One of the responses that naturists get when they are advocating or even just trying to explain to non-naturists about the naturist philosophy, is the question “What about the children?”.
Being relatively new to naturism, this is an issue I often ponder. Your post is well done and hits many of the points I have wondered about - thank you. I came face to face with the issue on a recent Solstice Hike. A family with two small children arrived at the trail head - my first thought was that I hoped they were leaving soon and we didn’t encounter them on the trail. Well, they were part of the group! I have to say I was extremely uncomfortable and dare I say concerned. Why? I had no reason for concern except for the societal conditioning I have encountered. Of course as many here know, you quickly become comfortable in your own skin (it is amazing how quickly that happens, isn’t it), and being nude in their company and seeing the young children nude became part of the landscape. It was nice to this family enjoying the day unencumbered. Now, would I offer up this story to non naturists……. I’m not there yet, but discussions like this help move me closer to being able to factually discuss the issue, while also bringing my own thinking forward.
Certainly pornography doesn’t portray healthy relationships, but the same can be said of countless movies and TV programs. This is also true of many cartoons and fairytales produced for children. Most children don’t have much trouble differentiating good from evil. But as there are probably relatively few parents who promote healthy attitudes about nudity in their children, there are probably almost none who provide much meaningful education about sexual relationships to them. And despite the exposure to pornography and limited sexual relationship education the vast majority of children grow up to be what we would consider to be pretty normal adults. If pornography is having a serious negative effect on children where is the evidence?
Very often the “healthy relationships” portrayed on TV and in film are idealised and set benchmarks that are impossible to meet in real lure by real people. This had the potential to induce feelings of failure among people that they are not living up to the perfection portrayed, and are just as dangerous as the “unhealthy” portrayals. We have built a sorry society so driven and dictated by media that project their various agendas on us. (As a for instance, I, in the UK, grew up thinking that American couples slept in single beds, in contrast to my own parents, because that’s how Hollywood movies portrayed American home life).
My argument is less about the possible harm caused to children by pornography, but the lack of balance by preventing them seeing simple non sexual nudity. People screaming “think of the children”, seem to think that kids at a naturist setting are being harmed despite no evidence to support their assertion. Whether porn harms kids or not, they are seeing it. Not allowing them to see non sexual nudity doesn’t give them balance or context .
Re: tying "what about the children" to religious institution abuse: church going is greatly reduced from levels in the past. But the majority of children do go to school. If predators go where the children are, then that is the schools.
In my city, a former high school teacher was tried for years (decades?) of sexually abusing his students. It turns out parents had been complaining for years. When it reached a crescendo, the school board just transferred him to a school with developmentally delayed children. Classic pass the trash behavior of bureaucracies.
Why isn't the Principal also charged for condoning the behaviors? The Superintendent of schools too? Colleagues who said nothing? Why are only religious hierarchies persecuted for not stopping this when school boards get a free pass?
You make a very valid point. I used the church as an example, perhaps because that was the most recent example here, but there are also instances in schools, scout groups, sports clubs, in fact anywhere there are kids. I didn’t mean to imply that the church are alone in this type of behaviour.
While I absolutely agree with your premise that exposure to nudity does not negatively affect young children I want to play devil's advocate here and question your statement regarding "the known harms of exposing developing minds to pornography."
Before going any further I want you to know that I don't think that children should be exposed to pornography, but I've never seen a study which showed that children suffer any harm by being exposed to pornography. There have been studies of the effects violent video games, violent movies and TV programs have on young children which fail to show a causal relationship. I suspect the fear of harm done to children by pornography is irrational just like with exposure to nudity. Children are not nearly as fragile as many imagine.
In your essay you mention that large numbers of young children either stumble upon or seek out pornography on the Internet, but there is no mention of what actual harm is done to any of them. I suspect there is none. I believe that if people would unemotionally examine pornography they would find it is essentially harmless to most of those who watch it. The availability of pornography may actually benefit society by providing an outlet for potential sexual predators, an opportunity for them to act out their sexual fantasies in private without harming anyone. Most societies have irrational attitudes regarding nudity and sexuality which are unlike their attitudes on any other subjects.
When I was young, we all knew that pro basketball players were taller than 99% of the population. It never occurred to us that they represent the average person. Similarly, we all knew porn actors were first and foremost actors who most likely got their roles due to their physical attributes. We knew the scenarios were complete fantasy. I'm pretty sure it never occurred to any of us that the actors' physiques or anything else about the porn flick were supposed to have even the slightest overlap with reality.
Now, however, it seems that for reasons I cannot figure out many young people think that the bodies they see in media but particularly in porn are supposed to represent real people, or at least what real people could look like if they had the option of exercising for a couple of hours every day. Of course, that isn't remotely true. I think that's where any danger of porn might lie; the failure to recognize it's a fantasy that isn't even trying to be real.
I've read a lot of plausible sounding theories as to the reason(s), but I'm unaware of any causal connections........
