| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Massai
Forum Member
.gif)
|
 Posted - 08/08/2003 : 2:10:31 PM
|
Hello everyone,
I have a question that has some philosophical undertones. However, please forgive me if at times I sound as a simpleton.
(Premise) I have tried nudism a few times in the past on the philosophical premise of:
"what separates Man from beast is the human asset of intellectual sophistication. The test of being "Human" (IMHO) should be a measure of ones ability/mastery of maintaining *self-control* (and intellectual clarity) while in their nude state"
(Question) My question relates to simple yet critical issue of etiquette (expected behavior) in nudist areas.
Particularly: It is my observation that males are always instructed so as to be prepared In the event they experience an unexpected erection. The instruction is to always err on the side of inconspicuousness.
The question at hand is:
"What is the importance of inconspicuousness" ?
Based on the afore mentioned philosophical premise It should NOT mater whether a male (or female) has become aroused (regardless of sexual thought or other Physiological reasons) as long as they maintain composed and they do not *act* upon those instincts.
Deciding NOT to act on a basic instinct is still in my mind well within the parameters of self control. .
What is your opinion on this?
Thanks
EDIT:
This discussion has run its course for a few years. Many thanks to everyone who participated in this topic (both pro or against).
Those of you that do agree that the current nudist ideology contains a deeply rooted taboo (assuming offense by sight alone on aspects of human nature) feel free to join this group (http://groups.myspace.com/naturalsapiens) if you have a myspace account.
|
Edited by - Massai on 10/18/2007 6:24:30 PM
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/08/2003 : 10:37:24 PM
|
Erections too are normal, but they can be offensive to some. There's no problem with people sneezing, but you cover your nose. That's just what you do in polite society
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
 |
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/09/2003 : 01:18:31 AM
|
quote:
Erections too are normal, but they can be offensive to some. There's no problem with people sneezing, but you cover your nose. That's just what you do in polite society
Hello Cheri,
Thank you for the reply.
(In response to your points)
quote:
Erections too are normal, but they can be offensive to some
-Cheri, the entire idea of nudism Is offensive to "some". Yet we have undertaken the effort to teach conventional society to be acceptant of nudism (nudism in itself, if it wasn't for the number of participants, would have otherwise been viewed as a psychological deviance subject to treatment)!
-Thus (in regards to erection and etiquete) the question is not realy whether it is offensive to "some", but whether it should be offensive to "some".
-In other words, do we need to teach these "some" people NOT to be offended by the subject (at the same time as we are attempting to teach society in general In the ways of nudism)'?
Do we have two jobs at hand?
quote:
There's no problem with people sneezing, but you cover your nose.
Thank you for this example.
a) sneezing is a similar function of partial involuntary nature, however:
b) Sneezing involves a jet of micron-sized projectite mist partides that remain airborn in the vicinity of the person. This side effect is one of possible vehicles of contamination. It has been a cause of epidemics in past centuries and therefore society has developed a simple heuristic; taught to our children as part of a "politeness behavioural package" where in reality it is a precautionary measure.
Moral standards and rules of contact are being instilled in us since birth as a set of things that we "just" do (or not do). Many of those things may have a valid functional basis but many others do not.
Nudism is part of those things that we are taught (by civilized society) not to do. Yet, here we are doing this. Furthermore, we have a set of arguments to prove that conventional wisdom has been inaccurate in this respect.
On the same token, is the aversion to a visible erection one more thing that we need to weed-out ?
(Remember, the foundamental premise is still "self control" and that people should actually *not* be encouraged to actively pursue erections. But... if it does happen... should it be perceived as an aversive sight ?
Update (08/02/2004) :
To rephrase the example above in plain speak...
-A sneeze is like spitting germs in my face.
-Passing gas, is like forcing excreted methane up my wind-pipe.
-Puffing a cigarette right next to me is like forcing polution down my lungs.
There is physical polution in regards to the above and that's what makes them impolite...
-But an erection ? It is merely an alternate shape of a muscle, a *visual* effect. Are we offended by an athlete flexing their biceps?
