Latter-day Saints Skinny Dipper's Forum
Welcome to the New LDS Skinny Dipper's Forum!
(View six year's of archives here.)

While this website is primarily for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, who are interested in chaste, wholesome, recreational nudity, everyone is welcome to participate.
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please try to register or login.
4 Pages«<234
Seeking truth, not justification on nudism/naturism.....
Roamer Offline
#61 Posted : Monday, September 29, 2014 3:04:53 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
Mormondad wrote:
Mane,
I would disagree with Elder Nelson that nude body generates powerful emotions in people. Can it be? Yes, it can as many are 'trained' to be that way. It is not a normal response and not one that God implanted in us. The powerful responses to others of the opposite gender that God implanted in us happens regardless of how we may or may not be dressed. Much like Pavlov's dogs people are often trained to think of nudity as equating to sex.


MormonDad got it in one with the reference to Pavlov's Dog and the bell becoming an inducement for the dog to begin salivating in anticipation of food. Just because a certain behavior/reaction can be readily observed in a particular grouping does not mean that such a behavior is a "natural behavior" that would have occurred outside of training from their parents/family/friends/peer groups.

Many, if not most, or even virtually all of us, have been taught that nudity is sexual, and popular media and advertising love nothing more than try to capitalize on and take advantage of that fact. So with that in mind, it is hardly surprising that most people would be discovered to have a sexual response to nudity when presented with it on the part of the other gender. They are simply responding in the way they've been conditioned to.

The other factor is this is a very obviously conditioned response, you can go through history, or even differing cultures around the world and find very wildly different views on which parts of the body are sexually stimulating, many of which would be considered downright laughable to people here in North America. (Ankles, knees, collar bones, back of the neck, etc)
2 users thanked Roamer for this useful post.
LazerusLong on 9/29/2014(UTC), mane on 10/5/2014(UTC)
mane Offline
#62 Posted : Sunday, October 5, 2014 1:08:17 PM(UTC)
Rank: Telestial Member
Joined: 9/16/2014(UTC)
Posts: 10
Location: Folsom,ca
Thanks: 2 times
Mormondad wrote:
Mane,"I would disagree with Elder Nelson that nude body generates powerful emotions in people. Can it be? Yes, it can as many are 'trained' to be that way. It is not a normal response and not one that God implanted in us. The powerful responses to others of the opposite gender that God implanted in us happens regardless of how we may or may not be dressed. Much like Pavlov's dogs people are often trained to think of nudity as equating to sex.

I agree we are trained to be excited by clothed and nude opposite gender, and we are numbed by the same. I feel the buzz and do not allow myself to progress beyond the initial attraction, however the person is dressed, so I stay pure-ish.

But could you substantiate with a reference that "it is not a normal response and not what God planted in us"? How can I feel better that this is not a well meaning opinion as a convenient justification? I read a scientific report that tracked by camera where the eye dwelled when shown two pics, one nude, and one dressed: it showed by double blind and math that virtually all preferences dwelled on was the nude. If we get a sex buzz by both, as you seem to imply, why do we all dwell on the nude pics?

Also, I always feel a buzz at first at nudes. So my other question is, what do we understand about the subject of naturism in person/online being an addiction? Some say it is. Is any addiction bad per se, regardless of our feelings of our personal purity?
Roamer Offline
#63 Posted : Sunday, October 5, 2014 9:28:11 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
mane wrote:
But could you substantiate with a reference that "it is not a normal response and not what God planted in us"? How can I feel better that this is not a well meaning opinion as a convenient justification?


A LOT of this is conjecture with little to no substantiation on either side, but the worst offender on the poor practices from a strictly scientific point of view is on the "textile" end(but by no means take that to mean that they have an exclusive on it).

Quote:
I read a scientific report that tracked by camera where the eye dwelled when shown two pics, one nude, and one dressed: it showed by double blind and math that virtually all preferences dwelled on was the nude. If we get a sex buzz by both, as you seem to imply, why do we all dwell on the nude pics?


"Scientific report" is issue one, plenty of people make claims of having written such things, many have done no such thing. Scientific studies have been conducted only to discover that either the methodology or an underlying assumption that determined the methodology were "fatally flawed" so while it was conducted in a scientific manner, the results themselves are not considered to be very useful, other than discovering they overlooked something unanticipated. Without knowing more about the study you allude to, it is hard to supply more insight as to how the study may have been "flawed" specifically in regards to the point you are trying to raise about it.

Also popular practice, particularly among people who advocate certain stances regarding porn, and nudity in general, is to take studies conducted in regards to other issues they deem "closely related" to their chosen subject (it isn't just limited to the topics I mentioned) and extrapolate from there to further their conclusions... Even when or if the authors of the study being cited will strongly assert their work makes no claims as to what is being asserted, or even contradicts what is being claimed.

The truth is research on the subject is exceedingly scarce, what little primary (original) research that has been done strongly indicates naturism is the better option.

The counter indicators usually cited are law enforcement and therapists... Who tend to form their conclusions based on who they tend to deal with in a professional capacity. Which is by no means a scientifically controlled environment, if anything it is biased towards the worst and least healthy in both cases. It should go without saying that the people they get much depth of knowledge about do not comprise anything close to a representative cross-section of the population at large.

Quote:
Also, I always feel a buzz at first at nudes. So my other question is, what do we understand about the subject of naturism in person/online being an addiction? Some say it is. Is any addiction bad per se, regardless of our feelings of our personal purity?


I don't know about you, but I seem to be rather addicted to air and water. I can't seem to go on living without either one of them.
Ravenwarbird Offline
#64 Posted : Tuesday, October 7, 2014 12:23:41 AM(UTC)

Rank: Exalted Millennial Member
Joined: 11/20/2012(UTC)
Posts: 358
Location: Canada
Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 126 time(s) in 69 post(s)
Another problem with so called "Scientific Studies" are the assumptions and generalizations they make. Just because the people they tested reacted in some way and did certain things they assume everyone everywhere must act and react in the same way. That is just flat out not true in every or even most cases, it is true for some things; we all bleed red and we all breath air but we do not all prefer red cars to blue cars. I would ask who was tested, age group, financial status, geographical location, political orientations and what ever else may or may not be relevant variables. I am sure if they conducted the some test in a naturist community the results would be vastly different. People most often do what they do because that is what they learned to do or were told they should do in that given situation.

Train yourself up in the right way and it will be much easier to follow that way. Choose what you will do before the choice is placed before you and you will not waist time and talent when the choice is placed before you.
Remember the simple things are the fundamentals of life. Choose ye your path this day. Si prima non succederet usus duct tape.
Roamer Offline
#65 Posted : Friday, October 10, 2014 8:33:28 PM(UTC)
Rank: Terrestrial Member
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 426
Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 82 time(s) in 65 post(s)
mane wrote:
But could you substantiate with a reference that "it is not a normal response and not what God planted in us"? How can I feel better that this is not a well meaning opinion as a convenient justification? I read a scientific report that tracked by camera where the eye dwelled when shown two pics, one nude, and one dressed: it showed by double blind and math that virtually all preferences dwelled on was the nude. If we get a sex buzz by both, as you seem to imply, why do we all dwell on the nude pics?


We have already mentioned that in history, there are numerous accounts to be found throughout the 19th and 20th century in particular, but other parts of history as well, that have some rather "interesting" takes on which part of the (female) body is the most "stimulating" for men.

It has been ankles, it has been wrists, it has been knees, elbows, legs and/or arms in general, to literally every part of their body, including the hair on the top of their head. (Which is why women in many religious sects/groups keep their hair covered whenever they go out in public, they believe that (unrelated, non-household)men would be unable to restrain themselves should they happen upon the sight of their uncovered hair.)

Also keep in mind that by way of "scientific studies" on many of those same groups, (strong) sexual responses have been found when they are exposed to imagery of the body parts they believe to be sexually stimulating. Which is a significant factor in why we have already alluded to Pavlov's Dog in this thread. People have been taught they're supposed to respond sexually to a particular stimuli, and when that is also brought together with a lack of exposure to that same kind of stimuli, then it should be hardly surprising when that person responds in a sexual manner when they do encounter that stimuli, whatever it may be.

Just in contemporary western society, this can be found if you are inclined to look for it. As fashions have started to return to more practical outfits after the boom in cheap and plentiful textiles in the 19th century, and the resulting decrease in the amount of clothing being worn, in particular among women...

You can find newspaper and other print media, and later audio/video media where people were more than willing to register their shock, scandalization, and/or titillation at witnessing the sighting of ____ (female) body part that was almost never seen prior to that time. Such as New York City, where when one of the early skyscrapers was built on a particular street corner, they started to have their first noticeable encounter with large buildings being able to impact winds on the street level... Well, this building went up(and is still up IIRC, forget its name however(edit: it is the "Flatiron Building"), and a nearby street corner became popular for young men, for as one report had it, "the wind was known to pick up from time to time, and lift of the skirts of the women in the area, allowing those men the opportunity to catch a glimpse of their (the women's) ankles." (edit: wikipedia says the winds would sometimes expose a woman's knees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23...hrase)#Flatiron_Building )

Heaven forbid those "sexually perverted" men in NYC and/or their (future) long suffering significant other, get told that 130 years from their time that women across "the western world" are willingly displaying their ankles to any person who cares to look. Why that alone is grounds to conclude we must be in a society of sexual perversion... While they may not be far off the mark on their conclusion, the criteria used for concluding so is rather considerably off base by modern standards and views.

Quote:
Also, I always feel a buzz at first at nudes. So my other question is, what do we understand about the subject of naturism in person/online being an addiction? Some say it is. Is any addiction bad per se, regardless of our feelings of our personal purity?


And I'm sure those young men in NYC felt a buzz at their first glimpse of a woman's ankles in the late 19th century. There are people alive today who have ankle(or other joint/body part) fetishes out there, but that doesn't mean they're normal having that kind of response today just because most men responded that way at the end of the 19th century. Social and/or other conditioning is a factor in how we respond to things(back to Pavlov's Dog). Unless you want to say that (present day) men having a sexual response upon simply sighting a woman's ankle is the natural and normal thing and millions of men are simply in denial about it at this point.

Now yes, I will personally admit that in rare circumstances I personally have "keyed" off of just one body part on a particular woman, sometimes even their hair. But that is very much an exceptional circumstance, such that those events were memorable just for the fact they happened at all. however, I tend to lump that in with the human experience, there is no one hard and fast rule, there almost invariably is going to be some kind of exceptional circumstance that comes around which will warrant an exception being made to the rule. Which is part of the wisdom of going down the path of teaching and living by the correct principles, rather than trying to write out a rule for everything. Because the spirit in which a law or agreement was made, and the letter in which the law or agreement is written can often be different things. The "better route" is to try to skew towards the spirit(principle) as much as possible, rather than become slave to the letter of it.

Addiction is a risk in all things, including service to the Church itself. hence the council for moderation in all things and the guidance to "avoid extremes." Of course, I'm saying that while being all too aware of the irony of posting that on a forum that discusses the prospect of non-sexual social nudity, which is a rather extreme concept for most people in the Church.
1 user thanked Roamer for this useful post.
Ordinary Joseph on 10/20/2014(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

SoClean Theme By Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Powered by YAF 1.9.5 RC1 | YAF © 2003-2010, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.138 seconds.