Petros wrote:Nudism and naturism are what Big Brother and hoi polloi say they are, but people with a desire to be nude are just that.
You have juxtaposed two thoughts so let me pick on the first one as that is where the problem lies.
Petros wrote:Nudism and naturism are what Big Brother and hoi polloi say they are, .......
In the sense of speaking about "truth", that statement really only applies to the "definition" in the minds of Big Brother and the hoi polloi. Then the question becomes WHY? What threat does nudism/naturism pose to big brother that Big Brother's reaction is so overblown and harsh? It is not something like some sort of public health issue! and I suppose that it has something to do with Big Brother's desire to please and hence control the hoi polloi. I suppose that if we were all Muslims, that the hoi polloi would have plenty of explicit scriptures to point at in the Koran and hadith to claim that we must be covered. However, as western society has mainly the Bible as a religious reference which starts out with God creating a garden and placing a couple of naked gardeners in it to dress and keep it and then has God declaring it all "Truely Good!", one is left wondering where western society got such phobic reaction to being without clothes.
One might attempt an answer by theorizing that the hoi polloi tend to suspect and fear anything that is out of their ordinary experience, hence peoples from harsher climates who regularly need clothing from polar influenced climates need protection from the cold, and those from dessert climates need protection from the cold of the night and heat of the day might end up wearing clothes so much of the time that they find nudity so literally "outlandish" that they distrust anyone who avoids clothing when it is unnecessary and or cumbersome.
The extra sensitivity about the excretory and reproductive regions of the body could logically be derived from the odious nature of the excreta and the very important issues associated with reproduction and stability in society if reproduction and child rearing are not managed in an orderly way. Somehow these issues get mixed together and societies then extrapolate these issues into concern about the exposure of parts of the body that are entirely benign with respect to the excretory and reproductive parts of the body.
If my foregoing analysis is reasonably logical and accurate, then the lack of rational response to nudity leaves only the irrational emotional sort of reaction that we see. Ranting, blushing, shaming, fleeing what poses no threat, needless suppression, and distress are all emotional responses. They are simply unnecessary and particularly hard to deal with because they are not rational and not particularly amenable to rational persuasion. They are phobic responses. They trigger "Fight or Flight" responses.
When emotions run rampant and uncontrolled they unnecessarily trigger the "fight or flight" urge associated with the release of adrenalin (et al?) and that is what we call "alarm or offense". "Alarm or Offense" are indeed the very words that we often find in laws regulating nudity and when properly included in law what is properly prohibited is the "Intent to cause alarm or offense" as opposed to inadvertantly or unintentionally causing alarm or offense. As long as there is no intent to cause "alarm or offense" then the only problem lies with the observer and not the naturist. It is for this very reason that warning signs are placed on nude beaches which say "you may encounter nudity beyond this point". Such signs are a warning to those who have the mental abberation that they cannot react to nudity with anything other than the "neurotic irrationality of alarm and offense".
What is unjust in western jurisprudence is any requirement for the accused to have to prove innocence by proving lack of intent (ie demanding that the accused "prove a negative"! What Big Brother's legal system does not like is having to prove intent in order to get a conviction and impose a penality because intent is difficult to prove.
At least there are victories achieved when even minor efforts are accepted as showing "LACK of INTENT". Simple signs warning of the possibility of encountering nudity have been honored by law enforcement and the courts, I suppose that posting of my property against trespass and the fact that I have planted a 10 to 25 foot tall bamboo hedge between my lawn and the road are pretty good evidence that I lack intent to cause alarm or offense to the public, The posting against trespass is done along the entire 3/4 mile perimeter of my property, but can I expect a court to dismiss any charge based on the prosecution's inability to show intent, (troublesome words in "show intent"versus "prove intent").
By the way, please regard the post by Petros and this response as only an aside. The floor is still open for more examples of a single sentence explanation of what a Cristian Naturist is.