Nudist Siblings
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Nudist Siblings
She's not ready to bare it all on trip to visit nudist's family
She's not ready to bare it all on trip to visit nudist's family
Kathy Mitchell and Marcy sugar
| Standard-Times
Dear Annie: I am deeply involved with a wonderful man. I was charmed by the fact that "Arnie" remained undressed until it was time to leave the house. I soon joined him and enjoyed eating breakfast in the buff.
Arnie is Dutch and was raised in a house where nudity was the norm. His parents and siblings all slept in the nude, soaked in the family hot tub together and visited nude beaches.
We are planning a trip to Europe to do some touring and visit Arnie's family. It will include nude hot-tubbing and beaches. Arnie assures me I can wear a bathing suit, but I will be self-conscious if I'm the only clothed person. But I'm not sure I'm ready to be naked in a group.
Also, we'd both like to have children, but he wants to raise them as he was raised and I am not so sure. Nudity didn't harm Arnie, but is it OK for the kids? Arnie can't understand why Americans are so hung up about this. He believes nudity is healthier, more comfortable and leads to higher self-esteem.
Should I do as the Europeans do when we visit his family? Should we raise our children to be nudists? Should I break it off because I am uncomfortable?
Dear Chevy Chase: This is a very personal choice. When it comes to raising children, it generally is best to be able to cover up when necessary by keeping robes handy. It becomes a bigger issue when the kids have friends over or when they reach puberty and are uncomfortably aware of their parents' bodies. But take one thing at a time. For your upcoming visit, try the "when in Rome" approach and see how you feel about it. Bring a swimsuit just in case.
Dear Annie: My wife and I are expecting our first child, a boy, and she would like to name him after me (for which I am truly honored).
However, we both abhor the idea of "Jr." Is it proper to use the Roman numeral "II" instead? I know strict etiquette demands it be used only for a child who bears the name of a family member other than the father (i.e., grandfather), but I've been told it is more socially acceptable now. What do you say?
— Happy Father-to-Be in Sunny Florida
Dear Happy Father-to-Be: It still isn't exactly cricket to use a "2" in any form if your child is named after you, although what is acceptable to you and your wife is what matters, and frankly, most people won't notice or care. Of course, the baby only becomes "Junior" if he has your first, middle and last names. If you change his middle name, he no longer uses any suffix at all.
Dear Annie: Since there has been discussion in your column about bipolar illness, I would like to share what I have learned, being bipolar all my life.
I've been married five times, tried to kill myself five times and had to file for bankruptcy about 10 years ago. When I was on highs, I would buy things and have inappropriate relationships with men. I went through countless jobs because I quit or did unprofessional things. I had no impulse control. I refused to take medication because the side effects were hair loss, shaky hands and weight gain.
Luckily, after my fourth visit to a psychiatric ward, I got serious about my life. I found a wonderful psychiatrist, and now I take the correct medication.
I want to tell other bipolar people to try again on the medication. There are new ones all the time.
I feel like a different person, without all the anxiety and highs and lows. And I know I need to take the medication for the rest of my life. And that is OK.
Dear Brighter Now: Congratulations on being motivated enough to get help, and bless you for encouraging others.
Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailboxcomcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, P.O. Box 118190, Chicago, IL 60611.
Therapists
:
Login
|
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today
Get Help
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Members
Login
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
We all harbor secrets. Some are big and bad; some are small and trivial. Researchers have parsed which truths to tell and which not to.
Posted April 28, 2008
|
Reviewed by Devon Frye
Fellow "Experiments in Philosophy " blogger Jesse Prinz posted about UVA psychologist Jon Haidt's work on political differences. I want to continue exploring the philosophical implications of Haidt's work by asking whether it's all right for Julie and her brother Mark to have sex .
Here's a scenario drawn from a study Haidt conducted:
"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night, they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it okay for them to make love?"
If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy , Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.
The scenario, of course, is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair—a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation (or at least some kind of deliberation) Haidt's model—the "social intuititionist model"—sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying—the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process.
As Haidt recognizes, his theory can be placed within a grand tradition of moral psychology and philosophy—a return to an emphasis on the emotions which began in full force with the work of Scottish philosophers Adam Smith and David Hume. Although the more rationalist theories of Piaget and Kohlberg were dominant for much of the twentieth century, Haidt-style views have gained more and more adherents over the last 10 years. Which leads to the question: are there any philosophical/ethical implications of this model, should it be the right one? Plenty, in my view, and I'll conclude this post by mentioning just a few of them.
First, although Haidt may disagree (see my interview with him for a discussion about this issue), I believe Haidt's model supports a subjectivist view about the nature of moral beliefs. My thinking is as follows: We arrive at our judgments through our emotionally charged intuitions—intuitions that do not track any kind of objective moral truth, but instead are artifacts of our biological and cultural histories. Haidt's model reveals that there is quite a bit of self-deception bound up in moral beliefs and practice. The strength of these intuitions leads us to believe that the truth of our moral judgments is "self-evident"—think: the Declaration of Independence—in other words, that they correspond to an objective moral reality of some kind. That is why we try so hard to justify them after the fact. But we have little to no reason to believe that this moral reality exists.
