Should Teenage Nudist Summer Camps be Legal?

I visited a nudist resort a few years ago. It was a good experience. I saw people of every age,size,color,etc. It was a very non-sexual atmosphere. And most of all,it showed me just how wrong all the misconceptions about nudism really are.

 

At the same time, could you not make a case that any law passed by a majority is a form of oppression of the minority?

You mean Utilitarianism?

E_S

 

Judicial review of the constitutionality of government acts was established not by the text of the constitution, per se, but by a court case: Marbury v Madison in 1803, and I guess extended to review of state legislation through the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

Judicial review of constitutionality is central to the American identity.

 

This falls in the slot of Pre-teen nudity. Its illegal. Just becuase this isn't ment for sexual arousal its still teens underage nude.


All i ment by this post is basicly that this could probably lead to bad things. (see my crystal pepsi post)

If you allow this for recreational users it just opens the doors for more bad opportunities. When i said it falls into the slot of pre-teen nudity i just simple ment that the same type of probloms could come up.

 

What?! Are you serious ObiWan McCartney? You must be under 11 or asexual, b/c any male who has gone through puberty knows that a co-ed nudey camp would be taken advantage of by every male btwn the ages of 11-18. Are you out of your friggin mind!?#!!!!!

This has to be made illegal. This isn't even worth an intelligent debate.

 

Paul, sure. Because children are not in a position to consent. They are coerced by family to conform to a way of life.

Consenting adults who want to practise nudity is fine. But, kids are not in a position to make a decision free from coercion.

I don't accept the idea that the family is the supreme unit of society. At times, government can be a mediator between groups and individuals.

This is one case.

 

You must be under 11 or asexual, b/c any male who has gone through puberty knows that a co-ed nudey camp would be taken advantage of by every male btwn the ages of 11-18.

well, i can't speak for anyone else, but i for one am both over 11 and highly sexual (thanks for asking), and i don't think that anything would be "taken advantage of," whatever that could even mean in this context (and what exactly do you mean by that?). i know teenagers who lived near nude beaches, and it was not a big deal. lots of people go skinny dipping pretty regularly as teenagers, and that's not always a big deal.

the thing with being in a nude environment is that the first moment you're there it's like "OOH! BOOBIES!!!" but after about a minute it's like "Oh. Boobies." after a few hours, it's like "What? Oh, yeah, I guess there are boobies or something." i don't care if you're the horniest drooling Neanderthal of a 13-year old male, it's not going to turn you into a sex-crazed lunatic. if anything, it will have the opposite effect.

 

I can't tell if that last post was sarcastic or serious.

If serious -- as I understand it, a target audience of these camps is children who live in nudist families. For many, nudity isn't even a sexual thing anymore. It's simply what I consider a very healthy acceptance of the human body as it is. It's not a guarantee thhat the situation will be taken advantage of.

And even if it is, then so what?? No adults and children will ever be sexual together. I'm assuming that there will be a reasonable amount of supervision, as at every camp. If, in spite of that, two children of approximately the same age end up having conseunsual sex, what, exactly, is so very terrifying about that that we need to outlaw an environment that might make it even the slightest bit likely? I know people who lost their virginity at summer camp. I know of one girl who lost her virginity at church camp. These things happen. So long as there's reasonable supervision, I don't see that having everyone be naked will make all that muh difference.

-Paul

 

exactly - teenagers will be teenagers no matter how you try and restrict them.

 

I should imagine that it would be a 'liberty' claim under the Due Process Clause, the same provision used by the courts to declare that abortion and sodomy are constitutional rights.

 

Branthoris

Agreed with you on the ballot box as the means for this. These days, it seems as if an imperial judiciary is gaining a foothold.

That is, I submit, just as dangerous as an imperial executive. Perhaps more so. The executive can be voted out of power in four years. You can vote against a Congressman. But against judges, what recourse is there?

