Public Nudity

Nudity in part has always been a subject of entertainment. We publicly denounce full nudity, though personally write poems in praise of them. Nudity is something most want to see and praise thru their poetry, paintings and music. Books with some air of vulgarity or sex have always been acclaimed things and that attracted human attentions. D H Lawrence has sex in abundance in his novels and his books have been classical. Does it not speak volumes of the beauty of nudity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

---

Yes I agree completely with that. I think that in trying to stimulate kids in school with constant pressure for DVD/interactive and IT we are in danger of doing more harm than good. Of course by all means use these things moderately, it would be foolish not to do so, but by over-using them we are not helping students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Neely, my already high respect for you just went up a few notches.

In a similar vein, I really hate branded designer clothing. People pay daft sums of money to a big company to advertise their brand. It's crackers.

I had an argument with someone in the pub the other night, who laughed at my rather ancient and horrible mobile phone. He was lording it up with his expensive iThing, so I felt the need to make the point. That cost him hundreds of pounds, not to mention the monthly service charge, which in reality means that he is only renting his phone. Mine, as I pointed out, cost £15. When it runs out of money, I put some more on. End of. Well, says he, it can't access the internet or be used as a GPS, can it? No, but I own a cheap GPS (£30) and if I want to check the internet, I go to my computer. What my £15 phone can do is call people, which is what I wanted it for.

He didn't have much of an answer for that. So many of the things we are encouraged to buy are just useless status symbols.

I'll give public nudity one thing: it's hard to brand, and there are no pockets to carry around designer junk. That said, if public nudity became the standard, I bet there would be a lot of people queing up to get 'Nike' or 'Reebok' tattooed on their chests...

---

Ha, ha thanks. Good point about branded clothing, what a stroke of genius in getting paid for people advertising your product!

I've also got a very, very basic phone and £10 lasts me about 2 months.

Trainers? What is it with the trainer fad with youngsters? Hundreds of pounds for trainers, that's crazy. I remember a school lad laughing at my old trainers which lasted two years, decathlon ones, again genius marketing and advertising and brain washed status symbols trainers.

Loki and Neely you are both correct, and another point may have been to direct them to the miserable battery life between recharge (ridiculous!), and almost junks the idea of 'mobility' in the phones.

But actually the idea of cramming features into them isn't new. A high def still/video camera, radio, gameboy, note taker, media player (with enough memory to hold entire symphonies and movies), word processor, net enabled computer wonder device is now about eight years old. The phone makers each had prototypes; trouble was - the battery.

Who, they reasoned, could possibly want a phone that needed to be recharged daily?

No one.

Obviously.

But if you only want a phone, that's fine too.

(Mine has a really cool feature in text to speech and speech to text - loving it very much, and the 3D screen is something that has to be seen to be believed) (Oh, and Nova 2 is a lot of fun between games of Pinball Deluxe and Battleships :) )

I don't have a mobile phone and have no intention of getting one, despite frequent requests from companies trying to sell me one. My standard reply is that, having quit work where I was constantly being pestered by the phone, I need a mobile like a hole in the head.
I don't deny that they have their uses but I will do without one, as I have plenty of other things to do other than waste time in pointless conversation for the benefit of telephone companies. Even now, when the telephone rings I curse it, so why would I want to inflict further annoyance on myself.
As for designer clothing, that's the biggest laugh since I don't know when. How can sticking on a silly name like Tommy Hilfiger or even a common one like Ted Baker, make any difference to the clothes you are wearing? Someone sent me a polo shirt from New York a couple of weeks ago as a present and it has a Ralph Lauren logo on it. When I checked the price of it that was displayed on the customs declaration form attached to the parcel, I was amazed that anyone would pay so much for a shirt that was probably made in a sweat shop in Hong Kong.
It's really depressing shopping for clothes when stores have lots of so-called designer items that are usually very poor quality and look like they have been knocked up by a ten-year-old. I can quite see why some people might prefer public nudity.

I actually have a so-called "smart phone" with internet, GPS, etc... The price is not too bad considering it covers three phones in the family for unlimited usage. The majority of my use is as a phone, camera, and texting... but it has come in helpful to pop up the internet when I'm out somewhere to find directions or a place to eat. Personally I don't have any problem with the battery charge. I can usually go three days between charges unless I'm on the phone for hours, and I can charge it using the USB port off the front of my computer while I'm typing away... or I can charge it in the car. In spite of this, I rarely use the phone in the car unless necessary (and certainly never text there), and I'm not on the phone when I'm spending time with family or out at a restaurant. I remember a comic scene not long ago when four people came in at a local Chinese restaurant, sat down, and all proceeded to call someone on the phone. 4 people sitting face to face where they might engage in conversation... and they are on the phone with someone else... unless they were all talking to each other??:eek6:

You describe it as comic, but it actually makes complete sense: why not talk to the people you have something in common with rather than your family whom you didn't choose?

It just occurred to me that of the five calls I've made with mine so far two were both to wrong numbers, and I'm not in the habit of giving my number away willy on the nilly.

