?”
“Will allowing this dress (or lack thereof) cause people to change their thoughts and behaviors? If so, how?”

sorry this is a “please don’t eat the daisies thing”…this is well beyond the limits of modesty…

Social science can help us determine if a scenario, like the one in "please don’t eat the daisies”, is likely to cause problems. It can also show if something (say, casual social nudity) won’t cause problems. Many times, social science will confirm that what seems to be common sense in this regard is correct, but it may also show some areas in which what seems obvious isn’t correct. This may be (and I think is) the case regarding the three questions above. I used to think that casual, social nudity would always cause lust, because that seemed to be common sense for me (who grew up in a culture that connects nudity to sex). However, I changed that view after considerable research.

Would you agree with me that it would not be contrary to CCC 2521 for someone to be nude in front of one’s spouse when it’s just the two of you…

hum…it is a given that spouses can be naked in front of each other…lets not be silly here…but this does not mean they can do so on the beach…“Circumstance” is one of the aspects that need to be good for something to be good…the moral object, intention and circumstance…all three must be good…so even spouses should not bare it all on the beach…

I would like to ask you, what is the moral object of casual, social nudity? Is it good, evil, or neutral? Since nudity in itself isn’t evil, I submit that the moral object of casual, social nudity might not be evil, and may potentially be good.

My point is that CCC 2521 doesn’t take a definitive stand on any of these, but rather says that when some part of the body aught to be covered, the virtue one exercises in doing so is modesty."

---- come on are you serious? that is just silly …if ANY parts are to be not unveiled…certainly to unveil all the parts is beyond modesty!!

again such public beach nudity goes WELL BEYOND any modesty…it is a “don’t eat the daisies” thing…

Modesty is no more a set of rules than charity is. It means dressing appropriately.

I think this shows that you are going with what seems obvious rather than what research shows. The research that I did indicated that casual, social nudity did not arouse lust like people in this culture conventionally think it would.

It’s OK for us as Catholics to disagree about the effects that casual, social nudity would have. We can do this because this steps outside Catholic theology and into social sciences.

 

[Bookcat]

BobObob…I am not going to keep going around in circles with you…I refer you to my previous posts and to the Church and theologians.

 

[Bookcat]

Look BoboBob…this is taking WAY too much time…I am not going to keep going round and round in circles with you.

(of course one must not be “puritanical”…or think the body is sinful…actually it is holy…and is not to be unveiled for the world…but one must not go the other way either)

Modesty according to the Church: “means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”…this especially goes for in public! (of course there is much more to it…but this is very much part of it…)

I refer you to all my posts and above all to the Church (which is not going to be in favor of public nudity on beaches…sorry that *is *a “please don’t eat the daisies thing”…and is well beyond modesty as the Church and virtue teach us…if that is not “unveiling what should remain unveiled” in public…nothing is)

and of course to the various Catholic Theologians with whom you can argue round and round with all you like …

I cannot continue to devote late hours to this…I must be off for some lectio divina and then bed…

I bid you good night!

Bookcat (who is tired of chasing tails in circles)

 

[BobObob]

(of course one must not be “puritanical”…or think the body is sinful…actually it is holy…and is not to be unveiled for the world…but one must not go the other way either)

I don’t think it is contrary to moral theology to hold that there are situations in which it may be morally acceptable to unveil the body to the world. Note: I’m not advocating that people run around naked.

I refer you to all my posts…

The thing is, I read all you posts and didn’t see any argument that appears disproves my position that I didn’t address.

I refer you to…above all to the Church (which is not going to be in favor of public nudity on beaches [which] is well beyond modesty as the Church and virtue teach us…if that is not “unveiling what should remain unveiled” in public…nothing is)

I would never expect the CC to endorse nudity in any context (public or private), but that doesn’t mean my position is contrary to the teachings of the CC.

Being nude on a beach may be unveiling what be be unveiled, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other contexts in which more of the body must be veiled.

sorry [nudity on the beach] *is *a “please don’t eat the daisies thing”

Actually, I think there is enough social science evidence that it is not. I gave links to some studies previously on this thread.

and of course to the various Catholic Theologians with whom you can argue round and round with all you like …

Catholic theologians, on many topics, like whether or mot a war is just, need to have sufficient understanding outside of the field of theology in order to give answers. It is the same way when you are talking about particulars as to what is modest dress and what is not.

