 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Arthritis / September 2004OTP: But was M there? <g>
Members of a California Naturalist Club Clean Up Local Beach in the Nude 09-20-2004 8:12 AM SANTA CRUZ, Calif. -- The weekend cleanup of a popular stretch of beach netted the usual garbage: clothing, beer bottles and rusty nails. What made the effort at Bonny Doon Beach different from cleanups elsewhere on the California coast were the volunteers: Many were nude. Members of the Bay Area Naturists club were among those who collected 600 pounds of garbage at one of Northern California's most popular clothing-optional beaches, seven miles north of Santa Cruz. "The real purpose is not the nakedness, but clearing up the trash," said Jurek Zarzycki, 54, as he scanned for refuse in the buff. "Every piece of garbage we find out here is testimony to somebody being a sloppy jerk." His group has been helping clean trash from the beach for 17 years. The effort Saturday was part of the 20th annual California Coastal Cleanup Day, during which volunteers removed 750,000 pounds of trash from 700 locations on the state's shorelines. The nippy weekend weather _ it was 60 degrees at Bonny Doons _ persuaded some of the naturists to keep their clothes on. "Too cold," said Bill Todd, 64, a former San Mateo resident who flew out from his home in New York state on business and decided to join old friends in the naturist club. "You don't want the wind going where the wind shouldn't go." no Joe, missed that one <g> Bonny Doon beach is a wonderful beach but not one of my hangouts (no pun intended) -I think it probably isn't the nude bodies on the beach or the need to repress a laugh when a jogger pops down the beach in what must only be a painful (but freeing) experience-rather it is the perverts who like to sit on the cliff with binoculars watching the trash cleanup (or the nude sunbathers or maybe just the whales) Although these days it might just be time to frequent the beach nude This fat old body of mine sure would get rid of the perverts quickly. <g> m Melinda wrote: > no Joe, missed that one <g> > > Bonny Doon beach is a wonderful beach but not one of my > hangouts ..........- rather it is the perverts who like to sit on the > cliff with binoculars watching the trash cleanup (or the nude > sunbathers or maybe just the whales) The same perverts with binoculars sit on the cliff above Black's Beach (clothing-optional) down here. >cliff above > Black's Beach (clothing-optional) down here. ah black's beach. what memories that brings back. hard for me to believe it used to be my husband's and my favorite beach back in the seventies. diane > Melinda wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The same perverts with binoculars sit on the cliff above > Black's Beach (clothing-optional) down here. What's so perverted about wanting to look at naked people? Or is the binoculars that make them perverts? <g> -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - I think voyeurism has to be mutual and in the open to be not an invasion of privacy. In my world, using binoculars to look at people who were not aware they were being observed would be fairly threatening and perverse. Even in naturist communities, people do not stare as the assumption is the body unclothed is natural and healthy. As most women will tell you, having people stare at them or go out of their way to observe them, is considered poor taste at best and a direct threat at it's worst. Melinda >I think voyeurism has to be mutual and in the open to be not an invasion of >privacy. In my world, using binoculars to look at people who were not aware >they were being observed would be fairly threatening and perverse. Even in >naturist communities, people do not stare as the assumption is the body >unclothed is natural and healthy. If people know the voyeurs are there with their binoculars and yet they still choose to take off their clothing knowing full well that they will be observed because they are naked in public, isn't that mutual and open? When a person goes around naked in public, are they not inviting observation by the very nature of their nakedness? >As most women will tell you, having people stare at them or go out of their way >to observe them, is considered poor taste at best and a direct threat at it's >worst. If women are naked in public, they had better get used to being stared at. Poor taste or not, it is a basic part of our human nature to want to view the naked body... especially men who are typically more 'visual' than women. Personally, I wear very dark sunglasses so as to not be considered in poor taste. <g> -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - After writing several replies, I decided that most of my response is probably best left unsaid. I will only reply with what a friend who is staying at my house said when i read him your reply which was "he must not be the father of girl children" Also I am very glad we are not neighbors- Melinda >After writing several replies, I decided that most of my response is probably >best left unsaid. I will only reply with what a friend who is staying at my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Melinda The topic was public nude beaches; not spying on your neighbors or watching children. Very cheap shots, Melinda, that have nothing to do with what was being discussed. However, I apologize if the facts I stated concerning human nature upset you to the point of feeling the need to strike out at me personally. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - i think what melinda was implying, kiyoshi, was that being the father of a girlchild would make you more protective of your daughter and more sensitive to the issue of voyeurism and how it would relate to her vulnerability. and i have to ask--what makes watching naked people, for voyeuristic pleasure, from a cliff any different than watching naked people, for voyeuristic pleasure, over a fence or through a knothole in a backyard fence? why does it make a difference if they are neighbors or not? aren't they still people who have feelings? the very fact that one is being voyeuristic dehumanizes those people one is observing. there is a sense of vulnerability and violation that comes with having such moments exploited for voyeuristic pleasure by others, kiyoshi. who can tell what goes on in the mind of somebody who will deliberately make the covert effort to watch others in such situations? small children have curiosity as an excuse and they are generally more open about their curiosity. but adults also have a sense of propriety and of right and wrong behavior--- why else would you need the sunglasses? nude beaches are not sandy exhibition halls, contrary to what the uninformed might believe. most such beaches are fairly discrete in their locations. albeit, it is difficult to prevent intentional voyeurs from finding a way to peer into the private worlds in which they have no intention of participating. kate >>After writing several replies, I decided that most of my response is >>probably [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - >i think what melinda was implying, kiyoshi, was that being the father of a >girlchild would make you more protective of your daughter and more sensitive >to the issue of voyeurism and how it would relate to her vulnerability. If my daughter takes off her clothing in public, she is probably going to get looked at. I am not defending the practice but only stating reality. >and i have to ask--what makes watching naked people, for voyeuristic >pleasure, from a cliff any different than watching naked people, for >voyeuristic pleasure, over a fence or through a knothole in a backyard >fence? why does it make a difference if they are neighbors or not? aren't >they still people who have feelings? the very fact that one is being >voyeuristic dehumanizes those people one is observing. Would the difference be that one is in public and one is in private? Again, I am not defending the behavior but only stating the obvious... if you take off your clothing in public, people are going to look at you. If that makes an individual feel less than human, they may want to reconsider taking their clothing off in public. I can't change human nature. >there is a sense of vulnerability and violation that comes with having such >moments exploited for voyeuristic pleasure by others, kiyoshi. who can tell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >adults also have a sense of propriety and of right and wrong behavior--- why >else would you need the sunglasses? Did you happen to notice the "<g>" after my statement concerning the sunglasses? It was meant as self-deprecating humor. In fact, if you refer back in this thread to my very first reply to firechief, you will see that this whole issue was intended to be humorous by the placement of the "<g>" at the end of my comment concerning what constitutes a pervert. This is getting blown way out of proportion. Again, I apologize for anything I've said that offends you and/or Melinda. I'll refrain from attempting humor in the future. Apparently, I am not very good at it. >nude beaches are not sandy exhibition halls, contrary to what the uninformed >might believe. most such beaches are fairly discrete in their locations. >albeit, it is difficult to prevent intentional voyeurs from finding a way to >peer into the private worlds in which they have no intention of >participating. I've never been to one so have no idea what they are about. Again, I apologize for upsetting you and Melinda. