Live Nude Teens

|

The WashPost has an interesting story on a brewing battle between the commonwealth of Virginia and a nudist camp. The legal, er, flap concerns the rights of members of the White Tail Park resort to let their underage kids attend without the presence of a parent or guardian.

When the Virginia General Assembly joined in on it this year and passed a law requiring that children who attend youth nudist camps be accompanied by their parents, grandparents or legal guardians, the naturists' good nature soured.

That law, they say, implies that they do not know what is best for their children. So in June, the resort and three families filed a suit challenging the law, which they argue violates parents' constitutional rights to bring up their children as they deem appropriate—even if it includes shipping them off to a camp where naked talent shows and water polo are on the agenda.

The lawsuit is pending, although last month a federal judge in Richmond denied the nudists' request to suspend the law until a final ruling is made. That meant two-thirds of 35 campers who had signed up for White Tail's weeklong youth camp in July could not go, so the American Association of Nude Recreation, the camp's sponsor, moved it to an undisclosed location in a nearby state.

Whole thing here.

While that suit is being aired, it's worth considering whether being anti-nudist is–finally!–the last acceptable prejudice in this sweet land of liberty.

NEXT: President Willard?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The case is interesting because it amply illustrates the kinds of issues that the ACLU is willing to hang their collective hat on.

    While I support the right of parents to decide what’s best for their children, anyone who lives in the US knows full well that there are a plethora of behaviors, options, and choices that involve state mandated interference in the parent/child relationship and remain unchallenged.

    Culturally speaking, puberty marked adulthood in almost every society until the twentieth century. If we applied that logical and biological based adulthood standard to reality it would solve many of these oh-so-vexing problems that keep lawmakers in Virginia and ACLU types wringing their hands into the wee hours.

    Oh, and if you need an unsupervised yet safe, clean, and protected environment where teen age girls are permitted to run around naked. I know a really great place.

  2. Actually, I think the last acceptable prejudice may be against the Libertarian Party, at least to judge by the plethora of disdainful comments I’ve seen here on H&R over the years.

    Not to worry: We shall overcome.

  3. Speaking of the ACLU, I wonder if they’ll sign onto this one?

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39806

  4. I can think of two segments of society that it is still considered acceptable, at least by Christian standards, to discriminate against. Gays and atheists.
    And I’m not bashing Christians, but most do consider it acceptable.

  5. I’d add overweight people to the list of groups its still socially acceptable to discriminate against.

  6. What about the rampant anti-plannerism that plagues our society?

    Hello?

  7. One thing that I don’t understand is why do all these nudists appear weather-beatened, fat, old, and saggy? Why can’t they look like the US Women’s Volleyball team? Jesus Christ, WHY CAN’T THEY?!

  8. scottp,

    Don’t forget anti-Christian prejudice, which is becoming increasingly acceptable.

  9. Surely you’ve heard of the anti-dentite bias, no? Dentists came here just like everybody else, looking for opportunity. But snide comedians continue to tell jokes about them. Why, one guy even suggested that they should go to different schools than the rest of us!

  10. Well, *this* gay, atheist, slightly overweight, pro-planning American will sympathize with the rampant “anti-Christian prejudice” suffered by other Americans the day it becomes unthinkable to anymore be called a godless heathen/faggot/fatty/lefty communist in “polite” society such as bulletin boards….

  11. “Well, *this* gay, atheist, slightly overweight, pro-planning American will sympathize with the rampant “anti-Christian prejudice” suffered by other Americans the day it becomes unthinkable to anymore be called a godless heathen/faggot/fatty/lefty communist in “polite” society such as bulletin boards….”

    I’d add “whiny” to that list.

  12. Of course some of the first cases that spring to mind are Meyer v. Nebraska & Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

  13. The last acceptable prejudice? You must have missed the gay marriage flap. Hating gays-or saying that you don’t hate them but must protect marriage from them-is still perfectly acceptable.

  14. “Hating gays-or saying that you don’t hate them but must protect marriage from them-is still perfectly acceptable.”

    In Missouri, it’s not only acceptable, it’s now constitutionally mandated.

  15. Yep, got to agree with Mark. Gays in some states (whom will remain nameless) are even constitutionaly recognized as second class citizens. On the opposite end, I’ve got a few bible thumper jokes!

  16. Sorry, crimethink, but I can’t say that I have ever seen any anti-Christian prejudice.

  17. Mark nailed half of it, noting the folks passing laws against gays. The other half is the folks on the other side of the aisle who want to eradicate gun owners. In the middle you have the Pink Pistols (http://www.pinkpistols.org/); gay gun owners catching (and dishing it out) to both sides.

  18. u havent seen anti-christian prejudice? crazy! it happens all the time. id know, cause im a christian. for the record, i believe some kind of discrimination is acceptable. we discriminate between what foods we like to eat and which we dont. some ppl are discriminated against when they get a job because they dont have the correct credentials. there are some cases where it is acceptable. i dont discriminate against homosexuals in general, but i do believe it is acceptable to discriminate against them on the basis of marriage. it encourages homosexuality as a legitimate option for our young ppl, and places it on the same level as heterosexual marriages (which are better because they contribute to society by producing children. there is also the matter of males complimenting females and vice versa. we were created to be in heterosexual relationships). btw, i agree with joe. not so hot nudists should definitely put clothes on

  19. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  20. where r the nude pics?????????????????????????????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.