There is a difference between applying the law to specific facts, and using courts to overturn certain laws/actions because a minority of people cannot get what they wish. At that point, we are not in a republic, we're merely voting on who will be choosing our dictators.

 

Judges can be rebuked by legislatures.

darth paul, first you assert that nudism is not sexual, then say even if teens treat it that way then "so what?". So, now it is sexual? See, that's likely how the teens will treat it. I know I did when I was from, ohh, 9 yrs. old.

That's my point. Teens are not in a position to make a rational, thoughtful choice in society. They are constantly under coersion and as such need to be mediated by protections and safeguards.

You want voluntary consent for adults, fine. But, kids should not be coerced into what they're told is a "simple lifestyle choice" by adults when they're not seeing it that way.

Kids are irrational, emotional,highly-hormonal beings. As such, they require societal mediation.

What would you say to the parents who denied their child life-saving medication because they're christian scientists?
Would that be acceptable? That's just the parents excercising their power over their child right?

 

darth paul, first you assert that nudism is not sexual, then say even if teens treat it that way then "so what?". So, now it is sexual? See, that's likely how the teens will treat it. I know I did when I was from, ohh, 9 yrs. old.

Probably, I did not make myself clear enough. Let me clarify. I have seen nothing which leads mem to believe that actual nudism is sexual. Thus, purely nudistic nudity will be non-sexual. My follow-up "so what" was meant to address the possibility that such a camp might in fact be open to and attended by people who are not actually nudists, but have somehow persuaded heir parents to let them go. In any case, I do not see how having no clothes on is such a great change of dynamic. Children - teenagers and sometimes even pre-teens - have sexual experiences at a variety of camps, and yet we do not seek to eliminate summer residential camps altogether. I take issue with the assumption that having no clothes on is suddenly going to bring sexual activity among the children into existence, where otherwise they would be perfectly chaste and innocent and proper.

You want voluntary consent for adults, fine. But, kids should not be coerced into what they're told is a "simple lifestyle choice" by adults when they're not seeing it that way.

Why are children automatically victims in this situation? What if there's no coercion at all, but if the kids actually want to be nudists? I myself am not a nudist, but I have never really liked clothes and I could happily have been a nudist. I would say that the corollary to your statement is that kids should not be coerced by adults into wearing lothes against their will -- after all, this, also, is a "simple lifestyle choicce" and it can have emotional and psychological consequences beyond what you might think. Both statements are equally valid. So why deprivev parents of the choice to decide how their children are raised in this manner? And why is it that children who are coerced into nudism are victimized in your eyes, but children who are forced to wear clothes are not any source of concern?

I think as long as only nudists attend the camp, it's a perfectly fine thing. If children who just wish to bbe around nudity go, that can be a recipe for trouble, although it could work okay. But either way, I see no justification for shutting down the camps. I think this is an issue parents and children should be able to decide together; they should not be bound to your opinion that wearing clothes is the only way to go. And so long as the supervision at this camp is held to the same standards as any other camp, I see not what difference it makes whether the clothes are on or off.

Edit: BTW, when I was questioning the seriousness of "that last response" in a previous post, I meant Osiris_Iverson's.

And I am only in partial agreement with the idea that children are not in a position to give consent. I agree that children are generally not typical of giving consent to sexual relations with an adult. But I am a strong believer that children are capable to and should be able (legally) to consent to sexual behaviors with other children of the same age. This may be part of our problem.

-Paul

 

Should they be legal......?




HELL YEAH!!!!!

 

You want voluntary consent for adults, fine. But, kids should not be coerced into what they're told is a "simple lifestyle choice" by adults when they're not seeing it that way.

but most of these kids have grown up as nudists, and have probably gone to family nudist camps with their parents as children for most of their lives already. i really doubt that this camp would be anyone's first experience of nudism.

it seems like it's set up to be a transitional space for kids who grew up as nudists, and are old enough to want to spend the summer on their own, but who can't really be allowed to go to adult nudist camps on their own. i don't see what kind of problem anyone could have with that.

otherwise, what options do these kids have? are we telling them it's OK to be a nudist when you're a prepubescent kid and going with your parents, and it will be OK again when you're 18, but in the middle it's illegal? what kind of sense does that make?