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - >>i think what melinda was implying, kiyoshi, was that being the father of a >>girlchild would make you more protective of your daughter and more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to get looked at. I am not defending the practice but only stating > reality. ***kiyoshi, clothing optional beaches are generally as sequestered as possible, given the lay of the land. it would not be as if your daughter would be taking her clothing off in a supermarket parking lot. it would be more like she were taking her clothing off inside a communal, but private, health spa (but instead it is a natural health spa, a beach) or a bathhouse, where other people have the same mindset about human bodies and the same reasons for being there in the first place. >>and i have to ask--what makes watching naked people, for voyeuristic >>pleasure, from a cliff any different than watching naked people, for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Would the difference be that one is in public and one is in private? ***again, both situations are more private than you might imagine. if a person has to stand atop a precarious precipice (a cliff and if i recall the cliffs there, correctly, there is a kind of metal roadlike barrier between the cliff and the permitted areas--it's been so long ago, i might have that wrong.). and if that person is there trying to be (or knowing he or she is) unseen by those below, to get a "good look" (with or without binoculars) at the naked people below , it is the same thing as looking through a knothole in neighbor's fence. a mature adult knows he or she doesn't belong there, in either place, in either event. the voyeur is often titilated and enticed, partly, by the perceived danger of being discovered while trying to be covert. > Again, I am not defending the behavior but only stating the obvious... > if you take off your clothing in public, people are going to look at > you. If that makes an individual feel less than human, they may want > to reconsider taking their clothing off in public. I can't change > human nature. ***no, kiyoshi, you cannot change human nature. however, it is the voyeur who is doing the dehumanizing, by treating the person the voyeur is oggling as if she were simply an object (and not a real person with feelings) for the voyeur's visual pleasure. >>there is a sense of vulnerability and violation that comes with having >>such [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > placement of the "<g>" at the end of my comment concerning what > constitutes a pervert. ***ok. i accept that you were making what you believed was a joke. This is getting blown way out of proportion. > Again, I apologize for anything I've said that offends you and/or > Melinda. I'll refrain from attempting humor in the future. Apparently, > I am not very good at it. ***there is no need to apologize to me, kiyoshi. i'm simply trying to help you understand why there is sensitivity to this issue. >>nude beaches are not sandy exhibition halls, contrary to what the >>uninformed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've never been to one so have no idea what they are about. Again, I > apologize for upsetting you and Melinda. ***i'm not upset, nor do i need an apology, kiyoshi. i'm simply attempting to help you understand that these clothing optional beaches were originally selected for their privacy. voyeurs deliberately ignore the barriers to, and encroach upon, that privacy. that's the difference, guy. kate > -- > Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - thanks Kate-as always well said m >***kiyoshi, clothing optional beaches are generally as sequestered as >possible, given the lay of the land. it would not be as if your daughter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >where other people have the same mindset about human bodies and the same >reasons for being there in the first place. Except we are discussing "PUBLIC" nude beaches and not "private" health spas and bathhouses. We're talking about a public commodity open to anyone and where people aren't necessarily of the same mind set or there for the same reason. Unless you are willing to accept the basic reality of the situation, you will always be offended because you will always have unrealistic expectations of the situation. I did a search on Google and most of the clothing optional beaches around the world don't appear too sequestered to me. In fact, most of them offer both clothing and clothing optional attendance. The ones that are sequestered in the U.S. appear to be that way because it is illegal in many states, counties, localities to take off your clothing in public... even on a beach. Many nude beaches are sequestered because the participants are breaking the law. >***again, both situations are more private than you might imagine. if a >person has to stand atop a precarious precipice (a cliff and if i recall the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >enticed, partly, by the perceived danger of being discovered while trying to >be covert. Couldn't the reverse be said about the person willing to take off their clothing in public... they are often titillated and enticed by the perceived (or real?) danger of it? That is part of exhibitionism, after all. Do a Google search. There is one web site after another sponsored by participants and advocates for nude beaches posting tens of thousands of pictures of the clothing optional beaches complete with nude people. If they want privacy, why are they posting their naked pictures all over the Internet? >***no, kiyoshi, you cannot change human nature. however, it is the voyeur >who is doing the dehumanizing, by treating the person the voyeur is oggling >as if she were simply an object (and not a real person with feelings) for >the voyeur's visual pleasure. Many people might consider that a person who takes off their clothing in public is asking to be looked at (exhibitionism). In fact, many people might consider the person taking off their clothing in public to be as much of a pervert as the voyeur with the binoculars. After all, you still choose to take off your clothing knowing full well that there are people watching you. To each his/her own opinion. My part in this conversation wasn't to judge other people's behaviors but only to explain those behaviors. >***there is no need to apologize to me, kiyoshi. i'm simply trying to help >you understand why there is sensitivity to this issue. Oversensitive might be more accurate. The reality of the situation is that if people don't want to be looked at naked they shouldn't be taking off their clothing in public.... whether a public beach or a public supermarket. If you want to take your clothing off in public, then you must accept that there will be people who want to look at your nakedness. >***i'm not upset, nor do i need an apology, kiyoshi. i'm simply attempting >to help you understand that these clothing optional beaches were originally >selected for their privacy. voyeurs deliberately ignore the barriers to, >and encroach upon, that privacy. that's the difference, guy. You still come across as if you believe I am defending voyeurism when all I have done is attempt to explain common, basic human behaviors. I don't need to understand nude beaches to understand that it is a common human behavior to want to view what society/culture attempts to forbid us from viewing. Where there are people willing to go naked in public, there are going to be people willing to watch them go naked. A simple fact of life. Expecting privacy on a "PUBLIC" nude beach is as unrealistic as expecting privacy on the Internet. It ain't gonna happen. Personally, I would be more offended if I went to a nude beach and nobody wanted to watch me naked. <<----- Another joke for those taking this thread a little too seriously. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - there sometimes comes a time in communication, when it feels useless to me to continue communicating (when my mind shifts its thought patterns to, "ok. you win, if you need to," though there is no prize to win.). one can use google to draw one's knowledge from to support one's point of view and one can use personal experiences to draw one's knowledge from. personally, i've never been on a beach in googleland. in my 56 years, i have been on many beaches from washington, down the coast, to southern california, from maine to florida, and even in japan, near ise. i draw from personal experiences, in this case. that may or may not be good enough for you, kiyoshi, but i don't want to get any more involved in this topic. kate >>***kiyoshi, clothing optional beaches are generally as sequestered as >>possible, given the lay of the land. it would not be as if your daughter [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - >there sometimes comes a time in communication, when it feels useless to me >to continue communicating (when my mind shifts its thought patterns to, "ok. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >kate I draw my knowledge of human behaviors from many years of education and experience in the field of counseling/psychology. That may or may not be good enough for you. <--- Yes, I know I'm being a smart a.s. <g> Again, I apologize if me presenting a view different than your own has offended you and/or caused you to feel there must be a "winner" in our conversation. I was only attempting to share alternative viewpoints on common human behaviors. Take care, Kate. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - >>there sometimes comes a time in communication, when it feels useless to me >>to continue communicating (when my mind shifts its thought patterns to, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > conversation. I was only attempting to share alternative viewpoints on > common human behaviors. you were justified in making your "smart a.s" remark, kiyoshi. upon re-reading, what i wrote did sound condescending and presumptuous, rather than what i intended. i made us both sound one dimensional, limited in our scope of knowledge. i apologize for that. (i must be more tired or lower on energy than i wanted to own up to, today.) no offense was taken, by me at any point, kiyoshi. it wasn't that i felt either of us sought to win, as much as it really was that i sought and failed to communicate the point of view of nude sunbathers who do believe they have a right to bathe in the nude, without the intrusion of prying eyes, on their specifically designated beaches. i also felt i obviously failed to make and convey the distinction between healthy behavior and voyeurists. those realizations exhausted me and probably caused me to feel defeated. kate btw and not that it really matters, i had a double major in college--psychology and english, with a minor in sociology. my main reason for that was that i had intended to employ those in fictional and poetic writing, not in a clinical practice of any kind. > Take care, Kate. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - >you were justified in making your "smart a.s" remark, kiyoshi. upon >re-reading, what i wrote did sound condescending and presumptuous, rather >than what i intended. i made us both sound one dimensional, limited in our >scope of knowledge. i apologize for that. (i must be more tired or lower >on energy than i wanted to own up to, today.) I love lively conversations/debates. However, I am sorry if it caused you more stress. That's the last thing we should be doing to each other in a support group. >no offense was taken, by me at any point, kiyoshi. it wasn't that i felt >either of us sought to win, as much as it really was that i sought and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >voyeurists. those realizations exhausted me and probably caused me to feel >defeated. I really do understand the feelings of people who believe they should be able to sunbathe nude without people watching for sexual gratification... or idle curiosity for that matter. In a perfect world, that would be the norm. However, Adam and Eve screwed that up for us and now it is all about sex (according to Freud). <g> Part of the discussion that we didn't get in to is that I believe we should be more careful with labeling and judging other people. I understand and appreciate that you believe people who are watching nude sunbathers through binoculars are perverts. You have every right to have and express that belief. However, (you did expect a "however" in here, didn't you?) have you ever considered that those people looking at you through their binoculars think that you too are a pervert for running around naked where strangers can observe you (through binoculars even)? As my primary tag line states, "The reverse side also has a reverse side." If we look closely enough at the reverse side, we can often view them looking right back at us. A closely held belief of mine is to attempt to not judge the person but to understand that it is the behavior that is negative. I will admit that I did not care for people's use of the term "pervert" as a judgment label for the voyeurs... if they are even true voyeurs since they might just be curious tourists. <g> True voyeurism is a mental illness (as is exhibitionism). As a counselor, I would not be very effective if I placed judgment on the person instead of attempting to understand (and helping them to understand) why they participate in negative behaviors and then providing them with the resources to change or eliminate those negative behaviors. I'm not sure where I'm going with this rambling... and I hope it doesn't sound too "preachy" or condescending. I guess I'm just wanting people to try to understand both sides instead of only their own and also to understand that people aren't "bad" and should not be judged in that manner but instead only their behaviors should be judged. And I understand that not all people hold the same beliefs as me so this may all sound like a load of crap to some people. <g> >btw and not that it really matters, i had a double major in >college--psychology and english, with a minor in sociology. my main reason >for that was that i had intended to employ those in fictional and poetic >writing, not in a clinical practice of any kind. It doesn't have to matter, Kate. I enjoy learning more about the people I like talking with on this group. I wish I had taken more sociology classes. Instead, all my undergrad classes tended to lean more towards the psychology/counseling area. I do know other counselors who did their undergrad in sociology. I believe that in many cases it can provide equal insight into why people do the things they do as psychology can provide. It sounds like you had the perfect balance of the three major skills employed by counselors... English for communication skills, psychology for understanding the human psyche, and sociology for understanding what outside forces can impact on the human psyche. Listening skills and common sense can't be taught in school. However, from reading your posts over this past year, I would say you don't have a problem in those areas. It is never too late to change careers. <g> Graduate school was all counseling classes. Both undergrad and grad school had an emphasis on working with people who have disabilities. I do have an AA in business administration/accounting. Not sure how I went from accounting for fifteen years to counseling this last ten years since the fields tend to be at opposite ends of the spectrum for not having people contact to the job being totally about people contact. You know, if I ever do really upset you, you are always welcome to email me and tell me to shut up because I'm getting on your nerves. I take criticism better in private. <g> Take care, Kate and I hope we can have more interesting conversations in the future... but maybe be on the same side next time around? -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - >Kiyoshi Anrui kiyoshi.anrui@uma.no.hone wrote: >I >do have an AA in business administration/accounting. Not sure how I >went from accounting for fifteen years to counseling this last ten >years since the fields tend to be at opposite ends of the spectrum for >not having people contact to the job being totally about people >contact. Hi Kiyoshi, Sorry to butt in on a tangent, no less, but, just for kicks, here's a reverse side for you: I have been a CPA for 20 years and spend at least 70% of my days in "people contact", from meeting with and advising/mentoring my staff to <gasp> <g> communicating and collaborating with co-workers in other depts and countries via meetings, emails, phone calls, etc. I don't know where you get the truly antiquated idea that people in accounting fields "tend to have no people contact"....maybe from the same place as your ideas on personal space? Denise (who's not even going to go near the premise of "no bad people, just bad behaviors") >I don't know where you get the truly antiquated idea that people in accounting >fields "tend to have no people contact"....maybe from the same place as your >ideas on personal space? If you are going to put words in quotes and claim they are my words, would you please utilize my actual words (possibly even in context?) instead of making up your own words that convey a different meaning than was intended? Thank you. I get my "antiquated" ideas from current research. http://online.onetcenter.org/report?r=1&id=493 Also, you aren't really attempting to convince people that a CPA is representative of the average bookkeeping/accounting job, are you? Most people in these fields don't hold much more than a two-year degree, if that. A CPA is a highly advanced position, that typically requires an advanced degree, and that is more like management in most companies. It would be like comparing the receptionist at a warehouse to the dock workers. Yeah, they both work there and can be called warehouse employees... but their jobs are nothing alike. However, I am very happy for you that you have been able to advance to a position where you don't have to sit and crunch numbers all day like the typical accounting clerk and/or bookkeeper. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - Aaaah me,,,,, two of my favorite people with minds that a person could shave with. We need both of you here more often but not going at each other. LOL :-) Sometimes people have to stretch their minds a little and sometimes that can be a little painful. Both of you have made me want to go find a Band-Aid for my head. :-) When we can not see the other side,,,, you two are make us stretch and that is worth something. Harv >>I don't know where you get the truly antiquated idea that people in >>accounting [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - >Aaaah me,,,,, two of my favorite people with minds that a person could shave >with. We need both of you here more often but not going at each other. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >are make us stretch and that is worth something. >Harv Don't worry, Harv. Nothing is being taken personal by me. And, as I have been trying to explain, I don't consider anyone to be a 'bad' person just because they feel the need to personalize their anger towards me instead of directing it towards the issues being discussed. They are 'good' people who are making bad decisions resulting in negative behaviors. This should bring about a response or two, huh? <wink> A sense of humor is important to maintain one's sanity on usenet. <g> -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - >>Aaaah me,,,,, two of my favorite people with minds that a person could >>shave [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > usenet. <g> > Kiyoshi - Yes, and we can learn from how people react to a discussion that is of a serious nature and it does not matter what the subject is. Harv >Yes, and we can learn from how people react to a discussion that is of a >serious nature and it does not matter what the subject is. >Harv This discussion ceased being serious several messages back, Harv. No one is debating the facts anymore but instead the focus has switched to discrediting the author. I am now apparently wrong because I am male according to one contributor. Nothing to do with facts but only with my gender? I received an email from another participant calling into question my professional abilities as a counselor because I won't agree with her on the issue of nude beaches? Sorry, but I have difficulty taking such nonsense seriously. This discussion no longer has anything to do with nude beaches but instead revolves around some people being upset and personalizing because they cannot force acceptance of their opinion. I can either get mad or laugh it off. I choose to laugh it off instead of reciprocating in kind with accusations meant to inflict hurt feelings and/or to discredit the author. I spent nine hours yesterday providing pro bono counseling at a