Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Topless Beaches, OK or not?

[Lynette]

Rackman,
It shouldn't be hard to buy into at all. You have to remeber that all though the puritans were the minority, they were also the most politically powerful. And, when you consider that later they were directly responsible for the formation and founding republican part, it should be easy to recognize the fact that their religious and idiolgical beliefs would continue to be handed down. They are not the only people in american history to pass along their beliefs for the past 300 years. If you don't think so, you should sit down with a free Mason sometime and ask some questions. You also have to remember that electing presidents (and public officials) who openly proclaim the fact that they are "born-again christians".
Here we go! The separation between Church and State in the US has become somewhat of a farce. Religious fundementalist of any belief involved in upper levels of government will always be a dangerous thing when it comes down to individual freedoms. I know this is all a bit heavy considering we're talking about a freedon as insignificant as toples sunbathing. But, it is applicable none-the-less.
By the way, the women asked me if I was from another country, but were very rude in the way they approached me. I always felt that a friendly "we don't do that here sweetie" would have been good. But they made me feel like I was doing something horrible. Maybe it was the fact that they were three middle aged, homely women that appeared to not have much going for them. They really came of like the beach-tittie police or something.

[Isaac_Putin]

    When I first arived in the states I DID. But I wasn't aware of the laws and picked a public beach in Santa Monica to sunbath. Needless-to-say, I was immediately notified by several women that it was not acceptable. You can be arrested or ticketed, or both. Andm yes, the laws even at  "nude" beaches are enforced on a regular basis. You take your chances of acquiring a criminal record if you are one of the unlucky ones caught.

If it's a nude beach, there are no laws to enforce. Unfortunately, the only nude beach on the U.S. East Coast with legal standing is Haulover. Nobody can arrest you on that beach for being nude.

Other beaches, such as Gunnison Beach in New Jersey, have semi-legal status. Thousands of naked beachgoers are there on weekends. Lifeguards are provided and police patrol the beaches, but to protect the beachgoers and enforce noise and other statutes.

However, beaches like Assoteague in Maryland have had their anti-nudity ordinances enforced with citations. It's totally unpredictable which officer will cite you on that beach -- it's totally at the discretion of the patrol and/or whether a non-nudist decides to complain.

[Isaac_Putin]

However, I think that attributing the differences to our "Puritan heritage" is flimsy.  Those deeply religious people were only a tiny fraction of those who settled this country, and it was 300 years ago!  Too much has changed, and I would think that the millions of immigrants that followed them would have swamped out the whatever cultural influence the Puritans might have had.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans are ex-Europeans.  For this reason, Americans don't truly have a cultural origin separate from Europe.

Rackman, I don't know how you can say this. Can you name a single socially liberal religious group that came here during the founding of America?

The Puritans were just one of many strict religious sects that came here. Strongly related to the Puritans were the Calvinists (very strict -- check out what the offshoot Westboro "God Hates Fags" church has been doing lately, protesting gay funerals). Loosely affiliated with the Puritans were the Presbyterians and Methodists, Quakers, Congregationalists, etc. It was a strict life. Check out readings on the Salem Witch Trials and the "Scarlet Letter".

Anyway, many of these churches sprang from a desire to reform and purify the decadent and wayward establishment churches in Europe (Church of England, Roman Catholicism). When these reformer/puritans were kicked out of Europe, Europe was left with the more socially laissez-faire religious people, while the zealots came here.

[COMEDYMAN]

We have several nudie beaches here in Florida. One in the Bradenton area and one over on the East coast next to Cape Canaveral. Plus there are a couple of nudist resorts around here. My brother and his wife frequent the nudie beach near the cape often. He says its just a relaxed place where folks just happen to be nekkid and doing beach activities. Also says theres a lotta older folks there there is a lotta balls draggin in the sand

[foxy lady]

I personally don't have a problem with topless beaches.....just wouldn't take my children there!

