Nude Family swim at Stoke Waterworld

[VortexofBloggery]

Flagged up by Sammy Woodhouse on Twitter.
mobile.twitter.com/sammywoodhouse1/status/1308822025797013509

Supported by who else but NSPCC.

Adults can buy a single ticket.

To Shut it down, Change petition here:
www.change.org/p/water-world-stop-nude-family-swim-session-for-adults-and-children-of-all-ages-at-water-world?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_24863394_en-GB%3A2&recruiter=1151217419&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share

Attended by convicted paedophile
www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4047602.convicted-brierfield-paedophile-member-naturist-club/

Unbelievable.

It's all cultural really. Germans would probably laugh at our shock-horror about nudity, while Afghanis would be horrified that we allow our children to be seen in public in what appears to be underwear.

Comefromaway - I live in Stoke these events have been going on for most of my childhood

Jimmy Savile was around for most of my childhood, didn’t make what he did ok though did it? I wonder if the few people who tried to report his actions were called Puritans?
Some very unsettling opinions on this thread, I’m not sure if it’s naivety, wilful ignorance or something else.

@TinselAngel

It’s like the difference between sex with and without a condom.

Said no woman, ever.

Said this woman.

Jimmy Savile was around for most of my childhood, didn’t make what he did ok though did it? I wonder if the few people who tried to report his actions were called Puritans?

What has Jimmy Savile got to do with anything? He wasn't a naturist. He was a paedophile who wore clothes - like most paedophiles.

Your posts are very odd, VinylDetective.

It's a movement that grew out of the faux naivete of the 70s. We know better now. Be naked at home if it's that important to you. Otherwise, safeguarding neccessitates clothes.

@Pelleas

Jimmy Savile was around for most of my childhood, didn’t make what he did ok though did it? I wonder if the few people who tried to report his actions were called Puritans?

What has Jimmy Savile got to do with anything? He wasn't a naturist. He was a paedophile who wore clothes - like most paedophiles.

pbs.twimg.com/media/Eino1kCWkAMrKpB?format=jpg&name=medium

The point I was trying to make is that just because something has been allowed to go on for a long time doesn’t make it ok. I thought it was pretty clear.

@FireUnderTheHand

SterFran00

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. The insight was informative.

You’re welcome

My experience of naturism is not a good one, growing up my parents decided we would become naturists, I was 10, sure I made friends within the naturism community, but for me it was like having a dirty secret which I couldn’t talk to school friends about, I was too embarrassed, I had nothing to add when everyone talked about their weekends and if you think that because you are surrounded by families your DC are not going to get touched up by one of the dads then you are wrong, also the couple who sidled in and became family friends, hmmm, I wonder why, you got it, I can feel that bastards moustache as he stuck his tongue in my mouth, I was 12, I made sure I was never alone with him again. Fortunately we moved abroad for a while and when we came back the naturist club had gone bust. I won’t lie there were some good times but it’s the bad times that I’ve seeked counselling for later on in life, no way on this earth would I ever subject my DC to it.

@StephenKong

Your posts are very odd, VinylDetective.

Are they? In what way?

It is civilised and a societal norm in British society to wear clothes. If you bung a child into a pool and flume with a load of naked adults that they are not related to this, IMHO has the potential to ‘cause harm’ to that child.

I agree it is a societal norm in Britain to wear clothes, but something being a 'societal norm' doesn't make it right. 100 years ago it was a societal norm for women not to be allowed to vote - does that mean it was right?

In some cultures, a far greater level of modesty in dress is the societal norm. While it's to be hoped people from other cultures would respect those beliefs, that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree it's wrong to show, for example, your bare legs.

What I'm saying is that it's fairly arbitrary which parts of the human body it's deemed acceptable to show and there's no inherent moral reason for anyone to conform to the norm of their particular society - unless non-conformity harms others.

Walking naked through a public park - yes, might shock or harm others, not acceptable in British society. Attending/organising an event which is clearly advertised as being for nudists - no one is going to be shocked - therefore, it's acceptable

Walking naked through a public park - yes, might shock or harm others, not acceptable in British society. Attending/organising an event which is clearly advertised as being for nudists - no one is going to be shocked - therefore, it's acceptable
Is it acceptable for the kids involved who have not given consent? They're only nudists because they're parents have adopted it.

Pelleas - so you’re saying not wearing clothes is something we should be progressing to?