diversity workshop. Then I come home to people on usenet questioning my professional abilities because they can't force me to accept their view on nude beaches? And I should take it seriously? Helping people to have better lives is serious to me. Whether I agree with some stranger on usenet concerning their point of view on nude beaches just doesn't fall into the same level of seriousness for me. I stand by everything I have stated in this thread. I have not attempted to force my point of view on anyone by stating hurtful untruths about them, calling into question their knowledge on the subject due to lack of experience (even though the people making this accusation now claim to have no experience at nude sunbathing either), suggested they just don't understand because of their gender, questioned their professional abilities, or any of the other accusations/insinuations that have been made against me. If you want to discuss serious issues, perhaps the need to attack the individual instead of the issues/facts/opinions being presented might be an appropriate discussion for this group. Too bad people cannot have differing opinions on usenet without one side or the other feeling the need to personalize the discussion. Serious enough response? -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - > I am now apparently wrong because I am >male according to one contributor. I have never stated that you were wrong. I just suggested that the differing opinions may be a result of different ways of looking at things. Men and women DO look at the world differently. This shouldnt be news to anyone. This should be abundantly clear to anyone who has ever had contact with members of the opposite sex. I am not talking right or wrong, but DIFFERENT. It is just part of who we are. Men and women view the world very differently. that is all I said, and that is all I meant. Char "Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green kiyoshi.anrui@uma.no.hone wrote: >If you are going to put words in quotes and claim they are my words, >would you please utilize my actual words (possibly even in context?) >instead of making up your own words that convey a different meaning >than was intended? Ok, first of all, you conveniently snipped the part of my post where I quoted the *entire relevant passage* of your post, resplendent in the entirety of your desired context. <g> As far as for the rest of the nonsense you wrote, I don't even know where to begin...For starters, you reference a job skillset from a website as the source of your position yet the website itself does not consider the job you posted to be in the accounting "field", to quote you properly! They correctly consider it part of office and administrative support. Look at the code the site gives the clerical position you posted vs the code they give an accountant position. I could go on to point out that even at the clerical level of the job you posted, there is plenty of "people contact". But that's not the point. Actually, you proved my point by just answering in your usual extremely pedantic way. <g> Here's a friendly suggestion: Get your head out of google & out of the books and join the rest of us in the real world. Realize that just because you can read on the internet about accountants or nude beaches or whatever, that doesn't trump the wisdom that comes from hands-on experience. When you are so enamored of viewing everything through that narrow prism of yours of The. Psyschology. of. Human. Nature. that you can't admit that "voyeurs are bad", it's time to take the blinders off. But I am done with this subject. I, like M, am happy to have a man in my life who may be "visual" but understands when it's appropriate and when it isn't and he's giving me a look right now <g> Denise >Ok, first of all, you conveniently snipped the part of my post where I quoted >the *entire relevant passage* of your post, resplendent in the entirety of your >desired context. <g> What does that have to do with you putting words in quotations while presenting them as mine? I had no problem with my words that were quoted. The problem was with your words that you attempted to attribute as mine. >As far as for the rest of the nonsense you wrote, I don't even know where to >begin...For starters, you reference a job skillset from a website as the source >of your position yet the website itself does not consider the job you posted to >be in the accounting "field", to quote you properly! They correctly consider >it part of office and administrative support. Look at the code the site gives >the clerical position you posted vs the code they give an accountant position. Okay, Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks have nothing to do with the accounting field. Accountants are all about dealing with people and have nothing to do with numbers. Whatever you want everyone to believe is fine with me. I'll let SSA and the courts know that I can no longer be a vocational expert for them because I'm stupid and think an accounting clerk is involved with accounting. >I could go on to point out that even at the clerical level of the job you >posted, there is plenty of "people contact". But that's not the point. >Actually, you proved my point by just answering in your usual extremely >pedantic way. <g> What exactly is your point other than to personally attack me? >Here's a friendly suggestion: Get your head out of google & out of the books >and join the rest of us in the real world. Realize that just because you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Psyschology. of. Human. Nature. that you can't admit that "voyeurs are bad", >it's time to take the blinders off. That was friendly? What are you like when being mean? <g> You have apparently misunderstood most of what I have written. It was about judging whether people are innately good or bad. It had nothing to do with whether the behavior was good or bad. Common sense suggests that any behavior is bad when it hurts other people. Your confusion as to what is being discussed may explain your misplaced anger towards me? >But I am done with this subject. I, like M, am happy to have a man in my life >who may be "visual" but understands when it's appropriate and when it isn't and >he's giving me a look right now <g> No, I won't give the first comeback that came to mind. <g> However, this discussion has never been about what is appropriate or not appropriate behavior. It has been a discussion of seeing other views than your own, whether people are innately good or bad, whether people have a right to privacy in public, etc. It has never been about whether voyeurism is appropriate or not. Of course it isn't appropriate to spy on people. The point is, has been, and always will be that a bad behavior is not the same as a bad person. Good people can do bad/stupid things. I consider myself a good person... but here I am talking to you... bad/stupid behavior? -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - > Hi Kiyoshi, > Sorry to butt in on a tangent, no less, but, just for kicks, here's a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > just bad > behaviors") Hi Denise. I just found your post in the dropped posts I'd downloaded. I'm also a CPA and was in Public Practice for about 30 years. I do have to admit that it came as kind of a surprise to me after the classroom to find out just how much "people contact" was involved. I often know more about a client than their doctor. Lets face it, an initial interview can include finding out how much someone earns, how, where the money is, what their family relationships are. if the spouses trust each other, and if they trust their kids. (I did a lot of estate work). I had to quit mostly because I cannot hear. Being able to communicate with clients was far more important than knowing the difference between a debit and a credit. The notion of lumping everyone involved in any manner in accounting into one field is as silly as lumping everyone involved in medical care into one field. Jo >"Jo Firey" JAfirey@NETZERO.NET wrote: > I'm also a CPA >and was in Public Practice for about 30 years. God bless you, Jo! That is quite an impressive accomplishment to stick it out in public that long!! Were you on your own all that time or in a firm or both? You would definitely get an intimate rapport built up doing estate work! I am sure your clients were sorry to see you leave-it's very much like losing a doctor or anyone else that they have established a good relationship with . I worked in public (auditing) for almost 3 yrs right after college but got tired of the hours and the travel. But, yes, as a green 23 yr old (contrary to the ideas of the person I was responding to), I was building relationships with various levels of employees at a new client every couple of weeks. And not just "hello, how are you", but figuring out how to work with the client's employees to get the info I needed without making them feel threatened, or finding out what flaw in the controls existed to allow a problem without making the employees feel like their jobs would be on the line if they told me, etc. I moved into private (finance co.), then not for profit but back in private (mfg) now and, of course, now I probably work more annual hours than I did in public and, while I don't hit the road as much, when I do it's international travel, so go figure! :) >The notion of lumping everyone involved in any manner in accounting into one >field is as silly as lumping everyone involved in medical care into one >field. No kidding. Or like saying the firefighting "field" doesn't involve dangerous work because the fire dispatcher just sits in an office and takes phone calls! <g> I'm glad we could set the record straight here, anyway. The stereotype of accountants being these people who lock themselves away in windowless rooms with a calculator because they prefer dealing with numbers over people <g> is an easy one (and is perpetuated in all sorts of media - even google, apparently <g>) but dead wrong. Denise (who has actually been nude on a nude beach and topless on a topless one - how's that for shattering stereotypes? :) >>"Jo Firey" JAfirey@NETZERO.NET wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Denise (who has actually been nude on a nude beach and topless on a topless one >- how's that for shattering stereotypes? :) Everything I stated is supported by O*Net. http://online.onetcenter.org/report?r=1&id=51 Read the "Work Activities" section and you will see that working with details is the primary task area listed in order of importance. The first five areas of tasks are all detail oriented After that comes interpersonal tasks. If you browse down on the same page to the "Interests" section, you will see the following list. 100 Conventional Conventional occupations frequently involve following set procedures and routines. These occupations can include working with data and details more than with ideas. Usually there is a clear line of authority to follow. 