 

[Bookcat]

BobOBob…again I am not going round and round with you…too much time and much that is produced is circles…you noted that there is nothing that you did not “ad-dress”…(I was not convinced…rather the opposite) and I would note the word there could mean (just from the looks of it) “to - dress” (ad being Latin that can be “to”) hehe…so I would say you were less on the side of “adequate ad-dressing”… hehe…)

I stand (or perhaps sit) by my posts…and wish you joy in Christ

Bookcat (sitting off in a corner for a nice nap in the sun)

 

[edwest2]

Still trying to promote the Hippie concept: Go nekkid.

This one is as old as the hills. Beaches are not an appropriate place to go nekkid.

God bless,
Ed

 

[nablaise]

At this point, I would like to thank all who have contributed.

However, I think there is a lot of wisdom in these words of the Catechism and G.K. Chesterton:

CCC 24

By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:

Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers… Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct.18

Above all - Charity

From Chesterton.org:

“Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.” - ILN 9/11/09

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” - ILN, 4/19/24

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” - ILN, 10/23/09

I can say that the discussion helped me personnally to zoom in and see more detailed truths. As someone who have been to a clothing-optional beach, here is what I can report in light of the comments that have been made:

1. Our society is very sick.
   One of the first thing that I noticed was a man walking with his t-shirt on. It looked ridiculous to me. Later, I noticed that many men were doing this kind of stuff. Walking fully nude somewhat long distance…I saw other men who seem to moving around with no purpose…talking to people…talking to girls (the girls where dressed; fully or regular beach uniform). In this regard, I concluded that these men have a very serious issue of insecurities…it seems that they are telling everyone or themselves: “Hey, I am free, I am fully naked, I can walk here and there…I can even stand in front of women and be not erected…I am celebrating,…let’s jump, let’s enjoy nature…”
   I found this attitude disturbing and provocative…even though they don’t seem to be aware of that.
   Not many women did this. The women I saw seemed to generally stay in their spot. Those who had kids they were busy with their kids. Only one or two women seemed to have this kind of problem…

All these is about those who are fully naked.

Now, on regular beach, I found a similar problem. There are people who are trying to show off and do other weird thing. The solution is to find a good peaceful spot. Once, I was there with my family. At one moment, when I turned around, there was a woman who was with her little kid. The kid was build some sand things. However, the woman was being provocative by the way she was looking and seating I felt a need to leave that place and find an other place.

1. There is a strong thirst for truth and freedom.
   When you look up the web page and some other internet sites that refers to that beach, the world ‘healing’ comes up often. Some people seem to go for theurapeutic reasons.
   I believe in some measure, the same thing applies to regular beach: when people fell like going to beach is a social thing to do.

However, we must remember that we don’t give truth and freedom to ourselves. They are gifts from God. We don’t grasp them, we receive them. One of the things which causes our insecurities is the continual attempt to ‘seize’. In this regard. It is pious to decide not to go to beach if the reason for going there is desperate attempt to make a paradise for yourself…or worse to exploit others. This can happen to any beach.

When you quote me, please, dont’ quote me out of context to fit me into this particular mindset or to defend your particular conviction. Remember that it is not about me or you…it is about God and his love for us.

God bless

 

[BobObob]

BobOBob…you noted that there is nothing that you did not “ad-dress”…(I was not convinced…rather the opposite)

If you don’t want to continue this discussion, that’s fine. However, if you think there are a few specific things from your previous posts which you think disproves my position, it may be good to briefly tell me which things from which posts they are.

Still trying to promote the Hippie concept: Go nekkid.

BTW, even though I think clothes-optional beaches may be acceptable, I myself would never go to them and get naked. I’m the type of person who will never be seen without being fully clothed. I won’t even change in a men’s locker room (which I know is a bit weird).