I do however agree more with nude beaches, wouldn't take my children there either but if others have their children there then they obviously don't give a shit about them seeing my little boobies or other treasures now do they!!

[Boobluver2]

     As many of you already know, I grew up in a place where women being topless on a beach was no big deal. Almost everywhere I've been outside the US, it's that way too. Personally, except when I was in the US for school and such, I've never worn a top on any beach. Here on the isalnd where I live women walk up and down the beaches topless all the time. Nobody except maybe overly religious types seem to mind.
     I could never understand why Americans seem to think boobs are such a bad thing when the rest of the world seems to be open to admiring them even in public. In the states, if a guy walks up to you on the beach and says "nice breasts" (even with a top on) most women will act genuinely pissed or embarrassed. Here, women just say thank you, take it as a compliment, and go on their way.
      So, is being topless on public beaches a good thing? Bad thing? Or, what?And.why does American society seem to think it's so bad? Is it because when the English people(religious based puritans) who left England and settled in America brought all those old religious based principles with them? And to this day they've stuck? If so, it seems a shame that after two hundred years, American society hasn't been able to shed something like the sight of some bare breasts on a beach is a bad thing.
                                                          *KIISES*

Topless beaches should be allowed!!! No questions asked. I, too, have been to many countries where topless (and nude) beaches existed. There were no real problems that I could see nor encountered. One time I was with my ex-wife (a model) and while very pretty she didn't get oogled or get looked at in disparaging ways. I also went to several with a pretty lady that was extrememly well endowed and loved to lay out topless. Now her rack could create quite a commotion but it never really happened. Sure, a lot of men and women would stare at her, but never to the point of making her uncomfortable. She actually enjoyed the attention.

There seems to be a thought in the states that boobs are bad and should be covered up. This may come as we were inhabited early on by the Puritans and that would not be something they condoned. Looking at early bathing suits here one can see that maximum coverage was always encouraged.

I love boobs! I love to see boobs on a topless beach or any beach!! But does that mean I'll be a dick and disrespective to a lady baring her breasts? Hell no!! Men have breasts too, they just aren't developed like a woman's. If a man can go bare chested why can't a woman? I don't get it.

I remember being on Orient Beach in St. Maarteen (a nude beach) and laying out (naked of course......when in Rome) seeing a lot of people from the resort I was staying at walking on the beach (fully clothed) gawking at the people laying naked in the sun and taking pictures of them (very uncool). Now when I got back to the resort I got hit with so many questions as to why I did it, etc. and told I was perverted. Now I put the question back on them and wondered how I was perverted when I was doing what others were doing and here were these "interlopers" on the beach, fully clothed, staring at naked people and taking pictures.........now tell me who is perverted? If you don't want to go to a topless beach, don't go. But they don't create problems.

The problems seem to get created by our culture and that the breast is bad, which we know is not true!! It is a beautiful thing for sure!! For some reason we in the states think a boob must be covered up or else it will create sexual deviates and that is not true. People will act how they want regardless. If seeing a boob drives a person to some sexual abuse then they have a problem. We have made way too much about boobs and how they shouldn't be seen! That is so ridiculous! Besides what is the worst that can happen? A guy pops wood...big deal we do that all the time, sometimes without thinking anything sexual; someone looks at a woman's boobs...big deal that is bound to happen; someone cops a feel....now that isn't cool as it invades the space of the lady being topless and violates her. But the fact is nothing more really happens from it. Some people can say it might cause someone to be frustrated and rape someone but rape is not a sexual crime generally as that isn't why the person is doing it (besides being fucked up in the head to do such a thing that person has many other problems..but not from seeing a boob!)!!!

I am all for topless beaches and think people need to relax and enjoy the sun the way it is meant to be enjoyed. I think that the people that don't like topless beaches are a bit uptight! As I've been to quite a few and have known a lot of people that have gone topless or gotten naked on a beach (of which many never had done it before) they prefer it. And I see no problem with it! My only problem is that I apparently don't go to the beaches Lynette does. I must admit Lynette, not only do I love your pictures, but I love your attitude as well!