I accept that there may not be empirical evidence on the effects of pornography on children. I do think that it is fair to say that most pornography does not depict healthy or respectful intimacy. If all our kids are exposed to is unhealthy examples, then I expect the outcomes may be harmful with regard to healthy attitudes towards respectful sexual behaviour in relationships when they grow up.
I want to tell you you have a great, concise, on-the-money and hard-hitting article here, but by now I'm super angry at what I just had to do to leave a simple comment. What a world. I had to be "authenticated!" No WONDER people say stupid stuff like "what about the children?" when this new order we have must "authenticate" people. I was authenticated in 1946. Sorry for the rant. I wish everybody would read your essay and consider what you say.
A recent afternoon radio programme here in the UK included an interview with someone from British Naturism. The two women presenting the programme were reasonably straight on the subject, not too nudge-nudge-wink-wink. But in their discussion in the post-show podcast they talk about what if they suddenly met a naked person/group when out with their children - “wouldn’t like that”, said one, “how would I explain that what they were doing was all right when I’d been teaching them for years that it’s not?”
My first thought was “reasonable objection”, my more considered thought was “you’re teaching them the wrong thing then!” I also realised it goes some way to explaining all the “what about the children” shrieks - we’re asking parents to accept they’ve been wrong in teaching their children, and that is a mountain I doubt we’ll ever reach the summit of.
It is a huge mind shift for most of society. All the time people think that they have been protecting children when I would argue that they may be doing the opposite.
Well written, Steve. It's really frustrating to witness society constantly scoring own-goals on this matter without even realising it. "You should be ashamed of yourselves!" came the cry from the chap on the suspension bridge that we encountered on our recent walk up the Waitawheta River. How sad was he - instilling his own shame on the young women with him by making them turn their heads away. When will society come to see that their fixation on clothing, merely to hide the body, actually produces the very harm in children that they think it protects them from? Own goals!
The primary work of children is to learn all the knowledge and behavior they will soon need to become fully functional adults. Most of their learning is done by passively observing other children and adults.. Children need to be given opportunities to observe a wide range of other children and adult members of their own species. Their learning needs to include observing a full range of common human behavior.
Systematically depriving children of an opportunity to learn about themselves and their own species is deliberately harmful and hurtful to the children.
Being relatively new to naturism, this is an issue I often ponder. Your post is well done and hits many of the points I have wondered about - thank you. I came face to face with the issue on a recent Solstice Hike. A family with two small children arrived at the trail head - my first thought was that I hoped they were leaving soon and we didn’t encounter them on the trail. Well, they were part of the group! I have to say I was extremely uncomfortable and dare I say concerned. Why? I had no reason for concern except for the societal conditioning I have encountered. Of course as many here know, you quickly become comfortable in your own skin (it is amazing how quickly that happens, isn’t it), and being nude in their company and seeing the young children nude became part of the landscape. It was nice to this family enjoying the day unencumbered. Now, would I offer up this story to non naturists……. I’m not there yet, but discussions like this help move me closer to being able to factually discuss the issue, while also bringing my own thinking forward.
Welcome to naturism, thank you for your kind words and thank you for sharing your experience.
Certainly pornography doesn’t portray healthy relationships, but the same can be said of countless movies and TV programs. This is also true of many cartoons and fairytales produced for children. Most children don’t have much trouble differentiating good from evil. But as there are probably relatively few parents who promote healthy attitudes about nudity in their children, there are probably almost none who provide much meaningful education about sexual relationships to them. And despite the exposure to pornography and limited sexual relationship education the vast majority of children grow up to be what we would consider to be pretty normal adults. If pornography is having a serious negative effect on children where is the evidence?
Very often the “healthy relationships” portrayed on TV and in film are idealised and set benchmarks that are impossible to meet in real lure by real people. This had the potential to induce feelings of failure among people that they are not living up to the perfection portrayed, and are just as dangerous as the “unhealthy” portrayals. We have built a sorry society so driven and dictated by media that project their various agendas on us. (As a for instance, I, in the UK, grew up thinking that American couples slept in single beds, in contrast to my own parents, because that’s how Hollywood movies portrayed American home life).
My argument is less about the possible harm caused to children by pornography, but the lack of balance by preventing them seeing simple non sexual nudity. People screaming “think of the children”, seem to think that kids at a naturist setting are being harmed despite no evidence to support their assertion. Whether porn harms kids or not, they are seeing it. Not allowing them to see non sexual nudity doesn’t give them balance or context .
Re: tying "what about the children" to religious institution abuse: church going is greatly reduced from levels in the past. But the majority of children do go to school. If predators go where the children are, then that is the schools.
In my city, a former high school teacher was tried for years (decades?) of sexually abusing his students. It turns out parents had been complaining for years. When it reached a crescendo, the school board just transferred him to a school with developmentally delayed children. Classic pass the trash behavior of bureaucracies.
Why isn't the Principal also charged for condoning the behaviors? The Superintendent of schools too? Colleagues who said nothing? Why are only religious hierarchies persecuted for not stopping this when school boards get a free pass?