61 Enterprising Enterprising occupations frequently involve starting up and carrying out projects. These occupations can involve leading people and making many decisions. Sometimes they require risk taking and often deal with business. 44 Investigative Investigative occupations frequently involve working with ideas, and require an extensive amount of thinking. These occupations can involve searching for facts and figuring out problems mentally. 28 Realistic Realistic occupations frequently involve work activities that include practical, hands-on problems and solutions. They often deal with plants, animals, and real-world materials like wood, tools, and machinery. Many of the occupations require working outside, and do not involve a lot of paperwork or working closely with others. 28 Social Social occupations frequently involve working with, communicating with, and teaching people. These occupations often involve helping or providing service to others. 11 Artistic Artistic occupations frequently involve working with forms, designs and patterns. They often require self-expression and the work can be done without following a clear set of rules. See how "Social" is way down there on areas of interest? That means a person who is very social would hate being an average accountant. A conventional person would love it since they like set patterns and working with details. The only personality that would hate accounting more would be an artistic soul. You would break his creative little heart with not being able to express himself due to having to follow accounting set of rules. Then look at "Work Styles." See how 'social orientation' is the very last one listed? Look at "Work Values." See how 'relationships' is listed last? Look at the "Work Needs." See how the interpersonal needs are mostly lower than all other needs? Are you seeing a theme here? I can appreciate if your job is different than what is listed in O*Net. I'm sure there are many examples of accountants who do more social activities than actual accounting duties. But that is not the norm according to the most recent research available. O*Net replaced the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and is now the bible for vocational job descriptions with its research being (if I remember correctly) less than five years old. I hope this helps you to understand where my statement originated. I base my statement on research sponsored by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration, the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the Center for Employment Security Education and Research, and so on. Here is a full list of national and industry organizations that endorse O*Net if you feel the program needs more credibility than my word. http://onet.rti.org/pdf/endlist.pdf Nobody ever said accountant never talk to anyone (or shut themselves in windowless rooms). I am just presenting the research. Whether you believe it is up to you. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - > The stereotype of accountants being these people who lock themselves away in windowless rooms > with a calculator because they prefer dealing with numbers over people <g> is > an easy one (and is perpetuated in all sorts of media - even google, apparently > <g>) but dead wrong. LOL... this brought back a wonderful memory. Several years ago our accounting society arranged a ski trip to Jasper. We wandered through the rows of buses, trying to find the one we were assigned. We finally found a very depressed-looking driver who sighed and said "I get to take a bunch of accountants". Boy, did HE change his mind by the end of the trip! What a party! Janet N. >> The stereotype of accountants being these people who lock themselves away > in windowless rooms [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Janet N. I get to repeat my story of the time the office I worked in partied so hard on April 15th that spouses had to be called to collect everyone, and the stack of returns on the front desk didn't get into the mail. Detail oriented my foot. Truth of the matter is once someone is trained as an accountant, there are many ways to use that training to suit ones personality. And believe it or not even business majors sometimes manage to get a well rounded education and to develop interests outside their immediate field. Jo <snipping> > I really do understand the feelings of people who believe they should > be able to sunbathe nude without people watching for sexual > gratification... or idle curiosity for that matter. In a perfect > world, that would be the norm. However, Adam and Eve screwed that up > for us and now it is all about sex (according to Freud). <g> (i noted your grin, but i have opinions<g>.) adam and eve have nothing to do with people's current personal and individual choices, despite some of freud's drivel (not all of freud's work was gospel, nor valid---a lot of his opinions and conclusions were formed by the era in which he lived; and many of his conclusions were related to his personal experiences and upbringing. and freud's work was soft science, not hard science, even in the best of his work and there was some very good work.). no. kiyoshi. i don't think you truly do understand, or you wouldn't be limiting your perspective. you can only suppose and surmise, or intellectualize and repeat what others have said about it. you haven't been there on a clothing optional beach, for one thing, haven't experienced it. you haven't been on the cliff observing the behavior, both on the beach or on the cliff, either, for another. so, you simply have to presuppose a lot of things about it, based upon your gleanings. > Part of the discussion that we didn't get in to is that I believe we > should be more careful with labeling and judging other people. I > understand and appreciate that you believe people who are watching > nude sunbathers through binoculars are perverts. You have every right > to have and express that belief. ***i didn't use the word "pervert" in any of my replies. i did use the word, "voyeur", which has a lot more meaningfulness, in my estimation. facts are the actual things that happen, in general, or to us; truths are what we make of the facts; beliefs are what we make of those truths. However, (you did expect a "however" > in here, didn't you?) have you ever considered that those people > looking at you through their binoculars think that you too are a > pervert for running around naked where strangers can observe you > (through binoculars even)? As my primary tag line states, "The reverse > side also has a reverse side." If we look closely enough at the > reverse side, we can often view them looking right back at us. ***believe me when i say, i've not only considered it, but was actually on the reverse side of this issue for quite awhile, stinking-thinking nudists were exhibitionists. but, i chose to experience what clothing optional beaches are like, to round out my point of view. i don't appreciate myself or others, when i am or they are judgmental about other people's preferences, without having an honest, sincere and real basis for my/their judgment. in my *opinion*, if somebody feels the need to use binoculars to see what they know they are not supposed to be looking at, because they've crossed a barrier to get to their vantage point, then it is they who have a behavioral problem. > A closely held belief of mine is to attempt to not judge the person > but to understand that it is the behavior that is negative. I will > admit that I did not care for people's use of the term "pervert" as a > judgment label for the voyeurs... if they are even true voyeurs since > they might just be curious tourists. <g> True voyeurism is a mental > illness (as is exhibitionism). ***hmmm . . . but you seemed to believe and imply that being on a clothing optional beach is a form of exhibitionism. that goes to show you where your opinions/arguments on this issue have been coming from. food for thought---if a person can have a healthy curiosity (without being labeled voyeurs) about inadvertantly looking down on a clothing optional beach, where there might not be barriers (though that is unlikely), why can't the sunbathers on their *specifically designated* clothing optional beach have a healthy enjoyment of being on that specifically designated beach, without being labeled exhibitionists? if a person casually looks over the edge of a cliff, without barriers to it and without binoculars, and sees naked bodies, that is one thing. but when a person deliberately tresspasses beyond an obvious barrier and uses binoculars, tell me "what specifically" do you think that person is "zooming-in" on and why would they make the extra required effort do that? why aren't you judging that behavior as being in need of behavior modification? those beaches are only public in the sense that those who wish to avail themselves of a "designated safe place" to declothe (designated so, by the city, county or state). and that is the point that you keep missing, kiyoshi--it is and was supposed to be a designated "safe place" for like minded people and this purpose. As a counselor, I would not be very > effective if I placed judgment on the person instead of attempting to > understand (and helping them to understand) why they participate in > negative behaviors and then providing them with