Besides, who among us was born with clothes on? I know I wasn't!!

[UncleBuck]

there are hazards to nude beachs as well

[rackman]

Rackman, I don't know how you can say this.  Can you name a single socially liberal religious group that came here during the founding of America?

Isaac,

I say this because by 2006, the Puritans have been swamped out by millions of other immigrants. How influential are, say, the Amish these days?

I would guess that the Puritans would also have opposed smoking, drinking, school dances, and many other things that teenagers (and adults) do these days.

Why is it that the Puritans have been so successful at banning topless bathing at public beaches, but can't seem to keep the lid on all these other activities?

By the way, I'm not going to argue that the Puritans/Calvinsts/Quakers, etc., weren't strict. I've read the "Scarlet Letter", and am aware of some of the awful things people have done to abuse political power. However, I just don't see a strong difference between the cultural origins of the US and the cultural origins of Europe, because the majority of the people came from the same cloth. Europeans had many of the same strict ways of dealing with "deviant" behavior; Americans in no way had a monopoly on narrow, religious ways of thinking.

[ndboxer]

How do you find all this stuff buck? That is great!!

[rackman]

.. when you consider that later they [the Puritans] were directly responsible for the formation and founding republican part[y]

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?). I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party. I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.

.. Here we go! The separation between Church and State in the US has become somewhat of a farce

Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people. Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States. Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time. The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing?

[Isaac_Putin]

Isaac,

I say this because by 2006, the Puritans have been swamped out by millions of other immigrants.  How influential are, say, the Amish these days? 

I would guess that the Puritans would also have opposed smoking, drinking, school dances, and many other things that teenagers (and adults) do these days. 

Why is it that the Puritans have been so successful at banning topless bathing at public beaches, but can't seem to keep the lid on all these other activities?

By the way, I'm not going to argue that the Puritans/Calvinsts/Quakers, etc., weren't strict.  I've read the "Scarlet Letter", and am aware of some of the awful things people have done to abuse political power.  However, I just don't see a strong difference between the cultural origins of the US and the cultural origins of Europe, because the majority of the people came from the same cloth.  Europeans had many of the same strict ways of dealing with "deviant" behavior; Americans in no way had a monopoly on narrow, religious ways of thinking.

That doesn't add up to me. Puritan values didn't get swamped out by later immigrants. First of all, Puritan ideas about morality and common law were codified in both the Constitution and local laws. Not to mention early interpretations of the Constitution.

If you think a Puritanical streak (and nod to the values) doesn't still exist, then why do we still have "blue laws" (regarding alcohol) in so many states? Why is sodomy still illegal in so many states? They aren't new laws from a new wave of religious awakening. They are entrenched old laws. And why do so many people cling to traditional mores, whether it is dress, relationships, types of sex, and use of recreational drugs? Why did we suddenly have outcrops of the "Moral Majority", "American Family Association", and the "Family Research Council" here, but not in Europe?

Also, the evolution toward less strict morality started in Europe and came here. Remember French postcards, Benny Hill, Swedish adult films, German nudist documentaries?

[Isaac_Putin]

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?).  I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party.  I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.
Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people.  Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States.  Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time.  The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing? 

Rackman, I think you have it exactly backwards here. In fact, it is very arguable whether the founders of the Constitution were especially religious (Franklin was a deist and so was Ethan Allen). Especially compared to the people around them at the time. And given some of the quotes below, I think it is reasonable to assume there WAS intent for church/state separation.

Example:

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

James Madison in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

AND

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Benjamin Franklin: "If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. "

Thomas Paine: "My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

One quick thing: While the framers of the Constitution, as shown above, may not have necessarily been religious, and possibly personally hostile to Christianity in some cases, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have PURITANICAL ideas about morality -- women's dress and behavior, drinking, gambling, etc. It just means that they believe that those attitudes should be founded on reason and not religious edicts.