 

diz, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my inference from his other statements is that ShaneP would ban child nudism entirely. Since he talks about children being coerced into a nudist lifestyle by adults, he seems to believe that no child could ever choose to be a nudist -- or that if he does choose to, that the choice is somehow "beyond" him and he, as a child, cannot consent to nudism. Thus, I'd wager that he feels any parents raising their children as nudists are somehow harming them -- for, after all, we all know that most humans are naturally clothed from birth, and that the naked body is inherently sexual and something that must be hidden or else shamed.

-Paul

 

You didn't mean to put words in my mouth, yet proceeded to do so.

How much power are you willing to give parents over their children? How much?

You seem to believe children are somehow capable of rational, reasonable decisions beyond the scope of their parents influence, either direct or not.

My point is, child nudity in itself is not bad, but a "camp" fostered by adults who want their children to grow up in a culture they indoctrinated their kids into is over the line.

Again, would you agree with parents who are christian-scientists who denied their child vital medication because they know what's best?

After all, the kids were just raised that way. That's just a part of their culture.

IMHO, that's where the line where parents sole responsibility for their children vanishes and a mediator, society, is needed as a counter to the parental adults.

Do you support religious indoctrination?

 

ShaneP - I offered interpretation on your opinion, while making it clear that I could not presume to speak for you. If this offended you, I apologize. I certainly did not mean to be offensive; I merely constructed what I thought might be your position as best I could from your other statements. I'm glad you're now here to correct and clarify.

You seem to believe children are somehow capable of rational, reasonable decisions beyond the scope of their parents influence, either direct or not.

You are correct. I believe that children are capable of making their own informed, rational moral decisions. Obviously this judgment improves and complexifies with maturity and experience. But I don't believe for an instant that children are little irresponsible automatons incapable of making any choices for themselves.

My point is, child nudity in itself is not bad, but a "camp" fostered by adults who want their children to grow up in a culture they indoctrinated their kids into is over the line.

As I was growing up, my parents indoctrinated me into a culture of wearing clothes in public. Furthermore, for years they sent me to camps that promoted this culture and allowed me no alternative. How is this any different from parents who raise their children as nudists?

Again, would you agree with parents who are christian-scientists who denied their child vital medication because they know what's best?

Clearly not. But let me offer a more pertinent example: I would have trouble agreeing with parents who gae life-saving medication to a child over the child's objection. And, most importantly, I would have severe problems with a government which forced the child to take the medication against his will, or which forced the parents to force the child.

IMHO, that's where the line where parents sole responsibility for their children vanishes and a mediator, society, is needed as a counter to the parental adults.

In this case, it's not the influence of society with which I am taking issue. If society wants to decry nudism and particularly nudist parenting, then I suppose that's okay. I don't really think it's people's business what (if anything) people choose to wear within the privacy of their homes and communities, but societal influence is pretty basic. I do, however, take issue with the government's enforcing these views. In my opinion, it's only appropriate for the government to interfere with parenting when the health or well-being of the child is being threatened by the parenting. If you can demonstrate to me that being brought up in a nudist environment is basically universal and harmful to children, you may have a case.

Do you support religious indoctrination?

Before I respond, will you clarify what exactly you mean by religious indoctrination?

-Paul

 

Simple: Do you think that any minor should be baptised or become a member of a religious or spiritual culture?

You honestly believe children are rational, wise, reasonable human beings?

So, you think that a child, reduced to his natural state, would be wise, rational, and reasonable?

And my whole point was that children raised to be nudists have been socialized to think this is the way to live, not that this is something they have given consent to. Only an adult is capable of making those decisions. That's why we need society as a mediator beteen the parents, who are ultimately responsible, and society, who sees an interest in seeing a youngster socialized into the norm of society.