1. Our society is very sick.
   One of the first thing that I noticed was a man walking with his t-shirt on. It looked ridiculous to me. Later, I noticed that many men were doing this kind of stuff. Walking fully nude somewhat long distance…I saw other men who seem to moving around with no purpose…talking to people…talking to girls (the girls where dressed; fully or regular beach uniform). In this regard, I concluded that these men have a very serious issue of insecurities…it seems that they are telling everyone or themselves: “Hey, I am free, I am fully naked, I can walk here and there…I can even stand in front of women and be not erected…I am celebrating,…let’s jump, let’s enjoy nature…”
   I found this attitude disturbing and provocative…even though they don’t seem to be aware of that.
   Not many women did this. The women I saw seemed to generally stay in their spot. Those who had kids they were busy with their kids. Only one or two women seemed to have this kind of problem…

All these is about those who are fully naked.

From what I’ve heard, I think this is pretty typical of people who subscribe to the philosophy of “naturalism”. It seems to me that this behavior later in life is somewhat a rebellion against social norms for dress (where those rebellions are tolerated). The funny thing is I think a lot of these people had little exposure to nudity early in life, while one of my theology professors said that he had a former student who said that he had grown up on a nudist resort, but now preferred to wear clothes.

I think that with more clothes-optional beaches become a norm, the more casual it would become (less people making a big deal of it). Also, I think that the fact that there are almost no places in the US where social nudity outdoors is legal means that a lot of people go to Canada for that (which is where I assume you were at the clothes-optional beach).

On a slightly different topic, I think it would be good for parents to loosen up regarding nudity for children. I think allowing children to swim in the nude with other friends (depending on situation) would lessen the likelihood of them having insecurities later in life. After all, from what I’ve heard, it used to be no big deal for kids to do this, while today youth, (who don’t do this) seem to have considerable insecurities. A lot of times, if people develop insecurities in their childhood, it will effect them the rest of their lives.

 

[edwest2]

Insecurities? About what? In Catholic school, all the guys showered together after gym class. It did not raise or lessen any “insecurities.” How did you arrive at this thought?

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

Insecurities? About what? In Catholic school, all the guys showered together after gym class. It did not raise or lessen any “insecurities.” How did you arrive at this thought?

Individuals who (like myself) never even showered with other guys after gym class, are more likely to have a negative body image, and at worst, but uncomfortable in their own skin (it’s difficult to describe what I mean by that).

Usually, toddlers don’t mind running around in front of others without clothes. The association between lack of clothing and shame seems to be something that’s conditioned. Children need to learn to be appropriately dressed for the situation, but sometimes not ever being unclothed around others in any situation may, IMHO, cause problems.

A single event isn’t likely to make much of a difference, but an entire childhood may.

 

[Paul1961]

Insecurities? About what? In Catholic school, all the guys showered together after gym class. It did not raise or lessen any “insecurities.” How did you arrive at this thought?

God bless,
Ed

Ed, those showers were a good thing. It certainly made us smell better and it gave us a normal exposure to other nude bodies. For the most part, the days of mandatory gang showers are past. Some schools systems have done away with PE altogether. If they do have PE, they would rather stink all day long than take a shower. In my day, the gym teacher made sure every got a least a quick rinse off. You have many kids that reach college age that have never been nude in a locker room. Other than there own reflection, their only perception of a nude body is internet porn.

To give you another illustration. A couple of years ago, we were visiting a water park in Florida. I (40 something) took my young son into the locker room to change into our suits. There are the usual benches along the walls. There are also 3 or 4 little changing rooms with full solid wood doors along one wall. I really didn’t even notice them. We set our stuff down on a bench and started pealing off our clothes. One of the doors opens and a 20 something father and son walk out. He holds the door and ask me if we want to use the changing room. I tell him, "No, we’re good. Thanks. " We finished changing into our swimsuits. I could tell the other father was shocked.
We are now in a day and age that being nude for 60 seconds in a single sex locker room when changing makes they younger generation very uncomfortable. It’s very sad. That level of modesty, male or female, is damaging.

 

[Beachcomber]

Being from coastal California, I know about nude beaches–there are the ‘official’ ones and the ‘unofficial’ ones. One good look in the mirror has convinced me of the wisdom of avoiding them.