How on earth do you manage to extrapolate that from what Pelleas said?

Pelleas - so you’re saying not wearing clothes is something we should be progressing to? Despite the British climate?

That's an interesting question. If you go back to Victorian times, it was considered unseemly for women to wear anything that revealed their ankles. I would argue that the greater freedom over the years for women pretty much to dress as they liked in public (barring nudity) is a progression.

Given the way the climate is changing, nudity during summer heatwaves might well become the most comfortable option in future.

Despite health and hygiene concerns? Okay mate. Love to see the state of those London Tube seats after rush hour in the summer when your law comes in mate.

In hot weather, people generally sweat through their clothes anyway. You're deluding yourself if you think that Tube seat is clean just because the sweat has made its way through a pair of pants and trousers.

None of the consenting adults who buy tickets. It’s the non consenting children I’m concerned about.

People are only shocked because they see nudity as abnormal. In a naturist family, nudity won't be seen by the children as anything out of the ordinary.

As for non-consenting - again, I think people are deluding themselves if they think wearing swimming costumes will prevent voyeurism from those with nefarious intentions. You might as well argue that no one should be taken to a swimming pool below the age of 18.

They're only nudists because they're parents have adopted it.

You might say that about any lifestyle choice adopted by parents that involves the whole family. Where do you draw the line? No child should be baptised, because they haven't consented to being part of a religion? No child should eat meat because they haven't consented to being non-vegan? No child should be driven in a car because they haven't consented to something that carries a high risk of accident/death?

In a naturist family, nudity won't be seen by the children as anything out of the ordinary.”
I don't understand this. Unless you live in some sort of commune, the kids will be perfectly well aware that their friends (most people, in fact) don't live like this and it is in fact very much out of the ordinary.

@Comefromaway

I think a lot of people in this thread have severe hang ups about their own bodies.

I have hang ups, I freely admit it. But I hope I am open minded enough to see that my hang ups are probably not normal and that naturists probably have it right.

That seems an unfair and unfounded statement; incredibly dismissive of the various perspectives at play.

The appeal of my body is the reason I don't want to be nude in front of others. Because that appeal was codified into my conscious as a 5yr old and reinforced all through childhood, puberty, young adulthood, and adulthood by males that wanted to touch it and to abuse it. Because of my life experiences covering my genitals is of utmost importance to me - for safety and personal dignity.

Again, I am not a parent so while I may disagree with the practice of naturism and children being nude in front of strangers - I am going from my understanding of childhood development, boundary creation and enforcement, and personal childhood experience not a desire to suppress a child's natural state.

Being open minded is great but I can't get onboard with your resulting assumption that the naturists have it 'right'.

I don't think they are 'wrong' per se but I can say that I disagree with their confidence in being able to keep those safe that we hold most dear (regardless of safeguarding training). FTR, I believe that SterFran00 has their children's best interests at heart and finds the naturist practice to be safe or they wouldn't engage their children in it.

My personal convictions bolstering my research etc. comes from the following experience:

My mother was an RN in pediatric cancer wards and my father was our primary caretaker - we were their everything (until the divorce two years later), they never had us around strangers unless we were fully supervised by a trusted adult. The first time we had a trusted non-family babysitter I was molested - he was a trusted teenager well known to my dad as dad was his youth group leader at our Catholic church - I thought this kid hung the stars (before that night he made me feel very safe in supervised interactions). Point is, my parents did nothing wrong in this scenario and what happened still happened and has affected me greatly throughout my life. Thus, I find any risk of this happening to be insurmountable.

I have a genuine concern and desire to make sense of what I find insensible (fairly or not, and certainly biased).

Dismissing safeguarding concerns as personal hang ups about body image is really missing my point and the point of the other posters coming from a similar place.

@StephenKong

In a naturist family, nudity won't be seen by the children as anything out of the ordinary.” I don't understand this. Unless you live in some sort of commune, the kids will be perfectly well aware that their friends (most people, in fact) don't live like this and it is in fact very much out of the ordinary.

I disagree. They'll be aware that their parents wear clothes in some - probably most - contexts, out and about in daily life. However, they'll be aware that there are some contexts in which their parents go nude. How will they (or anyone else) know whether other households are clothed or unclothed when only family members are present? How will they know whether or not their contemporaries attend naturist events?

It is indeed. Quite suggestive.