Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Difference between the two is nil. Europeans call it naturism, Americans call it nudism. From here on out I'll refer to it by the American term (being American and writing for the benefit of American readers.)
Looking at the Scholarly results on Google for peer-reviewed papers and studies discussing the positive effects of nudism, seemingly every link goes to some nudism website I'm unable to post because sites/links with naked pictures (even in a non-sexual nudist context) is against the rules. And short of posting reams of information no one's gonna sift through anyway I thought of coming at it from the other direction. So here's an article (non-academic) explaining opposition to social nudism.
Understanding moral conservative arguments against nudism - Dallas Nudist Culture | Examiner.com
"
January 31, 2014
Until relatively recently, the chief opposition to nudism came from Judeo-Christian religious moralists who argued that public nudity should be banned because it is inherently sexual, evil, sinful and morally corrupting. Moral conservatives today are more motivated by a defense of secular social norms than religious standards of morality and modesty yet they cling just as tenaciously to the notion that nudity outside narrowly delineated approved settings is repulsive and obscene.
According to moral conservatives, exposure of the genitals particularly is intrinsically sexual since that is the context in which they are most operative. Since public sex is inappropriate, open nudity by association is also inappropriate. Public nudity is an affront to decent family and religious values and deeply offensive to a significant portion of society who hold these values.
While the moral conservatives regard social nudity as morally wrong even for consenting adults, they particularly condemn the notion of children being present at nudist landed clubs and resorts since they believe exposure to naked adults will at best corrupt their character and prevent them from growing up to lead good upright lives in accordance with social decency norms and proper family values...
...In the next column we will explore the nudist and naturist argument for why the practice of nudism should not be criminalized and examine some established philosophical concepts that support the position that nudity laws based on the "offense principle" are unnecessarily burdensome and the antithesis of a free democratic society."
Site then goes into a pro-nudist arguement. But I wanted to post the opposing argument first. If you agree with it, you'll disagree with any pro argument so no need to burden you any further. But if you disagree with the argument you should avail yourself of this thread which will present the pro-side as soon as I find a link that isn't a nudist website.
Looking at the Scholarly results on Google for peer-reviewed papers and studies discussing the positive effects of nudism, seemingly every link goes to some nudism website I'm unable to post because sites/links with naked pictures (even in a non-sexual nudist context) is against the rules. And short of posting reams of information no one's gonna sift through anyway I thought of coming at it from the other direction. So here's an article (non-academic) explaining opposition to social nudism.
Understanding moral conservative arguments against nudism - Dallas Nudist Culture | Examiner.com
"
January 31, 2014
Until relatively recently, the chief opposition to nudism came from Judeo-Christian religious moralists who argued that public nudity should be banned because it is inherently sexual, evil, sinful and morally corrupting. Moral conservatives today are more motivated by a defense of secular social norms than religious standards of morality and modesty yet they cling just as tenaciously to the notion that nudity outside narrowly delineated approved settings is repulsive and obscene.
According to moral conservatives, exposure of the genitals particularly is intrinsically sexual since that is the context in which they are most operative. Since public sex is inappropriate, open nudity by association is also inappropriate. Public nudity is an affront to decent family and religious values and deeply offensive to a significant portion of society who hold these values.
While the moral conservatives regard social nudity as morally wrong even for consenting adults, they particularly condemn the notion of children being present at nudist landed clubs and resorts since they believe exposure to naked adults will at best corrupt their character and prevent them from growing up to lead good upright lives in accordance with social decency norms and proper family values...
...In the next column we will explore the nudist and naturist argument for why the practice of nudism should not be criminalized and examine some established philosophical concepts that support the position that nudity laws based on the "offense principle" are unnecessarily burdensome and the antithesis of a free democratic society."
Site then goes into a pro-nudist arguement. But I wanted to post the opposing argument first. If you agree with it, you'll disagree with any pro argument so no need to burden you any further. But if you disagree with the argument you should avail yourself of this thread which will present the pro-side as soon as I find a link that isn't a nudist website.