My whole point was that kids cannot make those type of choices on of their own free will based on a rational lifestyle choice.

Kids just want to get naked and have sex. Nothing wrong with that, but then just admit that's what it would be about and don't pretend it's just another lifestyle choice from children.

Kids are not in that position or have not reached that level of development to make a reasonable decision beyond peer-pressure, parental pressure, etc.




BTW: Why not just let 10 year olds vote?

Power to the kiddietariat.

Do you believe that individuals are motivated by self-interest?

Edit:spelling

 

NO

 

It was a very non-sexual atmosphere.

Damn. And I was hoping for a cheerleader orgy, too. Thanks for crushing my dreams, you insensitive twit. jkjk

Seriously? I don't know. It should be the kids' choice, but this whole concept is opening the door for a buttload of stupid crap to come barging in and bite us in the crotch.

 

My point is, child nudity in itself is not bad, but a "camp" fostered by adults who want their children to grow up in a culture they indoctrinated their kids into is over the line.

Well, I suppose the nudists would say that the rest of society is a "camp" fostered by adults who want their children to grow up in a culture they indoctrinate their kids into and that such a thing is over the line.

 

I didn't say it wasn't interesting...................

 

I kid! I kid!

 

Branthoris:
Courts are not benevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent Mr Fix-Its, and if the ACLU disagrees with this law, it should attempt to overturn it in the normal manner: through that wonderful mechanism called the ballot box.

Do you really think that it is the right of the majority to make lifestyle choices for the minority?

What if nudists were in the majority, and you were not one of them? How would you feel if the nudists passed a law requiring everyone - including you - to go nude?

SaberGiiett7:
No. That's just screaming pre-marital sex.

Obviously you missed this part in the article:

Visitors undergo background checks, and the camp has strict rules against lewd, lustful or lascivious conduct.

Besides, as long as health precautions are taken, what's wrong with pre-marital sex?

Darth-Kevin-Thomas:
This is when i question the rights of american freedom. Right of privacy is getting out of hand. Things done in your own household is still on american soil. If you murder someone in your house you go to jail.

So what, you're equating going nude - voluntarily and with parental permission - at a nude camp as the same as murdering someone in your house?

This falls in the slot of Pre-teen nudity. Its illegal. Just becuase this isn't ment for sexual arousal its still teens underage nude. And i know it is not posted material and i know that teens are nude in there house when they shower.

You have to be a certain age to go nude? You pointed out yourself that teens are "allowed" to be nude when they shower!

As far as I know, the only statute against nudity is nudity in public - and I'm not even sure if that's a state or a federal law. A nudist camp is not a public place. And nudity, AFAIK, is A-OK in private places - for adults, teens, children, babies, old people, everyone. Maybe you're from a really conservative state, I don't know.

No, they should not be legal. Adult nude camps are fine, but no for kids.

What problems? The camp specifically bans "lewd, lustful or lascivious conduct" - in other words, sex.

ShaneP:
No, they should not be legal. Adult nude camps are fine, but no for kids.

Not even with parental permission? I thought you were a small-government type of person.

Osiris-Iverson:
This isn't even worth an intelligent debate.

It would be if we actually had some intelligent people here. (I'm not directing this comment at you; I'm directing it at a few others on this thread whom I won't name.)

JediSmuggler:
At that point, we are not in a republic, we're merely voting on who will be choosing our dictators.

You know some state judiciaries are elected by the people. (Though I don't know if this is true for Virginia.)

alpha_red:
It should be the kids' choice, but this whole concept is opening the door for a buttload of stupid crap to come barging in and bite us in the crotch.

...Omg, what are you talking about? What horrors and threats do nudist camps pose on us as Americans?

---

Geez....if any of you want to know my personal feelings about some of the ridiculous things that have been said on this thread, PM me. I don't know, maybe the subject of nudity has some kind of suppressing effect on thought processes and rationalization. :|