the resources to > change or eliminate those negative behaviors. ***but you do indeed place judgments on your clients/patients, kiyoshi, clinical judgments, or you wouldn't be able to know how to help them modify their behavior, wouldn't know what works and what doesn't. you certainly would not counsel an sexual deviant in the same way you might counsel an agoraphobic. ***being on a clothing optional beach is not negative behavior (that's what that the designated beach is for and why it was so designated), contrary to your exhibitionism supposition; being an intrusive or covert voyeur is negative behavior. > I'm not sure where I'm going with this rambling... and I hope it > doesn't sound too "preachy" or condescending. I guess I'm just wanting > people to try to understand both sides instead of only their own ****as i said, i do understand both sides of the judgment issue. unfortunately, you don't understand. one more shot at it---hypothetically, and leaving the illegality and unprofessionalism out of it----what "if" you had a patient, client or friend who felt very vulnerable about going to and being at your office to participate in an unmoderated group session, that you too are sharing/participating in. and you reassured and convinced that person that your office and the group was a designated *safe place* to speak of very personal and intimate things, because you knew the group would welcome him and he would fit right in. so that person came to your office and began talking in the group, along with you and the others and did fit right in. then somebody passed by your office and noticed, through the *semiopaque glass* of your *closed, but unlocked door*, that there were a bunch of people talking in there and he caught a hint about the talking, which sounded like some very *juicy* things. let's say that person (who didn't belong to the group), because he couldn't hear very well from his vantage (and because he could and because he had one handy), started using a parabolic listening disc device, outside that door, to amplify what was being said in that group, so he could hear more clearly. how would you feel and how would the group feel, and how would that patient/client/friend feel, if you all found out he was out there doing that? how would your group feel about *their* supposedly "designated safe place"? didn't his behavior indicate he was being more than just curious? is it really just human nature to be that "curious" about what is forbidden---to *that* extent? didn't some heightened degree of disrespect of the rights of others and his lack of personal boundaries enter into his behavior? these are rhetorical questions and i don't need answers to them, because i'm pretty sure of the answers. and > also to understand that people aren't "bad" and should not be judged > in that manner but instead only their behaviors should be judged. And > I understand that not all people hold the same beliefs as me so this > may all sound like a load of crap to some people. <g> ***(noted your grin, again. but i still have opinions<smile) semantically speaking, one could also say that one who perpetrates a criminal act for which s/he is convicted and incarcerated is not a criminal, but rather instead, only his/her behavior is criminal (which would make me wonder why s/he is in jail, instead of his or her behavior<smile>); a murderer is not a murderer, but rather only one who's behavior was homicidal; a voyeur is not a voyeur, but rather his/her behavior is voyeuristic; a teacher is not a teacher, but rather the person's behavior was teaching, ad nauseum . . . like it or not, we are defined and judged by our current behaviors and our behavioral histories, kiyoshi. you define your clients by their behaviors, too, but you use more clinical sounding phrases than "bad"---however, to the people who are clinically labeled and who check out the clinically lexical meaning, it still sounds like and feels like "bad" to them. wouldn't "homicidal tendancies" or "sociopathic" or "dysfunctional" sound "bad" to you, if you were labeled with those and were not a professional? ***it is all about perception and interpretation of the language being used and semantics. you simply cannot control (and clinical language is a veiled attempt to) how some people will perceive or interpret or internalize the language being used, even clinical language--and i've learned that from years of writing poetry. kate >>btw and not that it really matters, i had a double major in >>college--psychology and english, with a minor in sociology. my main [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." > - John Adams - ><snipping> >> I really do understand the feelings of people who believe they should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >and freud's work was soft science, not hard science, even in the best of his >work and there was some very good work.). The comment on Freud concerned only "it is all about sex" and had nothing to do with Adam and Eve. I apologize if my wording confused you. Again, it was meant only as humor and not something you really needed to defend. I agree with you concerning Freud and I do not follow his teachings. That is why the comment was meant with humor... everything is 'not' about sex and Adam and Eve have nothing to do with Freud or human sexual behaviors. Is my humor really that screwed up or is it more to do with your defensive attitude towards anything I post in this thread? >no. kiyoshi. i don't think you truly do understand, or you wouldn't be >limiting your perspective. you can only suppose and surmise, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >on the cliff, either, for another. so, you simply have to presuppose a lot >of things about it, based upon your gleanings. Should we apply your set of rules to yourself? Have you ever stood on a cliff with binoculars watching nude sunbathers? If not, then you do not truly understand or you would not be limiting your perspective. You can only suppose and surmise, or intellectualize and repeat what others have said about it. You have not been there on the cliff with binoculars, for one thing, have not experienced it. So, you simply have to presuppose a lot of things based upon your gleanings. Don't you hate it when people attempt to hold you to the same set of rules you force on them? <g> However, I do not agree with your theory that experience must precede understanding. There is too much commonly available evidence to the contrary for your theory to have merit. >> Part of the discussion that we didn't get in to is that I believe we >> should be more careful with labeling and judging other people. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >facts are the actual things that happen, in general, or to us; truths are >what we make of the facts; beliefs are what we make of those truths. So, you don't believe they are perverts? Good. I'm glad to hear that we finally agree on something. <g> >>However, (you did expect a "however" >> in here, didn't you?) have you ever considered that those people [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >crossed a barrier to get to their vantage point, then it is they who have a >behavioral problem. Some people consider the people with binoculars to have a behavioral problem. Some people consider the people nude on the beach to have a behavioral problem. And some people consider both parties to have a behavioral problem. It is all just personal opinion. Although, is it really a behavioral problem? Is it affecting a job, marriage, social or home life, legal issues, etc? If it is not negatively affecting the individual's life, where is the problem beyond you not liking it? BTW, is there a law against watching nude sunbathers in your state? I know most states, cities, localities have laws against nude sunbathing but I've never heard of a law against watching them. When you think about it, it might just be the nude sunbather who is the one to end up with their behavior being a problem if they get arrested. >> A closely held belief of mine is to attempt to not judge the person >> but to understand that it is the behavior that is negative. I will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >***hmmm . . . but you seemed to believe and imply that being on a clothing >optional beach is a form of exhibitionism. Yes, I believe taking off your clothing in public where you know strangers are going to view your body for sexual gratification requires a degree of exhibitionism. >that goes to show you where your >opinions/arguments on this issue have been coming from. food for >thought---if a person can have a healthy curiosity (without being labeled >voyeurs) Who didn't label them as voyeurs? Well, beyond my impaired humor about them maybe just being tourists. <g> >about inadvertantly looking down on a clothing optional beach, >where there might not be barriers (though that is unlikely), why can't the >sunbathers on their *specifically designated* clothing optional beach have a >healthy enjoyment of being on that specifically designated beach, without >being labeled exhibitionists? Because the reality of life won't allow it. As I stated previously, in a perfect world you would have that private beach. We do not live in a perfect world and you will continue to be disappointed until you accept that fact. Just as you are going to do what makes you happy (nude sunbathing), other people are going to do what makes them happy (watching nude sunbathing). Neither party truly gives a damn about the other party. That's life. Learn to accept it or forever be unhappy. >if a person casually looks over the edge of a >cliff, without barriers to it and without binoculars, and sees naked bodies, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >point that you keep missing, kiyoshi--it is and was supposed to be a >designated "safe place" for like minded people and this purpose. Please reread the previous paragraph about perfect worlds not existing. >As a counselor, I would not be very >> effective if I placed judgment on the person instead of attempting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >would not counsel an sexual deviant in the same way