[saxman]

I know this may see shallow to everyone, but could we get back to seeing lovely ladies topless at the beach? roflmao

Hell guys topless or bottomless too. Equal opportunity I say!

HERE HERE

let the flaming begin lol

[Isaac_Putin]

I know this may see shallow to everyone, but could we get back to seeing lovely ladies topless at the beach? roflmao

Hell guys topless or bottomless too. Equal opportunity I say!

HERE HERE

let the flaming begin lol

If there is enough female demand, I'll post me on the beach. And if it happens, it will be YOUR fault, Saxman!

[COMEDYMAN]

Here's my take on religion and the nude body. God or whatever higher power you believe in didn't give us these body parts to be ashamed of.
Its these Elders of these religions or whatever that ARE elderly that make up these religious "rules" about the human body being "dirty".

These elders have already had their rolls in the hay and did their peep hole viewing and now they are going to say that its against the "rules" to look at a naked body in public because they can't get it up any more . It's the whole " if I aint gettin laid, then by God , NOONE is" syndrome. Along the same ideas of Thomas Paine's quote above.

How the fuck are we supposed to procreate if the opposite sex doesnt turn us on a little. Never once did my cock get hard reading the Bible, but it will get hard if a naked woman was reading one

[Gnappster]

Actually some intersting discussion going on. It's weird living in Canada in that we sort of lay somewhere between European and American values. Nudity, and more specifically topless females is not as frowned upon as much as in the US, but it's definitely not as common place as in Europe.

[natalie]

Here's my take on religion and the nude body.  God or whatever higher power you believe in didn't give us these body parts to be ashamed of. 
Its these Elders of these religions or whatever that ARE elderly that make up these religious "rules" about the human body being "dirty". 

These elders have already had their rolls in the hay and did their peep hole viewing and now they are going to say that its against the "rules" to look at a naked body in public because they can't get it up any more . It's the whole " if I aint gettin laid, then by God , NOONE is" syndrome. Along the same ideas of Thomas Paine's quote above.

How the fuck are we supposed to procreate if the opposite sex doesnt turn us on a little. Never once did my cock get hard reading the Bible, but it will get hard if a naked woman was reading one

I think there just jealous that all they got to oogle in those days were ankles! And they're embarassed that it made them horny.

[rackman]

Isaac,

Like I said in an earlier post, I've never read up on the puritans -- until now. I had always assumed they were just some small group that didn't have much real impact outside of their own community. From what I've read, this was not the case.

I've learned that although the term "puritan" was regarded as imprecise (and pejorative, incidentally), religious groups in early American history were, in fact, heavily influenced by puritan ways of thinking. One article I read said that approximately 85% of American religious groups in the late 17th century were "puritan" in nature.

So I'll have to concede that they had a much larger impact on American politics and law than I had initially thought.

Whether their cultural legacy is still palpable after two or three hundred years in the melting pot is something I remain less sure of, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

One rather interesting bit of trivia is that the present-day United Church of Christ is the direct descendant of New England Puritan congregations. Here's the kicker: UCC membership includes Howard Dean, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill), Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla), and David Letterman among others!

[rackman]

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams. 
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Be that as it may, John Quincy Adams said:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

I also have this quote from John Adams which is interesting:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

I'm sure I could dig up dozens of quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others in which they directly reference God or the Heavens, etc.

If you're pointing out that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists as opposed to Christians per se, then I totally agree with you. However, I don't know if that disqualifies them as being "religious". Perhaps I should have used the term "spiritual".

The broader point is that it is nearly impossible to separate Christianity from the Constitution -- not in a literal sense, but in the sense that the morals and values held by the men who drafted it were Christian in essence if not in name.