Is it a matter of politeness, or is it *realy* a matter of weeding out one more *taboo* from our past.
|
Edited by - Massai on 08/02/2004 03:15:05 AM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/09/2003 : 10:53:29 AM
|
Massai, As nudists, we want to enjoy our freedom from clothing and not flaunt it. Sexuality has nothing to do with nudism. An erection has the connotation of a sexual function. Therefore, it should not be displayed at a nudist venue. Since there are those who would take any excuse to close down what nudist venues we have, we have to be perceived as non-offensive to the general public.
Regards, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
|
|
|
Cinderela
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/09/2003 : 2:54:37 PM
|
Massai I spent many a year pondering this very question, I too don't really understand why other than that unpleasant answer of having our venues closed down.
I think the only solution would be to have stricter guidelines in keeping nudists seperated from the general public so as to allow us to be the way we are. I think it's pretty dumb forcing guys to hold back on a natural involuntary function that women can have all of the time if they please.
Also I think it might not be very healthy, and I'm pretty sure if they got the right to bear their weapons they wouldn't use them any more than they use them already with all the rules. So I say we get a new set of rules for that. It might take a long time though, kind of a bummer.
*chuckle*
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 128 |
|
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 06:06:56 AM
|
Hello Cheri, Cinderella,
Thank you for your comments.
Cheri, your argument is very pragmatic.
It becomes evident that, before the original question is answered, both ideologies (conventional and nudist) need to be fully understood; so as to locate the true source of conflict.
quote:
An erection has the connotation of a sexual function
At this point it might be hard to make a assessment on sexuality based on the two possibilities:
a) the knowledge that in a nude beach there is at least a number of males with a full erection under a towel
b) The knowledge that in a nude beach there is a number of males with an accidental erection but they are actively trying to remain controlled.
quote:
Since there are those who would take any excuse to close down what nudist venues we have, we have to be perceived as non-offensive to the general public,
The concerns or fears of the general public (along with the eagerness of conventional society to close down the nudist venues) seem to point to the following assessment/theory:
*****
-Conventional society harbors the silent realization that unlike other noble species, Homo-Sapiens is neither mature nor inteffectually nor genetically advanced enough to exhibit necessary levels of self-possession and self-control in the event that their clothing is removed in a public setting.
******
To support (or disprove) the above brings me to a series of questions which can only be answered through some further personal research.
-Is it coincidental that all large societies (regardless of religion) have adapted clothing as strict public requirement?
-Has common wisdom, and the forces of evolution, proven beyond reasonable doubt that an entirely nude society will always default to a generative state of hedonism and thus susceptible to annihilation by "clothed" and more powerful civilizations?
-How was it possible for the ancient Greek civilization to maintain a clothing optional society that was not only highly structured but was also able to pursue some of the highest levels of philosophical (intellectual) sophistication known to that time?
In any case, I thank you for offering your opinion on this subject.
Food for thought....
Many Thanks
UPDATE (08/02/2004):
To clarify the logic from statements (a) and (b) from above...
What it is saying is: "covering (or not) the amound of aroused individuals would still remain constant, and the reasons of their arousal still remain (sexual or not).
Is it possible that the nudist society is trying to *mask* an issue instead of facing the possibility there is a taboo driving the objections?"
|
Edited by - Massai on 08/02/2004 03:40:17 AM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
NUDKIWI
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 9:04:16 PM
|
I believe it is not necessarily the erection that is offensive but the sort of person that is displaying it.Im sure,as nudists, we have all noticed how the male penis changes size from time to time,its just what it does,naturally.However when you see an erection on some clown on a beach who is obviously at the beach more for sexual reasons other than recreational ones,or for that matter one who has an erection continuosly,(newbies excluded of course) then these people are in the wrong place for the wrong reason and need to be told so or genuine nudists will lose their beaches.In my opinion its not the erection that has no place in the nudists world but the sexual deviant.After all we are striving ,not to convert everyone to nudism but for "acceptance" of nudism so we can practice without the risk of prosecution.If we let these deviants onto our beaches then it not only makes it uncomfortable for women and families but it gives those proclaiming that we are all sex maniacs and should be banned more ammo to shoot down our arguments.
