|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 60 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 7 of 60:
| 
Jun 25 08:51 UTC 2003 |
It allows him to show himself as a defender of children by discriminating
against a small minority. It distances himself from one of the more severe
beliefs people have about gay men; That they are abusers of young men.
|
jep
|
|
response 8 of 60:
|
Jun 25 12:37 UTC 2003 |
My home runs like Rane's, I guess. We're usually dressed but don't
make anything of it if we're not, in private.
I'd have been terrified at the idea of going to a nudist camp for
kids, myself, when I was 11-18. And of course, excited.
As a parent, I wouldn't pick such a place to send my son. If he
really, really wanted to go, I'd probably consider letting him, but it
seems pretty far-fetched. I don't expect he'll want to. He doesn't
seem the type.
re resp:6: Can't gay men go on moral crusades, too? Maybe it'll
distract the press a little from his homosexuality. Probably not, and
probably it won't have any effect; this seems like an awfully minor
issue. He needs to catch Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein raising
money for his opponent by selling drugs to 5th graders. I bet there
are a lot of nudist camps in Florida and they aren't a very big
political topic.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 9 of 60:
|
Jun 25 13:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #8, 3rd para: As I said, the kids going to this are already nudists, who
have been raised in nudist families.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 60:
|
Jun 25 14:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #8: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are love partners. I saw it
in the Enquirer. ;)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 11 of 60:
|
Jun 25 14:41 UTC 2003 |
Of course, it's also possible that Mark Foley approves of homosexuality and
disapproves of public nudity around children. There's no real contradiction
there.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 60:
|
Jun 25 16:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 13 of 60:
|
Jun 25 16:31 UTC 2003 |
You don't have to be out of this country for it to be legit. It's legit on
private property right here in the US.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 60:
|
Jun 25 16:37 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 15 of 60:
|
Jun 25 16:53 UTC 2003 |
There are also some public nude recreation areas, but I don't know their
policy on children.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 60:
|
Jun 25 16:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 17 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:00 UTC 2003 |
A lot of them are, but not all.
By the way, I don't think that the existence of pedophiles is a justification
for preventing kids from going nude any more than the existence of
conventional hetero rapists would be for preventing women from going nude.
That's the same species of argument Moslem governments give for legislating
hijab (or worse): since there are bad people out there who might attack women
if they see their faces, the answer is to cover women's faces. I do agree
that you have to be careful, supervise, and watch out for the bastards.
|
flem
|
|
response 18 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:08 UTC 2003 |
Bah. Yet another "Protect the children! Vote for me!" campaign.
The number of people in this country who push their own agenda by claiming
that it's for the good of the children is just disgusting. What's even more
disgusting is that it works, as often as not.
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:52 UTC 2003 |
Nudity seems to be at least tolerated on the more secluded California (or at
least Bay Area) beaches, with some of them drawing huge crowds of naked
people. There's at least one state-run public beach just South of San
Francisco that's officially clothing optional. I'm not aware of any
restrictions on children at any of those.
All the same, I found the comments by the camp spokesperson in this article
a bit creepy for some reason. It seems to me there's a big difference between
taking off your clothes because you feel like it and you're around a group
of people who don't object, versus the formality this group seems to be
putting around it.
|
oval
|
|
response 20 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:52 UTC 2003 |
we live in a country who's president doesn't even support sex ed for kids,
claiming that abstinence is the only way to keep them safe.
inserting a kids nudist camp is a risky idea, if only because the US is such
a prudish culture.
|
oval
|
|
response 21 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:54 UTC 2003 |
19 slipped. i agree it's a bit creepy - in our culture there seem to be a lot
of sexually repressed perves. look at the church.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 60:
|
Jun 25 17:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 23 of 60:
|
Jun 25 19:13 UTC 2003 |
dunno what amber alert is man..
|
richard
|
|
response 24 of 60:
|
Jun 25 21:35 UTC 2003 |
They have a public nude beach in San Diego, I've been there before
(clothed though) It is right near UC-San Diego, you have to climb down
a steep cliff to get to it, which is I guess why it is allowed
|
tod
|
|
response 25 of 60:
|
Jun 25 21:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 26 of 60:
|
Jun 25 21:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 60:
|
Jun 25 22:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 60:
|
Jun 26 02:01 UTC 2003 |
My 6 year old neighbor was out on the sidewalk without clothes a few days ago
after he got cold in the pool and the wet clothing made him colder. Am I
liable for prosecution since I was there?
In Italy little children are expected to swim without clothing, and their
mothers dress on the beach.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 29 of 60:
|
Jun 26 16:33 UTC 2003 |
I think the best rule of thumb is to avoid being much nuder or much less nude
than everyone else. If I decide to stroll naked through downtown Manhattan,
I'm going to make myself pretty conspicuous, and I could wind up attracting
all sorts of unpleasant attention. If I go naked at a nudist gathering, I'm
actually gonna be making myself less conspicuous.
In a country where nudity is the norm for small kids, letting your kid go
naked is probably perfectly safe. In a country where even little kids are
expected to be fully clothed, it might be more dangerous.
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 60:
|
Jun 26 17:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 31 of 60:
|
Jun 26 17:38 UTC 2003 |
this is true. i actually saw it once, though not in manhattan, but just over
the bridge in williamsburg, brooklyn. woman was just walking down the street
naked. later the police were cruising around trying to find her. no biggie
really, just bizarre.
|