When you read the first two quotes again, this difference becomes clear. The first states that the Constitution was not founded on the Christian RELIGION; the second quote affirms that the American government was, in fact, founded on Christian PRINCIPLES.

[Isaac_Putin]

You have made some great points, Rackman. However, I think a strong case could be made that the founding fathers were NOT big fans of organized religion and the effect that Christianity, tightly interwoven with government, had had on other governments.

Also, John Adams, from his statements, may have had a mild case of schizophrenia.

As to a government based on religious principles -- I have two things to point out. One is that many of the principles found in the Christian religion can be found in others. I have been a fan of the anthropologist-writer Joseph Campbell who traced the roots and beliefs of Christianity to earlier religions. Many of the things found in the Bible - concerning both ethics and even miracle events (e.g. - virgin births) can be found in other non-Christian cultures.

The other point I wanted to make is that I have never been a fan of the idea that ethics could only be rooted in religion (especially the idea that for someone to behave they have to believe that they would go to hell for misbehaving). Instead, I believe that ethics can spring from the ideas of the right to self determination (also right to own property, defend oneself from harm, etc.) as well as the Aristotelian principals of the golden mean -- walking a fine line between one's own interests and those of others. Once you observe those ethical principles, I believe that you would already also be living by the tenets of the 10 Commandments -- except maybe for the first two.

[Lynette]

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?).  I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party.  I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.
Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people.  Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States.  Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time.  The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing? 

Actually, I believe that th whole reason for the separation of chusrch and state was tp protect the politicians from ever being challanged by organized religion such as we now see in the middle east. There it's common place to see religious parties in power. It's just a way the good-ol-boys had on securing their power base against what could be their only threat to power.

[diane26]

I have gotten into the Seperation debate many times and from my understanding it was set up to protect religions.But as stated it is NOT in the constituion, you can find some very interesting stuff when researching the topic at hand though.

[natalie]

God this has to be the heaviest thread yet!

[Bobaloo]

God this has to be the heaviest thread yet!

I think we need a shot of boobs on a beach to lighten things up a bit and turn this thread around

[Lynette]

I think we need a shot of boobs on a beach to lighten things up a bit and turn this thread around 

OK

Attached image(s)

[Bobaloo]

OK

Ask and you shall receive!!!

Thanks Lynette. Very sexy. I love that the old guy in the pic can't seem to stop staring at you. But who could blame him for staring at a girl like you. besides, he's probably a lonely priest anyway.

[Isaac_Putin]

I have gotten into the Seperation debate many times and from my understanding it was set up to protect religions.But as stated it is NOT in the constituion, you can find some very interesting stuff when researching the topic at hand though.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The way it is written is vague and open to interpretation. Just because something isn't said literally, doesn't mean that you cannot reasonably infer that they are implying a separation of church and state. For that matter, I don't think anyone here has even defined what they themselves think church/state separation means.

[Bobaloo]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The way it is written is vague and open to interpretation.  Just because something isn't said literally, doesn't mean that you cannot reasonably infer that they are implying a separation of church and state.  For that matter, I don't think anyone here has even defined what they themselves think church/state separation means.

Oh man!!! We had boobs in here and now we get more paragraphs.

Anyone up for posting more boobs on the beach??? Apparantly Lynette just isn't enough to deter isaac . Can't imagine how that's possible She could stop me in my tracks with that body anytime.

[diane26]

Oh man!!!  We had boobs in here and now we get more paragraphs. 

Anyone up for posting more boobs on the beach???  Apparantly Lynette just isn't enough to deter isaac .  Can't imagine how that's possible   She could stop me in my tracks with that body anytime.

OH MAN THIS IS HILLARIOUS AND I CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHY. Issac will know

[Gnappster]

Ask and you shall receive!!!

Thanks Lynette.  Very sexy.  I love that the old guy in the pic can't seem to stop staring at you.  But who could blame him for staring at a girl like you.  besides, he's probably a lonely priest anyway.

I think it's Bill Clinton