you might counsel an >agoraphobic. "Judgment on the person" meant not condemning the person/individual and had nothing to do with diagnosing. The meaning was more clear when it was left in context with the rest of the paragraph you snipped out. Speaking of snipping, how come you didn't respond to all the nice things we were talking about with school and such in the last paragraph? That would have been much more fun to talk about with you than the parts of this message where you did decide to participate. >***being on a clothing optional beach is not negative behavior (that's what >that the designated beach is for and why it was so designated), contrary to >your exhibitionism supposition; being an intrusive or covert voyeur is >negative behavior. Given the negative feelings you have been expressing in each and every message you post to this thread, I would propose that going to a clothing optional beach is a negative behavior for you personally. It appears that you are quite stressed out and concerned about people seeing you naked and possibly deriving pleasure from it. If it causes you negative feelings, then should not the behavior causing those negative feelings also be considered negative? >> I'm not sure where I'm going with this rambling... and I hope it >> doesn't sound too "preachy" or condescending. I guess I'm just wanting >> people to try to understand both sides instead of only their own > >****as i said, i do understand both sides of the judgment issue. >unfortunately, you don't understand. It sounds more like what you are really saying is that since I won't accept your opinion as the only valid opinion to hold as true, you have opted to dismiss my opinion by claiming that I do not understand the issue? > one more shot at it---hypothetically, >and leaving the illegality and unprofessionalism out of it----what "if" you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >speak of very personal and intimate things, because you knew the group would >welcome him and he would fit right in. Hypothetical situations are great... except they so often have nothing to do with reality. I would never make a guarantee of safety or privacy to a client or friend (I don't have patients... and I may not have any friends by the time this thread ends <g>) in an unmoderated group setting. There is no way to guarantee such safety. In fact, the elements of disclosure require me to warn the client that such safety/privacy does not exist. Kind of like clothing optional public beaches. There is no way to guarantee safety/privacy. Perfect worlds and all that. >so that person came to your office >and began talking in the group, along with you and the others and did fit [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >questions and i don't need answers to them, because i'm pretty sure of the >answers. Are you really attempting to compare the private office of a counselor with a public beach in degree of expected privacy? <g> >>and >> also to understand that people aren't "bad" and should not be judged [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >a voyeur, but rather his/her behavior is voyeuristic; a teacher is not a >teacher, but rather the person's behavior was teaching, ad nauseum . . . I'm not sure if you are really serious with your above paragraph since it has absolutely no connection to what I was talking about concerning whether people are innately good or bad. You are just joking, right? >like it or not, we are defined and judged by our current behaviors and our >behavioral histories, kiyoshi. you define your clients by their behaviors, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"homicidal tendancies" or "sociopathic" or "dysfunctional" sound "bad" to >you, if you were labeled with those and were not a professional? Yes, I define clients by their behaviors. That is the point I have been attempting to make with you. I define my client by their behaviors while attempting to not judge them as a person. Their behaviors may be bad, but that does not make the individual a "bad person." Even good people do bad/stupid things. >***it is all about perception and interpretation of the language being used >and semantics. you simply cannot control (and clinical language is a veiled >attempt to) how some people will perceive or interpret or internalize the >language being used, even clinical language--and i've learned that from >years of writing poetry. What you state is true. However, it has nothing to do with whether people are innately good or bad. This is not a language issue but only whether we believe people are innately bad based on what we/society perceive as a negative behavior. Are the people with binoculars "bad" people? Or are they just people who made a bad choice of behaviors? My personal and professional belief is that there is no such thing as an innately "bad" person but that there are only good people who make bad choices. Most theories of counseling are based on this premise. So, feel free to debate, but know that you are going against one of the most commonly held beliefs in psychology. Take care. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - I'm with you there Kate. This will be my last post on this topic. Melinda (the one with a graduate degree in Clinical psychology and 15 years actively working as an LMFCC before deciding that she had spent too many years working with incest and rape survivors and who would never cite human nature as a reason for justifying any behavior that threatens or demeans another human being) Out of this and on to something at least slightly more entertaining M >I'm with you there Kate. This will be my last post on this topic. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >M Congratulations, you are the first graduate level clinical psychologist I have ever heard refer to a person with a mental illness as a "pervert." BTW, I don't know if other people are buying it, but your over-sensationalizing by throwing in rape, incest, watching children, looking through fences, spying on neighbors, and so on is totally irrelevant to anything we have been discussing about public nude beaches and human behaviors. Every situation you cite involves having an unwilling victim. People on public nude beaches are there by choice and understand that people are going to want to observe them. You know people are going to observe you and you still choose to take off your clothing in public. People who are raped do not have that choice. A totally irrelevant comparison and one that, I believe, diminishes the seriousness of rape. Also, just because being observed naked in public is demeaning to you (which raises the question of why you would still do it?) not all people necessarily agree with you. Do you truly believe there are no people who go to public nude beaches for the specific reason of wanting to be seen naked? Watch MTV some time. While not totally nude, those young college age women are definitely attempting to show as much as legally possible. Although I've never viewed one, the Girls Gone Wild videos we see advertised on television are all about young college girls who want to be seen naked. Your attempt to portray all nude sunbathers as these asexual people who don't look at each other is (using your own terminology) "bunk." -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - I had bowed out of this thread but unfortunately will have to reply to some very strange responses on Kiyoshi's part as the kids have found this thread to be very educational and are still reading it. Bobby just informed me I needed to respond to the (Paraphrase) person who seems to be wondering why I go naked in front of people. Kiyoshi, you in a post early in this thread accused me of making my post personal. You have in two posts commented on my supposed public nudity. Kiddo, I don't think I have ever been nude in public. I have worn small bikini tops with shorts when at clothing optional retreats such as Harbin Hot springs and when invited as a guest to Lupin. I don't sunbath nude on any beaches here or in Europe where nude beaches are much more prevalant. Would you like to show me where you decided that I have an issue because I object to being looked at as I "was naked in public" (see below). I don't do it. I am both modest and am too aware that I personally don't want to be sharing bodily fluids with strangers (I also don't go nude in women only saunas for the same reason) I am not even going to comment on your bizarre conjecture about my motives when citing years of work with survivors (would you have prefered I lie? Should I have worked with couples instead? Did a lot of work with teaching people parenting skills for a few years-would you like that better? Is it manipulative or inappropriate for you to set yourself apart as an expert in human nature because you work with people with disabilities in a counseling context?) Those are cultural differences that you and I are miles apart on. HOWEVER you need to make very very sure I stated that I go nude in public before taking me to task for my need to flaunt myself while calling the person watching a pervert. Guess what? I do have the last word here as I am plonking you big-time, not because we disagree on many fundamental points of view but rather because I find your mischaracterization of me to be rather creepy. >Also, just because being observed naked in public is demeaning to you >(which raises the question of why you would still do it?) Melinda >I had bowed out of this thread but unfortunately will have to reply to some >very strange responses on Kiyoshi's part as the kids have found this thread to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Melinda You mentioned in a message going to some nude beach. You omitted that you did not participate in the nudity but were only a spectator. I apologize for assuming the obvious. -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - > I >apologize for assuming the obvious. Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me. Char "Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green >> I >>apologize for assuming the obvious. > > Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me. > Char he's just not "getting it", char, that clothing optional means you don't have to be naked. or not wanting to "get it". dunno which, yet. it's clear he thought i layed around naked on the beach, too. kate > "Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green None of the rest of our resident males have chimed in in any way here. I wonder if this may be a difference in the way males and females think. You know the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" situation? Char "Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green >None of the rest of our resident males have chimed in in any way here. I >wonder if this may be a difference in the way males and females think. You >know the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" situation? >Char > >"Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green With the way some people are personalizing this discussion, I don't blame anyone, male or female, for not joining in the conversation with their opinions However, I did have three females from this group email with me support. Does that count for anything? Interesting that nobody wants to discuss facts anymore but are now more intent on discrediting me personally for... being a male??? <g> -- Kiyoshi - The reverse side also has a reverse side. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams - >Interesting that nobody wants to discuss facts anymore but are now >more intent on discrediting me personally for... being a male??? Wasnt trying to discredit anyone! I just was wondering if the differing points of view were because of different ways of looking at things, resulting from gender differences. Char "Remember, I'm pulling for ya'. We're all in this together." Red Green Hey Char, I will chime in here even though Melinda asked me to stay out of this but this is one of those places where big issues are up and I have been trained by the best and don't stay out of those. It also bothers me that none of the men have had anything to say so I guess it is going to be me. Here's the thing, Kiyoshi. You don't know me but I am a boy who will be 18 in a few months. I really like girls. I flirt with them. I like the way they look. I can look at my girlfriend forever. I dont ever stare at girls or guys or dogs for that matter without knowing that that is ok because they will bite me <g>. I may want to but I have good impulse control and I don't. I don't stare because when I do I am making those girls an object. Objectifying anyone makes them just that, objects. It doesn't matter that Melinda doesn't go without her clothes on beaches and her friend Rita does. Neither of them deserve to be watched with binocluars unless they give permission I know from just researching you on google for the last two days that you were a large man which could make you stand out in a crowd. Would it be ok with you if you went out to shop or to a restaurant for people to just stare at you? would it be ok for someone to watch you while you were walking on the street with a telescope of binoculars? Would you feel uncomfortable if you were being stared at? We are all taught as children that it is not polite to stare. It is not about who deserves staring at, it is about the starer. If it is not ok all the time to stare openly at anyone who is in any public place then it is never ok to stare or watch secretively. It is about the starer. It is about the starer. It is about the starer. Can't be any other way. There can never be a time when someone deserves staring at because that makes the person being waztched THE OBJECT. You have more than once in this thread, suggested that if people don't want to be stared at, don't go out in public without clothes. Now I will agree with that if the public place they go to is a beach that posts a sign that says "this beach is reserved for people who want to show off their bodies and want to be looked at sometimesby people with binocluars but if you just want to get an overall tan or feel the freedom of the sun on your body then this beach isn't for you" One other thing is that the assumtion that obseving someone not in the open puts the burden of manners and safety on the person being observed which makes them an object. Little kids stare at people who are different but by the time they are 8 or 9 they know that is bad manners. As for the way you think that there are no perverts, let me tell you there are. I was tortured as a four and five year old by one of the best. Pervert as a verb is to cause to turn away from what is good, or true or morally right or to turn away from what is done or accepted. That is from the dictionery. In my world what is accepted and morally right is assuring the abitlity of all people to feel safe. In my community what is done or accepted is not to openly stare at other people. We are a beachtown and if everyone just sat at the beach with binoculars, we would have 24/7 fights. If one person has not agreed to something concerning them and it gets done anyway, that is not right. I have also spent time reseraching laws about privacy and spying on people. The laws are starting to catch up with the fact that technology makes it easier for us all to watch without permission. Permission here is the word. Why do you think men would be sitting on the cliffs rather than just on the beach openly staring? Because they know it is not ok and that they might be asked to stop their behavior if they are open about it. Before my time women who were raped might have been asking for itby being in the wrong place or dressing a cedrtain way or even being sexually permissive and that was a defence for rape. I am glad there are rape shild laws now that make that not a defence. Women are not objects. Men are not objects. Children are not objects. It doesn't matter if they are on a clothing optional beach or not. It doesn't matter if they are wearing shortskirts or have belly button piercings or are in full drag like you see in the city. I may really want to stare that that girl or thatman in drag but I don't because when I decide that staring at someone is ok becausae they wouldn't be doing what they were doing without leaving themselves open to observation, I am making those people OBJECTS. One last thing and this is personal, you can't possibly use the internet to research human nature. Once again that risks making people objects. You ask people how whatever it is makes them feel and then you listen to what they say. You don't decide to base their real emotional responses on infomation found on the internet. You have had real people here tell you how being observed with binoculars would make them feel but you refused to listen decideing to do your research on the internet Even that on a certain level makes those people just objects instead of people. I'll stop writing now because this whole thing makes me mad but then sad. Mostly I am sad for you but I am also sad for human kind that people who are obviously smart can try to use their words to support positions but not people. Anything that makes any woman or child or man for that matter feel unsafe is not a good thing. Bob You go kid-you, as always, make me very proud. However, get off the computer so I can call you and see if you want to go get lunch. M bobby for president! diane >Hey Char, I will chime in here even though Melinda asked me to stay out of this >but this is one of those places where big issues are up and I have been trained [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >without her clothes on beaches and her friend Rita does. Neither of them >deserve to be watched with binocluars unless they give permission I agree. They don't deserve to be watched with binoculars. I believe I have stated that same sentiment several times in this thread. >I know from just researching you on google for the last two days that you were >a large man which could make you stand out in a crowd. Would it be ok with you >if you went out to shop or to a restaurant for people to just stare at you? >would it be ok for someone to watch you while you were walking on the street >with a telescope of binoculars? Would you feel uncomfortable if you were being >stared at? We are all taught as children that it is not polite to stare. I am stared at, laughed at, and ridiculed in other forms most every time I go out. Many years ago I did have a car full of youths use a camera to take a picture of me while driving away laughing. Although, such behaviors are decreasing with the weight loss. I did not choose to look this way and I do not have a choice whether I leave my home since it is required to exist. However, I do have a choice as to whether I take off my clothing on a public beach where I know other people may look at me for self-sexual gratification. Does that make their behavior okay? Of course not. But it is the reality of the situation. Just as I know I will be stared at when I leave my home, the people who go to a nude beach know that they may be stared at. The difference is that I have no choice about leaving home and being stared at. People who go to nude beaches do so with complete freedom of choice and knowledge of the consequences of their choice. Again, what the voyeurs do is not appropriate or okay. But it is the reality of the situation and the people who choose to go naked do so with complete knowledge of what will take place. >It is not about who deserves staring at, it is about the starer. If it is not >ok all the time to stare openly at anyone who is in any public place then it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that if people don't want to be stared at, don't go out in public without >clothes. Yes, I have stated that opinion. I did so because it is the reality of the situation. Again, it is not about whether people staring is appropriate, good or bad, or anything else. It is about accepting the reality of the situation when making choices. The reality is that many (most?) people will stare if you take off your clothing around them. That may not make it okay to stare, but it does make it a reality that people wishing to nude sunbathe need to accept or n |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message