You make a very valid point. I used the church as an example, perhaps because that was the most recent example here, but there are also instances in schools, scout groups, sports clubs, in fact anywhere there are kids. I didn’t mean to imply that the church are alone in this type of behaviour.
While I absolutely agree with your premise that exposure to nudity does not negatively affect young children I want to play devil's advocate here and question your statement regarding "the known harms of exposing developing minds to pornography."
Before going any further I want you to know that I don't think that children should be exposed to pornography, but I've never seen a study which showed that children suffer any harm by being exposed to pornography. There have been studies of the effects violent video games, violent movies and TV programs have on young children which fail to show a causal relationship. I suspect the fear of harm done to children by pornography is irrational just like with exposure to nudity. Children are not nearly as fragile as many imagine.
In your essay you mention that large numbers of young children either stumble upon or seek out pornography on the Internet, but there is no mention of what actual harm is done to any of them. I suspect there is none. I believe that if people would unemotionally examine pornography they would find it is essentially harmless to most of those who watch it. The availability of pornography may actually benefit society by providing an outlet for potential sexual predators, an opportunity for them to act out their sexual fantasies in private without harming anyone. Most societies have irrational attitudes regarding nudity and sexuality which are unlike their attitudes on any other subjects.
When I was young, we all knew that pro basketball players were taller than 99% of the population. It never occurred to us that they represent the average person. Similarly, we all knew porn actors were first and foremost actors who most likely got their roles due to their physical attributes. We knew the scenarios were complete fantasy. I'm pretty sure it never occurred to any of us that the actors' physiques or anything else about the porn flick were supposed to have even the slightest overlap with reality.
Now, however, it seems that for reasons I cannot figure out many young people think that the bodies they see in media but particularly in porn are supposed to represent real people, or at least what real people could look like if they had the option of exercising for a couple of hours every day. Of course, that isn't remotely true. I think that's where any danger of porn might lie; the failure to recognize it's a fantasy that isn't even trying to be real.
I've read a lot of plausible sounding theories as to the reason(s), but I'm unaware of any causal connections........
I accept that there may not be empirical evidence on the effects of pornography on children. I do think that it is fair to say that most pornography does not depict healthy or respectful intimacy. If all our kids are exposed to is unhealthy examples, then I expect the outcomes may be harmful with regard to healthy attitudes towards respectful sexual behaviour in relationships when they grow up.
I want to tell you you have a great, concise, on-the-money and hard-hitting article here, but by now I'm super angry at what I just had to do to leave a simple comment. What a world. I had to be "authenticated!" No WONDER people say stupid stuff like "what about the children?" when this new order we have must "authenticate" people. I was authenticated in 1946. Sorry for the rant. I wish everybody would read your essay and consider what you say.
A recent afternoon radio programme here in the UK included an interview with someone from British Naturism. The two women presenting the programme were reasonably straight on the subject, not too nudge-nudge-wink-wink. But in their discussion in the post-show podcast they talk about what if they suddenly met a naked person/group when out with their children - “wouldn’t like that”, said one, “how would I explain that what they were doing was all right when I’d been teaching them for years that it’s not?”
My first thought was “reasonable objection”, my more considered thought was “you’re teaching them the wrong thing then!” I also realised it goes some way to explaining all the “what about the children” shrieks - we’re asking parents to accept they’ve been wrong in teaching their children, and that is a mountain I doubt we’ll ever reach the summit of.
It is a huge mind shift for most of society. All the time people think that they have been protecting children when I would argue that they may be doing the opposite.
Well written, Steve. It's really frustrating to witness society constantly scoring own-goals on this matter without even realising it. "You should be ashamed of yourselves!" came the cry from the chap on the suspension bridge that we encountered on our recent walk up the Waitawheta River. How sad was he - instilling his own shame on the young women with him by making them turn their heads away. When will society come to see that their fixation on clothing, merely to hide the body, actually produces the very harm in children that they think it protects them from? Own goals!
That guy we met on the bridge does get a mention in my blog due out in 2 weeks.
Yes. What about the children?
The primary work of children is to learn all the knowledge and behavior they will soon need to become fully functional adults. Most of their learning is done by passively observing other children and adults.. Children need to be given opportunities to observe a wide range of other children and adult members of their own species. Their learning needs to include observing a full range of common human behavior.
Systematically depriving children of an opportunity to learn about themselves and their own species is deliberately harmful and hurtful to the children.
I agree. It is a pity that much of society is yet to pick up on this.
Our nude resort has several families with children ranging in age from infants to teens and 20s. They all thrive there and love it.
I'm not surprised by that. I bet those youngsters will grow up with less harmful attitudes about their bodies.
They don't even notice they nude, boys and girls all playing together like there is no tomorrow.
Isn't that the way it should be for everyone? Interacting with people and focussing on the activity rather than what they are or aren't wearing.
Exactly !!
If body shaming wasn’t such a big thing, millions of £/$ would be lost by greedy advertisers and internet sites who prey on vulnerable youngsters..
Yet another reason to try and do what we can to reduce body shame.