But it's that net access that's really the thing - a Hitchhikers Guide and media pod. And spare batteries are cheap enough for intense use (hint: if you go hiking, make sure you have a few fully charged spares in case you get particularly lost so you can contact someone on your walkie-talkie, and they can triangulate your exact position - and you can listen to music and read a book until they arrive. Though of course a hard case should also be considered in the off chance you fall down a precipice into a ravine*.)

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.

Taking pictures and videos of crimes as they happen - could be useful to getting someone justice. Actually there are tons of possible uses beyond selfish accessory. Lyrics, guitar tabs, scientific calculator, world university - you name it.


*The bloke who cut his hand off, and more recently the one who cut his toes off - should have had their phones with them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

Also just for driving - accidents happen and there are plenty of places where you can spin-off the road and not be seen by the passing cars. Or even just crossing the park and suddenly feel lightheaded - a potential stroke or heart attack? Snakebite? Anything - these are the lifesavers of the future.

---

Sounds like yet another vehicle by which the gene pool will continue to be diluted

A few days ago I saw a couple flimsily dressed and one can visualize their insides in a park and it was a park for youngsters and you cannot come across elderly people out there. Now to relate that scene I want to say that this scene in which some people were awfully in some sort of nudity, if not full and of course their bare limbs, fronts, tummies were glowing and I liked those parts speaking aesthetically in point of fact. They were appealing and if there was anything ugly, they are my fixations only.
Nude objects whether they are people or anything are per se not ugly things and we all secretly admire.

Now coming to the point to expose them publicly I think that if the public in view constitutes the ones I saw in the park there is no harm and if the ones come from a highly conservative social tier the problem will crop up then

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa. We're the predominant tribe in the northern Nigeria. You can hardly see a full-fledged Hausa person, especially a woman, dresses indecently--yah, incidence in whatever rectitude. I really like it that way.

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa.

I fully respect your beliefs... however, I question whether Islam... or any other religion... should have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Yes the constant demand for electrical stimuli is overbearing and certainly adversely affecting children and young people.

It's a large part of the problem behind kids behavior and learning issues in school. The little urchins are used to continual stimuli and continual entertainment and even education "leaders" fall for this crap pushing teachers to make the lessons "engaging"... ie. "entertaining". It starts with lazy and/or ignorant parents employing the TV, DVDs, and video games as a cheap baby sitter. No need to spend time with the kids when you can just plop them in front of the TV. Now I'll not suggest I never watched my share of TV. As a kid I'd watch the morning kid's shows before the school bus came and when I got home I might watch an hour of cartoons... or more if the weather was bad... but I spent far more time outside... playing sports, exploring the forest behind my home, riding bikes, inventing various role-playing games, etc... Ultimately, the constant presence of the media is a major source of the obesity in children in the wealthier nations.

---

I think this post got me thinking.

Also, it may be in this thread, I don't have time now to search... but how kids in large cities don't have a place outside to play, and often it's dangerous for them to play outside, so they have no choice but to be stuck indoors.

But anyway, if parents believe that electrical stimuli are superior methods of educating, then they will employ them more. And it's convenient too, in serving as a babysitter.

Question: they don't just plop them in front of the tv and then go out or go to work or something, do they? Kids still get into stuff and hurt themselves when they're watching tv. Also, is it illegal to leave a kid alone in the house?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Nudity in both sexes is very much discouraged in Islam, my religion. And, coincidently enough; the same applies to my culture--Hausa.

I fully respect your beliefs... however, I question whether Islam... or any other religion... should have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.

---

This is a very wise question.Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

All I want to say is, I'm all for nudity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

This is a very wise question.Not only religions even people, society, parents, seniors cannot impose their faiths on others.

When I have in public at least on this forum that ensures the freedom of express to some extent articulated my passion for nudity. Some people can jeer at me and I argued dauntlessly putting my convection forward. My beliefs and ideas however have nothing to do with my practice. These are not the same zones of thought. We are free to think the way we like but when speak or write our thoughts there is some censure. I am bolder here since I have faked ( derogative?) my real name here and if I speak the same thing in the same tone and force in society I get a lot of reproaches.

Everybody censors something that pops up in his mind prior to putting forth them into words in society. I always like a nude person and I do not see the figure as something ugly; nothing of her or him is ugly. If anything is ugly it is our conditioned, occupied mind. I unload all my preoccupation, fixations, affectations and stand before the nude figure the way the rest of wild animals do, some in apathy and others in awe and still others in attractiveness and love. I may sound like a renegade or somebody who is in defiance of some cultural riches. I do it without malice but with total aestheticism.

---

Hm…..When we are passionate about something, we don’t talk about it but we just do it. :wink5: Passion involves feelings that energize our actions.

I don’t think that it is a problem with nudity. Some people may love it and other don’t. But we can’t expect that others will accept our choices and we have to be prepared to be judged or criticized. The problem is when we want to impose our likes or dislikes upon others, expecting them to accept or even behave the same way. We are talking about control then. :ihih:

BTW…… I would have a big problem with nudity……. if I was living in Alaska. :biggrin5: