It never ceases to amaze me how many people still harbor the notion that there's something sinister about nudism among family members. Am I correct in assuming the point you are making is that such an equivocation is wrong, and unfairly biased? That's how I read this. And if so, I agree with you.
While I accept that there is often nothing sinister about simple non-sexual nudity, including within family units, my point is more about businesses that label themselves as family-run and expect that to translate to family-friendly. Family-friendly events indicate that there are likely to be children present, but I don't believe that should exclude simple nudity. The point of the blog was to highlight that because something is family-run does not guarantee that it is suitable for children.
Ah. OK, then I misunderstood. I thought it was about the labels cast upon any such phrase as "family friendly" or "family run" as required to be puritanical. My apologies for not getting it. I guess I was tunneld into my own experience, remembering outsiders casting such towards our family when I was young - and I was young 500 years ago :).
As the article says the shop is a family run business, then there should not be any direct link with the people taking photos in the sunflower fields. The fruit shop & the sunflower fields are two different entities, isn't it?
In my experience, when I see family naturist, as opposed to just naturist it signifies to me that children are present or may be present, and that's all. The naturist part describes the behavior that's expected. I think that goes over into the textile world that when I see family friendly, I see that meaning children may be present.
No definition of "family" that I can find has any allusion to particular standards of behaviour. The closest I can find suggests that the word can be used to describe something suitable for all members of a family, including children - a family restaurant or a family movie. But, again, even in that definition there is nothing to determine what exactly is meant by "suitable". Children love being naked. Perhaps it is adults that need protecting from nudity! :-)
It never ceases to amaze me how many people still harbor the notion that there's something sinister about nudism among family members. Am I correct in assuming the point you are making is that such an equivocation is wrong, and unfairly biased? That's how I read this. And if so, I agree with you.
While I accept that there is often nothing sinister about simple non-sexual nudity, including within family units, my point is more about businesses that label themselves as family-run and expect that to translate to family-friendly. Family-friendly events indicate that there are likely to be children present, but I don't believe that should exclude simple nudity. The point of the blog was to highlight that because something is family-run does not guarantee that it is suitable for children.
Ah. OK, then I misunderstood. I thought it was about the labels cast upon any such phrase as "family friendly" or "family run" as required to be puritanical. My apologies for not getting it. I guess I was tunneld into my own experience, remembering outsiders casting such towards our family when I was young - and I was young 500 years ago :).
As the article says the shop is a family run business, then there should not be any direct link with the people taking photos in the sunflower fields. The fruit shop & the sunflower fields are two different entities, isn't it?
The sunflower field is part of the business. Perhaps I didn't make that clear, apologies.
In my experience, when I see family naturist, as opposed to just naturist it signifies to me that children are present or may be present, and that's all. The naturist part describes the behavior that's expected. I think that goes over into the textile world that when I see family friendly, I see that meaning children may be present.
No definition of "family" that I can find has any allusion to particular standards of behaviour. The closest I can find suggests that the word can be used to describe something suitable for all members of a family, including children - a family restaurant or a family movie. But, again, even in that definition there is nothing to determine what exactly is meant by "suitable". Children love being naked. Perhaps it is adults that need protecting from nudity! :-)