YOURS NATURALLY KIWI
|
|
Country: New Zealand
| Posts: 188 |
|
|
|
NekkidKelly
New Member
|
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 11:05:54 PM
|
it happens to my brother sometimes. hes 15. nobody in my family really cares and it usually goes away after a little bit anyway. its even happened to my dad once or twice but i think he was embarassed and my brother was not. it just never really bothered me i guess
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 7 |
|
|
|
Chuck
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 5:40:10 PM
|
I think you are being a bit to deep and philosophical about it..just chill and all will be ok..
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 29 |
|
|
|
paint4life
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 7:47:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chuck
I think you are being a bit to deep and philosophical about it.
Goodness, I am glad someone else said it.
"Boners Happen"
Period.
And if they were voluntary, I wouldn't be getting 20 e-mails a day from spammers trying to sell me Viagra -- JEEZ.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 44 |
|
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 01:12:07 AM
|
Paint4ttfe wrote:
quote:
"Boners Happen"
Paint4life, although your open-mindedness is encouraging I am afraid you missed the point.
The argument is not whether erections "happen", but whether they are *accepted* once they do happen.
Chuck wrote:
quote:
I think you are being a bit to deep and philosophical about it. .just chill and all will be ok..
Sorry Chuck, but this would not be "me".
I always prefer to know where I am going (and *why*) before embarking on a journey/way-of-life.
As I am collecting more data I have also been observing discussions in other nudist/naturist forums...
...It looks like this topic is one of the most frequent.
Also,
a) it seams that most nudist voices sound in unison responding defensively and reiterating the use of a towel (or jumping in the water, or turning around) while at the same time claim that erections are "normal",
b) Furthermore, they proceed to ascertain on behalf of the male inquisitors that once they are on location the forces of reality will somehow sort-circuit the sensory and thus an erection may never occur.
c) Conventional nudists are also uniform in their disposition to ideologically differentiate between nudism and sexuality!
Personally ...thus far ...it "feels" as if something is not quite right about this whole issue.
The stereotypical responses sound no more convincing than my mother's response when I was 10 on "how was it possible for Adam and Eve to initiate a 5 billion population without first procreating with their own children" I usually have a good feel when an argument (or response) is weak and/or not well tested by the forces of reason (and I know what someone sounds like when they are trying to "patch" the logical gaps of their own belief system when exposed)
In regards to (c) from above:
This differentiation may be "pragmatic" but it is not "realistic".
- It is pragmatic in terms of politics for the acceptance (via "non-offensive" behavior) of the nudism movement to the conventional society.
-And, it is not realistic because it defies "nature".
All life (anything featuring a DNA strand) is procreational in nature and all behavioral processes have direct or indirect procreational connotations. Sexuality is one of life's prime directives interweaved and interlocked with our being. (I am not going to expand on this any further at this point) Simply speaking, it is one thing to ask someone to temporarily refrain form sexual contact (while in public) and yet another thing to ask people to dissociate themselves from an integral function.
In Regards to (b) from above:
Frankly, I do not buy that argument.
The most probable explanation( of how it is possible for so many people to claim that they rarely ever witness someone with an erection in public places} is:
-The likelihood that nudism attracts the segment of the population which is already on the *declining* phase of their sexuality. In other words, those with declining libido confident enough that most stimuli will fall bellow their sensual threshold.
In Regards to (a) from above:
That sounds hypocritical at best.
If I have to to worry:
1) Whether the wind might change direction hitting certain areas of my body in ways that would cause an erection.
2) Whether not to walk fast, or bounce on hot sand, or run; so as not to cause unnecessary movements
3) Whether or not to veer far from my towel; so that I can timely hide
4) Whether I am close enough to the water; so that I can timely jump in
5) Whether I should carry my towel with me on the beach; just in case I veer from both the w
|
Edited by - Massai on 07/25/2004 03:00:30 AM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
Chuck
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 09:06:14 AM
|
ummmm..I guess I get all u said..but keeping it simple..it is not the erection that can be a problem..it is what one intents to do with it that could be a problem...if it happens..ignore it and continue to do the wholesome things associated with nudism..if it causes some eroticism on your part..leave the setting until you can get back into the spirit of non-erotic nudism...I dont know..doesnt seem to be rocket science
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 29 |
|
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 09:58:29 AM
|
Chuck,
I wish your opinion reflected the voice of the majority. But it doesn't. Your voice is a minority (certainly encouraging, but yet a minority nonetheless)
As mentioned earlier, I have tried nudism a few times in the past, Always made sure that a) I was at least around the edges of the beach b) at least 25-35 yards from the next neighbor human being.
c) and I would even dig a long hole (grave) to make sure that my body is flash with the ground.