(I should add that contrary to the views of newspaper columnists across the country, claiming that a view might lead to moral relativism or subjectivism is not equivalent to saying that the view is false. This is not a reductio ad absurdum . If Haidt's model is vindicated scientifically, and it does indeed entail that moral relativism or subjectivism is true, then we have to accept it. Rejecting a theory just because you feel uncomfortable about its implications is a far more skeptical or nihilistic stance than anything I've discussed in this post.)
Second, and less abstractly, I think it would make sense to subject our own values to far more critical scrutiny than we're accustomed to doing. If Haidt is right, our values may not be on the secure footing that we believe them to be. We could very well find that upon reflection, many of our values do not reflect our considered beliefs about what makes for a good life.
It's important to note that Haidt does not claim that it's impossible for reason to change our moral values or the values of others. He just believes that this kind of process happens far less frequently than we believe—and furthermore, that when values are affected by reason, it is because reason triggers a new emotional response which, in turn, starts a new chain of justification.
Finally, I think we might become a little more tolerant of the moral views of others (within limits, of course—sometimes too much tolerance is tantamount to suicide ). Everyone is morally motivated, as Haidt says: liberals should stop thinking of conservatives as motivated only by greed and racism . And conservatives should stop thinking of liberals as—as Jesse Prinz puts it in his post—"either tree-hugging fools or calculating agents of moral degeneracy."
More importantly, if Haidt is correct, we must recognize even the people we consider to be the epitome of pure evil—the Islamic fundamentalists who engineered 9/11, for example—are motivated by moral goals , however distorted we find them to be. As Haidt told me in our interview:
"One of the most psychologically stupid things anyone ever said is that the 9/11 terrorists did this because they hate our freedom. That's just idiotic. Nobody says: 'They're free over there. I hate that. I want to kill them.' They did this because they hate us; they're angry at us for many reasons, and terrorism and violence are 'moral' actions—by which I don't mean morally right, I mean morally motivated."
It seems plausible that in order to shape our policies properly, we need to have an accurate understanding of the moral motivations of the people with whom we're at war.
Haidt, J . (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834
August 2005 interview with Jon Haidt in The Believer.
Tamler Sommers is a professor of philosophy at the University of Houston.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
Psychology Today © 2022 Sussex Publishers, LLC
We all harbor secrets. Some are big and bad; some are small and trivial. Researchers have parsed which truths to tell and which not to.
facebook
twitter
instagram
youtube
Join Kveller
Jewish Culture
Motherhood
News
Self
Pregnancy
Baby Names
Search
Search
One of my goals as a mother has been to teach my children to be comfortable with their bodies. It was easy when they were little. They saw no need to lock bathroom doors or hide while they were changing. Clothes were nothing more than an obstacle to their play that they would seize any opportunity to slip out of. And I let them.
Whether we were in the house, in the backyard, or even the park, my kids were the ones running about with no shoes, no shirts, and no sermons (from me). My approval didn’t stop other parents from shaking their heads or clucking their tongues, but their contempt was not noticed by my children or internalized by me. As long as my kids were within my eyesight and were wearing some sort of bottom covering, we were doing just fine.
Things changed as they got older. By the time my boys were 8 and 6, they were locking bathroom doors and making sure to always wear shirts, even in the backyard. And I let them. Because, although it saddened me a bit to see how quickly societal norms had squelched their free spirits, ultimately what I wanted them to learn was that they were in charge of their bodies. And if, for whatever reason, they wanted to keep them completely covered, that was their choice, too.
Then my daughter came along. Like her brothers before her, she was happiest when she was barefooted and naked-bellied. Unlike them, however, she didn’t outgrow it… at least not yet. She will be 7 next week and I still have to remind her that she NEEDS to wear a shirt for school. Her favorite thing is to roll around in the grass with nothing more than underwear—which she wears begrudgingly. She says the world feels more real when she can feel it with all of her skin and that being naked(ish) is like being a “wild, free fairy.”
And so I let her. Certainly she needs to wear clothes at school and when we’re out in the world, but at home, in our backyard, she is free to dress in a way that makes her feel comfortable.
The problem is that her comfort has been making my 10-year-old son uncomfortable. Yesterday my daughter came downstairs in her underwear and sat down to eat breakfast. My son’s eyes narrowed and his shoulders tensed up.
“Make her put clothes on, Mom. She’s too old. It’s gross! I can’t eat with her next to me like that.”
I told him that he could sit somewhere else if he wanted to and tried to change the subject to something less contentious. As my daughter and I chatted about an upcoming trip, I noticed that my son had grown quiet. His eyes glistened with the tears he was trying desperately to hold back. I came closer and put my hand on his shoulder, but he shrugged it away.
“She’s too old to be naked all the time. It makes me uncomfortable. Please make her get dressed.”
My daughter’s fiery temper immediately kicked in. “I can dress however I want! It’s my body!”
He was sad and she was angry and I was unsure as to how to handle the situation. I let him take his bagel into the living room while I thought it through some more.
The thing is, I want my son to
Dildo Fuck Pics
Pamela Anderson Nude Photos
Demurefun