In contrary to what others had been advising me erections *DID* happen. It was part of the whole experience. I was laying there for a tan, not provoking anyone, not mingling amdidst the crowds and certainly NOT touching myself in the provocative sense.
The erection (off course) would go away by itself, but it would return 30-40 minutes later. It is part of a cycle, it is how my body/mind works/interacts with the elements (the sun the wind.. the whole experience).
Yet, there would always be someone that had to walk accross a distance out of their way (it took them 2 min to reach me) and make a sarcastic/reprimanding innuendo/comment like: "nice piece" (at which point I had to politely appologise and bring the edge of the towel around).
I had a couple gay people coming out of their way asking me to join their group further down.
I did *not* want to be bothered by ANYONE. Did not need their company or anyone's friendship.
The wish was to be left completely alone in my own thoughts, enjoy the elements and commune with nature in isolation and/or read my book.
If I had a suitable backyard I would do it there (without anyone around) but I didn't.
(was renting an appartment back then)
|
Edited by - Massai on 04/10/2004 12:06:11 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 10:10:04 AM
|
Regardless of my own experiences...
...The experiences of other people (as I am browsing to various forums) confirm that visible erections are not acceptable (someone even compared it to being as impolite as "fart") and people are expected to hide when it happens.
|
Edited by - Massai on 04/10/2004 12:08:22 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
paint4life
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 11:21:49 AM
|
quote:
...and yet another thing to ask people to dissociate themselves from an integral function.
Holy, Moly... When did the seminar for the Masters Course in Advanced Nudsim begin? I think I'm late. Can I just audit this fascinating discourse and still get my degree? (I'm nude, though, so I don't have my sliderule...)
quote:
If I have to to worry:
1) Weather ...
2) Weather ...
3) Weather ...
4) Weather ...
5) Weather ...
"Oh, the whether outside is frightful...
quote:
I don't think nudists are ready for nudism
[And you were sounding so logical before you said this.]
The clothed, then, are not ready for clothes. The Catholics are not ready for Catholicism. The obese are not ready for obesity. I could go on...
quote:
There is not enough indication that people are ready to fully accept the human body.
Or, maybe I am searching for a more mature philosophy (than nudism) all together ?
I don't think you are philosophically capable of observing the overwhelming arrogance in your assertions. What you denounce as an "immature philosophy" is the very venue that would accept your otherwise adolescent lack of penile control. So "we" are immature because we come up with acceptible ways to deal with the occasional hard-on?
And it's not for you because we don't accept your "right" to be truly natural and sport a woody in public?
Logically, then, you will one day rant at the society who asks that you wear Depends in your final months of life, since said society's immature philosophy will undoubtedly not be ready for you to leak all over yourself -- a natural function.
Maybe "Over-analyzers aren't ready for over-analysis."
(no coincidence "analyze" starts with "anal")
You weren't held enough as a baby, were you...
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 44 |
|
|
|
Massai
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 1:07:08 PM
|
quote:
"Oh the whether outside is frightful...
Thanks for pointing this out. It is now fixed.
quote:
[And you were sounding so logical before you said this.]
The clothed, then, are not ready for clothes. The Catholics are not ready for Catholicism. The obese are not ready for obesity. I could go on...
I am sorry if you are still missing the point. (There is not much else I can do about that)
-A response like yours was expected. I don't see a need to refute any of your arguments. What I had to say is already laid out in the preceding posts.
Thanks for your comments.
|
Edited by - Massai on 04/10/2004 12:13:33 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
A simple question? Arousal and etiquette...
